Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 11



Transvaal and the South African Republic

 * 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 and delete per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1856 establishments in the South African Republic to Category:Establishments in the South African Republic, Category:1856 in the South African Republic, and Category:1856 establishments in Africa
 * Propose merging Category:1859 establishments in the South African Republic to Category:Establishments in the South African Republic, Category:1859 in the South African Republic, and Category:1859 establishments in Africa
 * Propose merging Category:1874 establishments in the South African Republic to Category:Establishments in the South African Republic, Category:1874 in the South African Republic, and Category:1874 establishments in Africa
 * Propose merging Category:1878 establishments in the South African Republic to Category:Establishments in the South African Republic, Category:1878 in the South African Republic, and Category:1878 establishments in Africa
 * Propose merging Category:1886 establishments in the South African Republic to Category:Establishments in the South African Republic, Category:1886 in the South African Republic, and Category:1886 establishments in Africa
 * Propose merging Category:1895 establishments in the South African Republic to Category:Establishments in the South African Republic, Category:1895 in the South African Republic, and Category:1895 establishments in Africa
 * Propose merging Category:1904 establishments in Transvaal to Category:Establishments in Transvaal, Category:1904 in Transvaal, and Category:1904 establishments in Africa
 * Propose deleting Category:1850s establishments in the South African Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:1856 establishments in South Africa
 * Propose deleting Category:1870s establishments in the South African Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:1880s establishments in the South African Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:1890s establishments in the South African Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:19th-century establishments in the South African Republic
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the South African Republic by decade
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the South African Republic by year
 * Propose deleting Category:1900s establishments in Transvaal
 * Propose deleting Category:20th-century establishments in Transvaal
 * Propose deleting Category:1850s establishments in Transvaal
 * Propose deleting Category:1870s establishments in Transvaal
 * Propose deleting Category:1880s establishments in Transvaal
 * Propose deleting Category:1890s establishments in Transvaal
 * Propose deleting Category:19th-century establishments in Transvaal
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Transvaal by year
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Transvaal by decade
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Transvaal by century
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Nine articles total in this tree, with the South African Republic categories under Transvaal. There's enough in the South African Republic tree (7 articles) to justify splitting it out to centuries, probably, if not for the fact that the whole republic existed within one century. Transvaal only has two articles in it. This merge/delete nomination would condense everything to Category:Establishments in Transvaal and Category:Establishments in the South African Republic, with the latter being a sub-category of the former. ~ RobTalk 21:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Support per nom. Over 20 categories for 9 articles is far too many, while 2 categories is fair enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. A reasonable, well-judged proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Photo sharing

 * 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: not moved. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Photo sharing to Category:Image sharing
 * Nominator's rationale: The category is actually about the sharing of images - not just photographs. One could also create a new category but in my view that would be undue here as these categories would overlap way too much - almost all entries of the current category would need to be copied over (except a handful of entries like 500px; note that image-sharing communities are typically also photo-sharing communities so most entries would really need to be in both categories). Note that even if a new category would be considered appropriate here that can still be done (and more easily so) after the category got moved. (Alternative name: Category:Picture sharing) Fixuture (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 *  Wrong Venue / Advice The main articles is Photo sharing and you already proposed renaming that article here.  I would make a formal Requested Move (RM) nomination on the article talk page using Template:Requested move. (If that nomination passes, you can speedy rename the category per WP:C2D.) Good luck!  RevelationDirect (talk) 20:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Nice find - I actually forgot I made a post about it already. It doesn't change anything though as I got no reply and this is the normal way to propose moving a category....or at least I thought until now: I guess one should only request a renaming here if the entries of the category don't need to moved over? When would that be useful? Isn't the only use of this then category-renamings which entail removing or changing the category from most of its articles? --Fixuture (talk) 20:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose The Move Request template usually brings in some more input to come to a consensus on article naming. In general, I favor having category names match the wording and scope of the main article because it makes the inclusion criteria clearer for editors and the navigation clearer for readers. I generally oppose category renames that are trying to bypass a consensus for the name of the main article but other editors in CFD might feel differently. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Wikipedia categories named after Wikipedia categories

 * 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: speedy delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedia categories named after wikipedia categories


 * Nominator's rationale: What exactly is the meaning of this category? (User:Mercurywoodrose) Also it only has one entry. Fixuture (talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete The edit summary by the creator is "creating vital category in the epo cat tree (more of a pile of branches, not connected to each other, but you get the idea)". If categories aren't connected to each other even from the creator's perspective, I'm not seeing a administrative benefit to keeping this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * joke, im sorry, i let my personal feelings override my editorial professionalism. i hate the eponymous category "tree", and wanted to express it, but of course this is technically vandalism. ***Delete*** as creator, who has no rationale for keeping it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for conceding. Yes, in a way this is vandalism, but no, we're not devoid of humour. How about speedy deleting it per WP:G7? --PanchoS (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I've removed the parent cats on that basis. This is a waste of everyone's time. And it's only because he's an experienced editor with no other track record of disruptive editing that I'm aware of, that I'm not applying a level one warning. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete serves no purpose other than the purpose it's currently serving. ;-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Children's charities based in England and 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. Both the proposed merge and the alternative split lead to the same result of straight deletion of this category, because  is the only content and this is already in Category:Children's charities based in the United Kingdom‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Children's charities based in England and Wales to Category:Children's charities based in the United Kingdom‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Superfluous and non-defining. The charities are either based in England or in Wales. Rathfelder (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)


 * should be merged with this category based on the legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. Tim! (talk) 11:09, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The legal jurisdiction of England and Wales is the root of the problem. All English and Welsh charities are registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales, but that does not imply that they are based in both England and Wales, nor that they operate in both, nor indeed that they don't operate in other countries. We use the UK as the main geographical focus in line with all the other organisational categories, and it makes no sense to replace it with a focus on England and Wales.Rathfelder (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Children's charities based in England and (if necessary, and create) Category:Children's charities based in Wales as appropriate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge/rearrange per nom/Necrothesp. The same should be done for other similar categories (e.g. Category:Charities based in England and Wales). DexDor(talk) 04:50, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the nom wants to merge to UK, while Necrothesp wants to split England from Wales. Personally, I think both proposals are reasonable. The single jurisdiction of England and Wales doesn't keep us from subdividing into the constituent "countries", as is done with most other categories. --PanchoS (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
 * In general we do split the United Kingdom into its constituent parts for most purposes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: More discussion is needed to differentiate between splitting these up and merging them to the UK.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 17:59, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Split per Necrothesp. Seems to make the most sense. MSJapan (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There is only one entry in this category - Category:Children's charities based in England. There are no articles about children's charities based in Wales as far as I can tell.Rathfelder (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Mental structures

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting mental structures


 * Nominator's rationale: Another May 2008 Stefanomione category that lumps together a variety of cognition and intelligence-related topics into something that, tellingly, has no main article. It survived a 2010 rename discussion as no consensus, but I think the best solution all along would have been deletion, on the basis on the arbitrary nature of topics tossed together. The category has three subcats: Category:Knowledge representation, which according to its main article Knowledge representation and reasoning is a term from computing and so is not "mental" at all; Category:Scientific theories; and the very flawed Category:Units of information (cognitive processes), nominated below. There simply isn't the basis for a coherent accessible category for our readers, at least until such time as someone creates Mental structure to explain what the heck this is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This seems like a completely random assortment until I read Mental structure. Oh, wait, that's a redlink. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not coherent enough. Pichpich (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Works based on the Holy Grail legend

 * 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. There's no consensus to delete. The arguments to merge weren't convincing to other editors, especially because certain works contain the object of the Holy Grail but aren't based on the Arthurian legend. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Works based on the Holy Grail legend to Category:Holy Grail in fiction
 * Nominator's rationale: After some thought and coffee, it seems to me that this is a reasonable solution to what to do with Stefanomone's other outlier category for Holy Grail-related works. I see that it was renamed minorly in Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_24. I think Foo in fiction is probably best because the Grail is an object and narrative device, whereas all the other categories in the 2012 Cfd were all for Works based on literary characters, i.e., protagonists. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename as proposed. The scope of the category will be clearer. Pichpich (talk) 17:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Works based on Arthurian legends. This is about the quest for the Holy Grail, and the personages involved in said quest. Not so much the object itself. If no consensus to merge, then Keep as a subcat of Category:Works based on Arthurian legends, since, as noted at Galahad, the Grail legend is a late addition to the Arthurian legendarium. - jc37 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * But surely there are a LOT of adaptations of Arthurian legend that don't involve the grail? The Sword in the Stone (novel) and many adaptations of it; anything with Merlin, Excalibur, etc. but not the grail. So I don't see how a straight-up merge would work. To take up your point about the quest, Quest for the Holy Grail has existed as a redirect since 2004. Maybe that could be a basis for a rename if we have to add a word or two to make the Works based on foo construction work? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. The Grail also appears in non-Arthurian fiction such as the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) and the novel The Silver Chalice (1952). One features the Holy Grail in the 20th century, the other features a fictional history of the Grail in the 1st century. Arthur and his cast of characters are not involved at all. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename' per nom - I don't think we could classify Monty Python and the Holy Grail as "Arthurian fiction" because it's clearly derivative, but it's pretty clearly got the Grail in it. There's probably a Dan Brown movie or three that references it too. MSJapan (talk) 07:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete putting a slew of films that have something to do with the holy grail together would be like putting together a Category:BMW cars in fiction with all the movies featuring BMWs together. Are there reliable sources that say that the holy grail defines these works (if so, remove other - apparently non-defining things), and one can always find sources for things like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is defined by Harrison Ford or Sean Connery, but we'd never categorize that film based on its defining actors. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Imperialism terminology

 * 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. I'll make sure that the contents are in  or an appropriate subcategory of it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting imperialism terminology


 * Nominator's rationale: In this one, Stefanomione has quite simply misunderstood how the structure Fooian terminology works. Category:Political terminology or subcats would be where any bona fide entries are found. Terminology used to describe colonialism or imperialism belongs in the field of study or ideology in which the terms are used -- not the "y" being addressed. (i.e., Category:Watergate scandal isn't "Republicanism terminology") Added to that, a great deal of the category such as Category:Former empires and Category:Overseas empires isn't terminology at all, simply subtopics. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. DexDor(talk) 16:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Language categories should include articles whose topic is language. It is assumed that Wikipedia articles use words. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:51, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Imperialism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 16 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Units of morphological analysis

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Units of morphological analysis to Category:Units of linguistic morphology
 * Nominator's rationale: Two categories created simultaneously by Stefanomione for linguistic morphology-related sub-units, but with no clear reason why some are split off into morphological analysis. I should point out that Morphology (linguistics) is the actual name of the main article, so if someone wants to rename, as well, fine with me. Again, I'm open to other or more broader solutions, too, but if no one has any yet we could just regard this as a sensible first step. Also, I would really welcome any expert input: I have a M.A. in English literature but I shied away from the more structural stuff. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, neither of the three articles is really about linguistic morphology. Alternatively we might upmerge to Category:Morphology however that parent category should perhaps not exist either, since Morphology is a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Certainly, deletion would be fine by me. Again, I just wanted to propose a most modest first step, since this is an area in which I have only a passing knowledge. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Amazingly, Category:Morphology, survived a CFD in 2014 - perhaps now (or maybe after this CFD completes) is a good time to have another go at that category. DexDor(talk) 20:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Dictionaries of sociology

 * 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 per nominator, without prejudice to PanchoS's suggestion of creating and populating . Creating a new category doesn't require explicit prior consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Dictionaries of sociology to Category:Sociology books and Category:Dictionaries
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one member in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge for Now With no objection to recreating if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * alt merge to (as nominated), and with the category nominated below  to . There's sufficient room for expansion, possibly already existing content that only needs to be categorized. --PanchoS (talk) 14:06, 13 June 2016 (UTC) further refined PanchoS (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral towards as I'm not sure how much room for expansion there really is. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from sociology, political science, economics, psychology and law are usually considered social sciences. The existing should of course be kept intact as a subcategory. There should be dozens (!) of dictionaries in this area sufficiently notable to have an article. --PanchoS (talk) 21:16, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Dictionaries of economics

 * 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 per nominator, without prejudice to PanchoS's suggestion of creating and populating . Creating a new category doesn't require explicit prior consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Dictionaries of economics to Category:Economics books and Category:Dictionaries
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one member. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge for Now With no objection to recreating if new content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * alt merge to (as nominated), and with the category nominated above  to . There's sufficient room for expansion, possibly already existing content that only needs to be categorized. --PanchoS (talk) 14:07, 13 June 2016 (UTC) further refined PanchoS (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Units of information (cognitive processes)

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting units of information (cognitive processes)


 * Nominator's rationale: Also created by Stefanomione back in 2008 I'm surprised no one has challenged this category before, if only on the basis of the daft name. Unsurprisingly, we do not have a main article Units of information (cognitive processes). The category as currently composed mixes abstract concepts (concepts, memes) with units of morphology, which is to say, the study of the smallest units of linguistic meaning. Seems to me to be another example of WP:ARBITRARYCAT, of his tossing together unrelated things so as to sketch out his sweeping vision of "this is how we think..." But of course, no one here has ever thought quite like Stefanomione, thank god. I'm very open to other solutions for this Cfd, short of deletion, certainly. I daresay there's a lot of other early work from him in the fields of linguistics and narratology in need of cleanup. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Linguistic units of information

 * 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. This is just a container category to hold two subcategories, and the WP:SMALLCAT arguments are strong based on how that guideline is typically applied. Upmerging still keeps the semantic units and narrative units split out from the larger category, so concerns that there are a meaningful difference between these two categories aren't very convincing; we don't lose anything by eliminating the container category, since the sub-categories will still exist. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 15:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Linguistic units of information to Category:Linguistic units
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge An unnecessary category level created by Stefanomione back in May 2008. Except perhaps for phonetics, which studies the physical sound characteristics of language, linguistics as a study of language is the study of the transmission of "information" in language, no? Moreover, the addition of Category:Narrative units here is in error, in that things like television episodes and film scenes are not linguistic units in the true sense of the word, but that can be cleaned up. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because of the nominator's flawed premise. See Colorless green ideas sleep furiously for an explanation of why linguistics distinguishes between syntax and semantics  ... and why information is not the only thing measured in linguistics. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not surprised if it's "flawed": as I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, this is not my area. I had been enrolled in a post-graduate course on this stuff (taught by New Yorker writer Adam Gopnick's dad) and couldn't drop it fast enough. But here's the thing: semantics is described expressly as "the study of meaning..." not information. The word "information" is never used in the main article in its linguistics section. So if this were to be kept, shouldn't it be Category:Linguistic units of meaning? Syntax, is "the set of rules, principles, and processes that govern the structure of sentences in a given language, specifically word order." Which seems to me to be no less information, which is described broadly and simply as "that which informs... that from which data and knowledge can be derived." So I rather think the oppose is based on a flawed premise, and a merge, no matter my semantical failings, is the way to go. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. Despite BHG's point immediately above, I still think that the division here is unnecessary and that everything in both categories can comfortably and most conveniently rest in Category:Linguistic units. And I think it's true that Category:Narrative units does not belong at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Works about the Holy Grail legend

 * 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 per nom. There is no consensus to delete. The arguments for renaming are based on WP:CATNAME, which suggests we categorize based on the article names. The oppose argument doesn't refute this application of CATNAME and it's not clear what argument he's making against renaming. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 15:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Works about the Holy Grail legend to Category:Works about the Holy Grail
 * Nominator's rationale: Created by Stefanomione in May 2016, the parent category is simply Category:Holy Grail and main article is Holy Grail. There is no article called the Holy Grail legend. As for the related category, Category:Works based on the Holy Grail legend, which include such things Monty Python's justly famous film, I have suggested an alternative name in a separate nomination, above. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename the extra 'legend' is not all that helpful so matching the main article seems like the way to go. Pichpich (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The article concerning the legend is at Holy Grail. While Category:Arthurian literature (and subcats) probably needs too be split in that it combines works "based on", with works "about", that is where this would be an appropriate subcat. - jc37 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Then my question remains: if the "article concerning the legend is at Holy Grail," why do you seem to be supporting the need to add the word "legend," as has been done here (if I understand you correctly) ? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete for the same reasons I stated in the other holy grail category above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom, remove "legend" to align with main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 18 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Flora and fauna of Rajasthan

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


 * The result of the discussion was: split. Given DexDor's comment that "it's not reasonable to request that the admin who closes the CFD do a split", I will leave it to DexDor and PanchoS to do the split. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Flora and fauna of Rajasthan to Category:Environment of Rajasthan
 * Propose merging Category:Flora and fauna of Madhya Pradesh to Category:Environment of Madhya Pradesh
 * Propose merging Category:Flora and fauna of Riverside County, California to Category:Natural history of Riverside County, California
 * Nominator's rationale: We don't generally have "Flora and fauna" categories so such categories (these are the only 3) don't fit the wider category structure and hence have been placed under one/both of fauna/flora cats (causing incorrect categorization). This layer of categorization is unnecessary. DexDor(talk) 10:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Rather alt split to  and ; alt split  to  and ; and alt rename/split/upmerge  to  and. --PanchoS (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree, merge. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree with the rationale, but oppose the disproportionately radical proposal that would damage established category structures more than the current situation does.
 * I've no objection to splitting to etc and that can be done before or after any removal of the flora&fauna level (although we are generally moving away from attempting to encode the distribution of species in categories).  The number of articles in these categories is not large and all I've checked are (where appropriate) already in at least one flora/fauna category. IMO, it's not reasonable to request that the admin who closes the CFD do a split.  The wording "disproportionately radical proposal that would damage established category structures" is a strange way to describe this nomination - the whole point is that Flora-and-fauna-of- is not an established category structure. DexDor(talk) 04:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Just a short answer: is an established scheme though and already had some per-state subdivisions, so a reasonable rename target would have been, but it didn't come to my mind either. I renamed it accordingly, but didn't remove the badge, so it may still be deleted. You're right in that my comment was a bit over the top, and I'm sorry about that. No hard feelings from my side… :) -PanchoS (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Charitable foundations based in the United States
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Charitable foundations based in the United States to Category:Foundations based in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: As far as I know all the foundations are charitable Rathfelder (talk) 09:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree (as the creator). While private foundations are not necessarily charitable, in the U.S. they are, according to Private foundation (United States). They aren't public charities though, so we might rather want to distinguish these cases. --PanchoS (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Malteser International
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 all parents. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Malteser International to Category:International charities and other parents
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge to all parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains an eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support. Rathfelder (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 and delete per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:1991 establishments in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to Category:History of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, Category:1991 establishments in Antarctica, and Category:1991 establishments in the British Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:History of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands by period
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands by century
 * Propose deleting Category:Centuries in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:20th-century establishments in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:1990s establishments in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:20th century in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:1990s in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:1991 in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:Years of the 20th century in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:Decades in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands by decade
 * Propose deleting Category:Millennia in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:2nd millennium in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:2nd-millennium establishments in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands by millennium
 * Propose deleting Category:Years in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands by year
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article in this whole tree. ~ RobTalk 05:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. How is it that we can support this ridiculous level of subcategorisation, which is part of an extensive tree structure, yet must make an exception for Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Réunion, because it is part of an extensive tree structure? I'm baffled at the inconsistency of the application of the logic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. And there are more countries like this. Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. --PanchoS (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.

Durrani Empire
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 alt merge proposal by PanchoS affects the categorisation of only 2 articles (Afghan National Army and Durrani dynasty), so I will leave it to Panchos and the nominator User:BU Rob13 to recategorise those articles as they see fit. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: merge and delete per nominator.


 * Propose merging Category:1747 establishments in the Durrani Empire to Category:1747 in the Durrani Empire and Category:1747 establishments in Asia
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Durrani Empire by year
 * Propose deleting Category:1740s establishments in the Durrani Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Durrani Empire by decade
 * Propose deleting Category:18th-century establishments in the Durrani Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Durrani Empire by century
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Durrani Empire
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only two articles in this establishments tree. ~ RobTalk 05:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Delete the rest per nom. Additionally merge to  and and merge to  and  --PanchoS (talk) 22:43, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.Rathfelder (talk) 09:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support This granular of a categorization structure doesn't aid navigation when there are so few articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt merge to, and


 * 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.

Carolingian Empire
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 and delete per PanchoS's alternative proposal, which is slightly restrained version of the nominator's plan.  There is not quite a consensus for the full plan set out by the nominator BU Rob13, but I think that Panchos's plan is the solution which will satisfy most of the concerns of most participants in this discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:800 establishments in the Carolingian Empire to Category:Establishments in the Carolingian Empire and Category:800 establishments in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:801 establishments in the Carolingian Empire to Category:Establishments in the Carolingian Empire, Category:801 establishments and Category:801 in Europe (no Europe establishments category)
 * Propose merging Category:804 establishments in the Carolingian Empire to Category:Establishments in the Carolingian Empire, Category:804 establishments and Category:804 in Europe (no Europe establishments category)
 * Propose merging Category:History of the Carolingian Empire to Category:Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:800 in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:801 establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:801 establishments
 * Propose deleting Category:801 in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:804 in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:800s in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:Decades in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:Years of the 9th century in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:Years in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:9th century in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:Centuries in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:History of the Carolingian Empire by period
 * Propose deleting Category:804 establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Carolingian Empire by year
 * Propose deleting Category:800s establishments in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:9th-century establishments in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Carolingian Empire by century
 * Propose deleting Category:1st-millennium establishments in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Carolingian Empire by millennium
 * Propose deleting Category:1st millennium in the Carolingian Empire
 * Propose deleting Category:Establishments in the Carolingian Empire by decade
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Five pages total here in the establishments categories, and there are no pages in the whole history tree, just the establishment categories. If we kept the History category, it would just provide an extra layer of categorization. ~ RobTalk 04:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Alt merge Category:801 establishments in the Carolingian Empire to Category:Establishments in the Carolingian Empire, and Category:801 establishments in Europe (create the latter) Alt merge Category:804 establishments in the Carolingian Empire to Category:Establishments in the Carolingian Empire, and Category:804 establishments in Europe (create the latter) Keep Delete the rest per nom. --PanchoS (talk) 22:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, from SMALLCAT: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". As for the "History" category, there are plenty of pages that can be added there. Fram (talk) 06:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * The SMALLCAT exception prevents small categories in an overall scheme to be randomly selected for deletion. In this case the whole scheme is under discussion, that's completely different. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Background info about the 'History' issue, this is related to this discussion about whether we need a history category at all for former empires. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * See User:BU Rob13/SMALLCAT is not a suicide pact. How does categorizing five articles within a total of 25 categories (many providing layers upon layers of sub-categorization with no actual pages) help our readers find articles? Also, there's precedence for this here. ~ RobTalk 06:54, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * "As for the "History" category, there are plenty of pages that can be added there." Indeed, everything in this entire tree could be placed under the history subcategory since this is a historical (non-current) topice.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. The point of categorisation is to help people find articles. Not to lead them down blind alleys.Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support While this category overhead is justified with topics that have a lot of articles, it just muddles navigation here. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - per Fram.GreyShark (dibra) 19:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. This is a bit much for such a small number of articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt merge Category:800 establishments in the Carolingian Empire to Category:Establishments in the Carolingian Empire, and Category:800 establishments in Europe


 * 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:Blue Ribbon Award (railway) winners
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Blue Ribbon Award (railway) winners
 * Propose Deleting Category:Laurel Prize winners
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * Every year, the Japan Rail Fan Club gives out these awards to two different models of trains that began to be manufactured in Japan the prior year. (By "models" I mean versions of full-size trains, not toy trains.) Japan does have several manufacturers, but not that many models come out each year and the awards don't seem defining to the articles. For comparison, we don't categorize individual car models under any of the Category:Motor vehicle awards. The winning trains are already listed here and here. -RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified DAJF as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Trains. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Winners are listed in the awards article. -- Green  C  02:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Rotary Foundation fellows
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Rotary Foundation fellows
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:OCASSOC
 * This category comingles recipients of different Rotary awards together. Emily Dolvin is an Emily Watt Fellow, Greg G. Guidry International Understanding Fellow, Omid Memarian is a Peace Fellow, Loretta Napoleoni is a Rotary Scholar, Mike Synar is an International Scholar and Paul Volcker is an Ambassadorial Fellow. By far the most common "award" is the Paul Harris Fellow which is automatically given to anybody who donates $1,000 to the Rotary Foundation. The articles generally mention some Rotary award in a list of other honors but it doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified  Richard David Ramsey as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Organizations. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.

Awards automatically issued to the Monarch of Kedah
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Contains only Abdul Halim of Kedah, the current monarch:


 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Order of Loyalty to Sultan 'Abdu'l Halim Mu'azzam Shah
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Glorious Order of the Crown of Kedah
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Exalted Order of the Crown of Kedah
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Halimi Family Order of Kedah
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Order of Loyalty to the Royal House of Kedah
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Supreme Order of Sri Mahawangsa


 * Contains only Mr. Halim and his father, Badlishah of Kedah, the former monarch:


 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Masters of the Kedah Supreme Order of Merit
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Masters of the State of Kedah Star of Gallantry
 * Propose Deleting Category:Grand Masters of the State of Kedah Star of Valour


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC generally, WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * Abdul Halim of Kedah is the the inherited religious leader of a state within the country Malaysia, which automatically entitles him to a number of "Grand Master" titles and medals. Here is a picture of him wearing all his official medals. Mr. Halim is known for being the monarch of Kedah, which is why he is already in Category:Monarchs of Kedah. A few categories also contain his father, but here again they're not defining and growth potential is limited. To see what a mess this creates, take a look at the bottom of the article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: The notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Malaysia. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Background We deleted a similar automatic "Grand Master" category that is automatically given to the Dutch monarch here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. OverCat at the highest levels. --  Green  C  02:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Promotional categorisation.Rathfelder (talk) 09:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.