Delete substantially per the above. USERCATs should not entice people to share their medical or mental health conditions, the "interested in..." formulation has no such problems. Jclemens (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep As far as I can tell the topic of this user category is neither "appropriate" nor "inappropriate" per WP:USERCAT. So I don't think arguments based on that guideline hold water. I understand Jclemens' objection, but again, that's not a reason for deletion AFAICT. I really don't see a reason to disallow a Wikipedian from disclosing their medical issues if they so choose. If folks think that's a bad idea for any reason (and I can certainly see some arguments for that), I'd suggest starting a discussion and updating USERCAT and maybe a few other guidelines about user pages. Hobit (talk) 05:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no clear definition of what constitutes a public official and no other similar categories to my knowledge. As such, this is a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. User:Namiba 23:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All of these people have very different occupations. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:29, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No meaningful distinction between "texts" and "literature" - literature is the term commonly used for texts - car chasm (talk) 23:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
leave unmerged as I understand it, most ancient texts are things like inventory and bookkeeping--not things that could be called "literature" but are still "texts". Hobit (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's not in anyway clear to me, people refer to works of literature as "texts" all the time, and certainly many things called "literature" are listed under texts so it seems like others may have the same confusion. Perhaps they should be swapped with "texts" as the parent and "literature" as the subcat? - car chasm (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, it may be useful to distinguish a topic category (literature) and a set category (texts) though I am not sure if a topic category can be properly populated in the case of ancient Egypt. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep yes there is overlap, but ANE literature notably combines Bronze Age and Iron Age literature, and a category that covers half of another major category is hardly "overcategorization". There are also minor exceptions that belong in the Bronze Age but not the ANE category, mostly Rigveda and ancient China. I understand the impetus to reduce excessive category cruft, but this noble impulse is overshooting its mark in this particular case imho. --dab(𒁳) 08:48, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support, there is a lot of editing in this article and no sign of opposition against this name that I could find. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category like this in Category:British military officers. Everybody else is categorised by their service, not their rank. This one lumps together anyone who held a specific rank no matter which service they belonged to (including the British Indian Army, which was not even part of the British Armed Forces despite the blurb). What is its point? Pure unnecessary overcategorisation which is of no use whatsoever to a reader. Who cares which officers reached the rank of colonel and no higher? -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:36, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SMALLCAT for hellenistic and presocratic, unlikely to ever have more than a few entries. - car chasm (talk) 09:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Change name of Ancient Roman to "Classical Latin" and categorize by language instead per WP:DEFINING, move greek works to Ancient Greek - car chasm (talk) 09:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging the first three per WP:SMALLCAT but purge De rerum natura (thus is ancient Roman, not ancient Greek). Oppose splitting the 4th unless is evidence is provided that Greek- and Latin-language ancient Roman philosophy are substantially different from each other (e.g. different philosophical schools). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Underground rapid transit stations located above ground
Nominator's rationale: Very recently created category that does not meet WP:CATDEFINING. While stations can generally be said to be above or below ground, they are not commonly and consistently referred to as such. AFAICT, these were all recently created by a single editor without discussion.
For consistency, please close this the same way as previous discussions, regardless of what the consensus was. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one "female child singers" category for any country, and its one member is in all relevant parent categories (21st-century Mexican women singers, Mexican child singers). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated stub category with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, editors are not free to create stub categories willy-nilly for just one article -- there have to be 60 or more articles to be filed in a stub category before it can be created, and for that very reason stub categories have to be approved by the WikiProject before they can be created, but this features just one article and has no evidence of project approval. I'm agnostic about whether the stub template is needed or not; it would be harmless if it was sorting the article into other more general stub categories that already exist, but it's not clearly needed for just one article either. So I leave the template for consensus to decide on, but a dedicated category cannot be kept for just one article. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category and template, both are not needed when it concerns only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
60 is not at all a feasible bar for primary content categories; there are a lot of circumstances where a category much smaller than that is entirely appropriate and necessary, and we also have to balance the issue of small categories against parent categories that might become too large to be browsable without diffusion into subcategories. Stub categories, however, are different — they're meant for internal project maintenance, not end-user browsing, so the bar can be very different for them than it is for end-user content categories. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
