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. ℯxplicit 06:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Motorcyclists organizations to Category:Motorcycle clubs

Nominator's rationale: Two names for the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 18:50, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The "organizations" are usually politically active, like Motorcycle Action Group and national in scope; the clubs are usually local or regional riders groups, like Düsseldorfer Automobil- und Motorsport-Club 05, or sometimes national groups like Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance with local chapters. Maybe a better description in the categories themselves would help. Or possibly renaming "organizations" to "activist organizations", "motorcyclists' rights organizations" or some such. Note that some of the outlaw motorcycle gangs listed at Category:Outlaw motorcycle clubs are actually international in scope, so a strict categorization by breadth of span is problematic. But the breakdown into casual clubs and outlaw gangs is important to retain IMO. It's a bit of a mess and I'm more than willing to discuss options. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The clubs category refers to the common meaning of a club, a group of common interests and activities who meet and know each other. The organization category is mainly for the kind of groups that motorcyclists might sign up for or support, but not be engaged with in the same manner as a club. As Brian says, they usually exist not to ride together but to advocate for some cause, or to support a charity, or as a sanctioning body like FIM or Iron Butt. The names for these are a nightmare: both Category:Motorcycle associations and Category:Motorcyclists organizations are somewhat arbitrarily named, and both could be improved by renaming, splitting, or merging somehow. But not by messing with Category:Motorcycle clubs or Category:Outlaw motorcycle clubs. Both of those, while problematic for various reasons, are well-defined if you are aware of the historical reasons behind the terminology (see Motorcycle club and Outlaw motorcycle club).

  It's not a bad idea to open a discussion to figure out what to do with Category:Motorcycle associations and Category:Motorcyclists organizations, keeping in mind that an elegant and simple solution probably doesn't exist. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

oppose two different things as the contents of the categories and their parents clearly show Hmains (talk) 17:01, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think the contents of the categories show that at all. Jewish Motorcyclists Alliance, Women's International Motorcycle Association etc are clearly politically active. What they have in common is that they are all for motorcyclists. Otherwise they are very diverse. The only clearly defined subcategories are bloodbikes and Outlaw motorcycle clubs‎. Rathfelder (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• We may need three categories: one category for individual clubs, one category for federations/associations of which individual clubs can become a member of, and one (parent) category for all other. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Many of the organisations are not clubs. The clubs would be appropriate as a subcat. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Motorcyclist organizations, as the plural is inappropriate here. Nyttend (talk) 23:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - we have Category:Motorcycle associations, nicely organised into various distinct subcats. The nom is flawed as an organisation is a more general term than a club (which has local connotations). Oculi (talk) 23:58, 16 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The distinctions between clubs, associations and organisations are a bit too subtle to be useful. All the other categories are for Motorcycles, not Motorcyclists, and its not apparent what distinction is intended. Rathfelder (talk) 07:04, 18 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 21:07, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ukrainian women of World War II to Category:Ukrainian women in World War II

Nominator's rationale: Avoid duplicate categories and match existing parallel categories, for example Category:Women in World War II, Category:Norwegian women in World War II, Category:British women in World War II, etc. Catrìona (talk) 18:28, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Same scope. Dimadick (talk) 06:07, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree, merge per nom. Consistency in naming (Wikipedia categories, people, citied etc.) is important for the credibility of Wikipedia. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 14:15, 14 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 18:11, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:History of the American stock exchanges to Category:History of stock exchanges in the United States

Nominator's rationale: WP practice prefers United States over the ambiguous "American." UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

support per nominator JarrahTree 12:21, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

support per nom Catrìona (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator,Shyamsunder (talk) 09:37, 15 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 18:12, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Template documentation message boxes to Category:Template documentation cleanup templates

Nominator's rationale: The proposed new title is more accurate in regards to its members. The name as it stands makes one think that the category contains all message-box templates placed primarily on template documentations, which would then include templates like {{Intricate template}} and {{High-use}}. A move would allow for categorizing message-boxes marking inadequate documentations as a subcat of a new category named "Template documentation message boxes" that would all contain message-box templates intended primarily to be placed on doc pages.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  19:54, 5 July 2018 (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. ℯxplicit 06:14, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2. divisjon players ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 February 1#Category:Norwegian 2. Divisjon players. Granted, the nomination rationale (by yours truly) wasn't the most well-written, but allow me to expand. The 2. divisjon is the third tier of Norwegian football. In the 1990s it consisted of 72 teams; less teams nowadays. The league is wholly non-professional save for a few select players, meaning that football is a part-time pastime besides education or dayjobs. Since playing in the league does not make a player notable, it is not a defining characteristic of any player. To rephrase, not any player with a Wikipedia page is remembered as "the 2. divisjon player A or B". Geschichte (talk) 21:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Hhkohh (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Under empty category and per WP:CSD#C1. Hhkohh (talk) 05:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A useful category. @Geschichte: We can not remove articles from category while you listed in CFD. Hhkohh (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, consensus can change. Hhkohh (talk) 10:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • One person !voted in the last CFD - hardly consensus... GiantSnowman 10:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • AgreeHhkohh (talk) 10:59, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it wouldn't be empty if the nominator hadn't removed it from the only page currently in this category (and that's very hard to AGF for). It's a valid category, many notable players will have played in this division, and so ripe for expansion. We have plenty of division categories for amateur/semi-pro divisions. @Hhkohh: to reconsider. GiantSnowman 07:45, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it was indeed deleted earlier at cfd in 2017. It suffices to categorise players by the clubs they played for, not by every conceivable division. Oculi (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Oculi: - there is long-standing consensus at WT:FOOTBALL, that, where possible, we categorise by both club played for and division played in. What's the point of having an incomplete set? GiantSnowman 08:46, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Moreover the single occupant of the category Odin Bjørtuft should be removed as his only club mentioned is Odds BK, said to be in the top tier. Oculi (talk) 08:55, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it also shows he played for Odd's reserve team in this very league, as confirmed by the Soccerway reference... GiantSnowman 08:58, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• And I've just added 4 more Odd players I've quickly found have also played in this division this season... GiantSnowman 09:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• It shows nothing of the sort. It does mention Odds II but that redirects to Odds BK, which makes no mention of a reserve team. Anyway categories are to capture defining characteristics, which this is not, regardless of the views of WT:FOOTBALL. Nearly every footballer will have occasional games for the reserve team. Oculi (talk) 21:46, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- such categories should only exist for fully professional leagues. If kept, it should ne moved to Category:Norwegian_2._Divisjon_players. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: there is long-standing consensus that there is no requirement for categories to be fully-pro only - and why would the name be moved so that it is different from the corresponding article name? GiantSnowman 09:17, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment, this is a relisting of a discussion that I had closed prematurely. Apologies for the confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - can't see a problem with keeping this, there are many such categories for leagues which are not fully pro and it has never caused a problem. Category:National League (English football) players, for example, has existed for years and has nearly four thousand players in it.......... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per ChrisTheDude. Don't understand why this category's existence is a problem. Number 57 16:15, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 09:48, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Deuterostomes and humans to Category:Animals and humans
• Propose merging Category:Prehistoric deuterostomes by location to Category:Prehistoric animals by location
• Propose merging Category:Deuterostomes by location to Category:Animals by location

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category layer. See previous CFDs e.g. in March. Note: These categories were created by the now-blocked R567/Caftaric. DexDor ^(talk) 06:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. and outcomes of previous discussions. UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom and previous consensus. Oculi (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 09:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Invertebrates of Niger to Category:Invertebrates of West Africa

Nominator's rationale: That a species (e.g. Neritina rubricata or Lanistes ovum) is found in a particular country is non-defining. Note: Previous CFDs (example) have deleted categories for insects etc.  Note: Most/all of these categories were created by NotWith. DexDor ^(talk) 04:30, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support These are yet more typical examples of categories created either without consensus or against consensus by this editor. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:12, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per typical lack of merit of NotWith's efforts. Oculi (talk) 23:12, 13 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 09:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Lepidoptera of Mali to Category:Lepidoptera of West Africa

Nominator's rationale: This was inadvertently missed from an earlier CFD. DexDor ^(talk) 04:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support As per previous agreement to merge categories of this kind. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support For consistency. Dimadick (talk) 09:03, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for consistency. Oculi (talk) 23:13, 13 July 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 09:51, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Queer directors to Category:LGBT directors

Nominator's rationale: (or to LGBT film and television directors if the other proposal is successful) Not a needed split. JDDJS (talk) 03:53, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom: there's no need to quadrantize LGBT(Q) in this instance. Bearcat (talk) 20:32, 14 July 2018 (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: no consensus. @Bearcat: I think Category:Media directors, despite the potential confusion with PR, could be workable as a direct or indirect subcategory of Category:Media people. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:LGBT directors to Category:LGBT film and television directors

Nominator's rationale: For clarification purposes JDDJS (talk) 03:51, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose per parent Category:Directors. Mangoe (talk) 14:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, perhaps split into Category:LGBT film directors and Category:LGBT television directors to match Category:Film directors and Category:Television directors. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably the parent Category:Directors needs to be renamed in the first place. Director is a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no problem with splitting into two articles. However, that would require someone to manually go through all 489 articles and see if they're notable for directing films, television or both. JDDJS (talk) 15:05, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Mangoe @Marcocapelle The parent Category:Directors says it's for entertainment directors, but includes categories for all types of directors, including business directors. Clearly some clean up needs to be done to that category as well, but I feel that doesn't mean that we can't rename this category to something less ambiguous in the meantime. JDDJS (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• It would not make sense to have one discussion about Category:LGBT directors and later on another discussion about Category:Directors with possibly two different outcomes. So it would be better to add renaming Category:Directors in this nomination right away. Second, the disambiguator "film and television" is probably too narrow, it should rather be something like "arts and media". Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Mangoe (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm not sure what the right answer is here. Certainly "film and television" isn't the right answer here, as for instance this category should rightly also include theatre directors — but "arts and media" isn't the right road either, because an art director is a person in the magazine publishing industry and a media director is a PR agent, which are outside the intended scope. I do agree that we have to rethink this tree — what a "corporate director" does is so fundamentally different from what a television, film or theatre director does that even though we happen to use the same word for both jobs they still don't belong together in any shared category tree at all. So we need to find some better way of splitting them, because there's no basis for a category that would group them together. But I don't know what the right answer is. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• "there is no basis for a category that would group them together" -> just checking, do you suggest to delete Category:Directors and Category:LGBT directors after splitting? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 15 July 2018 (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.