Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 8



Category:Old World warbler stubs

 * 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 as nominated; any individual article may be placed in an appropriate subcat. if one exists. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting old world warbler stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: According to the main article (Old World warbler), this categorization is based on an abandoned taxonomic structure. Recommend deleting this category and merging the template with Sylvioidea-stub.  Individual articles may be moved to appropriate categories that match current taxonomic allocations. Dawynn (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2017 (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:Ember

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:The City of Ember. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:59, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ember to Category:Ember (book series)
 * Nominator's rationale: This category is not for Ember (a glowing, hot coal) but for a book series based on the novel The City of Ember. Renaming to match the head article (i.e. Category:The City of Ember) would be another option. Tassedethe (talk) 19:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename somehow. Either option might do.  Ember has too many meanings.  It also refers to an effluent of the river Mole in Surrey and an important 18th century copper and iron processing mill in it.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename anyhow, with a slight preference for Category:The City of Ember since there is also a film in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:22, 21 April 2017 (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:People from Marlborough Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania

 * 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 (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Marlborough Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:27, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. I wish we had a speedy criterion for these ppl-from-small-place categs. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 8 April 2017 (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:Category:Skyscrapers in Montana

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting skyscrapers in montana


 * Nominator's rationale: There are no skyscrapers in Montana. Wikipedia's Skyscraper article describes skyscrapers as "at least 40–50 floors". The tallest building in Montana has 22 floors. Dlabtot (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose as nominated. This categ has two subcats, and if @Dlabtot's rationale is correct in its assessment, then it applies equally to them. If all three categs are nominated together, then we can have a meaningful discussion ... this proposal would just orphan the two subcats. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought it was obvious that I was proposing deletion of the subcategories as well. The point is, there are no skyscrapers in Montana, therefore Wikipedia shouldn't say that there are. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Dlabtot: if you want to nominate a category, you need to tag it and list it. The subcats are not tagged and not listed, so they are not nominated. Instructions at WP:CFD. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Pinging User:Hmains, who does a lot of categorisation of skyscrapers: it would be good to have your input on this discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that there has been some depopulation of this category and its subcats by the nominator Dlabtot:, . I have reverted those edits pending the outcome of this discussion.
 * I'm very sorry that I wasted my time nominating this category for deletion. The focus here is apparently on process rather than on improving the encyclopedia. It seems to me pretty obvious that an eight story building like the Wilma Theatre should not be categorised as a skyscraper. Dlabtot (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * @Dlabtot: Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. There's not much point in launching a consensus-forming discussion if you have already implemented your desired outcome. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * please stop mentioning my name in your comments; I'd prefer not to receive alerts about a conversation that I'm sorry I started and to which I have nothing constructive to add. Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep. The nominator's using an unreasonably restrictive definition of "skyscraper".  The whole significance of the Ingalls Building (sixteen storeys) is that it's the world's first reinforced concrete skyscraper, the Wainwright Building (ten storeys) is important because it's one of the world's oldest extant skyscrapers, and the Home Insurance Building (ten storeys when built, later expanded to twelve) is famous because it was Chicago's first skyscraper.  Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * keep per well discussed reasons by Nyttend. The Skyscraper is, per WP policy, not a reliable source. Hmains (talk) 02:20, 11 April 2017 (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:2100 in science

 * 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 considered a merge to Category:21st century in science, which contains decade categories and the nominated category for the final year, but the contents are already in another subcat Category:21st-century solar eclipses. I won't create Category:2100s in science because Category:22nd century in science does not currently have decade sub-cats; Category:2090s in science is currently the last. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 2100 in science


 * Nominator's rationale: We don't need that much precision this far ahead. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't care. There's also Category:2099 in science and backwards. It's mainly astronomical events that can be accurately predicted ahead like this. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * So how far ahead do we sustain by-year categorsiation? Year 3100? 9100?
 * We can gave articles on these topics without having a whole nest of by-year categories underneath them. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete regardless of whether WP:OTHERSTUFF currently exists, this is just WP:TOOSOON when the year isn't even going to arrive for over 8 decades, and few (if any) predictions can be viably made about scientific achievements for that time period so far in advance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * This is probably the wrong forum to discuss this issue. Many articles about future astronomical events have been created, apparently, and while it is perhaps reasonable to nominate these articles for deletion as "too soon", for now it is a fact that these articles exist and need to be categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Sure, Marcocapelle, they do need to be categorised. But when it gets that far ahead, and the events are relatvley sparse, they'd be better categorised by century rather than by year. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Or maybe by decade, given the amount of articles produced. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:2100s in science provided this is a sample nom. This needs to be done with all such categories for 2030 and beyond.  In any other context I might have cited CRYSTAL as a reason for deletion, but we do have a significant number of articles on predicted eclipses.  In the 2020s, there are also certain articles on space flight, presumably on when probes (already launched) are expected to reach planets they are targeted on.  We can expect no more content for these categories for many years, so that they will remain small categories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree with Peterkingiron on the sample aspect, this requires follow-up. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 16 April 2017 (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:Seasons in Irish ice hockey

 * 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 and merge as nominated (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting
 * seasons in irish ice hockey


 * Propose merging
 * Category:2005–06 in Irish ice hockey to Category:2006 in Irish sport and Category:Ice hockey in Ireland
 * Category:2012–13 in Irish ice hockey to Category:2013 in Irish sport and Category:Ice hockey in Ireland
 * Nominator's rationale: Pointless set of categories. Very little ice hockey is played in Ireland, and the only content in these categories would be the articles on international championships, such as the two articles already categorised: 2006 IIHF World Championship Division III 2013 IIHF World Championship Division III. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge as appropriate. Ireland men's national ice hockey team makes it clear that the sport is struggling in Ireland.  It is not clear that this is a professional sport, so that season categories are inappropriate.  This appears to be a sport operating on an all-Ireland basis, so that RoI and NI splits would also be inappropriate.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2017 (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:Television series by Disney Television Animation

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by Disney Television Animation to Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television
 * Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV, The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Disney Television Animation and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney; also, your reasoning does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21; for the same reasons that was a bad idea then, this is a bad idea now. Barnstar to Trivialist for beating me to the inevitable sockcheck request. Bearcat (talk) 07:21, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:13, 9 April 2017 (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:Television series by It's a Laugh Productions

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by It's a Laugh Productions to Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television
 * Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV, The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: It's a Laugh Productions and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney; also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21; for the same reasons that was a bad idea then, this is a bad idea now. Barnstar to Trivialist for beating me to the inevitable sockcheck request. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2017 (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:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television to Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television
 * Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV, The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Disney–ABC Domestic Television and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney; also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21; for the same reasons that was a bad idea then, this is a bad idea now. Barnstar to Trivialist for beating me to the inevitable sockcheck request. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 9 April 2017 (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:Television series by Lucasfilm
<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: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by Lucasfilm to Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television
 * Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV, The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Lucasfilm and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney, and Lucasfilm has a separate history predating its acquisition by Disney. Also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21; for the same reasons that was a bad idea then, this is a bad idea now. Barnstar to Trivialist for beating me to the inevitable sockcheck request. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2017 (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:Television series by Saban Entertainment
<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: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by Saban Entertainment to Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television
 * Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV, The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series.ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Saban and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney, and Saban has a separate history predating its acquisition by Disney. Also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21; for the same reasons that was a bad idea then, this is a bad idea now. Barnstar to Trivialist for beating me to the inevitable sockcheck request. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Also, Disney no longer owns several of Saban's properties. Dimadick (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2017 (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:Television series by ABC Signature Studios
<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: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by ABC Signature Studios to Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television
 * Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV, The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: ABC Signature Studios and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney; also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21; for the same reasons that was a bad idea then, this is a bad idea now. Barnstar to Trivialist for beating me to the inevitable sockcheck request. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2017 (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:Television series by ABC Studios
<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: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by ABC Studios to Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television
 * Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV, The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: ABC Studios and Buena Vista Television are separate divisions of Disney; also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC) [
 * Oppose per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21; for the same reasons that was a bad idea then, this is a bad idea now. Barnstar to Trivialist for beating me to the inevitable sockcheck request. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose These are separate divisions of the same company. Dimadick (talk) 09:16, 9 April 2017 (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:Television series by Disney
<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: keep (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Television series by Disney to Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television
 * Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV, The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose: As Buena Vista Television is one of many divisions of Disney, Category:Television series by Buena Vista Television properly belongs as a subcategory of Category:Television series by Disney. Also, your rationale for merging does not make sense. Trivialist (talk) 13:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_21; for the same reasons that was a bad idea then, this is a bad idea now. Barnstar to Trivialist for beating me to the inevitable sockcheck request. Bearcat (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose Disney is the parent category and should not be merged with one of its subdivisions. Dimadick (talk) 09:17, 9 April 2017 (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:Financial history of the Dutch East India Company
<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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting financial history of the dutch east india company


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, random collection of finance terms, has nothing to do with the Dutch East India Company apart from the fact that the company was the first to issue stock. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Most of the articles are unrelated to the category. Anything relevant could or should be in Category:Dutch East India Company. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:32, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Peterkingiron. There are currently 5 articles in this categ, but the only one where the Dutch East India Company is a WP:DEFINING attribute is Isaac Le Maire, who is already adequately categorised in Category:People associated with the Dutch East India Company. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I said "most". I agree Isaac Le Maire is related to the company, but the rest of it is about stock market issues generally, not about the company specifically.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Strong Delete. The recent creator of Category:Financial history of the Dutch East India Company (and the equally problematic Category:Financial history of the Dutch Republic) keeps stuffing them into articles with little or no apparent connection, in a vain attempt to disprove the redundancy with Category:Dutch East India Company and a forest of related categories, as though every feature of the modern stock market should automatically be credited to 17th-century Dutch Tulip traders. The user's probable sock account did the same thing before recently being blocked. I try to delete the unsourced article categorizations periodically, but it would be better if the spam categories themselves were deleted, once and for all. —Patrug (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I've noticed the problem as well and removed a couple of articles from Category:Financial history of the Dutch Republic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 26 April 2017 (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:Lithuanian national athletics champions
<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: WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting lithuanian national athletics champions


 * Nominator's rationale: Being national champion is not a defining characteristic for an athlete, since for most countries in the world (including Lithuania), virtually every notable athlete will also be a natonal champion.. Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Nomination sounds reasonable. If deleted, a nomination of Category:German national athletics champions should follow. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:24, 21 April 2017 (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:Christian religion-related songwriters
<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: rename. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Christian religion-related songwriters to Category:Christian music songwriters
 * Nominator's rationale: This is awkwardly named and there is a scheme using the phrase "Christian music" (including one of the parent cats.) ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. I was expecting there to be a misguided distinction here between "Christian music songwriters" and "songwriters who happen to be Christian in their personal lives but don't make Christian music per se" — but on actually examining the category I see no identifiable evidence of that, and even if I did it wouldn't be a good basis for a category anyway. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Just wondering if Category:Christian music songwriters could be a bit ambiguous, someone might perhaps read it as "music songwriters who are Christian". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * I think "Christian songwriters" would be more prone to that — it's precisely why the clarifier "music" is present in the middle, to clarify the distinction between Christian as a genre of music and Christian as a property of the songwriter, when we actually don't do the same for e.g. or . (We do for, but that's because "Country songwriters" could potentially get confuzzled with .) "Music" would be redundant if it were there to modify "songwriters" rather than "Christian". Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Definitely agree that "Christian songwriters" would be more prone to that, I was rather thinking along the line of Category:Writers of Christian music songs or Category:Songwriters of Christian music, in order to have "writers" before "of Christian". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2017 (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:Recipients of the Military Merit Cross (Mecklenburg-Schwerin), 2nd class
<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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting recipients of the military merit cross (mecklenburg-schwerin), 2nd class


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, 2nd-tier decoration. None of the subjects are known for having received this award. Created by a user who seems to have started multitudes of such categories. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:OCAWARD, I see no reason to deviate here from this guideline. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 20 April 2017 (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.