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: purge and merge to Category:Defunct television stations in the United States. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:18, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Defunct terrestrial television stations in the United States to Category:Defunct broadcast television stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Per the lede on Terrestrial television, "...while in the United States it is called broadcast or over-the-air television (OTA)."

This cat area has some screwy structure. The parent Category:Defunct television stations in the United States has a bunch of articles that really belong in Category:Defunct television networks in the United States, too. Raymie ( t • c) 21:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge to parent Category:Defunct television stations in the United States: there is no Category:Terrestrial television stations in the United States or Category:Terrestrial television stations or Category:Broadcast television stations. There is Category:Broadcast television networks in Canada, looking rather lonely with fewer siblings and parents than one might expect. Oculi ( talk) 14:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge the actual articles to Category:Defunct television stations in the United States per Oculi, but purge the massive amount of redirects to successors. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:34, 14 August 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. The main consideration is WP:C2D, which may be extra important since Joseph James DeAngelo was known by multiple names. Another discussion can be held as to how well the contents actually fit/how defining the category is. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:27, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Golden State Killer to Category:Joseph James DeAngelo

Nominator's rationale: Per main article renaming. JJARichardson ( talk) 17:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Rename per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The articles (apart perhaps from the eponymous one) are in more appropriate categories (e.g. Category:Women crime writers). Articles about related (but not similar) topics are connected by links between articles. Some of the articles (e.g. 2004 California Proposition 69) make no mention of GSJ/JJD so it's non-defining. DexDor ^(talk) 20:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support per main article. ★Trekker ( talk) 10:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Oppose or Delete most of these articles are about the Golden State Killer, but most of the things covered by the article don't name him. I note we have a separate article about Boston Strangler than the one about Albert DeSalvo; probably because the crimes are more notable than the perpetrator. That editors elected to go the other way at the article for the Golden State Killer ought not classify things that never mention Joseph James DeAngelo to be in an eponymous category. Similarly, all the various works about Jack the Ripper wouldn't be categorized in Jack Smith if we find out that Jack Smith was Jack the Ripper. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Jack the Ripper is practically a legendary figure by now, and there are two articles for the Boston Strangler and Albert DeSalvo because its heavily disputed if DeSalvo is actually guilty of all the killings, that is not the case with DeAngelo. ★Trekker ( talk) 11:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have deleted inappropriately included articles from the category. It now only includes books and documentaries related to DeAngelo. JJARichardson ( talk) 23:52, 16 August 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment Should this be re-listed, its been a month and a half. ★Trekker ( talk) 22:11, 29 August 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 00:17, 5 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Priapism in media ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The category contains just Epic Fail (House) in which this is just one element of a long plot. Note: The category creator is now blocked. DexDor ^(talk) 14:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete Not a defining aspect. Dimadick ( talk) 08:23, 27 July 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: redirect. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:23, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:1C1+1C1 locomotives ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: All pages in this category are articles with "2-6-2+2-6-2" in their name. The category Category:2-6-2+2-6-2 locomotives already exists and has all these pages. Gonnym ( talk) 12:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Redirect per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment (and weak keep) we have an entire tree of categories using the UIC system (as in 1C1+1C1) and a whole tree of the equivalent Whyte system categories (as in 2-6-2+2-6-2). From memory, the Whyte system is usually used for steam locomotives and the UIC system for diesel and electric locomotives (this might just be in the UK and Commonwealth countries, or it might be worldwide - I'm not sure). If both trees are kept, though, some stipulation may be needed so that we can say "That's a Bo-Bo, but that's a 4-4-0" Grutness... wha? 15:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Convert to cat-redirect -- I note that all the articles are in fact in the target format. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:56, 2 August 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:King asleep in mountain to conform to main article. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:29, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Sleeping heroes to Category:Sleep in mythology and folklore

Nominator's rationale: merge, not a defining characteristic. In fact in most of the articles in this category the term is not used at all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Strongish Keep seems very defining to me. Francis Drake yes, Horatio Nelson no. There isn't really a standard term, but the folk meme is clear enough. The main article is actually called King asleep in mountain, but well referenced. Johnbod ( talk) 17:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete (upmerging any articles for which sleep is actually a defining characteristic). The Francis Drake article makes no mention of sleep in the lede and is well categorized by Category:English explorers etc, the Untersberg article is about a mountain ... DexDor ^(talk) 17:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Well it is Drake's Drum that is actually in the category - I probably should have said that. Yes, Untersberg is a mountain, one with Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor asleep underneath it, as a long section explains. That the 2-line lead does not mention this is a WP:LEAD issue. Like most of our leads it is much too short, which is why "not mentioned in the lead" is such a poor test of "defining" - I agree it is a fairly good test on the rare occasions when the lead actually meets policy. Johnbod ( talk) 18:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Keep I'm not sure what "the term is not used at all" is supposed to prove; as Johnbod says, there is no suggestion that " sleeping hero" is a canonical name that one would expect verbatim in any relevant article. When I created the category I chose "Sleeping heroes" rather than "King under the mountain" as its name because not all instances are kings; I am very amenable to changing the name if that would make it more obvious whether some articles belong in it (e.g. mountains, though some heroes sleep elsewhere). As regards "defining characteristic", that is often in the eye of the beholder; physical-geography references for a mountain will ignore legends about it where cultural surveys of the region would not. If a current article version cites mainly the former type that may be because the mountain has little cultural significance or because the article's main editors were geologists. Articles in the category have at a minimum a section called something like "Legends" that describes the idea; King Arthur's messianic return, Knights of Ålleberg, Nero Redivivus legend, Sebastianism are clearly defining, and for many of the articles about mythical characters, the sleeping story is a significant part of the legend. For historical people and actual places, the "defininingness" of this particular myth can be discussed case by case on the relevant article's Talk-page; perhaps this category should be removed from some of those articles that currently have it, but by the same token perhaps it should be added to some of the many other articles listed in the main King asleep in mountain article. Deleting the Category entirely is too crude a solution to whatever problems may exist with the current uses. jnestorius^{( talk)} 19:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• The proposal is not to delete but to merge to a category with a slightly broader scope. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• I deny "slightly". The proposal is to delete the category and dump its closely related articles into a pool of such tangentially related articles as fan death and succubus. Category:Sleeping heroes is also a subcat of Category:Messianism; do you propose to add the articles to that as well? jnestorius^{( talk)} 05:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Strong Keep "Not a defining characteristic" is a nonsense argument. The legends of Frederick Barbarossa, Ogier the Dane, the Knights of Ålleberg, Sebastian of Portugal and the Marble Emperor are very clear: one or more sleeping heroes waiting for centuries but who will return when the country needs them. "King in the mountain" is a common legend in European folklore (see King asleep in mountain). It is relevant for readers to locate similar legends from other cultures so a specific category is quite in order. The category title should not refer to a king since one of the main examples of this legend, Ogier the Dane, isn't a monarch. Valentinian ^{T / C} 06:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep Recurring folklore theme across many cultures. Dimadick ( talk) 08:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete; if kept rename to King asleep in mountain which is the main article. Who is a hero and who is a villain is purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Agree on renaming if kept, per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:56, 30 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- The fact that this theme in folklore manages to have 13 articles is in my mind a reason for keeping. I think one might add Sleeping beauty. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:54, 2 August 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 as proposed. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 ( talk) 19:24, 6 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Administrator Members to Category:WikiProject Administrator members

Nominator's rationale: 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 10:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Amusement Parks Project Members to Category:WikiProject Amusement Parks Project members

Nominator's rationale: 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Swimming Members to Category:WikiProject Swimming members

Nominator's rationale: 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Squash Members to Category:WikiProject Squash members

Nominator's rationale: To correct the capitalisation and unify with hundreds of similarly named categories 1234qwer1234qwer4 ( talk) 10:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support, obviously "members" is not with a capital. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support. Speedy criterion C2C applies. —⁠ andrybak ( talk) 15:58, 2 August 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: option B merge. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:30, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Human activities with cetaceans to Category:Cetaceans and humans

Nominator's rationale: option A: rename per WP:C2C to align with Category:Mammals and humans; option B: merge to Category:Mammals and humans as a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:40, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support renaming - either option rather than current title JarrahTree 06:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Support, first option best. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge (Option B) as the cetaceans level is unnecessary. DexDor ^(talk) 09:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Merge (Option B) as the cetaceans level is unnecessary (whales and dolphins being appropriately named subcats). Oculi ( talk) 10:19, 26 July 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:Whale watching locations. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:32, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Relevant sites for whale watching to Category:Whale watching sites

Nominator's rationale: Shorter and simpler. Mitch Ames ( talk) 05:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Support per nom. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:NONDEF and precedent e.g. this. DexDor ^(talk) 09:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NONDEF, the only article in the category is not specifically about whale watching. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• (As rename nominator) I have no objections to deletion. Mitch Ames ( talk) 13:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

Merge to Whale watching location per Grutness. Mitch Ames ( talk) 23:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Merge into Category:Whale watching locations - only realised the "relevant sites" category existed (and the associated CfD) after creating the "locations" category, which has close to two dozen articles. Grutness... wha? 15:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)* reply

• Merge to Whale watching location as explained by Grtuness... JarrahTree 15:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC) reply
• Listify whether or not it's defining is a close call; put we don't put articles generally in categories by why people go there Category:Villages in England with Norman churches anyone? Category:Cities in Germany with brothels? Category:Towns in the United States where George Washington slept? So, I think a sourced list is preferable, because many people go places for any number of reasons regardless of that reason it probably doesn't need categorization if a sourced list existed. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Definitely defining for many of the places, which have major parts of their tourism industries based on whale-watching. The town of Kaikoura, for one, would probably no longer exist if not for whale watching, which accounts for well over half of its economy. So you're right. Let's also do away wth the equivalent categories - which would actually be Category:English churches with Norman architecture, Category:Red-light districts in Germany, and... well, the last one's just silly. The entire tree of Category:Tourist attractions by country is probably worth look, though. Grutness... wha? 05:14, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Re "would probably no longer exist if not for whale watching, which accounts for well over half of its economy." - there's nothing in the Kaikōura article to support that.  Kaikōura#Economy doesn't mention whale watching; the article just says "[It is now] a popular tourist destination, mainly for whale watching (...) and ... dolphins.". DexDor ^(talk) 09:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      • Don't trash a category because of problems in the article. These three articles give some indication of the importance of whalewatching to Kaikoura. Grutness... wha? 23:31, 28 July 2020 (UTC) reply
        • See WP:CATVER. Note: Those ELs are all specifically about tourism/whales. DexDor ^(talk) 11:52, 29 July 2020 (UTC) reply
          • Yup - have done. CATVER points out just what I'm saying, that the articles need work in order for them to have references which verify that whale watching is a defining characteristic of the places - the problem is with the articles, not the category itself. As to the ELs being specifically about tourism and whales - you're asking for information about tourism and whales - where else do you expect them to come from? I'm not likely to link to an article about mountains. If you google Kaikoura almost ever single article you get is a tourism site related to whale watching. Of the first 25 ghits, you get the town council's page (which prominently mentions whale watching in many of its articles, the Wikipedia article, and 23 tourist sites, all of which prominently refer to Kaikoura's whale watching. As it was, I deliberately linked an article from the government's Department of Conservation, thinking that might be neutral enough to satisfy even the most cynical of tastes, but I was clearly wrong. Grutness... wha? 03:25, 30 July 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 14:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Troublesome Night to Category:Troublesome Night (film series)

Nominator's rationale: Troublesome Night (film series) should be main. ★Trekker ( talk) 21:41, 2 July 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:33, 18 September 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains the main article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep - not one I'd go to the wall for but there's a "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" argument as part of Category:Provinces of the Sasanian Empire, and "realistic potential for growth" given that it covers ~4 centuries of the history of 5 modern countries in the Gulf. If it looks empty at the moment, I suspect that's a WP:GLOBAL failure on the part of en.wiki, presumably Arabic or Farsi wikis will demonstrate the potential for growth? We're not good on this kind of stuff in general compared to eg Category:Provinces of the Roman Empire. Le Deluge ( talk) 11:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Le Deluge, theoretically, yes ... a lot more could be written.
    But realistically, given the lack of editors working on these topics, is there a realistic chance of this being expanded? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Well WP:SMALLCAT emphasises "potential for growth" and there's no doubt that the Sasanian Empire is the subject of serious academic study among professional historians - Oxford even has chair to it. So then it just comes down to how you interpret "realistic" given that Wikipedia has no WP:TIMELIMIT. If a new Pokemon character didn't have a full biography within a week of being announced, it's probably not going to happen, but editors tend not to be so quick on serious academic subjects, particularly when they address WP:GLOBAL issues. And ultimately it's the WP:GLOBAL aspect that means I would cut this one a lot more slack in determining what is "realistic" - the fault lies in en.wiki editors, not the subject per se. Le Deluge ( talk) 13:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply
      • It is not "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" since most provinces of the Sasanian Empire do not have a category. As for "realistic potential for growth", realistically we will not reach a handful of articles within the next 5 or 10 years and if and when that happens it is okay to reestablish the category. Categories are not meant to compensate for underrepresentation of articles, WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS also applies to Wikipedia itself. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, category has no serious potential for growth. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:24, 26 July 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 17:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC) reply

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

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains the main article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Same arguments as Category:Mazun below, potential for growth and part of a series in Category:Provinces of the Sasanian Empire Le Deluge ( talk) 13:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC) reply

• Delete, again, potential is very doubtful, and cat is very small. The parent category is sufficient. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:25, 26 July 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.