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: speedy merge. MER-C 10:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Open marriage ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, as it currently only contains the eponymous article. I guess that the topic is already covered by Category:Free love. Place Clichy (talk) 16:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge to parent categories per WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Meanwhile WP:C2F no longer applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdrawn here and nominated to speedy upmerge at Marcocapelle's suggestion. Place Clichy (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep WP:SMALLCAT applies to categories that are "small with no potential for growth". I think the second condition clearly does not apply here. I just added one article to the category. There are also a number of fictional works about open marriage that could go in this category - e.g. 5 to 7, Leonora (film), The Open Couple - though perhaps they'd fit better in a subcategory like Category:Open marriage in fiction. Colin M (talk) 21:22, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, please add the fictional works directly in this category so that the category at least reaches 5 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:52, 30 October 2019 (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 to parent categories. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional scorpions ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category contains all of two articles and one redirect, and one of the articles (Scorponok) isn't even technically a scorpion (it just looks like one). Therefore I don't think this deserves a separate category. Delete this. JIP | Talk 16:03, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 28 October 2019 (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. MER-C 10:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Media Inspection Team ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There should not be a category for a "WikiProject" that exists only in one user's subpages, especially when that user has not edited in over a year. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:26, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

• Category:Autobots
• Category:Decepticons

Nominator's rationale: As both of these categories will soon be practically empty, it might be a good idea to save time and delete them. JIP | Talk 17:38, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Postpone until the articles are actually deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Postpone and roll out per Marcocapelle. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:26, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would be fine combining them into a Transformers Character category. Many of the names get recycled under different allegiances anyway. Argento Surfer (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is already a category Category:Transformers robot characters. And yes, it's stupid to see the same article under both Autobots and Decepticons. JIP | Talk 21:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, well then I see no reason to postpone deletion. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:46, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - ridiculous nom. Both have subcats and plenty of articles. Oculi (talk) 12:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Well-populated categories. Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 28 October 2019 (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. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 08:03, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Triple Changers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Every article in this category (except maybe Optimus Prime and Megatron) is going to get deleted anyway, so the category is pretty much useless. Delete this. JIP | Talk 17:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Postpone until the articles are actually deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I may be in the minority when I say this, but I think it should be kept. I also think that a lot of other transformers should have also been kept as well. Davidgoodheart (talk) 07:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - today there are 6 articles, none presently at afd. Oculi (talk) 12:14, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Technically, in the franchise, the term "Triple Changer" refers specifically to a set of three Autobots (Springer, Sandstorm and Broadside) and three Decepticons (Astrotrain, Blitzwing and Octane), all of which have been deleted. The remaining articles are about characters that just happen to have three modes, not which have specifically been designed to have three modes as their main gimmick. JIP | Talk 16:07, 28 October 2019 (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.