Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 12



Category:Jurists from Dedham, Massachusetts

 * 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  18:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting jurists from dedham, massachusetts


 * Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:Lawyers from Dedham, Massachusetts, which is already in Category:Massachusetts lawyers, Rathfelder (talk) 21:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Another editor has actually removed the one category but, regardless, there is no viable category here. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:24, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, categories with no articles and one subcategory are seldom helpful for easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:24, 20 May 2020 (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:A Song of Ice and Fire location redirects

 * 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: reverse merge. MER-C 14:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:A Song of Ice and Fire location redirects to Category:Game of Thrones location redirects
 * Nominator's rationale: Basically the same topic. does also unify the film and the book. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I'm wondering why you aren't suggesting the reverse; A Song of Ice and Fire represents the source material and franchise, Game of Thrones is just one aspect. Also, as far as I can tell the five entries in Category:Game of Thrones location redirects are not TV series-specific.— TAnthonyTalk 14:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  21:48, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge Category:Game of Thrones location redirects to Category:A Song of Ice and Fire location redirects. A Song of Ice and Fire is the source series, while Game of Thrones is a mere adaptation. Dimadick (talk) 15:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reverse merge per Dimadick and my previous comment.— TAnthonyTalk 19:47, 13 May 2020 (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:Buntings (bird)
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 21%23Category:Buntings (bird)

Category:Wikipedians who opt out of BracketBot messages

 * 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  18:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who opt out of bracketbot messages


 * Nominator's rationale: has not edited since July 2016, and its approval expired in 2019, rendering this category useless. See also Templates for discussion/Log/2020 May 12 * Pppery * it has begun...  20:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Sigh. Delete, I guess, technically. BracketBot, and its cousin, ReferenceBot, were very useful. How do we find someone to replicate their functions? – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and good riddance to BracketBot. It wasn't useful at all. I found it an annoyance as its operator refused to extend the timeframe before it posted. Which is why I had to block it from editing my talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:22, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete, since BracketBot is no longer active. Life is change.  Mini  apolis  23:59, 14 May 2020 (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:Athlete ACL tears

 * 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  18:40, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting athlete acl tears


 * Nominator's rationale: Any specific injury occurring to an athlete is non-defining in that it does not contribute in any way or form to their notability and is not something that would generally be appropriate for an introduction. User:Namiba 19:54, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

If for some reason this category is kept, please remove the verbose category header and the bulky photo, and esp the WP:OWNerish comment I am open to any athletes suggestion and comments, You can contact me at my talk page. A simple links to he head article will suffice. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per WP:NONDEFINING.
 * I apologize as I'm fairly new to Wikipedia since I joined in January of 2020 but hear me out, They share the characteristics of one being an Athlete and two they have the trait of sustaining this injury. You keep referring to WP:NONDEFINING so I looked into it and I quote "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject."  Athlete is the adjective and tears is the noun. I believe we should keep this category as it also has potential growth over time. It contribute to their notability as an ACL tear is a potentially career ending injury. and I removed my apparent ownership comment of the page which User:BrownHairedGirl perceived incorrectly. I put that there as a way to converse with other users on new entries.    8:42, 12 May 2020 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk • contribs)
 * Delete per nom, without objection to listifying the category content as a section in Anterior cruciate ligament injury. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete non-defining category. The category's creator seems to interpret the WP:NONDEFINING policy incorrectly. For example, the Category:Deceased basketball players, which was deleted not long ago. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:08, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete NONDEF similar to Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_November_29. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the point of prolonging this discussion if everyone agrees that this should be deleted? Just speedy delete it. Just making additionally difficult for no purpose. I'm getting tired of this. SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 15:34, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep Seems to me an ACL injury can be definitely defining for an athlete's career. I'm currently working on expanding AFLW players' pages and many have quite a few media articles about how they were drafted despite having torn their ACL once/twice/3 times, and then had another few articles if they tore it again. BTW someone mentioned a "deceased basketball players" category, which begs the question why do we have a living people category? --SuperJew (talk) 23:30, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Even if it was a defining characteristic of the person's career that wouldn't mean it's necessarily a defining characteristic of the person. Re living people - see the linked discussion. DexDor(talk) 05:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I would move the category to the name "Athlete anterior cruciate ligament tears" to match the page anterior cruciate ligament, or even better to "Athletes who suffered anterior cruciate ligament injuries" (or along that line) --SuperJew (talk) 23:32, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Doesn't meet WP:NONDEFINING, as having a a particular injury is not a defining characteristic. Mattythewhite (talk) 23:56, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Definitely not defining. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Kante4 (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. DexDor(talk) 05:46, 19 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. I can hardly wait for the Athletes with Hemorrhoids category....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay now that's just vulgar...SomeBodyAnyBody05 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2020 (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:Freie Universität Berlin alumni

 * 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: redirect.  bibliomaniac  1  5  03:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting freie universität berlin alumni


 * Nominator's rationale: Kindly help delete this category. I had started it without knowing Category:Free University of Berlin alumni was in existence. Danidamiobi (talk) 18:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete per WP:G7; nothing to merge as the only member of the category is already in the category with the right name. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 19:08, 12 May 2020 (UTC) Keep, per BrownHairedGirl below (that makes more sense). YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 21:16, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep, but make it a Category redirect to assist other editors who may not know the precise name of the category. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we have a policy about naming universities and schools in the local language or in translation? I've had similar problems, especially when the name of the institution has been translated differently by different editors. I'm inclined to think that the name in the local language is better. Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Convert to Cat-redirect: it is a plausible search term. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2020 (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:Venezuelan people of World War I
<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. There does not appear to be a major consensus to delete per nom.  bibliomaniac  1  5  18:51, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting venezuelan people of world war i


 * Nominator's rationale: One article, about a man who joined the Ottoman army. Rathfelder (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established series, viz Category:People of World War I by nationality. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting spanish people of world war i


 * Nominator's rationale: Spain was neutral. The one article is about a musician who died when the ship he was in was torpedoed. Rathfelder (talk) 17:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established series, viz Category:People of World War I by nationality. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting swiss people of world war i


 * Nominator's rationale: Switzerland was not involved in World War I. Rathfelder (talk) 17:47, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Its not clear that Josué Jéhouda had even been to Switzerland before the war. Ulrich Wille's job was to keep Switzerland out of the war. Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established series, viz Category:People of World War I by nationality. Yes Switzerland was not a belligerent party in WWI … but this is not Category:Switzerland in World War I. This is a category for people who were involved in WWI, and it categorises them accurately. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But none of these people were involved in WW1 as citizens/inhabitants of these countries. It's not defining.  You could happily argue that all the people of Switzerland were involved in the war because it disrupted their lives in various ways. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Rathfelder are you really trying to argue that:
 * It is not a defining attribute of Enrique Granados that a citizen of neutral Spain, he was nonetheless killed in the conflict?
 * It is not a defining attribute of Charles Petter that a citizen of neutral Switzerland, he nonetheless fought in the conflict?
 * Really? -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Rathfelder's logic would lead to the deletion of Category:Irish people of World War II and all its subcats ... even though WWII had a huge impact of Ireland's society and people and trade (see The Emergency (Ireland)). The large number of citizens of neutral Ireland who served with other nation's armies is a notable topic of historical study, whose impact extends into widespread institutional abuse of children in the industrial schools, and to Irish merchant seamen who were killed when their ships were sunk (e.g. the Irish Oak and Irish Pine) ... and to the civilians killed when MV Munster was sunk by a mine. This is all unpleasantly reminiscent of the spree of disruption which Rathfelder engaged in last month wrt to Dublin, which was all based on Rathfelder's completely fallacious notion of the history of Dublin city and county Dublin: see User_talk:Rathfelder, (permalink). -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC) Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's exactly what I am arguing. Petter's involvement was in the French Foreign Legion, nothing to do with his Swiss citizenship.  He is in Category:French military personnel of World War I.  I dont see that being on a ship that was sunk  makes Enrique Granados a person of World War 1.  Its not what makes him notable. He is no more a person of WW1 than the passengers on RMS Lusitania  - in fact less so. Rafael de Nogales Méndez was an adventurer.  He is properly in Category:Ottoman military personnel of World War I.  His adventure was nothing to do with Venezuela. Rathfelder (talk) 11:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SMALLCAT as part of an established series. We categorize people by their nationality, not by which armies they served. Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If we categorize people by their nationality, not by which armies they served why is Petter in Category:French military personnel of World War I, and Rafael de Nogales Méndez in Category:Ottoman military personnel of World War I? Rathfelder (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Either the pages belong in the categories (in which case the categories should be kept per BHG etc above) or the pages don't belong in the categories (in which case the categories can be emptied and deleted without a CFD). Thus, there's a need to clarify what the inclusion criteria for the categories is. DexDor(talk) 16:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems to me that the Category:People of World War I by nationality should be for nationals of countries which participated in the war. There is a separate category Category:People killed in World War I which would suit a couple of these articles. Clearly not all the casualties were from participating countries. Rathfelder (talk) 18:39, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Rathfelder, that principle seems to be made as an abstract point, without recognition of the actual history. It appears to be based on a simplistic assumption that a war is a private affair between a clearly defined set of belligerent nations, while everyone continues business-as-usual. That simply isn't the case in modern warfare, especially major wars.  The two world wars involved not only the belligerent nations, but had impacts on other countries, or the people, their commerce and often on their shipping.
 * No. This is a pragmatic proposal. If there were lots of articles about Venezuelan people caught up in WW1 I wouldnt be proposing to delete the category. I think these 3 categories are misleading.  Rathfelder (talk) 10:17, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That statement is incompatible with @Rathfelder's statement above of 18:39, 13 May 2020, which is an argument for deletion regardless of size. Please can the two Rathfelder's choose a common position, and then strike whichever of those two statements no longer applies. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My proposal is directed at these 3 categories. I am not suggesting any wider principle. I havent examined all the other similar categories, but clearly most of them are about  nationals of countries which participated in the war and have reasonable numbers of articles.  I just think the argument about being part of an established series needs some consideration of what exactly the scope of the established series is. Rathfelder (talk) 19:09, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This is more a discussion about how do we categorize articles rather than which type of categories do we keep. In particular the question is: should we categorize an article by an intersection (in this case: nationality x war) when the intersection is wholly irrelevant to the particular circumstances in the article? I would tend to answer this question by "no" but I am also inclined to think the question is too broad for a single CfD discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle, see mt comments above relating to Ireland. The intersection of "person from neutral FooLand" and "people who participated in Bar War" is a long way from irrelevant. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * My plea would be to evaluate this on a case by case basis. For example Samuel Beckett is in the World War II tree as a member of Category:French Resistance members which has nothing to do with his Irishness. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Suggest amalgamating all three as something like Category:World War I combatants from neutral counties. These will always be very small categories.  I would not suggest including US personnel who may have fought before US joined WWI.
 * The subjects of the articles are by no means all combatants. If they were then I would agree that there was a reasonable connection.  Most of them could not really be said to have participated at all.  Rathfelder (talk) 14:43, 17 May 2020 (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:Pakistani generals
<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. It appears that the category at the moment does not refer only to generals of the Pakistani army, but instead refers to generals of Pakistani descent.  bibliomaniac  1  5  18:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pakistani generals to Category:Pakistan Army generals
 * Nominator's rationale: To make it clear. Störm   (talk)  15:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose, with regret. @Störm is correct that the current title is ambiguous, but unfortunately the current title fits the convention of Category:Generals by nationality … so either we rename them all or keep them all as they are.
 * Note that a simple renaming would not work, because the two formats do not have identical scope, especially for countries which achieved statehood relatively recently, such as Ireland and Pakistan. Many Irish and Pakistani people have held high military rank in the armies of other nations, including the British Empire in both cases.  In the case of Irish people, the scale of the Irish diaspora means that there were notable Irish generals in the armies of several other countries, including Spain, the United States and some South American nations. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose per . The point that many Pakistanis have served in militaries abroad is technically correct; examples like Azim Daudpota, who was the chief of Zimbabwe's Air Force, spring to mind (granted that the air force and army have completely different ranks, but the idea is that the same applies to the army). What instead needs to be done is that most of the individual articles within Category:Pakistani generals can be manually re-sorted under Category:Pakistan Army generals, following the structure of Category:British Army generals and others as an example. This would be a tedious task but the correct and only logical way.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 17:26, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with 's proposal to create Category:Pakistan Army generals as a subcat, and populate it as described. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 12 May 2020 (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.

Railway lines by century
<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.

or For example, the British West Coast Main Line was built in the 19th century, but has remained a major transport route in the 20th and 21st centuries. The current category titles can be read as implying that it should be in all three by-century categories.
 * The result of the discussion was: rename. For now, the rename will be as nominated. A future CFD can be filed regarding the alt target proposed by Peterkingiron should people feel strongly enough about it.  bibliomaniac  1  5  18:48, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:17th-century railway lines to Category:Railway lines opened in the 17th century
 * Category:18th-century railway lines to Category:Railway lines opened in the 18th century
 * Category:19th-century railway lines to Category:Railway lines opened in the 19th century
 * Category:20th-century railway lines to Category:Railway lines opened in the 20th century
 * Category:21st-century railway lines to Category:Railway lines opened in the 21st century
 * Nominator's rationale: for clarity and consistency.
 * Clarity : the current titles are ambiguous. They can be read either as being:
 * railway lines which opened in a given century (their current usage)
 * for railway lines in use in a given century.
 * Consistency : These categories are effectively containers for the by-decade categories (e.g. Category:Railway lines opened in the 1890s), and through them for the by-year categories (e.g. Category:Railway lines opened in 1891). The centuries should use the same format.
 * Disclosure: that the decade categories were recently created by me. Until yesterday, the year categories were placed directly in the century categories. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Technical note to closer: if this discussion is closed as rename, then the Template:Railway lines opened in decade category header will need to edited to populate the new titles. The line will need to be replaced with . --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. Less ambiguous. Rathfelder (talk) 17:53, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, both clarity and consistency are correct arguments in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support. Makes complete sense. Thryduulf (talk) 19:26, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support but how about merging the fist two as Category:Railway lines opened before 1800. Having written a chapter about the subject, there will never be enough to populate them adequately.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've got no objection to merging the first two categories. I'm not 100% sold on that proposed title, but I've equally not got any suggestions that are clearly better so I'm not going to object to it. Thryduulf (talk) 14:39, 17 May 2020 (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:Places named for Confederate heroes by state
<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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  18:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Places named for Confederate heroes by state
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Places named for Confederate heroes in Alabama
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Places named for Confederate heroes in Florida
 * Propose Deleting Category:Places named for Confederate heroes in Louisiana
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Places named for Confederate heroes in Mississippi
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Places named for Confederate heroes in North Carolina
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
 * These categories are, with few exceptions, U.S. counties that were named after prominent Confederate historical figures. We already have a List of U.S. counties named after prominent Confederate historical figures. (The contents of the Louisiana subcategory are more varied and include several towns and a college dormitory.) The source of the name does not seem defining to categorize the county articles here and this is better handled by a list. Alternatively, if kept, rename to a more neutral name. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Listify per nom. Grutness... wha?   05:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I copied the non-county articles (mostly the misc from LA and some towns from FL) right here so no work is lost if editors want to create additional lists. (Meant to do this at the nom but it was late!) RevelationDirect (talk) 10:45, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:SHAREDNAME. No objections in principle to listifying, provided that any such lists are fully sourced and meet the notability criteria at WP:NLIST. A bare dump in article space of a category's contents will be deleted at AFD. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:SHAREDNAME. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:58, 13 May 2020 (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:Prix Amerigo Vespucci recipients
<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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  18:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Prix Amerigo Vespucci recipients
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
 * The Prix Amerigo Vespucci was founded in 1990 a the International Festival of Geography and is given at a book fair to award books focused on adventure and travel. While it is named after an Italian explorer, this is a French award and, while it is given to specific books, this Wikipedia category groups the authors of those books. About two thirds of the articles mention the award in passing and the rest not at all so it doesn't seem remotely defining. This is one of many French literary award categories created in late 2016/early 2017. The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * *RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This fails WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OCAWARD. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:03, 12 May 2020 (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:Wick Poetry Prize 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  18:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Wick Poetry Prize winners
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
 * The Wick Poetry Prize at Wick Poetry Center at Kent State University for poetry. This isn't a traditional prize giving in passing, rather it coincides with publishing a book at Kent State University Press and a week-long residence on campus to teach poetry. This award/book promotion doesn't seem defining: half the articles mention it in passing and the other half not at all. (One that was written by the creator of this category does mention it in the lede.) The contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * *RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:20, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This fails WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OCAWARD. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 12 May 2020 (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:Middle-earth mountains
<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. MER-C 14:14, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Middle-earth mountains to Category:Middle-earth location redirects
 * Nominator's rationale: Only one non-redirect in here (Mount Doom). Per WP:RCAT, it's preferrable to have redirects in redirect categories.  Thankfully, Category:Middle-earth location redirects exists, so the redirects can be moved to that very applicable redirect category.  Mount Doom, the one article in this category, can be upmerged into Category:Middle-earth locations. Hog Farm (talk) 00:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Btw I am not sure what the target is specifically used for but I trust it has some kind of functionality. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 12 May 2020 (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.