Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 8



Category:Fictional future people

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Time travelers. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:15, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Fictional future people to Category:Fictional characters from the future
 * Nominator's rationale: Future people is not a descriptive statement. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 02:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Question: Does this mean "characters in works of fiction based in the future" or "fictional time travelers"? If it's the second, I support renaming but suggest it should be called Category:Fictional time travelers or similar. If it's the first, I'd lean towards deletion. That category would be enormous and ill-defined. Kevinsam2 (talk) 12:33, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Edit: Category:Time travelers already exists, suggest merging there. Kevinsam2 (talk) 13:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete, all articles of this category are in Category:Time travelers already. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Time travelers per Kevinsam2. This seems to be what the category is being used for. There are several characters in stories set in the future, but I don't see any of them included.Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Time travelers per Kevinsam2. With the nom's title, I would expect to see Captain Kirk, etc. but that's not what is here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2018 (UTC)
 * But isn't Captain Kirk a time traveller as well?John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 21:38, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment my delete vote earlier on should be interpreted as supporting merge as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 10 February 2019 (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:Paranormal genres

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Fiction about the paranormal. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 10 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting paranormal genres


 * Nominator's rationale: Basically an empty category with just a subcat in it. JDDJS  ( talk to me  •  see what I've done ) 02:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Question, why not merge this category to Category:Paranormal? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Let's put if differently: merge to Category:Paranormal unless a good reason is specified why this merge is undesirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete. Agree with the nominator's reasoning A really paranoid android (talk) 16:25, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Fiction about the paranormal (this is more specific than the parent Category:Paranormal). Note, for the record: the nominated category currently contains only Category:Paranormal romance. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree, this is a better merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 10 March 2019 (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:Inuit from the Northwest Territories

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:25, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting inuit from the northwest territories


 * Propose deleting inuit from nunavut


 * Nominator's rationale: Two categories that aren't really distinguishing their entries into distinct groups, but instead are mostly overlapping with each other. The problem is that Nunavut has only existed as a geopolitical entity since 1999, and was part of the Northwest Territories prior to that -- which means that any Inuit person from Nunavut who is older than 19 years of age was born in the Northwest Territories, and has to be filed in both categories simultaneously. Of the 147 articles in the Nunavut category, fully 139 of them are indeed double-filed in both categories -- and of the just eight articles that aren't double-filed, two should be, while the other six are all just hanging on unresolved questions of timing: either their article lacks a reliably sourced birthdate at all, or they were born outside of either territory and the article just fails to specify whether their move to Nunavut happened before or after 1999. And while the NT category has a larger number of people who aren't doubled up, they're still only a quarter of its entries in the first place -- and even then, many of them are also people who were from towns that are now in Nunavut, and would also have been double-filed if not for the fact that they died before 1999. So if 70 per cent of all the entries are double-filed in both categories as it is, and a large chunk of the other 30 per cent are also fuzzy edge cases where double-filing them in both categories could be debated, then that's just not a recipe for a genuinely defining or useful distinction. Entries should certainly be returned to, but there's no value in retaining these as category redirects. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Question shouldn't the categories be merged to Category:Inuit in Canada? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That category isn't for individual people; it's for broad concept articles about Inuit institutions, like the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut and Taqramiut Nipingat. The category you're looking for is, not "Inuit in Canada". Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Inuit in Canada per Marcocapelle. The nominator @Bearcat offers no grounds for entirely removing these articles from Inuit categories. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 10:39, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Nothing prevents any of the articles from being readded to — but a merge proposal or close here would automatically force the retention of these as category-redirects to the target, and I don't see a compelling reason why that would be necessary at all. No matter where a category's entries may need to be readded to, I will only ever propose a merge over a delete if there's a credible reason why the nominated category needs to be maintained as a redirect. The difference between a "merge" or "delete" discussion does not hinge on what other categories the entries might need to be readded to afterward, because that can still be done even if these categories are deleted — the difference between a merge or a delete hinges strictly on whether or not it's necessary to retain the nominated categories as redirects to the other category after closure or not (e.g. in the case of a common spelling error or ENGVAR issue that's likely to be repeated again in the future). Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * As far as I know merging is unrelated to keeping redirects. The latter is up to the closing admin's discretion. Merging simply means adding the articles of the nominated category to the target(s). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with @Marcocapelle. Redirects are a wholly separate issue.
 * The decision to merge hinges on whether the category being removed captures one or more attributes by which the articles should be categorised, but by which they will cease to be categorised as a result of the deletion. If he answer to that is yes, then merge.
 * However, I have re-examined these categories, and am changing my !vote to keep both. We have Category:People from Nunavut and Category:People from the Northwest Territories, both of which raise the same issues as the nominator raises here. If we can cope with the provincial reorganisation in categories for non-Inuit people, we can also handle it for Inuit. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That makes sense, unless we merge Inuit people of all Canadian subdivisions (including Newfoundland and Quebec). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * The general "People from" categories for the Northwest Territories and Nunavut aren't crossreferencing each other that way, though. They're being used in a much straighter one-or-the-other sense, based on which territory the place they are or were from is in now, and aren't doubling each other on the basis of whether the person was born before 1999 or not — so no, they're not creating the same issue that these are. Bearcat (talk) 00:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep There's a problem, sure, but I don't think it's an issue with the categories as much as it is an issue with how the articles are categorised. I'm convinced we can make many of these one-or-the-other if other categories do it that way, for instance David Iqaqrialu. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:46, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep -- I feel sure there must be a WP precedent for what we do when a territory is divided with one child retaining the name of the parent. My thought is that we should split Northwest Territories so that those from what is now Nunavut should be removed from the NWT category, certainly if still alive in 1997.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2019 (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:Critter of the Week

 * 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 21:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting critter of the week


 * Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category that's serving as an intersection of multiple overcategorization errors. Other than the eponym itself, the only other articles filed here are the program's host, the guest he interviews, and a scientist who gave a presentation about it at a conference but isn't directly associated with it himself. This is not a solid basis for a category -- it's performer by performance for Jesse Mulligan and Nicola Toki, and it's a non-defining indirect association for Mike Dickison. The only other thing that was in the category was an internal Wikiproject task list, but I've already removed it as those are not supposed to be filed in articlespace categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I could debate some of the the assertions made here, but, ho hum... - if it goes, in time the collection of items relating to critter of the week will be organised in some way or other. The actual processes related to the general organisation of the information or articles relating to the radio program and the actual range of critters are of very low interest to the participants in the first place. JarrahTree 23:07, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose Although it's an eponymous category, it's about a radio program, not a person. The program has been going for quite a long time on NZ's national broadcaster, and no doubt a lot of critters with a wiki article have been featured on it.  Those wiki articles should be added to the category. Bahnfrend (talk) 01:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "Animals that have been featured on a radio program" wouldn't get added to the category either. Categories have to represent defining characteristics of their contents, not just random factoids — but the critters are not defined by having been profiled on the program. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:PERFCAT and WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I've come late to this discussion. I can see why JarrahTree set up the category, and I agree that as currently formulated it doesn't really stand. One thing we would like to do is set up a list of species that have featured on Critter of the Week, but doing this as a category perhaps isn't the way to go. "Featured on radio program X" doesn't work, or else every celebrity would have a gigantic list of shows they've appeared on cluttering up their categories. Maybe the best way to do this is in Wikidata. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Although a very different show, the list articles in Category:The Simpsons lists might be good to review. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. No objection to a list article. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 21:30, 8 February 2019 (UTC) *Delete Two of 3 articles make passing reference and Nicola Toki makes no mention. Not defining in practice. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete -- This is about a NZ radio programme. The main article and the presenter might belong here, but the other two articles do not even mention the programme.  Their inclusion probably fails WP:PERF.  This leaves too little content for a category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a second vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oops, haha! RevelationDirect (talk) 21:44, 10 February 2019 (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:Indian radio programs

 * 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.  please nominate the necessary television siblings, see below (but not the others – see the contents.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Indian radio programs to Category:Indian radio programmes
 * Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. I'm not an expert on whether "programs" or "programmes" is more normative in Indian English, so I have no personal opinion either way -- but in the past couple of weeks, inexperienced editors have been trying to create "programmes" as a second category that was added to articles alongside "programs". We obviously don't need to maintain two separate categories for the same class of topic which differ only in their spelling, but the category can obviously be renamed if there's a valid WP:ENGVAR reason why the "programmes" spelling should be preferred. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 13 December 2018 (UTC)


 * I left a notice at the talk page of WikiProject India. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Likewise not an expert in Indian English, but I would think they would follow British English usage. To my surprise, a  search for programmes and for programs finds the latter to be more common by a factor of two. I wondered if this might be due to following AE usage for "computer programs" or for Indian websites mirroring U.S. content, so did a more limited search for "program[me]s of study" which brought up lots of Indian university sites; this pair shows the BE spelling to be twice as common. Whatever the result here, consistency should probably apply to these as well:
 * Category:Indian television programs based on films
 * Category:Urdu-language television programs
 * Category:Indian educational programs
 * Category:Indian Antarctic Program
 * Category:Indian music chart television programs
 * Category:Indian military aircraft procurement programs
 * Category:Television programs based on Indian novels (done)
 * Category:Tamil-language television programs (Kannada, Hindi, Punjabi, Telugu, Bengali, Marathi, Malayalam)
 * Mathglot (talk) 09:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943  (talk) 21:28, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Johnbod (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2019 (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:Nepali Musicians

 * 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 merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:51, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting nepali musicians


 * Nominator's rationale: Category:Nepalese musicians is already there. ~Ruyaba~   {talk}  15:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. SportingFlyer  T · C  23:47, 8 February 2019 (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:POV (TV series) films

 * 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: relisted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 19. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting pov (tv series) films


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING category. Consists of independent films that later showed as part of this stream.  They were not produced for the stream. -- wooden  superman  09:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - Satisfies WP:NONDEFINING because it is common practice to note what networks (and in this case, which documentary series of a network) which the film premiered - both in the home country and internationally. -- Netoholic @ 09:44, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No it isn't common practice at all. We never do that.  Star Trek: Discovery airs on Netflix worldwide, but it is a CBS show and only categorised as such.  Only films that are specifically produced by/for a network (or "stream" in this case) would satisfy WP:NONDEFINING.  -- wooden  superman 
 * You're pulling a debatable example out exactly because its a streaming series. Downton Abbey is categorized in both Category:ITV television dramas and Category:PBS network shows. This isn't controversial or unusual in the least, especially with PBS programs which pull from both sides of the pond. -- Netoholic @  10:03, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * PBS were instrumental in the production of Downton Abbey, so that is defining. If they weren't then it shouldn't be categorised as a PBS show.  -- wooden  superman  10:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that until you removed it just recently, one of our most popular and highly-edited articles Doctor Who has been categorized in Category:PBS network shows since 2007. -- Netoholic @ 19:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * See WP:TVCATS: "TV series should avoid network categories when they were not originally produced for that network. Exceptions to this include co-productions (such as The 4400), or when a show changes networks during its original run."  -- wooden  superman  11:17, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * We do not find it controversial to put an article for a documentary in a category for an award it was selected for. We also do the same for any film festivals it is selected for. So why would we not categorize it for a TV series it was selected for? These are all defining characteristics of a film. -- Netoholic @ 21:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - If every programme shown in a secondary market was categorised as such, said categories would swamp their respective pages. This is especially the case where documentaries shown as part of one series in their home country are shown in different series in other countries. We can take the example of Dear America: Letters Home from Vietnam. When first shown in the UK, it was in BBC2's Arena series, which at the time was mainly composed of in-house BBC productions. It would be entirely inappropriate to categorise Dear America as a BBC programme, simply because they bought it and screening in within one of their own series. The same applies to documentaries shown in POV in the United States. Nick Cooper (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Nick Cooper (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. (diff)


 * A show/film should only be included in a network or channel category if that was where it premiered. Second screening, syndication or any other type of secondary screening, should not have that item included in a category. That said, this seems like a different scenario, in that this is a TV series that each film consists of an "episode" of that series. --Gonnym (talk) 09:24, 16 February 2019 (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:Modern street gangs

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Modern street gangs to Category:Street gangs
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, it is not clear what "modern" means here and how Category:Street gangs and Category:Modern street gangs are distinct from each other. Both contain a lot of street gangs that were established in the 20th or 21st century and still exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom "Modern" is modern history (16th-21st centuries). Do we even have information on 15th century street gangs? Dimadick (talk) 14:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge -- I suspect this (unless accidental) is an attempt to create a current/last distinction which generally WP does not allow.  I note that neither has a headnote or main article, so that the distinction between them is not clear.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge What is modern, pre-modern, and post-modern is subjective. (I have broader concerns about whether we can determine whether a gang is *street* or not but we can discuss that later.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment verging on alternate proposal: We could consider renaming to  and purging any that don't deserve that designation. OR alternatively, we could create Category:Street gangs by century, as part of Category:Categories by century. Anomalous+0 (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Contemporary history is history since 1945. Nearly all street gangs in both categories are contemporary in that respect. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Illegal enterprises are often hard to date. A gang might get reconstituted (is it "new" but using the same name, a continuation using some original members.) and as gangs become more successful they tend to move off the street and take on a lower profile and be more able to avoid police interference. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:48, 10 February 2019 (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:Escorts by nationality
<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.

delete Category:Escorts by nationality and Category:American escorts. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Canadian escorts to Category:Escorts;


 * Propose deleting escorts by nationality


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Also delete two empty subcats and . — JFG talk 07:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - the nominator has emptied the subcats; see eg this. Not clear why 'upmerge to ' was not preferable. Oculi (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge all to Category:Escorts. Nominator has not provided a reason why the article should be withdrawn from the Category:Escorts hierarchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete The distinction between escort and prostitute is subtle and contentious at times. For most countries, "escorts" are simply put in the prostitutes category of that country. Even in the US and Canada, there are more "escorts" in and  than  and . These categories are virtually unused and unnecessary. Keeping these categories and attempting to populate them fully is likely to cause disagreement as to whether individuals are escorts or prostitutes based on editor's interpretations of the differences between the two. --John B123 (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OP comment – The two subcats were mostly empty. I moved the lone Canadian escort, Nelly Arcan, to . I don't mind if she's moved to instead. On the American side, there were two persons: Jillian Lauren was already listed in, and Venus Lux was already in so many categories that this one looked superfluous; I moved her to prostitutes instead, although I'm unsure if she can be called that (she's essentially a porn actress and director). In any case, the categorization of escorts by nationality is unnecessary unless we add a lot more people to the subcats. I have now placed CFD notices in the subcats, per 's request. — JFG talk 12:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment These two categories were tagged for speedy deletion as empty categories but I guess a CfD takes precedence. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 01:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to step into all of this, but is there a real distinction between escorts and prostitutes that makes this a hard decision? Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 02:08, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair question, but better be discussed in a fresh nomination of Category:Escorts. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 9 March 2019 (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.

Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association
<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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association volleyball seasons to Category:Eastern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association seasons
 * to
 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant to include the phrase "volleyball seasons" when the conference explicitly includes "Volleyball" in its name, and has sponsored only men's volleyball throughout its history. Parallels current discussion relating to Midwestern Intercollegiate Volleyball Association categories here. Note that the category for the 2018 EIVA season ends in just "seasons" instead of "volleyball seasons". — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment the sibling categories in Category:College volleyball conference seasons also have 'volleyball seasons' in their name, so I guess it has been added here for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Response to comment: Exactly... but no change is needed for any categories other than those relating to the EIVA and MIVA, as no other conference with a season category includes "Volleyball" as part of the conference name. — Dale Arnett (talk) 08:11, 17 February 2019 (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.