Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 19

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Haiti company stubs to Category:Caribbean company stubs and Category:Haiti stubs
• Propose merging Category:Trinidad and Tobago company stubs to Category:Caribbean company stubs and Category:Trinidad and Tobago stubs

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub categories with no evidence of approval by WikiProject Stub Sorting. As always, stub categories need at least 60 articles under them to become justifiable, but Haiti only has 29 and Trinidad & Tobago only has 28 -- and because of the size limitation, stub categories normally have to be approved by the stub sorting project rather than being created by just any editor willy-nilly for any narrow topic of personal interest, but there's no evidence that either of these were ever submitted for approval.
In this case, however, I'm proposing a new merged category for Category:Caribbean company stubs, to take in the Caribbean region as a whole, instead of just upmerging them to the Category:North American company stubs parent: these two categories combined would get us to 57, and there are enough articles in the North American category about companies from Cuba, Bermuda, the Caymans and the Turks and Caicos to trip the 60 wire. So a Caribbean-level category would absolutely meet the requirement, but neither of these categories are large enough to stand on their own. Bearcat (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Trinidad and Tobago company stubs was not tagged; I will do so.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:00, 20 February 2025 (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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:22, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tochigi Prefecture railway station stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only contains the stub template and is not necessary. ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here) 02:16, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, delete the template too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the template.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:58, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LibStar (talk) 23:07, 20 February 2025 (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. (non-admin closure) it's lio! | talk | work 12:39, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:960s establishments by country (1) to Category:960s establishments
• Propose merging Category:970s establishments by country (1) to Category:970s establishments
• Propose merging Category:980s establishments by country (1) to Category:980s establishments
• Propose merging Category:990s establishments by country (1) to Category:990s establishments
• Propose merging Category:980s disestablishments by country (1) to Category:980s disestablishments

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer with just 1 subcategory. Not useful before the 1000s decade. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I guess it won't be reversed now, but these categories had more subcategories, but these have been slowly eroded for some obscure reason, and then deleted / upmerged because almost nothing was left, creating a kind of fait accompli (not as far as I know by Aidan721, just a general observation). For example, we used to have Category:990 establishments in France with e.g. Bourgueil Abbey in it, while Maillezais Cathedral was in the 989 category. So that would already create a second entry in two of the above cats. There were also entries for England or other countries in these decades (e.g. Ramsey Abbey). So basically, while they are currently near empty, they could quite easily be populated with a few additional entries each. Fram (talk) 18:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Potential for growth is no longer a reason to keep a category per the deprecation of WP:SMALLCAT. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not sure what you're implying by "obscure reason" when there were numerous discussions leading to consensus for upmerging the prior subcategories. Yes, there were more subcategories in the past, but now, there is just one because consensus decided to merge the other ones. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You nominated it for deletion because it had only one subcat, I observe that more subcats can be created (and existed in the past), which directly invalidates your rationale. Your reply doesn't address this, I didn't reference smallcat. The previous discussions (like for Category:990s establishments in France) were "per SMALLCAT" though, so using this to justify deletion now seems bizarre. Fram (talk) 09:01, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom, that far back diffusion by decade is unnecessary at country level. For countries the century level suffices. Bourgueil Abbey in in Category:10th-century establishments in France with only 11 other articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate. Fram is quite right: only notifying people who are not in the regular categories crew *after* categories have been depopulated, when they're up for deletion, serves no useful purpose. Either notify people before the fait accompli, or stop pretending you actually care about "consensus". --Andreas Philopater (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Some dates in the Middle Ages are not well-constrained, and likely all of the previous subcategories, were eliminated for lack of content. They would have been merged to the century level for the respective country and to the global decade level. We have continued to merge small year categories after the deprecation of WP:SMALLCAT, which is addressed in WP:NARROWCAT and WP:OCYEAR. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:45, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and repopulate. Fram is right, the category system is damaged first, then you nominate it for deletion. This "consensus" is a joke. Dimadick (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2025 (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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:23, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:70s in military history (0) to Category:70s
• Propose merging Category:620s in military history (0) to Category:620s
• Propose merging Category:930s in military history (0) to Category:930s
• Propose merging Category:940s in military history (0) to Category:940s
• Propose merging Category:980s in military history (0) to Category:980s
• Propose merging Category:990s in military history (0) to Category:990s

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layers containing just the "decade conflicts" category (and one article that is already in the century-level parent). Not useful for navigation. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:45, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2025 (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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:17, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Golfers from Nottingham to Category:Sportspeople from Nottingham

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 14:25, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or else merge per nom), the only article is about someone who did not play golf in Nottingham, left there at the age of six. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:13, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:28, 25 February 2025 (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) it's lio! | talk | work 12:44, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Argentine bisexual actresses (2 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Argentine bisexual women and Category:Argentine LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Croatian bisexual actresses (1 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Croatian bisexual women and Category:Croatian LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Danish bisexual actresses (3 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Danish bisexual women and Category:Danish LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Filipino bisexual actresses (3 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Filipino bisexual women and Category:Filipino LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Hong Kong bisexual actresses (1 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Hong Kong bisexual people and Category:Hong Kong LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Hungarian bisexual actresses (1 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Hungarian bisexual women and Category:Hungarian LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Irish bisexual actresses (2 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Irish bisexual women and Category:Irish LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Israeli bisexual actresses (1 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Israeli bisexual women and Category:Israeli LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Italian bisexual actresses (2 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Italian bisexual women and Category:Italian LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Japanese bisexual actresses (1 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Japanese bisexual women and Category:Japanese LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Mexican bisexual actresses (2 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Mexican bisexual women and Category:Mexican LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Spanish bisexual actresses (2 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Spanish bisexual women and Category:Spanish LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Swedish bisexual actresses (1 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Swedish bisexual women and Category:Swedish LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Uruguayan bisexual actresses (1 P) to Category:Bisexual actresses and Category:Uruguayan bisexual women and Category:Uruguayan LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Austrian bisexual male actors (1 P) to Category:Bisexual male actors and Category:Austrian bisexual people and Category:Austrian LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Bulgarian bisexual male actors (1 P) to Category:Bisexual male actors and Category:Bulgarian bisexual people and Category:Bulgarian LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Filipino bisexual male actors (2 P) to Category:Bisexual male actors and Category:Filipino bisexual men and Category:Filipino LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Finnish bisexual male actors (2 P) to Category:Bisexual male actors and Category:Finnish bisexual men and Category:Finnish LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Irish bisexual male actors (1 P) to Category:Bisexual male actors and Category:Irish bisexual men and Category:Irish LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Italian bisexual male actors (3 P) to Category:Bisexual male actors and Category:Italian bisexual men and Category:Italian LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:South African bisexual male actors (1 P) to Category:Bisexual male actors and Category:South African bisexual men and Category:South African LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Spanish bisexual male actors (3 P) to Category:Bisexual male actors and Category:Spanish bisexual men and Category:Spanish LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Israeli bisexual actors (1 C, 3 P) to Category:Israeli LGBTQ actors
• Propose merging Category:Swedish bisexual actors (1 C, 1 P) to Category:Swedish LGBTQ actors

Nominator's rationale: merge, only 1-3 articles in every of these categories, this is not helpful for categorization. By the way, this whole triple interaction tree is questionable per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge WP:NARROWCAT likely applies regardless of size. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:38, 24 February 2025 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:46, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bangladeshi colorectal surgeons to Category:Colorectal surgeons

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 entry. Also merge with Category:Bangladeshi surgeons.

Also propose merging:

• Category:German colorectal surgeons to Category:Colorectal surgeons and Category:German surgeons.
• Category:New Zealand colorectal surgeons to Category:Colorectal surgeons and Category:New Zealand surgeons.
• Category:Singaporean colorectal surgeons to Category:Colorectal surgeons and Category:Singaporean surgeons. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. In fact all other siblings may be merged too, this is a very specialist occupation and does not require diffusion at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator.Lost in Quebec (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:21, 23 February 2025 (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 to Category:New Democratic Party (Canada) politicians. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:18, 27 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:New Democratic Party of Canada politicians to Category:New Democratic Party politicians

Nominator's rationale: Category doesn't need to be disambiguated, the main article New Democratic Party isn't and the only other party by the same name is a minor one in Saint Vincent and the Grenadines. Official party name doesn't include of Canada unlike the Liberals or Conservative. If the category has to be disambiguated it should be renamed Category:New Democratic Party (Canada) politicians to reflect the official party name, otherwise the Category:New Democratic Party politicians is prefered. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename somehow, considering the fact that another party with the same name exists I would prefer Category:New Democratic Party (Canada) politicians over Category:New Democratic Party politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 19 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:New Democratic Party (Canada) politicians per above. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:07, 20 February 2025 (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.