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. MER-C 16:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:CBC television stations to Category:CBC Television stations

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 21:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator. 2001:569:74D2:A800:210E:8168:2C19:9458 (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Per WP:C2D, matching main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2020 (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 16:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dramatic and literary genres by composer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation, as it only contains one sub-cat. That sub-cat is Stage works by Franz Schubert, which is not a very good match to the parent, so if not deleted this should probably be renamed somehow, e.g. Category:Stage works by composer. – Fayenatic London 21:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 24 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 05:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Stage works by Franz Schubert to Category:Compositions by Franz Schubert

Nominator's rationale: This is not part of a useful hierarchy of stage works by composer. The contents are adequately categorised in hierarchies for their specific genres e.g. ballets. – Fayenatic London 21:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. It is unnecessary to split out stage works from the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:08, 19 April 2020 (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: reverse merge keeping the history of the older page. Disclosure: I am WP:INVOLVED, but we all agree, and there is no point leaving this open; I assume other closers are avoiding it because it appears confusing. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:DYK user templates to Category:DYK userboxes

Nominator's rationale: Category:DYK user templates is a duplicate category created in 2018, so merge it into older category. Then rename Category:DYK userboxes to Category:DYK user templates for consistency with subcategories of Category:Userboxes. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Andrybak: just to understand, the two categories are to be merged, with the end category at Category:DYK user templates? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DannyS712:, yes. —⁠andrybak (talk) 21:53, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So why the merge in one direction and then rename, if the newer category is the desired target? --DannyS712 (talk) 21:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • DannyS712, I'd prefer using the older category created by participants of the WikiProject Did you know. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge since the two categories were created separately, they should be merged into the eventual target, not merged to a different page and then moved. --DannyS712 (talk) 22:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The advantage of keeping the oldest page is keeping most of the editing history. Admittedly in case of category pages this is usually not a very important advantage, but in case of articles it definitely is. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't you merge the histories, too? If not, why not? All of the changes should be retained. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We can merge page histories when they don't overlap by date. Where they do overlap, it would make a confusing mess to merge them. In this situation, where the older page needs to be moved to a new name that already has a page there, we either move the newer page to a third name just to preserve its history (e.g. Category:DYK user templates/Archive, if it is significant), or simply delete it. – Fayenatic London 15:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge, then move the older category page over the newer one. The contents only need to be moved once. – Fayenatic London 08:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fayenatic london: I think you mean merge, then move instead of reverse merge, then move, isn't that right? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so... "userboxes" is the old one, and "user templates" is now more used within Category:Userboxes. So we should keep the page history that is currently at to Category:DYK userboxes by merging its contents and moving its page over to Category:DYK user templates. – Fayenatic London 12:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: This is a matter of semantics, apparently. As you mention we should keep the page history that is currently at to Category:DYK userboxes I'm pretty convinced that you mean the same thing as User:Andrybak and something different than User:DannyS712. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think I mean to end up with the same as both of them! Just trying to put it concisely, and to avoid moving member pages twice as in Andrybak's 2-stage proposal. – Fayenatic London 15:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I didn't think about moving with overwrite. Thanks. —⁠andrybak (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2020 (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. MER-C 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Citytv Stations to Category:Citytv stations

Nominator's rationale: Second word isn't capitalized Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per mom. 2001:569:74D2:A800:210E:8168:2C19:9458 (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Per WP:C2C clear format of category tree. @Mvcg66b3r: You may want to take a look at the speedy process over at WP:CFDS which is quicker than a full WP:CFD. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 19 April 2020 (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. MER-C 16:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ici Radio-Canada Télé television stations to Category:Ici Radio-Canada Télé stations

Nominator's rationale: Remove redundancy ("Télé television" ?) Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nominator. 2001:569:74D2:A800:210E:8168:2C19:9458 (talk) 04:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The practice in Category:Television stations in Canada by network is to omit "Television" if "TV" is in the name of the network; this seems to follow that pattern. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Télé" is short for "Télévision" (a French word for Television) SpinnerLaserz (talk) 05:28, 19 April 2020 (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. ƏXPLICIT 01:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec to Category:Sainte-Thérèse
• Propose renaming Category:People from Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec to Category:People from Sainte-Thérèse

Nominator's rationale: rename per article name Sainte-Thérèse, this was an opposed WP:C2D nomination at CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl and Brandmeister: pinging contributors to CFDS discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Sainte-Thérèse and searching which confirms there's only one Sainte-Thérèse. Brandmeister^talk 21:12, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But what about all the other places named that, at the disambiguation page, including:

Sainte-Thérèse-de-Blainville, Quebec, Canada
Sainte-Thérèse-de-la-Gatineau, Quebec, Canada
Sainte-Thérèse-de-Gaspé, Quebec, Canada
Saint-Eustache—Sainte-Thérèse (electoral district) a federal riding in Quebec, Canada
Lac-Sainte-Thérèse, Ontario, Canada; a rural community
Lac Ste.-Thérèse (Lake Ste. Therese), Ontario, Canada; a lake
Sainte-Thérèse station (Exo), Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec, Canada; a commuter rail station
Sainte-Thérèse Assembly (Saint Therese Plant), a defunct General Motors automotive factory
Fort Sainte Thérèse, several French colonial era forts on the Richelieu River in Canada, New France
Séminaire de Sainte-Thérèse, a former seminary campus (now converted into a CEGEP) in Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec, Canada
Académie Sainte-Thérèse, a French-language private school in des Laurentides, Quebec, Canada
Clinique Sainte-Thérèse Heliport, and Clinique Sainte-Thérèse; Luxembourg City, Luxembourg; see List of airports in Luxembourg
Church of St. Thérèse of Lisieux (disambiguation)
Sainte Therese Church, Curepipe, Mauritius
Sainte-Thérèse-de-l'Enfant-Jésus, Hirson, Aisne, France

? The article currently at the main title should be moved to make way for the disambiguation page to be put there. --Doncram (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strictly, none of those is the same exact name to match WP:D2D where a parenthetical or a comma disambiguation would be required. Responded at RM discussion. Brandmeister^talk 07:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename per Brandmeister. 2001:569:74D2:A800:210E:8168:2C19:9458 (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Brandmeister. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the target name is ambiguous, since we have a whole list of saints named Teresa, and a basilica, a cathedral and numerous churches are named after St. Thérèse of Lisieux, not to mention all those for Teresa of Avila (only some of which show here). – Fayenatic London 08:35, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename To match the main article, Sainte-Thérèse. I actually would be in favor of renaming the main article but this is a CFD nomination not an RM one. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the creation of avoidable ambiguity. Ambiguity s not limited to to topics with identical spelling, and Sainte-Thérèse is just a different spelling (through lingiuistic variation) of the highly ambiguous "Saint Teresa".

How is anyone (reader or editor) helped by this proposal to consciously creating avoidable ambiguity? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this is Wikipedia in English, Sainte-Thérèse is not ambiguous. People searching for Saint Teresa will not type Sainte-Thérèse, as in the French Wikipedia. Brandmeister^talk 13:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match the main article per RevelationDirect. I Google search Sainte-Thérèse and I have found the Sainte-Thérèse name without the comma-province name. Steam5 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Keep per Fayenatic and BHG. bibliomaniac15 18:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per Fayenatic and others. As noted already, and I agree, the main article should be moved. It is stupid IMHO to change this, only for it to be properly moved back, immediately. Argh, fine, i will open it. Okay, please comment at Talk:Sainte-Thérèse#Requested move 27 April 2020, where the justification for the move is partially so that the article name will comply with the category. --Doncram (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer to whatever the outcome of the RM decision at Talk:Sainte-Thérèse#Requested move 27 April 2020 is, whether I agree with that outcome or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are several occurrences in Québes alone. Sainte-Thérèse was moved to Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec and is now a dab page, following conclusion of the RM. Place Clichy (talk) 09:39, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the article has been moved back to Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec, sensibly. Oculi (talk) 18:40, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The article was renamed to Sainte-Thérèse, Quebec. So I am withdraw my nomination because the majority the users Keep the category already named. My nom is withdrawn. Steam5 (talk) 01:14, 16 May 2020 (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 03:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Heads of Moscow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Mayors of Moscow, which is already adequately categorised. Rathfelder (talk) 18:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No reasons for deletion. Moscow had only 3 mayors. Therefore Category:Mayors of Moscow is inadequately categorised. TarzanASG (talk) 21:48, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If not kept, downmerge to Category:Mayors of Moscow, meanwhile TarzanASG populated the category and there is no immediate reason to remove the new content of the category from the hierarchy. Side note: the article Mayor of Moscow distincts three function titles in different periods while the category now contains 6 subcategories, so I guess some of these subcategories have to be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If this is a useful category, could we rename it - and the few similar ones, which all seem to be Russian? Would "Heads of the government of Moscow" work? "Heads of Foo" doesnt really work in English. Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough to rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @TarzanASG: could you please move articles from Category:Mayors of Moscow to the subcategories you created, as appropriate? There is no need to wait for the outcome of this discussion since the new subcategories have not been nominated for anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but we need a better name, perhaps Category:Civic rulers of Moscow. There have been various titles at various times, so that we need a container for them all. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps simply Category:Rulers of Moscow. We already have many rulers categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw the proposal to delete it. Renaming is what it needs and Category:Rulers of Moscow seems OK unless someone has a better idea. Rathfelder (talk) 21:53, 19 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 17:59, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Albums produced by Alex Hope to Category:Albums produced by Alex Hope (songwriter)

Nominator's rationale: Per Alex Hope (songwriter) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, seems a straightforward case of WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 24 April 2020 (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 16:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dutch-language LGBT writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:French-language LGBT writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:German-language LGBT writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Spanish-language LGBT writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEGRS, as an unrelated intersection with sexual orientation. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Previous related discussions at:
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 4#Category:Dutch-language LGBT writers
  • Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 18#Category:LGBT writers by language

(maybe there are more, just the two that most readily spring to mind). Maybe we need to revisit this every three years (do we?). @Marcocapelle: could you tell us what in your mind maybe makes this different from the discussions we had three and six years ago? Maybe guidance and/or sensibilities changed in that time, but afaik neither WP:OVERCAT (which contains the WP:OCEGRS guidance), nor the WP:EGRS guideline (which is the basis for the WP:OCEGRS guidance) changed much in that period. Tx for giving a bit more background if you can. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per fairly extended rationales given by different people in previous CfDs, that is: provisionally, depending on whether some more context can be given why it would be different this time (see my comment above) No additional data: OP who participated in previous CfDs didn't even bother to look whether anything had changed – this is still categorisers having trouble with reality and reliable sources, nothing else. --Francis Schonken (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC) Updated 20:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I changed my mind in the course of the discussions, starting to oppose in 2014, then just commenting in 2017, now proposing deletion after all. While I still think that language is the most important characteristic of a writer, even before nationality, I have come to realize that writers are in a language category anyway (if they write in another language than default based on nationality), so that this argument is basically irrelevant. In addition I have come to realize that these categories merely contribute to a lot of overlap, e.g. nearly all German LGBT writers are in both Category:LGBT writers from Germany and in Category:German-language LGBT writers which just causes unnecessary category clutter in the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can't speak for the German ones. For the Dutch-language ones, it's rather the "by country" which makes no sense for the Belgians, and if either Category:Dutch-language LGBT writers & Category:French-language LGBT writers should go or Category:LGBT writers from Belgium, it's obviously the latter while that one is much more in tension with WP:OCEGRS than either of the language subdivisions for the LGBT writers. Gert Hekma's Homoseksualiteit in Nederland van 1730 tot de moderne tijd (2004) is quite clear on the topic: the book is a history of what happened in a single country LGBT-wise except for literature, while Dutch LGBT literature doesn't follow country borders, and what happened in the Netherlands in Dutch-language LGBT literature can't be separated from what happened abroad in the same language on the same topic.

  Like before, I got the impression that reality, as it is, is a problem for Wikipedia's categorisers. Maybe British LGBT writers are intrinsically different from US ones (etc), but for LGBT writers from Flanders the difference with the Walloon ones (French-language part of Belgium) is much more pronounced than with LGBT writers from the Netherlands. Culturally, Dutch-language LGBT writers belong more together than Flemish LGBT writers belong together with the French-speaking compatriots. That's reality (while that's how historians like Hekma, and of course also many others, describe it), and that's what WP:OCEGRS asks us to do, despite what a more "streamlined" (but reality-free) categorisation system would do. --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is a specific Dutch-language thing (which would not surprise me due to the existence of LGBT writers in the Dutch-language area) then I would suggest creating Category:Flemish LGBT writers and create on that page a see-also-link to Category:LGBT writers from the Netherlands and vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Dutch-language ones belong in the same category, as obviously also the French-language ones belong in their category, as was extensively, and with referral to several sources, illustrated in the previous CfDs linked above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a needless intersection. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above, sexual orientation is not generally defining for writers. Brandmeister^talk 21:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sexual orientation + language + job seems a stretch to me. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as wrong intersections. Writers do write about LGBT themes, but they can also write about other things too at other times, so the intersection between language and LGBT would be defining for the work, rather than the author. Place Clichy (talk) 01:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete their gayness is not an intrinsic part of their writing abilities * language. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2020 (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: reverse merge. bibliomaniac15 02:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Locomotive boilers to Category:Steam locomotive boilers

Nominator's rationale: Duplication – no locomotives use boilers apart from steam locomotives, so I can't see any reason for us to need two categories for them. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 12:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support there is only a need for one category here per the nominator. I don't have a preference regarding the direction of the merge. Thryduulf (talk) 20:03, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• no locomotives use boilers apart from steam locomotives - not strictly true. In Britain, in the early years of Diesel traction, a large number of passenger coaches were in service that had steam heating equipment but not electric heaters. Many of these coaches were not expected to remain in service more than ten years, and instead of converting these coaches for electric heat, a significant proportion of Diesel locos built down to 1968 were given means for producing steam for the train heating pipe, known as a steam generator - a boiler to all intents and purposes. There were several types, from three manufacturers - Clayton, Spanner and Stone-Vapor. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 22:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in Category:Locomotive boilers is about locomotives using steam generators; if anything is created about these in the future, a new category can be created (if necessary). WT79 The Engineer (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge -- You only have a boiler if you want steam, so that including "steam" in the category name is redundant. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or reverse merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:56, 24 April 2020 (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: split to Category:People educated at The Priory Boys' Grammar School, Shrewsbury, and likewise for the girls school as and when member articles are created. – Fayenatic London 10:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:People educated at The Priory School, Shrewsbury to Category:People educated at the Priory School, Shrewsbury and Category:People educated at The Priory Grammar School, Shrewsbury

Nominator's rationale: The Priory School, Shrewsbury (current) is not the same school as the Priory Grammar School, Shrewsbury (which existed from 1910 to 1981). The ambiguity in naming has led to Peter Reynolds (archaeologist) being been put in the category 'People educated at the Priory School, Shrewsbury'. RoachPeter (talk) 15:55, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- For clarity, it needs to be said that there was a boys grammar school and a girls grammar school, both using the name Priory, the latter being the predecessor of the present Priory School. Do we need "the" in either case? (not sure). What we do need is a main article on the boys grammar school. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - there are some details at [1]. "The Priory School is the founding member of The Priory School Trust. Set up as a girls’ grammar school in 1939, it became a mixed comprehensive when Priory Boys’ Grammar School (now Shrewsbury Sixth Form College) joined in 1980." Personally I would set up Category:People educated at The Priory School, Shrewsbury with 2 subcats Category:People educated at Priory Boys' Grammar School, Shrewsbury (which has members) and Category:People educated at Priory Girls' Grammar School, Shrewsbury (if there are any members). Oculi (talk) 17:20, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Subcategorise per Oculi. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:14, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Split into Category:People educated at the Priory School, Shrewsbury, Category:People educated at The Priory Boys' Grammar School, Shrewsbury, and Category:People educated at The Priory Girls' Grammar School, Shrewsbury. Both grammar schools were succeeded by the Priory (mixed) School, with the boys' grammar school's building later becoming the Shrewsbury Sixth Form Collage – but this should be shown in the relevant articles, not the categories. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 14:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Oculi's and WT79's proposal is in fact contrary to the normal alumni category practice, whereby alumni of a college/school which as been renamed or merged are deemed to have attended the successor. The most bizarre case of this I came across was someone who became an alumni of an Oxford College long before it was founded, because he was a student in a hall then dependent on another College. If this proposal is adopted a long head note will be needed setting out the history and explaining that pre-1980 alumni attended the Priory Girls or Priory Boys School according to gender. I am saying this not because I am fundamentally opposed to their suggestion, to to ensure precedent is applied, even when the results are a little odd. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:La Crosse Bobcats players is an example from basketball. This is a better way of handling name changes, as otherwise one either has a category unsupported by the article, or one has to add an explanatory note on each article to explain the categorisation. Eg Eric Dancer's article does not mention Sheffield Hallam University. Oculi (talk) 10:30, 20 April 2020 (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:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Asia. MER-C 16:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:2020 coronavirus pandemic in Asia to Category:2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic in Asia

Nominator's rationale: This includes China, which started in 2019 Starzoner (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Asia. Oculi (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Target should be Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Asia, to match article exactly. Oculi (talk) 21:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but if we want to match the title of the main article, the new category should be Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Asia (note the use of the long dash and 2019–20 instead of 2019–2020. Pichpich (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. The whole pandemic is the 2019-20 pandemic, and this cat just talks about it in Asia.
• Rename but to Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Asia, to use the World Health Organisation name for the virus COVID-19. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Asia, according to consensus on the WikiProject. Elizium23 (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: there is consensus on renaming somehow but there is no consensus yet on the the specific name to be used. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:COVID-19 pandemic in Asia, per Elizium23 and Peterkingiron. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename category to Category2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Asia to match the category. 2001:569:74D2:A800:3CA6:D920:F460:EF1F (talk) 07:48, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Asia, because the main article is 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Asia. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Asia, because the main article is 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Asia. This is a simple WP:C2D issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename it wasn't declared a pandemic (by WHO) until 2020, but that declaration probably doesn't really change what was happening rather than a recognition of it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• sorry, I meant to add the em dash. Thanks. Starzoner (talk) 16:25, 21 April 2020 (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 Template:COVID19-pandemic-stub and Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic stubs. – Fayenatic London 08:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:COVID-19 stubs to Category:Coronavirus disease 2019 stubs

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination, declined on Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 08:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose renaming and nominate for deletion. Created without discussion at WPSS and does not follow logical guidelines as to formation and usage. Disease stubs are categorized by the nature of the disease, i.e. infectious, genetic, etc., not by a specific disease. If this stub type was created solely to flag articles about the current pandemic, it would be more appropriate for those articles to be flagged by the related WikiProject with a "Stub-Class article" banner on the talk page. Lastly, this stub type is getting tacked on to biographies and other articles about institutions which existed before the current crisis and whose main mission is not specifically related to the virus. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 01:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept, purge and remove biographies and articles about institutions which existed before the crisis from the category. I have no opinion about the proposed rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if kept as the main article of the category is Coronavirus disease 2019, no opinion whether it should be deleted. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep flagging articles about the current pandemic using the Stub-Class project banner is not at all convenient since the project category contains the talk pages, not the articles themselves. Being a very active topic area, deleting the category will be disruptive to current article expansion efforts. Rename to Category:COVID-19 pandemic stubs per the comments in section above, noting the main article for the category isn't really the disease, it is the pandemic. SD0001 (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the main article is the the pandemic, than this should be renamed to Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic stubs, because the that article is named 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 15:00, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per Homunculus above – Ianblair23 (talk) 01:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The possibility hadn't occurred to me that the stub tag might refer to the pandemic itself and not to the disease. (This is why we'd rather discuss stubs before they're formed.) If that's the case, I support creation of Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic stubs, but I still recommend that the template also be renamed to clarify its scope. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 05:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename consensus is to migrate toward "COVID-19" as the name for articles, so the consistency should be moving in this direction. Elizium23 (talk) 13:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is such a consensus, then why is the main article still not at that title? Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Migrate all to "COVID-19" per consensus of the item above. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no such consensus. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As there's no precedent for a stub type for a specific pandemic event, I cautiously suggest {{COVID19-epidemic-stub}} and Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic stubs (there is no stub category for pandemics). Please note that the use of "COVID19" in the stub template is for the sake of brevity, not an ednorsement of its use in any other context. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• COVID-19 is the normal terminology in the US at least and seems well understood abroad; we use the common English title not formalizations of it (hence the article is at Jimmy Carter, not James Earl Carter Jr.). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, that would be a really good argument... if the main article wasn't 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• As there has been consensus and closure on Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic in Asia, and the parent cat is Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, and the stub sorting project uses abbreviations to form templates, I would like to reiterate my proposal to rename the stub template & category as {{COVID19-pandemic-stub}} and Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic stubs, to be parented by Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic and Category:Epidemic stubs. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 21:05, 25 April 2020 (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 16:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People by borough in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: disperse, this category combines different types of entities based on WP:SHAREDNAME. For example the Alaskan category should be moved to Category:People by county in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rathfelder (talk) 11:05, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:13, 20 April 2020 (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. MER-C 16:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:American war crimes to Category:United States war crimes

Nominator's rationale: Match article, United States war crimes. buidhe 05:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Per WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 22 April 2020 (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 16:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Money Heist songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CATDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It is not clear why it should be deleted since there are so many similar categories of songs from TV series like Category:Glee (TV series) songs. --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you actually looked at what's in such categories? And anyway, WP:OSE. DexDor ^(talk) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, these songs are not original Money Heist songs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PERFCAT. These are classic songs re-used for the series, not ones created for it. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Anyone who thinks this is an appropriate way to categorize, for example, Bella ciao doesn't understand categorization. DexDor ^(talk) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Any song can appear in any media. The theme song of The theme song of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly was a good example of this as it was used in other movies and TV shows. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- most of these appear to be re-used for the series, not written for it. Their inclusion is that contrary to WP:OC#PERF. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:59, 19 April 2020 (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 16:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Money Heist locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:CATDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per WP:OCVENUE. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is totally inappropriate categorization for articles such as Bank of Spain. It was created yesterday (after many categories from the same editor have already been CFDed) so there may be a disruption/CIR issue. DexDor ^(talk) 20:40, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete These buildings are real and we have Category:Television shows filmed in Spain and Category:Television shows set in Madrid for a good reason. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 01:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- most of these appear to be merely used for the series. Their inclusion is that contrary to WP:OCVENUE. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 19 April 2020 (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) buidhe 23:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of podcast episodes to Category:Podcasting lists

Nominator's rationale: I think this category can be expanded to include other podcasting-related lists such as List of daily news podcasts. This follows the same convention as Category:Journalism lists. – Anne drew 01:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Subcategory of Category:Lists of episodes. There is no reason to change the scope of this category, and the proposed category can just be created (of there is enough articles) with this as a subcategory. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep For similar reasons to Armbrust, I think it should be made into a new category with the current category as a sublist. I do think the creation og a "Podcasting lists" category could be helpful, as there are a growing number of podcasting lists that are not just episodes Mukedits (talk) 23:39, 20 April 2020 (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.