Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 21

< December 20 December 22 >

December 21

Category:Welfare and service organizations

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 is agreement that categorisation in this area is a mess, but no agreement that the proposal here is the right way to resolve it. (And as closer, I would be reluctant to close a discussion as merge to a category redirect, unless there was consensus that was some very good reason to do that).
@Marcocapelle, Rathfelder, Johnbod, Fayenatic london, and Peterkingiron: Pinging the participants in the hope that some of them can work on a better solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:44, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge child Category:Welfare agencies. This is equivalent to splitting welfare agencies and service organizations, which are quite different from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is a mess.Rathfelder (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sure, but how does this nom help?? Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Marcocapelle: You have said these are different, but have not explained how. Can we clarify the aim here: is it to remove state organisations, leaving only voluntary-sector organisations? – Fayenatic London 12:00, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is one distintion, the other is the topic: welfare agencies relate to the topic of wefare, while service organizations (without further specification) may relate to any topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Are we all aware that Category:Service organizations redirects to Category:Fraternal service organizations, which btw seem to be near-100% North American, probably because the term is unknown elsewhere? See the complete mix that a google search on ""service organisation" London" gets you. I'd strongly suggest tearing this nom up & starting again, after some thought. Johnbod (talk) 11:31, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge -- The present category is a mess. It has an inappropriate main article, one on a topic that is far too specific. The category could be kept, but mainly as a container category, with all organisations purged into appropriate sub-cats. Welfare agencies might need to become Welfare organisations, so that it can accommodate those that are not government agencies. After purging, there will probably be two or three general articles on specific aspects of the subject. Otherwise, this should be a container-only category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then what should become the main article? I don't see something here that may serve as a comonality for welfare organisations and service organisations. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2016 (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.

Category:Advice organisations

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. No prejudice against renominating for a rename to clarify scope in category name. ~ Rob13Talk 19:44, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, unclear scope of category (what kind of advice?). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In the UK there have been a large number of advice agencies since at least 1939, mostly in connection with the operation of the welfare state. They offer advice about any problem. Rathfelder (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This may be obvious for those in the UK, but this really needs a main article to define scope. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:49, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I have added a definition. – Fayenatic London 12:14, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we then at least rename the category to e.g. Category:Free legal advice organizations? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't oppose your description on the category page for now but, ultimately, this needs to be defined in the article space.

RevelationDirect (talk) 21:46, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the definition to "organisations, a large part of whose activities are giving free advice." That excludes normal lawyers etc., & includes health advice, a large part of the sector. I don't claim this is definitive, but it is better. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is little objective reason to not include every organization that offers advice, religious, secular, spiritual, legal, medical, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See above. Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Whether an organization charges or not isn't usually defining - but even if it were, nearly all the various free advice providing organizations, whatever one decides is a large part, presumably still include nearly all religious, governmental, free health care organizations (lots on the net, and isn't health care free in much of Europe?), free legal organizations (lots on the net, and in the US there's various unions, ACLU, legal aid, immigration advocacy organizations, etc. all providing free legal advice), etc. Still not sold, here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If there are government "organizations, a large part of whose activities are giving free advice", then fine, they should go in. Generally it is a grudging and incidental part of their activities. Similar for the rest. Johnbod (talk) 05:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per opposers. A common term for a common thing. Johnbod (talk) 11:38, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- with revised scope. I accept that it is largely a UK category. The journalists one is probably about advice on ethics. Several of the others relate to charities providing advice on welfare and legal issues. It may be that it needs splitting to provide a UK sub-cat after which we should see what is left. Possibly rename to Advice charities. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to any rename that better describes the scope of the category to non-British editors. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:32, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't accept that this is especially a British thing, although most of the articles in the main category are British - no doubt other ones are hiding somewhere. The sub Category:Crisis hotlines is pretty global (anglophone global anyway). Johnbod (talk) 22:42, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough, but chances that this category will be further populated, also with non-British articles, will increase when the scope of the category is immediately clear from the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 30 December 2016 (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.

Category:Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to the Gambia

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/rename per nom. No prejudice against revisiting of Gambia's status changes. ~ Rob13Talk 19:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need whatsoever for two separate categories for what is essentially just a difference in nomenclature. See Category:Ambassadors and High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to South Africa‎. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rathfelder (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly Merge, particularly as the main article suggests Gambia will rejoin the Commonwealth, in which case the ambassador will no doubt be appointed High Commissioner. If that happens, having an ambassador not a High Commissioner may be a brief phase, so that perhaps we should Keep High Commissioners and make the ambassadors a cat-redirect to it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 24 December 2016 (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.

Category:Conjectures which were proven

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. Cerebellum (talk) 14:34, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is customary to use "that" in this situation rather than "which"; "which" is typically used when there is a comma immediately preceding it. The point of the category is that the conjectures have been proved by now, hence the perfect tense "have been" in the rename. For mathematical proofs, the preferred verb form is "proved", not "proven"; the latter is better as an adjective meaning "dependable". 𝕃eegrc (talk) 13:17, 21 December 2016 (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.

Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 19:42, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Commons category with page title same as on Wikidata (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Why do we have a maintenance category for things that don't need maintenance? More than 100,000 pages and 1000 categories have this utterly useless hidden cat. We won't make Wikipedia faster or cheaper to maintain by adding all kinds of tracking cats with no use at all. There probably are a lot of other similar cats, knowing the Wikidata-invasiveness, this one just caught my eye. Fram (talk) 11:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated for deletion: Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata, a parallel category with more than 280,000 pages and more than 200,000 categories in it. This is pure madness. I will not nominate the other 81 categories in Category:Wikipedia categories tracking data same as Wikidata just yet. Fram (talk) 11:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Categories and Wikipedia Wikidata. – RevelationDirect (talk) 13:45, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I often see one of these two categories on articles I am working on, e.g. Pedra da Boca State Park, but could never see what if anything I should do about it. A pointless distraction. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • A maintenance category doesn't mean *you* have to do anything about it, it just means someone who is working in that area might. Legoktm (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not really helpful if one has to wade through many "maintenance" categories for things that don't need any maintenance, to find the few that do... Fram (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to agree that the Hidden categories are exploding. May be it is time to rethinking them and split the Hidden categories into "Maintenance" or "Error" and "Tracking" types with a user option to hide each type. Keith D (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Legoktm. A maintenance category absolutely should give details about what its purpose is and what if anything can be done by people interested in helping. If editors cannot figure out how to help with a task, it means in my opinion that the creator of the category hasn't done their job in providing enough context and self-description. Jason Quinn (talk) 20:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main purpose is to do comparative stats, so on Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories we can see that 9k have a different local link, while 203k have the same. So about 4% still need work. There are probably related mailing list discussions somewhere, but that was pretty long ago now. The other purpose in the category is to start removing the local parameters like is currently happening with Authority control IIRC. Legoktm (talk) 18:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps first get consensus at VPP to remove information from enwiki to Wikidata? Every discussion about this which gets wider input than a template talk page seems to end in no consensus / clear opposition against more Wikidata. Fram (talk) 19:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • You should probably bear the burden to show consensus does not exist, given the multiple large RFCs affirming the use of Wikidata. In other words, removal of data here would prevent implementation of the RFC allowing phase 2 of Wikidata integration. --Izno (talk) 08:41, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • re "9k have a different local link": you can know that without this category. This category only adds the "4%" number, which in itself does not help any maintenance edit. -DePiep (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for statistics between Wikidata and en.wp Very useful if we decide to migrate to Wikidata in the near future. -- Magioladitis (talk) 08:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • And totally useless if we decide not' to migrate to Wikidata in the near future of course. This are two lists of pages where there is no problem with the Commons category link (the vast, vast majority of all Commons category links), so migrating these to Wikidata serves no purpose. The logical place to keep such statistics, if there is need for them, is Wikidata itself of course. Here they are only a distraction amongst the real maintenance categories. Fram (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Legoktm above: its a reasonable category, that allows for a fair amount of tracking . Also, I really don't understand the comment "We won't make Wikipedia faster or cheaper". When was it ever our editorial responsibility to do that? Sadads (talk) 18:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • When a category serves no purpose but needs to be stored anyway (and checked on every load of the page), all it does it slow down Wikipedia (not by a lot on any single page, but cumulatively it starts to be a lot anyway). While this is not a problem when there is a serious benefit from the category, it becomes a problem when there is no such trade-off. Fram (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow keep This seems to be a bad-faith, pointed nomination from an editor who has referred elsewhere, derogatively, to a "Wikidata invasion" of Wikipedia. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:06, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please remove your personal attack. I don't see the point of non-maintenance cats on half a milion pages, and none of the keep responses so far have given me a different impression. That I don't like the pushing of Wikidata at every angle by some editors doesn't make my nomination "bad faith" or invalid, just like your constant push for Wikidata doesn't make your keep invalid, pointy or bad faith. Having a different opinion of Wikidata is still not a crime here, although some editorss would like it to be apparently. Fram (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your hectoring responses to everyone who has commented here (other than your sole supporter) rather proves my point. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:56, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • That you have a WP:POINT to prove seems quite clear. However, how replying to opposes proves that a nomination is pointy and in bad faith is not clear to me. Fram (talk) 07:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Andy, I strongly suggest that you withdraw your personal attack. By plain reading I see that you introduce into this XfD some issue from an other page. I see no need for that, nor do I wish to be involved in that other place issue. Also, it is not an argument any closing editor could weigh in. -DePiep (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Appropriate maintenance cat. Montanabw(talk) 21:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll bite; what will you maintain with this? The cats explicitly state that they list half a million articles and categories where no maintenance is needed for this. We don't have categories for "articles in category living people and without a year of death", or "articles not in category living people and with a year of death", as these also are correct and don't need maintenance. 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 08:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless category clutter. Can't the count that the keep votes seem to want be found using Jarry1250's transclusion counter? Pppery 23:02, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:PROJCATS. Administrative categories need to serve an administrative function for improving Wikipedia and none has been articulated here. I use Category:Uncategorized pages all the time but we don't have millions of articles in Category:Categorized pages because there is nothing to do there and knowing what percentage is which doesn't change the work that needs to be done. I have no issue with Wikidata and I give wide latitude to maintenance categories that are actively worked. This category just doesn't follow the category guidelines. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:16, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    I see nothing in the provided link to support a deletion rationale that contextual statements do not also make clear do not apply here. From whence in the provided link does your rationale derive? --Izno (talk) 08:59, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Administrative categories, intended for use by editors or by automated tools, based on features of the current state of articles, or used to categorize non-article pages." Categories used as decoration or to show theoretical moral support for Wikidata aren't an administrative category. (We probably just disagree here though; thanks for your thoughts.) RevelationDirect (talk) 13:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The supercategory identifies data which is ideal for removal in lieu of Wikidata in the general case, so without verification, it would seem to me to be the case that this category tracks such for Commons categories. Keep. Unless someone can suggest otherwise, and that this category is literally tracking pagenames rather than data on the pageneral in the commons category template...? --Izno (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Secondly, a) performance concerns get a flat WP:Don't worry about performance response, and b) "it's annoying" is not a valid deletion criterion. --Izno (talk) 08:55, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
re Izno: I understand data which is ideal for removal in lieu of Wikidata to mean: pages in this category are candidates to have local Commons category name input be removed. (local input would be parameter |1= in the populating templates {{Commons category}} and {{Commons category-inline}}). However, pages with such |1= local input are listed in sister cat Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata (0), as the templates' code says. The maintenance task you mention (remove the local input) should be from this sister category (a category probably meant to be emptied!).
Per templates' code, this category has pages with |1=<novalue>, for example London Buses route 1. In those, there is no maintenance job to be done. Even worse, this category cannot be made empty. It only says: "en:Pages where d:P373 is OK for its d:QID". -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as pointless clutter. There is no policy to migrate data to Wikidata, so no maintenance needed and no need for this category. Anyone wanting to do comparative stats can look at the transclusion count(s) of the relevant templates for the total, no need to also decorate hundreds of thousands of articles with a category.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 09:03, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per JohnBlackburne and others although I take no position on data migration to Wikidata. These categories don't seem truly necessary and are visual clutter to those of us looking for true maintenance work to do in a particular article. Find an alternative way to gather statistics. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 12:48, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for now. There are certainly maintenance categories that are completely unnecessary, this is not one of them. And while I also have concerns about Wikidata, I don't see these addressed by making Wikidataian's work more difficult. If there is a better way to do this, implement it, then propose this cat for deletion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:59, 3 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
What maintenance needs doing on the articles in these categories? None. All it says is that maintenance is not needed. The categories counts the number of such articles, but that can be done in other ways, without adding pointless categories to hundreds of thousands of articles.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Rich Farmbrough: "There are certainly maintenance categories that are completely unnecessary, this is not one of them" because we need editors to go through the contents and change XYZ and, once that is done, remove them from this category. If there is a real end to that sentence, I'll gladly change my vote! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(Others share your opinion, above, so I don't mean that question just to you. Thank you for participating in CFD.) RevelationDirect (talk) 05:23, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
re Rich Farmbrough -- since you admit it has no function at all, why not delete (and reinstall when such a need is expressed)? -DePiep (talk) 15:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said no such thing. And your plan would involve some 200,000 pointless edits. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
No, it involves only removing the code that generates the categories from the template or templates; the categories will be removed automatically and silently, i.e. without appearing in watchlists.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 08:43, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It is a misunderstanding of the word "maintenance" I think. Maintenance categories are useful to the maintenance function, they do not necessarily contain articles requiring maintenance. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:42, 13 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
On Wikipedia maintenance is concerned with doing "maintenance tasks". So what tasks need doing to the articles in these categories?.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:03, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said no such thing. Can someone, only just one person, express what "maintenance job" (taken broadly) this category does? -DePiep (talk) 23:10, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As described here in reply to Izno, this category has no maintenance function. It only says: 'Pages where d:QID has eponymous d:P373 value'. This category can not help finding wrongly-named commons categories (listing pages 'eponymous commonscat name is incorrect'). (Do not confuse with Category:Commons category with local link same as on Wikidata (0): delete local input value?). -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have just notified Template talk:Commons category. I find it somewhat perplexing that no-one thought to do so prior to this time, since that template generates this category. --Izno (talk) 16:40, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Izno Interesting. But why not reply to my recent argument, #here? -DePiep (talk) 23:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I usually associate that page with technical template issues but I, of course, welcome additional feedback. Usually maintenance categories are non-controversial at CFD: either we hear that "oh, we don't need that anymore" and it gets deleted or "we use that maintenance category to do X" so it stays.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:14, 14 January 2017 (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.

Category:Aaroh Group

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Aaroh Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is nothing in the category except a template. Shyamsunder (talk) 09:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was going to say the contents of Template:Aaroh Group could be put in the category but I don't think that nearly empty template would survive a TFD deletion nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:36, 24 December 2016 (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.

Male and women boxers by nationality

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. Cerebellum (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging :
Nominator's rationale: Category:Male boxers by nationality is the only sub-category of Category:Male boxers, so it serves no purpose other than adding an extra layer to impede navigation.
Similarly, Category:Women boxers by nationality is the only subcat of Category:Women boxers, and also serves only to impede navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's change of mind. This proposal has several supports, so I can't withdraw it. However, my further experience of working with this type of category has persuaded me that the arguments of BU Rob13 and Oculi are probably right: this type of category ensures horizontal consistency across the category trees. So please count my stance as a "keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – they serve the purpose of splitting Category:Boxers by nationality (which is valid) into 2 gendered subcats. They also serve the purpose of making it clear whether there are other subcats of Category:Male boxers amongst the large number of nationality subcats. Eg Category:Olympic boxers should probably have a 'women' subcat. Oculi (talk) 10:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No objection to ecreating these categs if and when there are other types of gendered subcat. But for now there are no other gendered subcats. And none of the Olympic categs for any sport are split by gender. (I think they probably should be, but they aren't, and that would be a separate discussion).
      If and when these categs are needed, re-creation would be a one-minute job with Cat-alot. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - agree with Oculi. Hmlarson (talk) 18:11, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of "male" and "women" I would like to see "male" and "female" or, I suppose, "men" and "women". 𝕃eegrc (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. The target categories have not been tagged for this discussion, so renaming them is outside its scope. If 𝕃eegrc wants to pursue this idea, I suggest a separate nomination once this one closes ... but note that it should also include the hundreds of gendered subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply reply. Thank you, BrownHairedGirl. Although I think it is an idea worth pursuing, my motivation is not strong enough to overcome the amount I would need to learn about categories to understand how to handle the hundreds of gendered subcats. 𝕃eegrc (talk) 13:01, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BrownHairedGirl, but suggest simply Boxers by nationality. No reason to split by gender here. Montanabw(talk) 21:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply There is a very clear reason to split this category by gender. Per WP:Cat gender, As most notable organized sporting activities are segregated by gender, sportsperson categories constitute a case where "gender has a specific relation to the topic". As such, sportsperson categories should be split by gender, except in such cases where men and women participate primarily in mixed-gender competition.
      Men and women compete separately in boxing, so gender is a defining attribute of a boxer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • De-layer somehow. Men do not fight women in the ring, so that the gendered categories are useful, but I see no reason for male boxers by nationality (and the other) being directly in boxers, without an intervening layer. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The extra layer isn't helping anyone right now. - Eureka Lott 21:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. There is too little content in the target categories to keep the extra layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's an extra layer that might be unhelpful in this tree, but parallel trees use these categories effectively. Merging them like this would disturb other positive categorization elsewhere. If we can de-layer in another way (possibly eliminate Category:Male boxers and just redirect to Category:Male boxers by nationality?), I'd support that. ~ Rob13Talk 19:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I follow the nominator in changing my mind (see expanded nomination). Merging would hinder consistency of established trees too much. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:18, 6 February 2017 (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.

Category:Film festivals in the United States by state or region

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no entries for Guam or New England or any other entity than states. Category:Film festivals in Washington, D.C. is already in Category:Film festivals in the United States by city. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:07, 21 December 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_21&oldid=1083677938"