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) 04:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Television stations in Hampton, Virginia, Category:Television stations in Norfolk, Virginia, and Category:Television stations in Virginia Beach, Virginia to Category:Television stations in Hampton Roads

Nominator's rationale: This is all one market/urban area. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. The relevant city cats should be added to the articles themselves, too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:55, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done. Nate • (chatter) 00:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though just emptying out those categories and adding them to the proper one is much less bureaucratic? Nate • (chatter) 00:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Categories emptied and Hampton Roads cat created. Nate • (chatter) 00:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Please do not empty categories that are part of a discussion at CFD. It defeats the purpose of people participating here and offering their opinion since the categories have been emptied. Why express an opinion when the categories could just be speedy deleted as CSD C1s? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It felt like something that easily met WP:BOLD and took me fifteen minutes to complete; the nominator should've just done it, told the TV task force 'it's done', and adjusted if there were objections/reversions, rather than waiting a week for the go-ahead here. Nate • (chatter) 03:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:CFD explicitly says: "Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion." Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 5 March 2022 (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 Category:Polish rebels. Kbdank71 22:47, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Polish insurgents to Category:Polish rebels

Nominator's rationale: There dont seem to be any other categories of insurgents, and its not clear how insurgents are different from rebels. Category:Insurgents is a redirect to Category:Rebels Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, or split. The rebels category mainly contains rebels against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth government, while quite a bit of the insurgents category consists of rebels against Russians or Germans. There is no reason not to call them rebels but the category might be split under more explicit names e.g. Category:Polish rebels against the Russian Empire and Category:Polish rebels against Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe - though quite a lot of this was before Germany really existed. We may need to relate some to Category:Polish independence activists. I suppose the line between activism and rebellion is when you take up arms? And some of the subcategories are "Participants" in uprisings where others are called insurgents. The definition of Insurgent seems to be "a person who revolts against civil authority or an established government especially : a rebel not recognized as a belligerent" - which seems a bit subjective. Rathfelder (talk) 23:37, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nice catch, Category:Polish independence activists is severely underpopulated. Activists can be either armed or non-armed. Then, merge all to Category:Polish rebels and selectively merge to Category:Polish independence activists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge To be a rebel has to do with participation in a rebellion, which authority (or authorities) you are rebelling against is largely irrelevant. Dimadick (talk) 05:08, 17 March 2022 (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. bibliomaniac15 05:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Iowa politicians convicted of crimes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Kansas politicians convicted of crimes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Kentucky politicians convicted of crimes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: BLP Sensitive sensitive categories because it states subject is a criminal (WP:COP#Sensitive and WP:BLPCRIMINAL). I've removed several names who were either not convicted of a crime or were convicted of misdemeanors. Additionally this is a rather narrow category so it's functional usefulness is questionable. Springee (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, I have taken the liberty to merge the two nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Meanwhile a third category has been added but the category pages have not been tagged yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Does the tag go on the talk page or the main page? I think I've tagged all of them on the talk pages Springee (talk) 14:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I saw that it was supposed to be on the main page, not talk. I've corrected this. Springee (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- Due to libel laws, we have to be careful of listing those not convicted, but it should make little difference whether the offence is a misdemeanour rather than a felony, but should not include matters the subject of a mere citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural oppose, they are part of a large established tree Category:American politicians convicted of crimes by state. They can only be discussed as part of a larger nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Whether the crime is a felony or a misdemeanor is rather irrelevant for categorization. I do not see a BLP violation, unless a person has been miscategorized. Dimadick (talk) 05:11, 17 March 2022 (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: WP:C2D. WP:C2D Kbdank71 00:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sexual orientation and gender identity in the military to Category:LGBT and military service

• Propose renaming Category:LGBT and military service to Category:LGBT people and military service (added on relisting)

Nominator's rationale: downmerge, the scope of the two categories is the same and the tree of Category:LGBT has much better expanded. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The category reflects the main article, which is Sexual orientation and gender identity in military service.★Trekker (talk) 14:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• True, so reverse merge is also an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note, I've started an RM to move Sexual orientation and gender identity in military service to LGBT and military service --Xurizuri (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, let's wait for that discussion to be closed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• RM closed, article was moved to LGBT people and military service. My preference would be for the category to be named Category:LGBT people and military service, per WP:C2D

• Comment Two points: "LGBT people" would be better than "LGBT" as a noun (and the category's main article has already been renamed to LGBT people and military service). Also, I think "in the military" or "and the military" would be more appropriate than "in military service", which could be taken to have an implication of conscription (such as national service) and can imply an endorsement of "military service". On a quick search, it looks like we have a mixture of the two in article titles, so I'd support moving all such article titles to the more neutral forms "in the military" and "in the <country adjective> military". — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 07:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @OwenBlacker:, could you expand on how "military service" implies endorsement? I suspect there's some context that I'm missing. I will just also note that the article military service is not in anyway restricted to conscription. --Xurizuri (talk) 16:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Xurizuri: It's more common in the US for people to talk about "thanking the military for their service" than it is here in the UK — the US places a higher cultural value on their army than we do. Here, "service" implies a sense of moral endorsement that, in the UK, would be POV. And the term "military service" can be used (lazily, but colloquially) to describe "national service" when that is commonly in the military, such as is required of Israeli citizens or Norwegian citizens, for example; that would be a form of conscription (albeit very time-delimited).
  I could live with LGBT people and military service and Category:LGBT people and military service, but LGBT people in the military and Category:LGBT people in the military feels more Neutral to these British eyes. (I'd have said the same on the article RM, had I known about it.) — OwenBlacker (he/him; Talk; please {{ping}} me in replies) 18:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @OwenBlacker:, thank you for explaining! In Australia, we generally only refer to national service as conscription, and we'd say someone works for the military, served in the military, or is in the military. Within our colonised history, we have had very little conscription so it doesn't spring readily to mind for us. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:00, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: adding target category also for renaming.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 17:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) I agree with adding "people" in the category name (if only, per WP:C2D) and I do not have a preference on whether to include "service" in the name. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename to add "people", per Marcocapelle, above. Neutral on the rest. - jc37 23:41, 25 March 2022 (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) 05:00, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1993 animated television shows ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1994 animated television shows ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1995 animated television shows ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:1996 animated television shows ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These categories were apparently intended to be populated with every show that was in production during the stated years. Only one show was ever added. This is not part of our standard hierarchies for television shows. – Fayenatic London 17:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Would have substantial overlap between consecutive years, unlike Category:1993 television series debuts and Category:1993 television series endings, and clutter the category lists of long-running TV series like The Simpsons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:30, 8 March 2022 (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 Category:Vegan restaurants. bibliomaniac15 06:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Vegan restaurants by country to Category:Vegan restaurants

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no harm in having a subcategory for the United States. This is helpful and there are enough entries (not to mention, likely many more notable entries to add). ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree! But it is not the US category that has been nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• UpMerge - per nom. Unnecessary category layer due to smallcat. - jc37 23:48, 25 March 2022 (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 Category:Vegan restaurants in the United States. bibliomaniac15 06:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Vegan fine dining restaurants in the United States to Category:Vegan restaurants in the United States

Nominator's rationale: merge, narrow intersection and rather subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge the Fine Dining subcategory and keep the United States subcategory. Subcategorizing restaurants by country is common and helpful when there are enough entries. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That is completely in line with the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know what upmerge means? All I really want is a way to easily find fine dining vegan restaurants that doesn't require people to go look at fine dining restaurants and then at vegan restaurants and figure out for themselves where the overlap is. I disagree that this is subjective. valereee (talk) 18:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee "Upmerge" means that its members all move into the parent category, in this case the vegan restaurants category. This will do exactly what you've asked. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sammi, but that'll put it into the category with vegan counter-service restaurants, won't it? So people looking for fine dining vegan won't be able to figure out without visiting every article? valereee (talk) 16:00, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a whole grey area between counter-service and fine dining, which is why categorization based on that is not very useful. We do not even have Category:Fine dining restaurants in the United States so a split by vegan is even less needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle, I'm not an expert in categories by any stretch. All I really want is some way for readers who are interested to easily find vegan fine dining (which, yes, is a small subset both of vegan and of fine dining). If a restaurant is described in RS as fine dining, it's not a reasonable categorization? I get that there's an element of 'I know it when I see it' but restaurant reviewers do discuss whether a restaurant is counter service, fast casual, casual, fine, etc. valereee (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support upmerge per nominator; defining what is and isn't a "fine dining" restaurant is an unworkably subjective distinction. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 09:26, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• UpMerge, to remove subjectively applied "fine dining". - jc37 23:48, 25 March 2022 (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. bibliomaniac15 06:10, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Arseto Solo to Category:Arseto F.C.
  • Propose renaming Category:Arseto Solo players to Category:Arseto F.C. players

Nominator's rationale: per C2D/C2C Arseto F.C.. OktaRama2010 (talk) 03:00, 4 March 2022 (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.