Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 17

< July 16	July 18 >

July 17

Suburbs of the Gold Coast smallcats

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: manual deletion. MER-C 11:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

2-page categories

3-page categories

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 10 subcats of Category:Suburbs of the Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of the Gold Coast, Queensland (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of the Gold Coast, Queensland (so merger would be wrong).

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging: all 10 categories have tagged, in these 10 edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT but manually add the non-eponymous articles to Category:Gold Coast City. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 18 July 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.

Banijay/Endemol Shine

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 to merge bibliomaniac 1 5 18:58, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

2-page categories

Nominator's rationale: On 3 July 2020, Banijay was acquired Endemol Shine Group. Since then, all of entire Endemol Shine franchises owned by Banijay. Ridwan97 (talk) 07:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Ridwan97: do you have any WP:Reliable sources to support the assertion on which this nomination is based? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The lead section of the article Endemol Shine Group currently ends with "On 30 June 2020, the European Commission approved Banijay's purchase of Endemol Shine.^[1] The purchase was completed on 3 July 2020.^[2]" – Fayenatic London 21:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Banijay Group's $2.2BN Endemol Shine Group Takeover Approved By European Commission". Deadline Hollywood. July 1, 2020.
^ "Sophie Turner Laing To Leave Endemol Shine Group As Banijay Group Completes $2.2BN Takeover". Deadline Hollywood. July 3, 2020.

Comment. Thanks for the sources, @Fayenatic. That is enough to justify making Category:Endemol Shine Group a subcat of Category:Banijay Group .... but to merge, we would need evidence that the operations have been merged, rather than Endemol being run a subsidiary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 22:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per BrownHairedGirl, there is no evidence that the Endemol Shine Group factually ceased to exist at this point of time. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 18 July 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.

Category:Numenius

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 as option A. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:29, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose either:

Option A

Rename Category:Numenius to Category:Numenius (bird)

Option B

Merge Category:Numenius to Category:Curlews

Nominator's rationale: The bare title ~~Numenius (bird)~~ Numenius is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Curlew, and the scientific name Numenius (bird) redirects there. I am not sure which to use.
In this case the decision is complicated by the fact that Category:Curlews already exists. I don't see why we have two categories which appear to me to synonymous ... but maybe someone who knows more about these birds can correct. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination corrected. DexDor^(talk) 05:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (option B) as a duplicate category. In a next nomination, the target may be proposed to be renamed cf option A. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (Option A) as the text at Category:Curlews says curlews are "the eight species of shorebirds in the genus Numenius.". I would also support a merge of Category:Curlews into that category but as that's not tagged it should be a separate CFD. DexDor^(talk) 05:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basically we agree we need two nominations in order to fix two problems. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 22:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then let's first tackle the rename per DexDor and leave the merge to a next nomination. The difference is just in the order of things happening. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 18 July 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.

Category:Delhi residential colonies

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Delhi residential colonies to Category:Neighbourhoods in Delhi

Nominator's rationale: merge per actual content, the category contains neighbourhoods, plain and simple. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning oppose Well using Western terminology, perhaps it does, though several of the contents don't seem to be what one would call a neighbourhood where I live. But I think we should let Indian editors say what terminology seems right to them. It hardly matters if that is different from what is used in other continents. Johnbod (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, see also similar nomination on July 15. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no clear classification of Indian neighbourhoods as residential and commercial without doing an original research, hence its better to put them all under single category -- Ab207 (talk) 06:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 22:16, 17 July 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.

Category:Films about Krishna

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Films about Krishna (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Very small category. ★Trekker (talk) 06:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now, the parent Category:Krishna in popular culture contains several articles about films so this category may well be populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 22:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment at the time of this edit, there is only one category in this article. The films Sri Krishna 2006, Krishna (2006 film), and Krishna Aur Kans seem to be films based around Krishna based on their titles and IMDB descriptions, although this needs to be expanded. If true, than these articles would theoretically belong in this category and would not apply WP:SMALLCAT. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the category now contains 12 articles so WP:SMALLCAT no longer applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- A significant topic and now well populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 19 July 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.

Category:Crimean national liberation activists

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OPTION A: Propose renaming Category:Crimean national liberation activists to Category:Crimean Tatar national liberation activists
or OPTION B: Propose merging Category:Crimean national liberation activists to Category:Crimean Tatar activists

Nominator's rationale: This was proposed for speedy renaming by an anon editor; the proposed name would be consistent with the parent Category:Crimean Tatar activists. However, this was opposed on the Speedy page on the grounds that is an OR category as some of the articles do not mention Crimean nationalism or national liberation. The current contents are Ahtem Chiygoz, Refat Chubarov, Mustafa Dzhemilev & Sevgil Musayeva. – Fayenatic London 21:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of these articles, I think Mustafa Dzhemilev's is the only one which supports "activist". I've already classified him into Category:Crimean Tatar activists so I think the Category:Crimean national liberation activists should be deleted. (t · c) buidhe 02:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, they are either protesting against the Russian occupation but not as a Tatar, or they serve the Tatar cause more generally but not for national liberation. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For preference Merge (B) rather than delete. I understand the Tartars were generally against Russian seizure that the ethic Russians were a majority. Deletion would destroy data. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 19 July 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.

Suburbs of Sydney smallcats

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:SOFTDELETE of those nominated categories which (after 3 months) still show no sign of getting well-populated, i.e. currently have less than 5 member articles, as follows:

2 or 3 articles

4 articles

– Fayenatic London 21:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

4 × one-page categories
Category:Lavender Bay Category:Middle Cove, New South Wales Category:Willoughby East, New South Wales Category:Wollstonecraft

38 × two-page categories

36 × three-page categories

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 78 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Sydney, New South Wales is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus zero, one or two other pages.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Sydney (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Sydney (so merger would be wrong).

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

The size of this nomination (total of 78 categories) seems very high, but it's only about 1/3 of the 219 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Sydney. As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging: all 78 categories have tagged, in these 78 edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

please leave comments and !votes in the sub-section below

Discussion of Suburbs of Sydney smallcats

please leave your comments and !votes here

Delete. These articles would be quite adequately categorised in the various local government areas to which they belong. Suburbs are generally poorly defined. Rathfelder (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Suburbs are generally poorly defined. - What do you mean by that? Are you talking a bout "what is a suburb?" or the suburb boundaries? If the latter this is not true. New South Wales Land and Property Information keeps a detailed online database of all suburb boundaries in NSW. Suburb boundaries are precisely defined. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree entirely with AussieLegend - every state and territory in Australia has the equivalent of a board that defines suburb and geographical boundaries, so they are very clearly defined (and require legal processes to change them). Merging to the Local Government Area won't work, either because many suburbs are spread across multiple LGAs. Deus et lex (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It's true that suburbs in Australia are clearly-defined. Rathfelder was wrong on that point, and should strike it.
    However, it's also very clear that these categories breach WP:SMALLCAT: they are small and have no reasonable prospect of expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Apologies - Australia is clearly unusual in defining its suburbs. But that does not negate the point that there are not enough articles about most of them to justify a category. The same problem arises everywhere. A good rule of thumb is that there need to be around 5 articles to justify a category, unless there is some clear reason for less. When all these extra articles appear we can reconsider the issue. Rathfelder (talk) 11:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I normally agree with the 5-article rule of thumb (it's a common issue with TV programs) but I don't think it's helpful to apply it here. A check of the Ingress Intel Map shows a number of POIs in these areas that would qualify for articles so there seems to be a reasonable expectation that the categories could be expanded over time. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If and when enough articles are created to populate one of these categories, then it can be re-created. But since AussieLegend agrees that there is not enough time and not enough editors to do much of this, there is little likelihood of that happening soon ... and no point in keeping these categories "just in case". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Once again, WP:DEADLINE applies and WP:SMALLCAT provides that small categories with a reasonable expectation of expansion may be kept. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:DEADLINE is an essay, not a guideline. It has no standing, and AussieLegend's decision to cite it as if it was a guideline or policy is just more of their habitual WP:GAMING.
        As noted above, AussieLegend agrees that there are not enough editors do much expansion of Australian covergae of suburbs ... and now engaging in magical thinking but claiming that nonetheless there is a reasonable expectation of expansion. How does such expansion happen without editors? Is here some class of magic pixie in these suburbs which can make the articles appear without editing?
        It's appalling that this editor should yet again feel free to disrupt a discussion by multiply-repeated counter-factual assertions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        AussieLegend's decision to cite it as if it was a guideline or policy is just more of their habitual WP:GAMING I think we're going to have to address these persistent attacks of yours an ANI. Please remind me, why were you desysopped? --AussieLegend (✉) 15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If you really want to make a drama out of your repeated gaming of policy, and your repeated bogus allegations on personal attacks, then go ahead. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - it's also very clear that these categories breach WP:SMALLCAT: they are small - at best this is a flawed interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT, which specifically says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories". Small categories are permitted.
      and have no reasonable prospect of expansion. - At best this is only your opinion. Based on my investigation of other suburbs, there a probably a lot of points of interest in the suburbs that should have articles and which simply haven't been created. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Untrue, AussieLegend. It's your opinion too. As you wrote below, there simply aren't enough editors to do the sort of expansion you would like. And you have repeated your attempt to WP:GAME the system by cherrypicking a few words from policy in order to misrepresent its meaning. I had already posted a longer comment below about that, so your decision to repeat the misrepresentation cannot be due to misunderstanding; is clear evidence that your deceit is intentional. Please stop the deception, and adopt the sort of honest conduct which is esential to effective collaboration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Since I actually live in the area I think I have a better opinion of what is possible than somebody living on the other side of the planet. That there aren't enough editors to write them now doesn't mean that it is never going to happen or that it is unrealistic to expect the expansion of the categories. And no, I didn't cherry pick parts of the guideline (it's not policy), I actually read the whole of it. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        AussieLegend, you did cherrypick the guideline. You omitted the crucial second part of the sentence, because it didn't suit your purpose. Stop gaming the system.
        On the likelihood of expansion, you are now arguing with yourself ... because you agree that there are not enough editors to wrote these articles. If and when that changes, and lots of new editors appear to write the articles, then the categories can be re-created if there are enough articles to populate them. But in the meantime, there is no benefit to readers or editors in cluttering up articles and category space with hundreds of smallcats while Waiting for Godot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I did not cherry pick the guideline, I merely included the most relevant point. The section that you claim "didn't suit [my] purpose" actually supports keeping the categories.
        you are now arguing with yourself ... because you - That there are not enough editors NOW is not a reason for deletion. Wikipedia is not working to a deadline and WP:SMALLCAT says "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." There is a realistic expectation that these categories will be expanded over time so SMALLCAT says the cats may be kept. Also, please stop pinging me every time you reply. It's more than annoying. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        AussieLegend, you did cherrypick the guideline, repeatedly. And you are still at it.
        Now that you have finally chosen to acknowledge the existence of the phrase "realistic potential for growth", you have done a volte-face on your earlier position about there not being enough editors. Since you offer no evidence of any likely influx of editors, there is no realistic hope of expansion, just a faith in magic. If and when that magical group of editors does magically appears, and they do magically create lots of new articles on suburban topics, then the categories can be easily be re-created. But in the meantime, AussieLegend's magical hopes are not realistic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        AussieLegend, you did cherrypick the guideline, repeatedly - WP:IDHT apparently applies.
        Since you offer no evidence of any likely influx of editors, there is no realistic hope of expansion, - Lack of editorial input does not translate to "no realistic hope of expansion". For the millionth time, WP:DEADLINE applies and SMALLCAT provides for keeping small cats. Most of these categories can be expanded. You need to identify the individual cats that may have no hope of expansion (there may be some) rather than make the ridiculous claim that there is no hope for any of them.
        AussieLegend's magical hopes are not realistic - Once ahain Comment on content, not on the contributor. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        AussieLegend, I did comment on the content. In this case the content is the magical thinking of your assertion that articles can be expanded without editors.
        And for the millionth time, WP:DEADLINE is not a policy or a guideline. Please act like a responsible adult, and read a page before citing an essay as if it was policy or guideline ... and then insulting another editor on the basis of your misrepresentation. Your accusations based fantasies and half-truths are at best a disruption tactic. They have no place in consensus formation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I did comment on the content. - You also commented on the contributor. You conveniently ignored that part of WP:NPA.
        And for the millionth time, - Please don't exaggerate!
        Please act like a responsible adult, and read a page before citing an essay as if it was policy or guideline ... and then insulting another editor on the basis of your misrepresentation. - Now THAT is gaslighting. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It's not gaslighting, because it's true. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)@[reply]
        You keep telling yourself that. Somebody might eventually believe you. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        And some day you might stop trying to WP:GAME the system by playing games with policy and guidelines.
        And some day you might learn enough to understand the folly of denouncing someone for not following a page which is neither policy or guideline, and actually presents multiple conflicting viewpoints. But having watched your conduct in multiple discussions, I think it's very unlikely that you will deploy that level of competence and actually add value to these discussions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge each to their local government area parent category, per Rathfelder. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - as above, that won't work. Deus et lex (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Deus et lex: please give some examples of when it does not work. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - As I noted above, there are a lot of suburbs in Australia that sit across multiple LGAs. You can't just merge a suburb to one LGA. Deus et lex (talk) 05:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - There is no reason to merge these categories - small categories are fine to keep and are useful for navigation. I suggest we need to be a bit more co-operative and work to improve the encyclopedia, not just delete categories. Deus et lex (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As another comment - just looking at some of these, it seems many of these can easily be populated by articles related to the particular suburb (which have not been categorised). A mass deletion of all the categories without proper consideration of which ones can be improved is premature. There may be some smaller suburbs where the category is overall not necessary but in general that doesn't seem to be the case. Deus et lex (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Deus et lex your comment small categories are fine to keep and are useful for navigation is a direct defiance of the long-established guidance at WP:SMALLCAT, which has led over the years to deletion of many thousands of smallcats.
    The closer is obliged to discount !votes such as this one which are based on a rejection of a broad community consensus. If Deus et lex wants to propose removing WP:SMALLCAT, then they should open an RFC; but meanwhile, WP:SMALLCAT stands. And regardless of any such RFC or its outcome, Deus et lex should promptly strike their malicious, trolling allegation that I am not being co-operative. The only unco-operative conduct here is the mass creation of small categories by one or two Australian editors -- and the rudeness of a small minority of policy-defying trolls such as Deus et lex.
    I am working to improve the encyclopedia -- by identifying and nominating some of the many thousands of smallcats which a few policy-averse editors have been creating for small places in Australia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - is a direct defiance of the long-established guidance at WP:SMALLCAT - Perhaps you should actually read WP:SMALLCAT as it specifically says "says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories". Small categories are permitted.
    - Deus et lex should promptly strike their malicious, trolling allegation and the rudeness of a small minority of policy-defying trolls such as Deus et lex - In the past I have had to ask you to stop calling me a troll and I am disappointed that I now have to ask you to stop calling other editors trolls. It is a WP:NPA personal attack and, as an ex-admin you should know far better. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @AussieLegend: this is at least the third time today that you have tried to WP:GAME the the system by cherrypicking words from policy, out of context. The reelevant part of WP:SMALLCAT says in full:
        Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time
        . You chose to try to deceive other editors by snipping everything after the semi-colon, because it doesn't suit your purpose.
        Please stop gaming the system ... and especially, please stop gaming the system in order to defend a troll. (And please do read WP:NPA. I have no made a personal attack; I was replying to a personal attack by a troll.).--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        this is at least the third time today that you have tried to WP:GAME the the system by cherrypicking words from policy, out of context. - Identifying parts of the guideline (It is NOT policy!) that you have ignored is not gaming the system or cherrypicking.
        You chose to try to deceive other editors ... Please stop gaming the system ... please stop gaming the system in order to defend a troll. - Again, please stop with the personal attacks. Comment on content, not on the contributor. This is the last time that I'm going to ask you to withdraw your personal attacks. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @AussieLegend::

See WP:PLAYPOLICY #3
Selectively "cherry-picking" wording from a policy (or cherry-picking one policy to apply but wilfully ignoring others) to support a view which does not in fact match policy.
That's what you have been repeatedly doing by quoting only the first part of a sentence. It is deceptive and dishonest. Please stop doing it.
My comment about trolling was a reply to a personal attack by another editor. Your repeated attempts to misrepresent that sequence of events are another type of gaming the system: namely WP:GASLIGHTING, which is a vicious form of psychological manipulation.

Cut this out, and stop playing games. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sigh
Your troll comment was a personal attack. Even if somebody attacks you, that is no justification to respond with a personal attack. You should and do know better.
Stop the personal attacks and discuss rationally in a collaborative manner.
namely WP:GASLIGHTING, which is a vicious form of psychological manipulation. She who smelled it dealt it. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AussieLegend, you play games with policy, then engage in gaslighting ... and when challenged you reply with a phrase which I last heard when I was at primary school. Please do at least try to pretend that you can behave like an adult.

This sort of juvenile behaviour make same despair of Wikipedia. How on earth can we build an encyclopedia when an editor feels free to game the system and speak like a seven-year-old miscreant? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I'm not going to respond to any more of your ridiculous claims. Your constant attacks are intolerable. --AussieLegend (✉) 15:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No attacks. Just rebuttals of your WP:GAMING of guidelines and essays, and your primary school language. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've revised my comment and apologise for it, but I utterly reject any allegation that I am trolling. A call to be more co-operative is not unreasonable. And I reiterate that some of these categories can easily be filled and a mass nomination is not fair. Deus et lex (talk) 04:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Deus et lex: Thanks for striking part of your comment. But I stand by my view that your call for me to be "co-operative" is trolling, i.e. that it is a false accusation designed to inflame.

Vast numbers of smallcats have been created indiscriminately for tiny geographical areas of NSW and Queensland, nearly all by one editor. I have taken care not to name-and-shame that editor; I assume that they acted in good faith, but recklessly failed to check the categorisation guidelines.

That's the core of the problem here: reckless, indiscriminate category creation, which is thoroughly unco-operative.

Over the last few weeks, I have identified many hundreds of such categories, and brought them to CFD. Initially I nominated them separately, as one category per discussion. That triggered objections that there were too many such discussions, and they should be grouped. So I did group them by local govt area, and have made many dozens of such group nominations in the course of July.

Even if this sea of smallcats, Sydney is an extreme case: Category:Suburbs of Sydney has an extraordinary 219 subcats.

78 of those category contains up to 3 pages
20 of those categories contains 4 pages.
So 45% of these categories fall below the commonly-accepted minimum size of 5 pages.

I therefore took the time to group these small categories by size, and make a group nomination which clearly set out clearly the problem. I omitted the 20 categories with 4 pages, because they are close enough to the threshold that only one extra page would push them over the line.

I have done this as clearly as I can, and I put about five hours work into it, checking and re-checking.

So I am very pissed off that @Deus et lex then comes in and accuses me of not being co-operative, and claims that a mass nomination is not fair.

The truth is quite the opposite. I have followed the established procedure for dealing with smallcats: nominate them at CFD.

And I have in several steps gone way beyond the norm in how I have done this:

grouped the categories by region or LGA, and done each such area as a separate nomination. This is achieve the best balance between unwielldy large groups and a torrent of small discussions.
In every nomination, I have grouped the categories by size, to facilitate examination.

If that is not co-operative, then I am a banana. I am seriously pissed off that Deus et lex has chosen to remain entirely uncritical of those who unco-operatively created these hundreds of smallcats (maybe over a thousand in all), but accuse me of being unco-operative when I have put in a huge amount of time to bring these to consensus-forming discussions, as clearly as I can. So I stand by my description of that as trolling. I worked very hard to prepare a means for the community to resolve this mess ... but instead of criticising those who uncooperatively created the mess, Deus et lex chose to falsely accuse me of being uncooperative. That sort of cheap and lazy slur inverts reality, and its only purpose is trolling. That misrepresentation has no purpose other than to take the heat off those who made the mess and instead claim that those doing the cleanup are somehow behaving badly.

I explicitly wrote in the nomination that it is without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages. So there is an attempt here to impede proper categorisation.

And if Deus et lex genuinely believes that some of these categories can be populated with existing articles, then please go ahead and populate them. I will happily strike from the nomination any categories which have been legitimately expanded beyond 5 pages (i.e not counting pages which don't belong in the category). But please, cut this crap about me not being "cooperative". That's just muckslinging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - some of these may need to be rechecked before any bulk deletion, I guess because additions have been made since the CfD discussion was posted. An example, I randomly clicked on Category:Wollstonecraft and it has five entries, which I gather from this conversation is an unofficial threshold for keeping a small category. -- Euryalus (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Euryalus, Category:Wollstonecraft is now back to three pages. I have removed the recent additions Berry and Wollstonecraft and Berry Island, New South Wales, which don't belong there. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BrownHairedGirl: thanks for the reply. I probably agree with you re "Berry and Wollstonecraft," which is not about the current geographic locality. Bit puzzled by the removal of Berry Island though, as I believe this is a part of the area of land that the category defines. Suggest this be re-added to the category, though it still wouldn't meet the five-article rule of thumb. -- Euryalus (talk) 12:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Berry Island is very clearly part of Wollstonecraft and Category:Wollstonecraft now has 6 valid articles in it. I think this demonstrates the lack of credibility in the nominator's claim that these categories are likely to have little chance of expansion. Fortunately, Deus et lex, who the nominator has called a troll, has been working hard on populating categories. --AussieLegend (✉) 13:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - One swallow does not make a summer. The fact that one category has been populated is not evidence that the other 78 are waiting to be populated. If more categories have been populated, then please list them here for scrutiny.
        Obviously, I welcome any efforts by Deus et lex or any other editor to populate the categories. But good work now doesn't alter the fact that Deus et lex started out by trolling. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Agree that there's a fair few of these categories that would really struggle to muster 5 articles. Wollstonecraft is a well-established locality with a lengthy history, so its probably not reflective of the whole. But seeing as we're here, has thought been given to what we might do if some or all of these categories were finally deleted? Lumping their contents into the "suburbs of Sydney" cat would make for one huge unwieldy construct, which wouldn't help any readers interested in any particular part of the city. But recategorising by a mid-sized geographic region like local government area doesn't seem ideal either: many Sydney LGA's are poorly recognised even by their own citizens. I don't immediately have a solution, just exploring the end point if deletion proceeds. And on a related point, the trolling accusation is diverting from the actual issue; perhaps let's all agree to drop it and move along. :) -- Euryalus (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of a continuation of the above: Seems likel that the bulk of these categories will forever be too small to be justified (eg 2-3 entries), and could safely be removed. But there will be some like Category:Wollstonecraft and Category:Palm Beach, New South Wales, which do make the threshold and also have a reasonable prospect for future expansion. On this basis bulk delete or keep seems unwise. Would we be better to consider these CfD's in smaller blocks - say 51-10 articles at a time? That way those categories that are worth keeping can be highlighted in discussion. Alternative is a trainwreck in either direction: deletion of viable categories for consistency's sake, or preservation of some really obscure categories because some unrelated ones were worth saving. -- Euryalus (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary break

Comment - please strike Lavender Bay, Wollstonecraft, Audley, Brooklyn, Camellia, Denistone, Gladesville, Granville, Heathcote, Marsfield, McMahons Point, Bronte, Concord, Eastwood, Glenfield, North Parramatta, Palm Beach, Roseville and Woolwich from the nomination - as all have at least 5 pages now (and that's just from a quick search - I really haven't had time to look at this properly). Deus et lex (talk) 13:51, 29 July 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.

Suburbs of Maitland, New South Wales

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 two. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Category:Bolwarra Heights, New South Wales‎
~~Category:Morpeth, New South Wales~~ -- struck by BHG 10:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Category:South Maitland, New South Wales

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these categories for suburbs of Maitland, New South Wales are tiny, with little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only 2 pages: the head article plus one other. I haven't found any other articles to expand the categories.

Note that I propose deletion, not merger ... because the head articles on the 3 suburbs are already in Category:Suburbs of Maitland, New South Wales, and the other item in each category does not belong there because it is not about a suburb.

As with many New South Wales locations, category creation seems to have been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:City of Maitland per WP:SMALLCAT (but excluding the eponymous articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - The nomination seems based on a flawed interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT, which specifically says "this criterion does not preclude all small categories" and the nominator's claim that there is "little chance of expansion" is incorrect. Morpeth in particular is a historic town and I am surprised that several historic sites there do not have articles. Thanks to players of the game Ingress, many historic points of interest have been identified in all of the suburbs. These can be seen at https://intel.ingress.com/intel. Time and lack of editors is really the only thing stopping the creation of articles at this point. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. AussieLegend is playing games with policy by cherrypicking a few words from WP:SMALLCAT out-of-context, and thereby deceptively misrepresenting the guideline. The full text of that section is
  Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time
  If AussieLegend can produce evidence that more standalone articles exist (or are likely to be created) to populate these categories, they should present it ... but in fcat, they are already destroyed that argument by their own assertion Time and lack of editors is really the only thing stopping the creation of articles at this point. In other words there is little or no chance that the articles will be created ... so these categories will remain smallcats for the foreseeable future. If and when we have the happy but unlikely event of many more articles being created on these suburbs, then the categories can easily be re-created ... but in the meantime, these small categories are an impediment to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Firstly, I'm a "he" not a "they". The part that you've quoted from SMALLCAT supports keeping small cats with a reasonable expectation of expansion even if they don't have enough articles NOW. Morpeth, for example, includes Morpeth House, Closeborne House and Close's Estate, St. James Church, Morpeth School of the Arts, The Astor, Murphy's House, Immaculate Conception Church, River Royal Hotel, Morpeth Post Office, and Old Morpeth Court House, all of which have been identified as historical within the town, which was a major river port. There's 10 potential articles.
    in fcat, they are already destroyed that argument by their own assertion[sic] - Wikipedia isn't working to a dealine. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - AussieLegend, I make no apology for using a gender-neutral pronoun. It's routine practice on en.wp, and I do it for most editors.
      And yet again, you are playing games with policy ... by citing WP:DEADLINE as if it was a policy or guideline. It's a just an essay, which describes a wide range of views, some mutually exclusive. It has no standing as policy or guideline.
      So why do you repeatedly cite it as if it was a policy/guideline which described a community consensus? Are you deliberately misrepresenting it? Do you not care about the status of thiss document? Did you did not read it before citing it? Do you have reading comprehension problems which prevent you from understanding that box at the top which says "this is an essay"? Note that I am not assuming any of those. But I am asking why you repeatedly disrupt this discussion with systematic misrepresentations. If you can't find a way to make yourself stop this streak of falsehoods and half-truth and misrepresentations, then this will have to escalate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - PS as to that list of topics about which articles may potentially be written, the answer is simple: if and when enough of those articles are created tat one or more of these categories is no longer a smallcat, then simply re-create the category. The time needed to re-create the category is utterly trivial compared with the time needed to write articles ... so there is no need to retain smallcats just in the hope that maybe some day some editor will magically appear to write lots of articles about these suburban topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't care for being addressed as gender nuetral. I am male and would appreciated being addressed that way.
        you are playing games with policy ... by citing WP:DEADLINE as if it was a policy or guideline. - I did neither. I merely cited WP:DEADLINE. On the other hand, you actually cited a guideline as being policy, which is deceptive at best.
        then this will have to escalate - I'm more than happy to escalate this. We can start with your personal attacks on multiple editors. As I've stated above, I'm no longer going to reply to your ridiculous attacks and claims. They are sending these discussions far off-track. For anyone reading, I'm happy if somebody wants to hat them if you feel it makes the discussion easier to read. --AussieLegend (✉) 16:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Morpeth should be removed from this nomination as it now has more articles. Deus et lex (talk) 07:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have struck Category:Morpeth, New South Wales, since it now has 6 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think this demonstrates the lack of credibility in the nominator's claim that these categories have little chance of expansion and her claim that I haven't found any other articles to expand the categories demonstrates that she didn't look hard enough, as all of the articles that have been added have been around for years. Fortunately, we have Deus et lex, who the nominator has called a troll. Time for an apology? --AussieLegend (✉) 10:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - One swallow doesn't make a summer. One category being populated doesn't mean that the others can be or will be populated.
      I welcome any work which any editor has put in to try to populate any of the nominated categories ... but good work now doesn't alter the fact that Deus et lex started out by trolling.
      I also note with regret that instead of doing the work like Deus et lex, AussieLegend has commented only to try to stir trouble. AussieLegend should consider the merits of silence until they have something constructive to contribute to resolving the problem that many many hundreds of undersized categories have been created indiscriminately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 25 July 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.

Category:Borchs Kollegium

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:University of Copenhagen. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Borchs Kollegium to Category:University of Copenhagen

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only 2 pages: the eponymous Borchs Kollegium (a University of Copenhagen dormitory) and one image. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in the spirit of WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 17 July 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.

Category:Booth family

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Booth family to Category:Booth family of Dunham Massey

Nominator's rationale: disambiguation. There is also Category:Booth family (theatre) and Category:William Booth family.

This one seems to be for the Booth baronets, of Dunham Massey (1611) and their descendants through many generations, so Category:Booth family of Dunham Massey is my best suggestion for a new name ... but maybe someone will come up with something better. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- That is a good solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 25 July 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.

Mid-Coast Council smallcats

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:Mid-Coast Council. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 16:42, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these categories for small places in the Mid-Coast Council area of New South Wales are tiny, with little chance of expansion. They currently contain only 2 pages: the head article plus one other. I haven't found any other articles to expand the categories.

As with many New South Wales locations, category creation seems to have been a bit indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:25, 17 July 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.

Society of Cinematographers

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 11#Society of Cinematographers

Category:Bragg Institute

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Bragg Institute (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only 2 pages: the eponymous Bragg Institute and Open-pool Australian lightwater reactor. I don't see potential for expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 17 July 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.

Category:Broadcast encryption

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: manual deletion. MER-C 11:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Broadcast encryption (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only 2 pages: the eponymous Broadcast encryption and Advanced Access Content System. So far as I can see, we don't have other articles which could populate this category, but it's not my field, so maybe someone else knows of other articles which should be added. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or merge) per WP:SMALLCAT. I am not sure of the merge targets, if any are needed at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:32, 17 July 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.

Category:Bremen S-Bahn

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: withdrawn by nominator. Category has now been populated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Bremen S-Bahn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only 2 pages: the eponymous Bremen S-Bahn and Category:Bremen S-Bahn templates, which doesn't need to be in a mainspace category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I have added several stations of the S-Bahn to the category based on the Bremen S-Bahn article. (t · c) buidhe 11:38, 17 July 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.

Category:Brooke family

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brooke family to Category:Brooke family (Cobham)

Nominator's rationale: disambiguation. The bare title Brooke family is about rulers of Sarawak. This category is about the family of the first creation of the title Baron Cobham: see Baron Cobham#Barons_Cobham_(of_(Cobham,_in)_Kent);_First_Creation_(1313) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to avoid ambiguity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I instantly thought it was the Sarawak Brookes. Grutness...wha? 04:43, 18 July 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.

Category:Companies involved in the Holocaust

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 17#Category:Companies involved in the Holocaust

Category:Sumerian epic heroes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1#Category:Sumerian epic heroes

Category:Medicine and healthcare trade unions

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:03, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Medicine and healthcare trade unions to Category:Healthcare trade unions

Nominator's rationale: To match the child categories. Fuddle (talk) 03:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. This increases consistency somewhat in an inconsistent tree (health, health care, healthcare, medicine/medical). Oculi (talk) 11:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. And as Oculi notes we need a bit more work here. Rathfelder (talk) 21:59, 17 July 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.

Category:Indonesian landlords

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1#Category:Indonesian landlords

Category:Shlomo David family

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Shlomo David family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is only one article Sassoon Eskell in this category, with a one line unreferenced and unsubstantiated hat note: "The Shlomo David family represented one of the most illustrious dynasties of Iraqi Jews from Baghdad" which may or may not be true. There is no related article about Shlomo David family or Shlomo David on WP anywhere. The creator of this category @Phtyy: only made 9 edits in 2007, all to this topic [1], but one edit mysteriously links to a photo by the name of File:Shlomodavid2.jpg. This whole thing makes no sense, since nothing in the Sassoon Eskell article says anything about "Shlomo David family or Shlomo David". A Google search for "Shlomo David" and "Shlomo David family" essentially yields nothing [2] [3]. This seems to be a WP:HOAX or some sort of WP:SELFPROMOTE page and needs to be deleted. Certainly no WP:RS at all to justify this category. IZAK (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete per lack of article about the family and per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Related discussion. See centralised discussion on family categories at WT:CATP#Family_categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above, WP:SMALLCAT does apply here. (t · c) buidhe 08:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, might also be a Hoax of self-promotion, as there is no article about Shlomo David on Wikipedia, begging the question why there is a category named after him. Even if there was (an article about Shlomo David), WP:SMALLCAT would still ably here. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not a hoax though, his father's name was Heskel Shlomo David. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 18 July 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.

Category:Royal Order of the Intare

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Royal Order of the Intare to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of Rwanda

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with just a single subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. (t · c) buidhe 11:43, 17 July 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.

Television programs by director

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 1#Television programs by director

Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Columbia, Missouri

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:34, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Columbia, Missouri (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:SMALLCAT, the state only has 14 demolished buildings in the category and the city is too small to support its own category at this time. Should be upmerged to Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Missouri. SportingFlyer T·C 05:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double upmerge to Category:Demolished buildings and structures in Missouri and Category:Former buildings and structures in Columbia, Missouri. It was underpropulated, but even at four articles it's a little too slim. Grutness...wha? 12:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would oppose the double upmerge as that Columbia category seems like it's right on the edge of WP:SMALLCAT. SportingFlyer T·C 18:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The usual cut-off is about five articles. This would bring it up to six, which is, IMO, fine for a category which could still expand (WP:SMALLCAT is aimed only at categories which can never become larger, so trying to apply it in this case indicates a possible misunderstanding of how it should be used). It seems clear-cut that the articles currently in the demolished buildings category should go into the former buildings category, at least for the time being. If you want to also nominate the former buildings category later, that would be a separate issue. Grutness...wha? 18:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These categories are both likely to expand, and soon. An article for a NRHP registered building that is about to be demolished is on my to-do list and that alone would make the category five articles. Besides that, there are other demolished structures in Columbia, Missouri that would meet WP:GNG, and category growth is guaranteed as historic/notable structures will continue to meet their demise on purpose or accidentally, so I think the cat serves a useful purpose. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:11, 19 July 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.

Category:Native birds of Southern Mexico

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: upmerge to Category:Birds of Mexico bibliomaniac 1 5 02:32, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Native birds of Southern Mexico to Category:Birds of Southern Mexico

Nominator's rationale: We do not normally use the term "native" in the names of categories like this. Alternatively, upmerge to Category:Birds of Mexico as for articles such as Scaled antpitta and Black hawk-eagle (currently in 15 geographical categories) this is too small a region to be defining. DexDor^(talk) 06:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My preference is to merge. DexDor^(talk) 05:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, sibling categories use the format "Endemic birds of". Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Endemic birds of Southern Mexico is a subcat. An upmerge of the "Native..." category would result in the endemic categories being categorized more consistently. DexDor^(talk) 18:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This vote is a little bit unclear, since nom provided two options. Prefer merge over rename, per further discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Assuming that "Southern Mexico" is everything that is not the cultural region of Northern Mexico, then its area is 918,001 km² (354,442 sq mi). For comparison, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is more than twice as big, despite having a more uniform climate than S. MEX, and had its category merged at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_13#Category:Birds_of_Angola. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Straight delete would remove the articles from Category:Birds of Mexico. Do you support the merge suggested in the nomination? DexDor^(talk) 05:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge And not delete so that "Birds of Mexico" category can be preserved. Lorstaking 13:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Birds of Mexico, as we have no article Southern Mexico and I am not aware that this term is current and consistently used either culturally or more importantly for this category, ecologically. The WWF has this synopsis putting the area in question at 16,400 square miles (42,000 km²) but I don't think that the category is constrained to that view. Since we have no idea what is in or out of Southern Mexico, this should be merged up to the next geographic rung which is my proposal. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:34, 23 July 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.

Members of the Bundestag by party

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:59, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I propose expanding the abbreviation for the political parties referred to. While the meaning of these would be obvious to those familiar with German politics, I think that it would not be obvious to the average English-language reader. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as we tend to avoid abbreviations in category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. (t · c) buidhe 08:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator, and to match the use of the full party names in the parent categories. For example, Category:Members of the Bundestag for SPD is parented in Category:Social Democratic Party of Germany politicians.

The abbreviations are too obscure for those not familiar with German politics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:16, 17 July 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.

Category:Castanea

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: do not rename. MER-C 18:44, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Option A

Category:Castanea to Category:Castanea (plant)

Option B

Category:Castanea to Category:Chestnut

Nominator's rationale: The bare title Castanea is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Chestnut, and the scientific name Castanea (plant) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option A for consistency, categories in biology generally use scientific names. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'll defer to others on the target name. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as above, shouldn't Option B be Category:Chestnuts? Grutness...wha? 04:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, a bogus disam page - the tree is clearly primary. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Instead, move Castanea to Castanea (disambiguation), redirect Castanea to Chestnut, and continue to use Category:Castanea for chestnut articles. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Leave the category unchanged. It's an unnecessary disambiguation, as Johnbod says, so move Chestnut to Castanea as is normal for plants, and move the existing Castanea to Castanea (disambiguation). "Chestnut" is more commonly used for Castanea sativa. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:20, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per myself above, as I didn't say so clearly. Bhg, please stop doing these - "The bare title Castanea is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed" - NO! First you need to consider if the disam page is a proper one to have the plain name. I'm getting increasingly fed up with the "I just do categories, me" attitude from many nominators here. Johnbod (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose none of the other topics at Castanea are likely to ever have enough associated articles to merit an eponymous category (and if somebody does ever write a bunch of articles about landmarks in Castanea, Pennsylvania (or any of the other places on the DAB page), the category could be naturally disambiguated by the state, just as the parent article is)). I've been trying to stay away from this issue (adding disambiguators to genus categories, where the parent article is disambiguated) for months, but since this CfD hasn't been close yet, I'll jump in. In main space, preemptively disambiguating against an article that doesn't exist yet isn't encouraged. When this broke out in June, I had no idea that category space had a different standard, and I couldn't find that standard documented anywhere. I did have the understanding that it was usually preferable to have category names match the title of any parent article, but that it wasn't a requirement (obvious countercase; "List of" parent article isn't going to have a category name with "List").

From what I had understood, I am utterly mystified by BrownHairedGirl bringing this to discussion rather than going for the speedy route as she did to add disambiguation to many other genus categories. Add unnecessary disambiguation to category names to match main article titles that require disambiguation? Fine by me, I guess. Match categories names to article titles as much as possible (including by adding unnecessary disambiguation)? I'm less OK with that, but if that's the standard obviously the category should be Chestnut, and if BHG fully believes that, she should have taken it to a speedy rename. I'm having a lot of trouble understanding what category naming conventions would be fulfilled by using a mainspace redirect with disambiguation (Castanea (plant)) for the category name.

If a Category:Chestnut is created, it should be similar to Category:Grape and Category:Strawberries, which include articles relevant to edible fruits produced by a particular genus of plants. There aren't enough articles on chestnut nuts to merit a category yet. Categories for species in a genus of plants are most consistenly named by the scientific name of the genus, even when the genus itself is at a vernacular name title (e.g. Oak/Category:Quercus, Pine/Category:Pinus). For consistency, the category including Castanea species should not be named "Chestnut". Plantdrew (talk)

Oppose Plantdrew above makes many of the points I would make. However, I do not say "fine" to Add unnecessary disambiguation to category names to match main article titles that require disambiguation. Unnecessary disambiguation is always and everywhere undesirable, but especially so for genus categories, since it requires editors to categorize multiple species article using "Category:GENUS (DISAMBIGUATION)|SPECIES" instead of the obvious "Category:GENUS|SPECIES". Peter coxhead (talk) 14:05, 27 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, if one of the above opposers takes the initiative to change the article names in accordance with the above discussion then my earlier vote becomes obviously moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 13 September 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.

Category:Chelonia

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Option A

Category:Chelonia to Category:Chelonia (genus)

Option B

Category:Chelonia to Category:Green sea turtles

Nominator's rationale: The bare title Chelonia is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Green sea turtle, and the scientific name Chelonia (genus) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification @BrownHairedGirl: I think you meant one option to be Category:Green sea turtles but I didn't want to update the nom without checking with you. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, RevelationDirect. Now fixed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid ambiguity. Option A is consistent with the general usage of scientific names in biology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the Category:Chelonia naming is already correct and requires no subdivisions. It's the disambiguation page that is incorrect, no disambiguation is required. You can see I've contested the disambiguation before, but as disambiguation don't have a reference then this mild confusion and unresolved issue results. It would be best if Chelonia redirects to Green sea turtle with a hatnote. The turtle order is Chelonii not Chelonia, although it's a complex matter see for example some old talk Talk:Turtle/Archive_2#Chelonii. Also, the use of Chelonii or Chelonia seems to be a matter of Latin grammar, maybe (Latin declension) which is something I don't fully understand, already unlikely a reason for creating disambiguation pages. Sun Creator^(talk) 22:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, User:Sun Creator may well be right that the disambiguation page is incorrect. If it is, my earlier vote should be discounted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 17 July 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.

Category:European Computers

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:Computers designed in Europe. Note that the subcats for British and German computers are in a discussion of their own right now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_July_25#Category:German_computers. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:53, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:European Computers to Category:European computers

Nominator's rationale: Capitalization. Fuddle (talk) 19:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support was just a typo when creating the Category.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, rather the subcategories should be nominated for deletion. Computers do not have a nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Marcocapelle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- They do have places of orgigin though and to say something is British is to say that it orginated in Britain. It is a geographic designator as well as a nationlity.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category is an orphan. I understood that most of this stuff actually originated in Japan. What does it mean to say that a computer if British or German? Rathfelder (talk) 15:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah the Japanese were famed for their Electronics industry in the 1940s & 1950s.Not.--Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Computers manufactured in Europe per Category:Manufactured goods by country and create Category:Manufactured goods by continent to contain the renamed category. This rename should be expanded to include the British and German subcategories. gidonb (talk) 20:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see what others think about the proposal by gidonb.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 02:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative renames do not seem appropriate, as most of the articles do not mention where the computers are manufactured. These categories really are about the country of origin. If renamed in another fashion than nominated, it should become something like Category:Computers invented in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest "Designed in Europe", some where never manufactured in the sense of factory production but where hand built prototypes and experiments. They are also not inventions as usually the class of device is invented, the group of digital electronic computers. These are individual designs composed of existing device and newly inveted devices. --Kitchen Knife (talk) 12:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:42, 17 July 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.

Category:Buchanan family

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buchanan family to Category:Buchanan family (Pennsylvania)

Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate this set of family members of U.S. President James Buchanan from the article Buchanan family, which is about a fictional family.
Alternatively, delete per WP:SMALLCAT: only 3 pages. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, main article is lacking and per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:SMALLCAT. (t · c) buidhe 08:54, 17 July 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.

Category:Butler family

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 27#Category:Butler family

Category:Camp Edwards

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose mergeing Category:Camp Edwards to Category:Installations of the U.S. Army in Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only 2 articles (the eponymous Camp Edwards and Camp Edwards station) plus one image. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I'm working on rationalizing the articles on Mass. military installations, and this is a good move. I'm in the process of preparing "List of military installations in Massachusetts" due to the truncation of the former navbox to current facilities only. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 02:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the camp as proposed, but also merge both the camp and the station to Category:Buildings and structures in Barnstable County, Massachusetts. DexDor^(talk) 20:48, 28 July 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.

[banijayendemol-1] "Banijay Group's $2.2BN Endemol Shine Group Takeover Approved By European Commission". Deadline Hollywood. July 1, 2020.

[:Banijay-EndemolShine-2] "Sophie Turner Laing To Leave Endemol Shine Group As Banijay Group Completes $2.2BN Takeover". Deadline Hollywood. July 3, 2020.

[1]

[2]