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:MEPs for the United Kingdom 2019–2020. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 ( talk) 00:13, 18 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:MEPs for the United Kingdom 2019–2024 to Category:MEPs for the United Kingdom 2019-2020

Nominator's rationale: These people only served as Members of the European Parliament until the UK's departure from the EU at the end of January 2020. See the corresponding list, List of members of the European Parliament for the United Kingdom, 2019–20. Robofish ( talk) 22:28, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

Support speedy. b uidh e 03:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support Obvious. PatGallacher ( talk) 22:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Rename but also redirect the old name, as this will make a link for navigation from the categories for earlier terms (using {{ navseasoncats}}). – Fayenatic London 23:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support but leave a redirect. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:15, 16 February 2020 (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. MER-C 20:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Eukaryotes by conservation status to Category:Eukaryotes and Category:Biota by conservation status

Nominator's rationale: This category has just 3 members and 2 parents so it isn't necessary. The proposed upmerge would mean that at Category:Biota by conservation status the technical jargon of "Eukaryotes" is replaced by "Animals" and "Plants". DexDor ^(talk) 21:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support - unnecessary indeed. Oculi ( talk) 22:04, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge, one of many unnecessary categories created by Caftaric to provide categories for every node in the phylogenetic tree of life. And no prokaryotes or viruses have been assigned a conservation status; all organisms with a conservation status are eukaryotes. Plantdrew ( talk) 22:21, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support merge. I guess it is premature to delete because there is still an entire tree under it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:50, 11 February 2020 (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: Upmerge Timrollpickering ( Talk) 20:08, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Harley Quinn films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too few entries. No need for this category. ★Trekker ( talk) 21:08, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Procedural oppose, if not kept, this category and the one below should be merged somewhere. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Category:Films by character was created in July of 2019. It, and all the single character subcats - including this one - should be deleted as overcategorisation. - jc37 02:49, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support. I mean, Harley’s only been in two live action movies so far. This is overcategorization, plain and simple. - SeanTheYeti452
• If not kept, merge to Category:Harley Quinn in other media and, if appropriate, Category:Films based on works by Paul Dini. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 27 February 2020 (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:Catwoman in other media and where necessary Category:Films based on works by Bill Finger and Category:Films based on works by Bob Kane per recent precedents. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Catwoman films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too few entires. Only one of the films in this category is actally a film about this character as opposed to a film where the character has a minor supporting role. ★Trekker ( talk) 21:10, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Procedural oppose, if not kept, this category and all film categories below should be merged somewhere. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Category:Films by character was created in July of 2019. It, and all the single character subcats - including this one - should be deleted as overcategorisation. - jc37 02:49, 27 January 2020 (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:Catwoman in other media and where necessary Category:Films based on works by Bill Finger and Category:Films based on works by Bob Kane per recent precedents. The contents are already in subcats of the other parent Category:Animated films based on DC Comics. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Animated Catwoman films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too few entries. Category is not needed or helpful. ★Trekker ( talk) 21:11, 19 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Procedural oppose, if not kept, this category and all film categories below should be merged somewhere. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:02, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Category:Films by character was created in July of 2019. It, and all the single character subcats - including this one - should be deleted as overcategorisation. - jc37 02:49, 27 January 2020 (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 Timrollpickering ( Talk) 00:02, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Middle-earth weapons to Category:Middle-earth objects

Nominator's rationale: This is another small category that is full of redirect pages. ― Susmuffin  ^Talk 05:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support, the redirects link to the main article of this category, so that does not help anything. Phrasing the proposal differently: merge to Category:Middle-earth redirects but manually move the two articles to Category:Middle-earth objects and also to Category:Fantasy weapons. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:32, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• I was going to suggest listifying, but Middle-earth weapons and armour already exists. Support Marcocapelle's solution above. - jc37 20:08, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete The two actual articles are already in Category:Middle-earth objects, so no need to merge them there. The redirects should be moved into Category:Middle-earth redirects. Hog Farm ( talk) 17:38, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Fair enough, then this is the most reasonable way to proceed indeed. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply

I*Delete per Hog, moving the redirects into Category:Middle-earth redirects. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:07, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep - 2 articles and 20 redirects, which I suspect will not all be to the same place is perhaps enough to keep the category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:51, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the redirects are categorised in an exemplary fashion and the category is far from small. Oculi ( talk) 18:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep (or merge) but do not move the redirects. Christian75 ( talk) 22:57, 8 February 2020 (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 Timrollpickering ( Talk) 00:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Middle-earth rings and jewels to Category:Middle-earth objects

Nominator's rationale: These categories should be combined, as they are far too small to exist independently. ― Susmuffin  ^Talk 05:56, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• If not kept, also merge to Category:Fictional gemstones and jewelry. But move the redirects to Category:Middle-earth redirects instead. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:42, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete and move the redirects to Category:Middle-earth redirects, per Marcocapelle, above. I also think that Category:Fictional gemstones and jewelry and the more recently created Category:Gemstones in fiction should be merged to be a gemstones-only category. - jc37 20:25, 26 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge the two or three actual articles per now, and move the redirects to Category:Middle-earth redirects. Hog Farm ( talk) 17:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - 4 articles and 6 redirects seems enough for a category. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the redirects are categorised in an exemplary fashion and the category is not small. Oculi ( talk) 18:43, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep (or merge) but do not move the redirects. Christian75 ( talk) 22:57, 8 February 2020 (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:The Family Channel (American TV network, founded 1990) original programming. – Fayenatic London 11:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:The Family Channel original programming to Category:The Family Channel (American TV network, founded 1990) original programming

Nominator's rationale: The Family Channel is ambiguous as there are 3 networks with this name. The Family Channel (American TV network), Family Channel (Canadian TV network) and one without an article that leads to History of Freeform (TV channel)#The Family Channel. This category belongs to the one without an article. Not sure how to disambiguate this here as "(American)" is ambiguous. Gonnym ( talk) 05:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• @ Gonnym: shouldn't it be split? E.g. African Skies seems to belong to the Canadian network. As a disambiguator I would suggest Category:The Family Channel (1990s) original programming. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:59, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I haven't even looked at the content of the category, I mistakenly assumed by the text that they were all correctly assigned (how naive of me). So yes, any incorrect entries should be removed and placed in the correct category. As a side note, one which I find myself sadly repeating, if the infobox was allowed to handle these categories, this would have been much easier. Regarding the name, I'm not sure. I'll have to think about it a bit more. I added a note to WP:NCTV so maybe we'll get some more options from them. -- Gonnym ( talk) 08:32, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I've started a RM on the article page, so when that's closed, the category can use the same title. -- Gonnym ( talk) 13:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC) reply
    • RM now closed with the consensus to rename the pages The Family Channel (American TV network, founded 2008) and The Family Channel (American TV network, founded 1990). As a result I'm supporting the name of Category:The Family Channel (American TV network, founded 1990) per C2D. -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Support that, agree that it is a case of C2D. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC) reply
        • @ Gonnym and Marcocapelle: please clarify whether "original programming" should still be appended, like its siblings. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC) reply
          • Yes, sorry. Completely missed that as I was focused on the actual issue. "original programming" is the suffix for all of these per this. -- Gonnym ( talk) 10:23, 7 April 2020 (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 17:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Discovery Home original programming to Category:Discovery Home (American network) original programming

Nominator's rationale: Discovery Home leads to a disambiguation page. The network's other name was "Discovery Home & Leisure" but that too leads to Discovery Home & Leisure, a disambiguation page. Gonnym ( talk) 05:41, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:00, 11 February 2020 (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. MER-C 20:17, 14 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Transmisogyny to Category:Transphobia and Category:Misogyny

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article, one redirect and one subcategory. The subcategory does not have to be merged to Category:Misogyny because it is already part of Category:Violence against women. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:39, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support Current cat is an an example of micro-slicing. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:05, 15 February 2020 (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 Timrollpickering ( Talk) 00:00, 19 March 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Trans men in film to Category:Films about trans men
• Propose renaming Category:Trans women in film to Category:Films about trans women

Nominator's rationale: rename, the current titles suggest that these are topic categories about film, but in fact they are set categories containing films. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:22, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom Clearer scope. Dimadick ( talk) 11:06, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• First preference delete, second preference rename. These categories are unnecessary compared to the perfectly fine Category:Transgender-related films, but the current titles make no sense whatsoever, so if they're kept they should definitely be renamed. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 22:03, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• I guess your first preference would be to merge to Category:Transgender-related films. Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:51, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge to Category:Transgender-related films. Current cats are examples of micro-slicing. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:07, 15 February 2020 (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 17:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Stern School of Business alumni to Category:New York University Stern School of Business alumni

Nominator's rationale: Match title of parent article New York University Stern School of Business. No editor should have to guess to find the title and search through the category structure to find the name of a category. Alansohn ( talk) 13:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rename per nom To match the main article. Dimadick ( talk) 14:15, 10 February 2020 (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 17:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Moonshine by distilled drink ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is an inappropriate way to categorize articles such as Tequila, Rum and Whisky. The category name ("... by ... drink") is also inappropriate for categorizing articles directly. DexDor ^(talk) 12:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Delete with extreme prejudice. Category is inappropriate and absolutely incorrect use of terms. Creation demonstrates a severe lack of competence in the topic area. oknazevad ( talk) 15:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete as per original deletion proposal. — jameslucas ^{▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄} 15:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Grutness... wha? 03:24, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete same as original deletion proposal.-- Phso2 ( talk) 22:43, 21 February 2020 (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 17:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Lungless salamanders to Category:Plethodontidae

Nominator's rationale: To match the name of the main article. — Hyperik ⌜ talk⌟ 04:51, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom, presuming that the article rename (more than a year ago) is uncontroversial. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:25, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support Scientific name is more precise; it's not clear from the title that the category is intended to correspond to a taxon rather than a shared characteristic (there are lung-lacking salamanders in other families besides Plethodontidae; that is part of why the main article was moved to the scientific name title). Plantdrew ( talk) 21:09, 10 February 2020 (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 17:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Middle-earth buildings ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: All redirects. The subcat is decently-well populated, and is actually already included in the parent cat of this article. We can move the redirects to Category:Middle-earth redirects per WP:RCAT, and the subcat of castles and fortresses is already in the parent cat. Hog Farm ( talk) 04:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:22, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete There are no actual articles directly in this category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:32, 11 February 2020 (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.