The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: administrative close; fix has been implemented. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:38, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Notation" is contained in "Modeling languages", "Modeling languages" are contained in "Computer languages", "Computer languages" are contained in "Notation", ...

Category:Notation

Category:Modeling languages

Category:Computer languages

Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 20:18, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Done, "Modeling languages" and "Computer languages" are now a subcategory of "Notation". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs written by Marcus Siepen ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one redirect, and as such serves no navigational aid. Richhoncho (talk) 17:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delet per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs written by Mahmoud Darwish ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one redirect, and as such serves no navigational aid. Richhoncho (talk) 17:29, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delet per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:37, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ghanaian male politicians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding practice, we do not subcategorize politicians for maleness per se -- historically the overwhelming majority of politicians were automatically male by default, so for the same reason why there's no need to categorize Ghanaians for "blackness", there's no need to categorize its politicians for maleness. The fact that we have a category for women in politics does not mean we need to balance it against parallel categories for men: women in politics are an entirely modern concept, still novel and still under-represented enough that academics actually study and write about the phenomenon: whether women do the job differently than men do, whether they prioritize different issues than men do, whether conscious or unconscious gender bias affects the ability of women to win election to certain political offices, and on and so forth. In other words, real reliable sources actively analyze the intersection of femaleness with politics, while they do not do the same for maleness, so we don't need "male politicians" categories just because we have "women in politics" categories. Categories for underrepresented minority groupings do not always need to be paired with equivalent categories for the majority. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to Category:Ghanaian politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles are already in other subcategories of Category:Ghanaian politicians, e.g. in MP categories, so merging is not desirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a clear violation of the basic principals of ERGS categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete, moving sole article Sahaj Marg to Category:Yoga. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:44, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Modern Meditational Yoga ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one member MB 16:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, yes. The category is one proposed by Prof. Elizabeth de Michelis in her early attempt to classify Modern yoga (itself a pretty vague category, one might suppose). If you look at the article you'll see she came up with 4 types, of which "Modern postural yoga" equates to "Yoga as exercise" practised by hundreds of millions, and the others are whatever else is left over. Unfortunately, much more-or-less "postural" yoga actually includes quite a bit of old-fashioned non-postural yoga, with meditation and other practices all the way through to ritual purifications (shatkarmas), use of mantras, and all the rest. So, I shan't oppose your chopping of the category, but I note it as an interesting move. If anybody feels like adding a selection of yoga schools to the category then I'd not oppose keeping or re-creating it someday. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Yoga. It is not only a smallcat, the category is also based on a non-defining characteristic - at least that seems to be the case when reading the one article that is in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom or merge per Marco. --Just N. (talk) 15:22, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Indiana Township, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yeah, support. I found a second one, but two isn't enough for a category. Grutness...wha? 02:15, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge for Now With no objection to recreating if it ever gets to 5+ members. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. As noted, it is standard to have an album category for every artist that has at least one article about an album and therefore categories such as this would be widely accepted as coming within the "part of a large overall sub-categorization scheme" exception mentioned in WP:SMALLCAT. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:120 Days albums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: At only one entry and only one other possible entry, as 120 Days released two albums, this category seems very unnecessary. Geschichte (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the exception noted in WP:SMALLCAT as it is "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:10, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom . --Just N. (talk) 15:34, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: per WP:SMALLCAT... it's generally accepted that this is one of the standard exceptions included for small categories. Richard3120 (talk) 18:42, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs written by Brian Tyler (composer) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category contains only one redirect, and as such serves no navigational aid. Richhoncho (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom . --Just N. (talk) 15:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Schools in Caprivi Region to Category:Schools in Zambezi Region

Nominator's rationale: The Caprivi Region was renamed Zambezi Region some years ago. I think the cat should thus also be renamed. Pgallert (talk) 10:45, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename' per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Education in Caprivi Region to Category:Education in Zambezi Region

Nominator's rationale: The Caprivi Region was renamed Zambezi Region some years ago. I think the cat should thus also be renamed. Pgallert (talk) 10:44, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename' per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:36, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Black Spring (Cuba) to Category:Political repression in Cuba

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles, one of which doesnt mention Black Spring. Rathfelder (talk) 08:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support WP:SMALLCAT certainly applies here for right now. Not sure whether this could be defining, even with more articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• There are a load of articles about people who were arrested in the Black Spring, and if we think they should all be categorised here we should keep it. Rathfelder (talk) 19:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If that would be a defining characteristic (which I doubt) then a new category Category:People arrested in Black Spring (Cuba) should be created. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Azuredivay (talk) 15:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:24, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Buddhist actors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection with religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The intersection does not seem defining in this case. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Buddhism has little bearing on followers' acting careers.—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 00:28, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a very clear violation of ERGS rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge the first two; do not merge the third. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:British people of Hakka descent to Category:British people of Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:British people of Taishan descent to Category:British people of Chinese descent
• Propose merging Category:English people of Manchu descent to Category:English people of Chinese descent

Nominator's rationale: merge, these are trivial intersections since there isn't a specific Hakka ethnicity, Taishan ethnicity or Manchu ethnicity distinguished in the United Kingdom.

@Prisencolin: pinging editor who was consistently involved in previous descent discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- Unlike Americans, the Chinese are not homogenous. Hakka is a language, and these will refer back to their native languages. It happens that most Chinese in UK are immigrants from Hong Kong or the New Territories, meaning that their mother tongue is Cantonese. Many of the overseas Chinese of southeast Asia are of Hakka extraction. These are accordingly real descent categories. The only change that might be appropriate is merging English to British. Dividing descent categories into the four UK home nations is inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I's confusing stuff IMHO. Does Peterkingiron have more and better/ convincing fact hints so this could be made decidable? --Just N. (talk) 15:41, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Hakka/Taishan Hakka people appears to be a linguistic group and Taishanese people a specific area, both of which are considered Han and the articles of descendants in the UK don't seem to emphasize traits beyond Chinese descent. Manchu people appears to be viewed as a distinct ethnicity though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge the first two. Keep the third since MAnchu is one of the recognized ethnic groups of China.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete Category:Members of the American Legion. From the discussion it was not clear what to do with Category:National Commanders of the American Legion, so I'm just doing as suggested by the nominator and placing it directly under Category:American Legion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Members of the American Legion

• Propose Selectively Reparenting Category:National Commanders of the American Legion directly under Category:American Legion

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC

I certainly can't claim WP:SMALLCAT here because the American Legion currently has 1.8 million members. Many veterans became politically active through the organization and, where appropriate, can be placed under Category:American veterans' rights activists. But this category consists mostly of politicians who joined the organization including presidents George W. Bush, Jimmy Carter, Dwight D. Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, Lyndon B. Johnson, John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon, and Harry S. Truman. We already have a stand-alone list, List of members of the American Legion, but the contents differ so I listed the current category contents right here so no work is lost if another editor wants to expand that article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it seems fairly standard to categorize groups of persons by association (i.e. vocation/avocation), where they resided in the past (i.e. hometowns, etc.), what military awards they received, and what lower-tier high school they went to (and many of those are much smaller groupings). To say deleting the category of an organization with 1.8 million members is the right thing to do seems odd considering that many of the other categories I mentioned contain far fewer real or potential articles in them (and always will). For example, the Category:American Freemasons has the subcategory Category:Puerto Rican Freemasons with only two entries in it. My question then is this; why do we, as WikiPedians, spend our precious time proposing the category deletion of an organization with 1.8 million members and leave categories like that one alone? And, there are many more like it. Taking the point to a higher level, what separates the categories: Sons of the American Revolution (which is also a member category), numerous categories like the Category:Freemasons by nationality (which has over 60 subcategories of its own, by the way) as opposed to the one in question containing no subcategories at all? I am a bit bewildered at our latest attempt to indiscriminately single out an organization with 1.8 million members for deletion while leaving multiple membership categories of Freemasons intact. Also please note that the deletion proposal comment "not a defining characteristic" applies to a great deal of categories throughout Wikipedia (e.g. What American high school or English grammar school any person of notarity was educated at is seldom a defining characteristic, yet we have numerous categories just like that). With regards to the other category deletion proposal comment that "this category consists mostly of politicians who joined the organization;" I concede that point, but would also like to illustrate the fact that there are many more biographical articles yet to be added where the American Legion member is most notable exclusively for their military service (e.g. Mark E. Ferguson III, Douglas MacArthur, Billy Mitchell, George S. Patton, Eddie Rickenbacker, Alvin York, and numerous Medal of Honor recipients), and the television and movie actors (e.g. Dick Van Dyke and Larry Wilcox, all whom were publicly active within the American Legion when it came to Legion children's hospital charity fundraising, telethons, etc.). And, as so aptly stated by the nominator, this is not a small category (WP:SMALLCAT) at all. As time permits; I and other WikiPedians will add more citations to the main page (List of members of the American Legion) and, most importantly, add more non-politico types... since that seems to be an issue). I strongly recommend retaining Category:Members of the American Legion as singling out the group of 1.8 million members (this the largest veterans association on the entire planet) while retaining numerous, smaller like-type categories such as Category:Freemasons by nationality, Category:Daughters of the American Revolution, and Category:Recipients of the Meritorious Service Medal (which is a lower-level military award than the Bronze Star Medal that doesn't have a category of its own) would defeat the purpose of Wikipedia even having separate categories. WikiPedians smarter than me, please explain why Category:Frank C. Munson Institute of American Maritime History faculty and Category:People from Taneytown, Maryland deserve to "stick around" while a veterans organization with over 1.8 million members world-wide would not merit a single member category of its own? I am simply dumbfounded as to why it would not. At what point do we decide to get rid of categories altogether? Thanks for your valuable time and reflective consideration in this matter. Lieutcoluseng (talk) 12:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a lot of text, in summary it is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, reason: nondefining. --Just N. (talk) 15:32, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not really defining or overall unifying to those involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:28, 11 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Union of Iraqi Writers

• Propose Deleting Category:Members of the Union of Iraqi Writers

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2F and WP:SMALLCAT (parent category); WP:V and WP:OCASSOC (subcategory)

The only article in the parent category is Union of Iraqi Writers and there's not obvious growth potential but no objection to recreating if it ever gets to 5+ articles. There are 4 articles in the subcategory (1, 2, 3, 4), none of which even mention this organisation and it's not clear that it would be defining if they did. All the biographies are already somewhere under Category:Iraqi writers so there's no need for a merge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Just membership of an organization is hardly ever defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, reason: nondefining. --Just N. (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.