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

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 09:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Proposed renaming to Category:Backwoods slasher to Category:Backwoods slasher films

Nominator's rationale: "Backwoods slasher" is too lax/nondescript; I believe we need the "films" qualifier at the end for purposes of clarity. -- Drown Soda ( talk) 23:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom, or merge to Category:Slasher films and Category:Films set in forests, the latter because Backwoods slasher film may not be a clearly distinct subgenre. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:33, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support Clearer description. Whether this is a valid sub-genre is another matter. Dimadick ( talk) 06:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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:Muslim supporters of Israel. MER-C 09:30, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Muslim Zionists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: High likelihood of abuse. Should either be deleted or renamed. ---  Coffeeand crumbs 21:56, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep: It's notable, especially as a matter of historical study and especially earlier history when Zionism had more Muslim support than it has now. The idea that the category can be abused does not negate this notability. However, I might support it being renamed if there is consensus in that direction. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 02:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

It is not just likelihood. It is currently being abused. Almost every current member of the group is a BLP and there is no RS in articles indicating they are Zionists. All of them at most only acknowledge Israel's right to exist. ---  Coffeeand crumbs 19:43, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Oh. Well, the BLP rigors of course need to be applied. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 11:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Muslim supporters of Israel per article title Muslim supporters of Israel. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:38, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Sounds okay to me. - Gilgamesh ( talk) 11:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. MER-C 09:27, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT governors of provinces of Argentina ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just one person, who is the first and only such person who exists at all as of today and thus the category has no imminent prospects of expansion. Obviously this could be recreated in the future if and when there are several people to be filed in it, but it's not navigationally useful for just one person. He was also left double-catted in the relevant parent categories ("LGBT heads of government" and "LGBT politicians from Argentina") alongside this, so no upmerging is actually necessary. Bearcat ( talk) 20:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Upmerge (or, in this case, delete) per nom, though I would argue it should not be recreated until Category:LGBT politicians from Argentina contains enough members to justify a split. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom.-- Darwinek ( talk) 23:35, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 07:55, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 and merge respectively. MER-C 09:31, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Creation Science Wikipedians to Category:Creationist Wikipedians
  • Category:Young earth creationist user‎ to Category:Young Earth creationist Wikipedians, or upmerge

Nominator's rationale: " Creation science" is a branch of creationism, and one who believes it is a "creationist". I see no value in the YEC subcategory, which contains only 3 users, and suggest upmerging it; however, if there is no consensus for that, we should at least rename it to a proper title. (Category creators not notified: bot, inactive) -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 20:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support rename and upmerge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 09:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who adhere to progressivism to Category:Progressive Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: Shorter title, and per the convention used throughout Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. (Category creator not notified: inactive) -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 20:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom and per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:19, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 00:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Fortnightly magazines to Category:Biweekly magazines

Nominator's rationale: Biweekly is every two weeks. Fortnightly is every two weeks. No sense in having two categories for the same thing. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:23, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Reverse merge - Biweekly is ambiguous, and could mean every two weeks or twice in one week. "Fortnightly", while uncommon in American English, at least is not ambiguous. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 20:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Twice in one week is semi-weekly. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:50, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • True, technically, but common usage of biweekly is mixed. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 21:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
      • In publishing, biweekly is exclusively used to refer to being published every two weeks. See those same links you provided. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 23:05, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge or reverse merge, agree that there is no sense in having two categories for the same thing. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Reverse merge or reword to Magazines published every two weeks; biweekly is ambiguous according to many different dictionaries and style guides and there are numerous instances of Wikipedia editors misunderstanding the intended meaning of the bi- words; see this discussion. Tokenzero ( talk) 22:39, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support only publishing experts will care and biweekly is technically more correct. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 07:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. MER-C 09:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:The Association of Castles and Museums around the Baltic Sea ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing castles by their membership in a non-notable organization. Article draft at Draft:The Association of Castles and Museums around the Baltic Sea was rejected for lack of independent sources and eventually deleted. Renata ( talk) 14:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:42, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• I would have said "convert to list" but as there was a draft article that included a list, and it has been deleted, then delete the category as well. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 09:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Types of government agencies to Category:Government agencies

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. Shyamsunder ( talk) 12:47, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Rename to Category:Government agencies by type and populate. It can easily contain 20 more subcategories which are currently directly in Category:Government agencies. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:50, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• I'm with Marcocapelle on this. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:57, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep or rename, don't merge. Categories by type are tricky; the articles are about general types of agencies, and the sub-cats are specific agencies by type. Although there would be logic in having separate categories for those two purposes, that practice confuses many editors who don't interpret the categories in the same way. – Fayenatic London 14:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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:Government agencies by type. MER-C 09:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Government agencies by objective to Category:Government agencies

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary . Shyamsunder ( talk) 12:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• If merged, merge to Category:Types of government agencies discussed above. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Poorly defined. Most dont have clear objectives. Better to rename as Category:Types of government agencies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder ( talk • contribs) 17:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Or merge/rename to Government agencies by type – see nomination above. – Fayenatic London 14:24, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• I think that's what I meant. Apologies for inattention. Rathfelder ( talk) 17:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. MER-C 09:28, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Open world racing video games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. Dohvahkiin ( talk) 22:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Category has already been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:09, 28 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• @ Dohvahkiin: which articles were in this category and why is it overcategorization? Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: It’s a new category that was created a few days ago, so just a few games such as the Forza Horizon, Midnight Club, Carmageddon, and The Crew series of games. I believe this is overcategorization because it’s combining a gameplay component (Open world) with a genre (Racing games), and the person that created this category was removing these games from the Open world games category and Racing games category, although the person added the new category as a subcategory of the previous two. It’s like if someone were to create a category for “Open world FPS games” and “Open world action-Adventure games”. These aren’t necessary because they’re already part of the categories for Open world and racing in this case. Dohvahkiin ( talk) 06:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment, I've left a notification of this discussion on the creator's talk page. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 09:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Rename: Category: French Cameroons to Category:French Cameroon

Nominator's rationale: After the First World War, Kamerun was divided between the French and the British. The British create two colonies, one of which merged with Nigeria and the other one with Cameroon. However, the French Cameroon was one unified colony. France only had one Cameroon and there is literally nothing proving that it had more than one. I believe it was a typo. I'm looking forward to that change. Onbec ( talk) 07:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment - should this not be at ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:Cameroun? The article is little help - it is at French Cameroon (colony), but its lede calls it both French Cameroons and Cameroun, but not French Cameroon... Grutness... wha? 05:18, 28 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• This needs to be discussed at the article level, possibly with a WP:RM. The category name should just follow the article name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• in that case, I support a move to ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:French Cameroon (colony). Grutness... wha? 03:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• An RM has actually started now, see discussion here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: page was not tagged until today. Do not close this discussion before 11 August. – Fayenatic London 12:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• The RM has been closed as move to French Cameroon hence support this nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom.-- Darwinek ( talk) 23:33, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 Category:20th-century Kings of Prussia, no consensus for the others. MER-C 09:50, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:18th-century Kings of Prussia to Category:18th-century kings of Prussia
• Propose renaming Category:19th-century Kings of Prussia to Category:19th-century kings of Prussia
• Propose renaming Category:20th-century Kings of Prussia to Category:20th-century kings of Prussia

Nominator's rationale: rename per C2A, decapitalizing kings, per WP:MOS. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support per MOS but what to do with the dukes? Is a parent cat needed? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Category:Dukes of Prussia have their own category. Dimadick ( talk) 06:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Oppose -- The title is King of Prussia. However, I do not think the category ought to exist beyond 1867, when the King became German Emperor. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• I think that the title was retained, among many others, even after the establishment of the empire. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:29, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• While the title in itself is capitalised, this is about the people bearing the title, that is different. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:14, 14 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose and delete last one The MOS suggests that the titles should be lower-cased in "generic use". However, in this case, these are not "generic titles" but well and truly the actual title (i.e. same as today "Queen of England") - which, per MOS, should actually be capitalized (3rd item in the list here: Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Capital_letters#Titles_of_people). And that is all ignoring that MOS seems to be more relevant to prose than to titles, anyway... 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:02, 20 August 2019 (UTC) Edit: Delete the 20th century one as, by that point, there's only one person in the category and the title is only subsidiary by that point (and, as someone else noted on a previous discussion, WP:OVERLAPCAT is a thing). 107.190.33.254 ( talk) 13:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Agree with deletion in the 20th century, the title had become subsidiary indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:16, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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. Deletion should be considered in a new nomination. MER-C 09:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:6th-century Kings of Sardinia to Category:6th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose renaming Category:12th-century Kings of Sardinia to Category:12th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose renaming Category:13th-century Kings of Sardinia to Category:13th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose renaming Category:14th-century Kings of Sardinia to Category:14th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose renaming Category:15th-century Kings of Sardinia to Category:15th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose renaming Category:16th-century Kings of Sardinia to Category:16th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose renaming Category:17th-century Kings of Sardinia to Category:17th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose renaming Category:18th-century Kings of Sardinia to Category:18th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose renaming Category:19th-century Kings of Sardinia to Category:19th-century kings of Sardinia
• Propose renaming Category:20th-century Kings of Sardinia to Category:20th-century kings of Sardinia

Nominator's rationale: rename per C2A, decapitalizing kings, per WP:MOS. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:49, 4 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Procedural comment Some of the early ones appear to be petty kings on the island, so more "Kings in Sardinia" than "Kings of Sardinia". Some pruning first? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:50, 6 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• There is more to be discussed about this. King of Sardinia was a subsidiary title of the Aragonese/Spanish kings throughout most of these centuries. But let us first settle this spelling issue. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 7 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Oppose -- The title is King of Sardinia. However, I am dubious whether a category is merited where this is a subsidiary title for a king of Aragon or of Spain before 1720 or Kings of Italy after 1861, but it was the main title of the House of Savoy 1720-1861 and we should have a category in that period. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• While the title in itself is capitalised, this is about the people bearing the title, that is different. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:36, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support as an initial clean-up to be followed by a discussion and selective pruning perhaps. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Category:6th-century Kings of Sardinia; only one page in that category that is already in Category:Kings of Sardinia; Support moving the rest per WP:MOS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lurking shadow ( talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• This was supposed to be a speedy nomination, but the genie is out of the bottle now. I support (and was planning to nominate for a next discussion) deletion of everything except the 18th and 19th century. In the 6th century there was just an usurper, in the 12th century there were judges in parts of Sardinia, Enzo of Sardinia was an exception who actually was king of Sardinia in the 13th century, then up up to the 17th century it was a subsidiary title of the kings of Aragon and Spain, in the 20th century it was a subsidiary title of the kings of Italy (if the title still existed at all in the 20th century, which I am not even certain of). Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:22, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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 parents. MER-C 09:32, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category: Fireboats of Halifax Fire Services to Category: Fireboats in Halifax, Nova Scotia.

Nominator's rationale: Most of the fireboats operated in Halifax were operated by the military, not the municipality. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• FWIW 90.196.51.197 BOTH emptied this category, AND nominated it for speedy deletion because it was empty. Geo Swan ( talk) 23:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge to parent categories, the total amount of articles about Canadian fireboats is not large enough to make a further diffusion meaningful. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:47, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Marcocapelle, I don't think I have heard this argument before. Is it based on a policy? A guideline? Or is it more of a gut feeling? Geo Swan ( talk) 13:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply
    • Loosely per WP:SMALLCAT and the argument is regularly used (e.g. on this same page regarding zombie web series). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Merge to parent for same reasons as Marco. Otherwise the proposed merger looks sensible based on a quick look at the articles. -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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:Marketing analytics. MER-C 10:03, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Marketing performance measurement ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Marketing WP:NEOLOGISM that probably should have been removed after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marketing performance measurement closed. A redirect Marketing performance measurement has just been created however the use of that name on the target was not sourced and removed. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 14:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: if not kept, at least check if a number of articles should be moved to another category, e.g. to Category:Business intelligence. At least two articles will become orphaned if this category is deleted without further checks. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• It might fall to beme to get a list. I've not got anything automated to get a list any I suppose the onus is on me to get one and handle the result. I'm currently on the road and may attempted to get a list in a couple of days. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 19:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• For example, the article Marketing mix modeling is currently only in Category:Marketing performance measurement. By deleting the category it would no longer be in any category at all. A list does not solve that problem. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:47, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Thanks. My view is if I have a defined list of articles that would become orphaned I might we in a position or organise mitigations ... simply put I might then seek out foster parents or alternative actions. But I need to see the scope of the issue first. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 11:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• The complete list is: Conversion tracking, Market contact audit, Marketing accountability, Marketing effectiveness, Marketing mix modeling, Mission-driven marketing, Patronage concentration, Predictive buying, Return on event, Return on marketing investment. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Thankyou very much for supplying that list. I believe I have resolved it so no category orphaning will occur on the articles in the list that has been given. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 04:54, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• I think you have misunderstood the concept of Marketing techniques. It is about how to do marketing (like Advertising postcard), not how to analyze the impact of marketing (like Marketing mix modeling). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:48, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• The object of the modeling is to be able to use the model to predict rather than analayze. Using the Marketing mix modeling to predict the effects of effect of various Marketing mix seems like a marketing technique. But I have removed the catoegory from Marketing mix modelling and also from a couple of others that that look inappropriate. In all events no category orphaning will occur with the removal of the category Marketing performance measurement. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 09:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Question, originally the category was called Marketing Analytics. Is reverting the earlier rename an option? Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:29, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Hmmm ... Renaming to Category:Marketing analytics, and moving under Category:Types of analytics would be acceptable for some of contained article, but there might be need for pruning post move and the main article would need also to be removed. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 19:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Sounds good enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• For more clarity I am formally voting for keeping (i.e. not deleting) the category and possibly renaming it to Category:Marketing analytics, while being open to alternative names. The category clearly provides a non-trivial intersection between business intelligence and marketing. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• As may be gathered my preference is to delete; however I am also not unhappy with rename; and am in strong preference to rename rather than keep; so am happy enough to defer to rename rather than keep and would be honoured if people you object to delete would indicate a preference for remain. I confess to be unclear as nominator if there is anything I need to formally do to indicate this developed stance. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 21:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: split. MER-C 09:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose splitting Category:Documentation shared content templates to Category:Regional userbox document templates and Category:Documentation shared content templates

Nominator's rationale: It overpopulates the category. I don't know for sure, but out of the 567 templates that populate this category.. I wanna say like 10 to 20 aren't related to this specific use case. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 00:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment, this is just a matter of creating a subcategory. No need to discuss that here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:16, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  @ Marcocapelle: Well, since it'd effect a few hundred pages... I figured it'd be reckless for me to boot up WP:AWB and make the subcat all myself without discussion. – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 12:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• In that case support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Support, per nom, though I agree with Marcocapelle that creating a subcat in an obvious case like this doesn't need prior consensus discussion. —  AReaderOutThataway  ^t/ _c 22:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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: no consensus. There has been no new discussion for nearly a month. While there is general agreement that not every publication frequency is defining, further discussion is needed to determine if publication frequency is defining at all—and, if it is, which frequencies are defining. No prejudice against renominating but, as there are many ways to skin this particular cat, I suggest starting a broader discussion at a venue other than CFD (maybe, but not necessarily, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Academic Journals) to build a general consensus before re-visiting this category tree. -- Black Falcon ^{( talk)} 20:13, 19 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:8 times per year journals ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: From my understanding categories are supposed to reflect defining characteristics of their components. This is certainly not a defining characteristic (it is implausible, but not impossible that a person may say "Ah, I can't remember the name of the journal but it relates to this topic area and I do know it comes 8 times a year..), wastes the time of editors who categorise it, and also clutters articles. Tom (LT) ( talk) 00:20, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep per Category:Academic journals by publication frequency. Periodicals are characterized by publication frequency, and there's no reason to single out 8/year (also known as Semiquarterly) vs Monthly or Quarterly. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:33, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

  Keep but rename Category:Semi-quarterly journals. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 16:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

To be clear, I'm not saying that we necessarily need a level of granularity where we have a category for 1/year, 2/year, ..., 52/year, >52/year (Note: These are currently being populated by the infobox, based on the |frequency= parameter. This is temporary and could clash with existing categories when there is a mismatch in frequency. Also, several of them, e.g. Category:1 times per year journals will redirect to a 'named' version Category:Annual journals.) But a journal published 8/year is a different beast than one published every week. It could very well be that we consider publication frequencies from 10–14 times/year to all be "monthly", 24–28 times/year to be "biweekly", 48–-52 times/year to all be "weekly", etc... Or we could have categories like

• Category:7–11 times per year journals/ Category:Journals published between 7 to 11 times per year to cover the gap between "Bimonthly" and "Monthly"
• Category:13–25 times per year journals/ Category:Journals published between 13 to 25 times per year to cover the gap between "Monthly" and "Biweekly"
• Category:27–51 times per year journals/ Category:Journals published between 27 to 51 times per year to cover the gap between "Biweekly" and "Weekly".

This is where the feedback of User:DGG would be useful. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 10:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Not a good idea, a frequency of in the range of 27 to 51 is even less defining than a frequency of 27. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment, it is correct that we should discuss publication frequency as a whole rather than singling out one particular frequency. But it is a rather trivial characteristic indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Neutral I was wondering the same thing. We now have categories for journals published, say, 27 times a year. Is that really a defining characteristic? This goes, in fact, for all these frequency categories that Headbomb links to. "Quarterly journals" has over 2000 entries, varying from biology to physics to sociology to art history journals. I agree with Marcocapelle that this all seems to be rather trivial. Of course, to be consistent, one should then also include Category:Periodicals by frequency and its subcategories covering newspapers and magazines... I'm not sure we should go there but at the same time I cannot really think of any good arguments to keep this kind of categories. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:24, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Note Category:Academic journals by publication frequency is now cleaned up and structured. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 18:57, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Oppose alt rename to Category:Semi-quarterly journals; it is merely an assumption that 8 times a year is equivalent to semi-quarterly. Eight times per year may just as well be reached by skipping the summer and Christmas months. Articles do not mention the exact schedule. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: which of those Category:8 times per year journals aren't semi-quarterly then? But even if they weren't equally spaced in time, in publishing "quarterly" and "4 times per year" are synonymous, likewise for semi-quarterly and 8 times per year. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 22:58, 17 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Do not agree with "likewise", while quarterly is a standard frequency, 8 times per year is unusual enough that it may also allow for different schedules than semi-quarterly. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Again, do you have actual examples. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 06:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• No, I also do not have examples of semi-quarterly schedules. Which is part of the other problem raised, the publication frequency is too trivial, so detailed publication schedules are lacking. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:03, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Here's an example. It's (almost) monthly till July (May is the only month missing) and then has 2 more issues in the last 5 months of the year. I'm starting to think more and morre that perhaps we should get rid of the whole "stuff by publication frequency" tree... -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:49, 18 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Frequency of publication is much less defining than it used to be since most are published on line. I would remove most of these categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:03, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Less, but not nil. A journal published once a year is still a different beast than one published every week. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 19:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep as part of an existing hierarchy: it would be unhelpful to delete one element of this group of cats. Do not rename: clarity is all. Pam D 09:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply

I mean Keep unless the whole hierarchy is being dismantled or reworked. No point in deleting this one category otherwise, but I have my doubts about a lot of the entries in categories in this hierarchy, having checked a few titles and found discrepancies. See also discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Academic_Journals#Biannual? in case anyone here hasn't been there. Pam D 12:32, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete the whole hierarchy. Headbomb is absolutely right that annual journals are quite different from weekly ones, but that is by taking the extremes of a sliding scale. What's the defining difference between 8 times a year journals and 9 times a year ones? 30 times vs 38 times? We categorize academic journals by language, publisher, subject, and year of establishment and those are defining characteristics. Whether a journal appears 4,5, or 6 times a year is about as defining as whether it is or used to be printed on glossy paper or not. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
  • There is no reason to single out 8/year (Semi-quarterly) vs 9/year or weekly. If there's difference between Annual/Quarterly/Monthly/Weekly, then there's one between with 8/year. Librarians do care about this stuff (see Periodical_literature#Frequency and references therin). Likewise there's no reason to single out Category:Academic journals by publication frequency against Category:Magazines by publication frequency. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:38, 20 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete the whole hierarchy (at least for academic journals; possibly wait until checked against the data in infoboxes). Those references don't say frequency is used to identify or categorize journals. One mentions estimating publication lag, which is a good reason to have the infobox param. The other reference uses 'frequency' for the frequency with which a publication is used and referenced, not publication frequency; the latter is only mentioned in a sentence together with 'price' and 'in-library use', as far as I see. Surely categorizing by price is not a good idea. It also seems to me that many journals have been artificially fitted as if they had strict n/year schedules, whereas the reality is they have a different number every year, especially with journals going online. Even strict schedules keep changing every few years. Alternatively, I could see two categories like Journals published at least every two months and at most quarterly (or at least 6 times a year vs at most 5 times a year). I don't really see any difference between monthly and weekly journals, for example, it's just about whether they moved online. Tokenzero ( talk) 13:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

For newspapers and possibly magazines it seems to me schedules are much more rigid and 'daily' vs' weekly' is much more defining: you often have that in newspaper and magazine titles, and in many lists of newspapers this looks like a good partitioning choice. Tokenzero ( talk) 14:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

You also have that in journals Annual Review of Political Science, Quarterly Journal of the Royal Astronomical Society, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, etc. And those references clearly show that journals are characterized by frequency. Yes doi: 10.5931/djim.v5i1.48 talks about citation frequency. But it also talks about publication frequency, e.g. "Details such as price, the specificity of a topic, the publication frequency, and in-library use are all to be considered when making de-selection decisions." Likewise for ISBN  9781107670747 [1]. Going further, bibliometric studies routinely use frequency to characterize journals too, e.g. PMC  4363896. These are things that characterize all periodicals, academic journals aren't somehow an exception to this. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 15:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete whole hierarchy. This is especially since we have publications like the Mormon Studies Review that have actually changed their frquency. I'm sure if I kept up with more journals (I keep up vaguely with 5 at most) I would be able to give more examples of such changes. However we will probably have to procedural keep and then run this through a large scale discussion. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:59, 30 August 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep, but then consider just what we need and see if we can merge some of the smaller categories. . As mentioned, it's not just academic journals. In general, for periodicals: Annual, Quarterly, Monthly, and Weekly are defining, because they are so often used in the title (to the extent that someone looking for a title may remember nothing exactly but this, , because there's a good deal of literature about them as a class--they were historically very significant especially in the late 18th and the 19th century. The most famous early 19th century English literary journal was just titled: Quarterly Review And Semi- and Bi- to a lesser extent, especially as users often confuse them.

The other groups represent some frequently occurring special cases: journals published only during the school year; the relate dgroup of journals published weekly except of 2 or 4 combined issues in the summer --the best known here is The New Yorker; the opposite case of journals published only during the vacation season; journals published under the months the law courts were open (this is particularly relevant England) , journals published only during the legislative sessions. 11 times a year is a frequent case for journals published except for a differently titled year-end or Christmas issue.

Our needs are partially different from those of librarians. We need to provide navigational devices so reader can find articles; Librarians do that also, but in addition they need to make sure they have actually received every issue of a serial, no matter how complicated. We do not have to go into all possible details.

In response to a doubt: yes, serials change patterns, t but everything we deal with changes , and therefore everything we do is editable & needs continuous revision, including categories DGG ( talk ) 18:40, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep this category, but delete/merge a lot of the other less common options in Category:Academic journals by publication frequency. 8 times per year seems to be (borderline) defining for some journals. This category should however not be automatially applied by the infobox since most of the almost 250 category members. If someone wants to nominate all the subcategories and relist I would support that as well, but don't want to do it unilateraly. -- Trialpears ( talk) 19:19, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The infobox category is temporary, and will be remedied through AWB/bot runs once the CFD is closed. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 00:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.