Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion‎ | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Good Olfactory (talk | contribs) at 23:31, 2 November 2020 (→‎Category:Cornish artists: close as rename). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< August 29 August 31 >

August 30[edit]

Category:Critics of the European Union[edit]

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. bibliomaniac15 06:36, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mirror category for the already deleted Category:Advocates of the European Union discussion here: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 29#Category:Advocates of the European Union. Introduces WP:BIAS to only have one. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:00, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OPINIONCAT. The tree of Category:Eurosceptics should be nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I regret creating this category in the first place. JJARichardson (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or downmerge (at least) all British politicians etc to Category:Eurosceptics. Membership of EU has been the overriding political issue of the last five years since the referendum. It will also be appropriate to have a category for people like Tony Benn who were on the losing side in the 1970s referendum. One of the people listed is a Dutch politician leading a Eurosceptic party and perhaps does not belong in what is likely to be essentially a British category. It would also be ridiculous to de-categorise the board of Leave means Leave. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 5 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:Expatriates from Northern Ireland in Wales[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an impossible category, citizens of Northern Ireland and Wales are in the same sovereign state of United Kingdom & NI, there is no border or other residency restriction Crowsus (talk) 22:10, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not even Republicans would say that Northern Ireland is a patria. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- People of Irish birth or descent (north or south) are so abundant in UK as not to be worth having a category for. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 5 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:Expatriates from Northern Ireland in Scotland[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an impossible category, citizens of Northern Ireland and Scotland are in the same sovereign state of United Kingdom & NI, there is no border or other residency restriction Crowsus (talk) 22:09, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not even Republicans would say that Northern Ireland is a patria. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- People of Irish birth or descent (north or south) are so abundant in UK as not to be worth having a category for. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:14, 5 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:Expatriates from Northern Ireland in England[edit]

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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 15:38, 7 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an impossible category, citizens of Northern Ireland and England are in the same sovereign state of United Kingdom & NI, there is no border or other residency restriction Crowsus (talk) 22:08, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Category:Expatriates from Northern Ireland in Scotland and Category:Expatriates from Northern Ireland in Wales have been similarly tagged under the same rationale, please bundle these into one discussion if possible, thanks. Crowsus (talk) 22:13, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support not even Republicans would say that Northern Ireland is a patria. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:13, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- People of Irish birth or descent (north or south) are so abundant in UK as not to be worth having a category for. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:15, 5 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:Noiseplus Music albums[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 September 19#Category:Noiseplus Music albums

Category:Tech YouTubers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 18:10, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rmv abbreviation MB 16:21, 30 August 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:Geoengineers[edit]

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 13:14, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic, none of the people in this category is described as a geoengineer or a climate engineer. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 30 August 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:State climatologists[edit]

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. MER-C 18:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: option A: rename in order to clarify the scope of the category; option B: merge to Category:American climatologists as it concerns a rather trivial characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option B, although I could be swayed towards A, which would also be better than the current name. Grutness...wha? 18:24, 30 August 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:Playlist compilation albums[edit]

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, merging content to Category:Legacy Recordings compilation albums. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME. Association is only a marketing effort by a record company to re-release their artists' back catalog of popular songs. Similar categories for Category:The Essential and Category:Super Hits were both recently deleted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:59, 30 August 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:Second Shō Dynasty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 18:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the current main article, Second Shō clan. Nanshu (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this does not qualify for speedy rename (in case anyone would suggest that) because the article has been moved by nominator recently, without discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:59, 30 August 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:First Shō Dynasty[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 18:59, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the current main article, First Shō clan. Nanshu (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this does not qualify for speedy rename (in case anyone would suggest that) because the article has been moved by nominator recently, without discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:59, 30 August 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:The Grudge (franchise) films[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No real reason to split these two as its the same scope and a very small number of articles in both. Gonnym (talk) 10:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:59, 30 August 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 Somerset Region smallcats[edit]

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 18:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:Bryden, Queensland
  2. Category:Clarendon, Queensland
  3. Category:Colinton, Queensland
  4. Category:Cressbrook, Queensland
  5. Category:Linville, Queensland
  6. Category:Lowood, Queensland
  7. Category:Monsildale, Queensland
  8. Category:Moore, Queensland
  9. Category:Mount Tarampa, Queensland
  10. Category:Prenzlau, Queensland
  11. Category:Tarampa, Queensland
3-page categories
  1. Category:Harlin
  2. Category:Jimna, Queensland
  3. Category:Kilcoy, Queensland
  4. Category:Lake Wivenhoe
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 16 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Somerset Region, 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 Somerset Region (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Somerset Region (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats 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) 10:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, lean disagree This applies to all the proposed subcat deletions above and below this related to Suburbs. First I don't think the interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT is well supported unless it can be demonstrated that the categorization level does not meet "such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" as stated in the referenced WP:SMALLCAT. Given the number of categories it seems as though at least some acceptance has been provided while deletion notices may go unnoticed by many of those who find these valued and accepted. The resolution of focused locations in geography are important navigational aids. Additionally to say that a there is little chance of expansion is to say no notable events are likely to occur in any geographic region. Finally for categories acting as a means of value for navigation the intersection of the named place is a logical search topic and even a category with two or more items are useful for the point of understanding that subject's related content. I find three articles to be sufficient to to support the navigation argument and maintaining category effectiveness as related articles. Just looking at one category Category:Lake Wivenhoe there have been 291 views since 2015 when created I think it is worth an analysis of the activity of these geographic articles to determine how much these are visited as deletion may have a noticeable impact on navigation. I know I appreciate finer resolution of categorization when unfamiliar with a geographic region. What is the premise for setting a lower threshold of five article minimum? Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 09:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wolfgang8741: there is not, and never has been, any consensus that every small geographical location should have an eponymous category. On the contrary, the practice at CFD for over for the 14 years I have been involved has consistently been to remove such categories unless they meet a minimum size threshold. The most common minimum is five articles; I have never seen any discussion agree to a lower minimum unless theer is clear evidence that the set is actively growing.
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If and when additional articles are created, then a category can be re-created if it would meet the minimum size ... but we do not retain undersized categories based on unevidenced speculation that a) events will happen in the future, and b) those events will be covered in enough reliable sources to pass WP:Notability criteria, and c) that editors will write articles about them.
You example of Category:Lake Wivenhoe getting 291 views in 5 years amounts to barely over one pageview per week. That number is so low that it consist almost entirely of the background noise of editors checking the category.
In the same time 5-year period the head article Lake Wivenhoe got 12,559 views, which is 43 times as many as the category. The head article prominently links the two pages in the category, so the category adds no navigational value, which is why readers don't use it.
WP:SMALLCAT is not some arbitrary rule. It exists to avoid readers' time being wasted by being presented with numerous small sets, because they are a nuisance for navigation. Think of the example of a family's kitchen cupboards: there will be hundreds of food items, such as packs of pasta, tins of food, jam, spices, herbs, baking ingredients, sauces, oils, vinegar, etc ... plus sets of plates, bowls, mugs, cups, saucers, cooking dishes. They will be store in a set of about 5 cupboards in a small kitchen, maybe 20 in a big kitchen; nobody divides them up into cupboards of 3 items at a time, because you'd be driven mad opening doors and drawers. Categories are the same: lots of tiny categories are a nuisance.
In this case, Somerset Region had a 2018 population of 12,559 people. But there are 49 suburbs listed at Category:Suburbs of Somerset Region, i.e. average population of only 256 people per suburb. Those are tiny groupings; most suburban streets have a higher population. It's highly improbable that we are going to have a flood of new events in many of these suburbs; there simply aren't enough people there to generate enough notable activity.
And here's the bottom line: counting Category:Somerset Region and all its subcats, en.wp currently has only 128 articles on the whole of the Somerset Region. Chopping that up into tiny fragments helps nobody. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrownHairedGirl: I appreciate the extensive response and there are strong points to factor in yet "Chopping that up into tiny fragments helps nobody." is not something there is data to support in this analysis and in fact it is in the context of the user in which method of categorization is useful. As I stated above if I have a specific region such as one of these categories that I was interested in it means I can find the article faster rather than having to search through tens or hundreds at the regional aggregation.
  • I never stated there was a consensus on a threshold, I was curious why 5 not 3 or another value since the rational was not cited in the reason and for newcomers to this specific type of category it is hard to understand the history without links or context. These discussions are where consensus may be formed or changed based on the points made. We may have conflicting points of view and thus why a third party should step in for establishing the consensus. I stated in my experience that 3 is a sufficient threshold to be useful as a category and more categories are not a burden on a user who is interested in finer detail. Factoring in how many items may be included in a combined category above should be taken into consideration as shifting the burden from searching lower categories to browsing all the categories above can be an equal burden to the user.
  • The selection of the page visits was to establish that the number of articles in a category should not be the only criteria used in determining when articles should be moved to a larger category. Measures of other utilities should be accounted for in the criteria of when a small category is not useful.
  • The point that the number of people in a region should dictate if a category exists is a practice that reinforces the known high population places will be known. I'm just saying there needs to be reflection on why geographic places should be removed and discussion on the impact of the information bias created by removing smaller categories based on a focused region. I don't think the kitchen analogy stand since the drawer often allows for specific items to be grouped that are related and why there are entire companies built around the inserts for the cupboards and drawers to help create finer groupings of the items found in the larger container. Where wikipedia is the kitchen, cupboards and drawers are an upper category, organization solutions are the subdivisions below that. For the record, I keep a very organized kitchen with everything in its place. ;)
  • I believe I've made my diverging view clear. Let's see how others view on our points. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 19:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Wolfgang8741, thanks for your reply. But honestly, you are over-complicating this.
The principle of not chopping things up into smallcats is long-established and uncontroversial, as is a threshold of about five (some editors advocate a higher number, but less than 5 starts getting silly). If you want to challenge the principle of WP:SMALLCAT, then WP:RFC is thataway. This isn't the place to argue the basic principles, which is what you seem to be mostly doing.
Similarly, arguments and pageviews over-complicate a simple issue. Categories get low pageviews, and that's an issue for another day.
The question with smallcats is whether there is a realistic prospect of these categories being expanded. That isn't a question specific to geographic categories; it applies to all topics. In this case, the low population is one factor which makes it unlikely that there will be significant expansion. In other cases there are other factors. But the bottom line here is that we have a total of only 128 articles on the whole of the Somerset Region, which has 49 suburbs. That's a mean of only 2.6 articles per suburb, which is clear evidence that suburbs are a bad way of dividing this set except in a few exceptional cases. Even your meticulously-organised kitchen doesn't sub-divide items into groups with an average size of less than three. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my point of view increases the complexity, but I'm pushing back on the overly simplistic rational when it comes to a specific type of category - geographic regions. My position is WP:SMALLCAT should not be applied in a geographic context and while it may go against a practice, this is something that should be discussed further with a broader group of individuals and not just the two of us. Based on what you've written it may be a point to develop a SMALLGEO policy with a defined area or scope that is more applicable for geographic context given notabile events could exist in these local areas, but there may not be an active person in the region to have created the articles. Deletion of finer categorization in a geographic context creates a bias that I am not comfortable with and am stating that this needs further discussion with more than the two of us. I'm perfectly happy to suggest the scope adjustment to SMALLCAT and development of SMALLGEO, but I don't think these categories should be deleted while those are being developed. There are countless articles not yet started that qualify for WP:GEOLAND and mainly it is due to there being so many features to write about, the backlog is huge globally. Could you share more on what criteria you are using other than population to justify that the geographic region is too small to expect further notable events to be written about? Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wolfgang8741, if you want to propose a SMALLGEO policy, then start a WP:RFC at WT:OCAT.
But unless and until such a change is agreed, we just apply WP:SMALLCAT as it has been applied for years.
I think that the core flaw in your position is encapsulated in your statement

There are countless articles not yet started that qualify for WP:GEOLAND and mainly it is due to there being so many features to write about, the backlog is huge globally

That's just a verbose way of saying that the articles don't exist. Categories exist for navigation, but readers cam't navigate between articles which don't exist ... so there is no point in creating categories for non-existent articles.
If and when articles are created that make a category viable, the category can be recreated. But as you rightly note, the backlog is huge globally, so we should't expect it to cleared soon. There is no benefit to readers or editors in creating categories on the basis that some day, maybe many years or decades from now, Godot may turn after all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete individually -- I would suggest that BHG in making nominations of this kind should check for the need of (and add if necessary) any new categories to prevent the main articles being orphaned if the nomination is successful. Indeed such instructions might usefully be added to WP:SMALLCAT. It is not fair to expect the closing admin to do this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 5 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.

Suburbs of Rockhampton Region smallcats[edit]

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 18:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:Baree, Queensland
  2. Category:Gracemere, Queensland
  3. Category:Oakey Creek, Queensland
  4. Category:Westwood, Queensland
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 4 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Rockhampton Region, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one other page.
In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Rockhampton Region (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Rockhampton Region (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats 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) 10:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:39, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete individually -- I would suggest that BHG in making nominations of this kind should check for the need of (and add if necessary) any new categories to prevent the main articles being orphaned if the nomination is successful. Indeed such instructions might usefully be added to WP:SMALLCAT. It is not fair to expect the closing admin to do this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 5 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.

Suburbs of Rockhampton smallcats[edit]

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 18:45, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:Depot Hill, Queensland
  2. Category:Koongal, Queensland
  3. Category:Parkhurst, Queensland
  4. Category:The Common, Queensland
3-page categories
  1. Category:Allenstown, Queensland
  2. Category:Berserker, Queensland
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 6 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Rockhampton, 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 Rockhampton (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Rockhampton (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats 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) 10:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:59, 30 August 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 Redland City smallcats[edit]

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 18:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:Lamb Island, Queensland
  2. Category:Macleay Island
3-page categories
  1. Category:Point Lookout, Queensland
  2. Category:Redland Bay, Queensland
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 4 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Redland City, 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 Redland City (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Redland City (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats 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) 10:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:59, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 30 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete individually -- I would suggest that BHG in making nominations of this kind should check for the need of (and add if necessary) any new categories to prevent the main articles being orphaned if the nomination is successful. Indeed such instructions might usefully be added to WP:SMALLCAT. It is not fair to expect the closing admin to do this. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:32, 5 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:Cornish artists[edit]

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:31, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with all the other geographical subcategories of Category:English artists Rathfelder (talk) 08:38, 30 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_August_30&oldid=986779624"