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/delete as specified. MER-C 12:28, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. These categories appear to be a misguided attempt to create a category tree for the infrageneric ranks within the orchid genus Cattleya. There are currently only 49 articles on Cattleya on Wikipedia and at most we would have just more than 100 if all species had articles, thus many of these subgenera and sections would never be expected to have very many articles (WP:SMALLCAT). Upmerging all of the Cattleya articles back to one location, the genus category, seems like the most reasonable approach as this single genus category is the typical approach for genera of manageable size. Some of the listed categories are just containers for other categories and have no articles, so they can just be deleted as nominated The only contributing editor to these categories has been inactive since 2012. Rkitko(talk) 23:05, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: I also saw the Epidendrum category tree and considered opening a discussion for those, but that genus has more than a 1,000 species. Currently we only have about 100 articles on those species, but there's room for substantial growth, so there likely wouldn't be a WP:SMALLCAT problem with most of those categories. The question for the Epidendrum categories then becomes: is this a good way to subdivide the genus category that improves navigation? Or is there a better way to diffuse large genus categories? Do we even want to diffuse large genus categories? If there's a better option, I haven't found it yet; see Category:Bulbophyllum for one such case of an exceptionally large genus. It's tangential to this nomination, but I'd love to hear your thoughts on it. Cheers, Rkitko(talk) 15:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all as proposed. Pichpich (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2015 (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 12:26, 16 June 2015 (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 12:27, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentRicky81682 per Ngrams perhaps the opposing view would be to go in the opposite direction. Empire articles could alternatively fit into ...ism articles. GregKaye 12:53, 10 June 2015 (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 12:48, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These three categories appear to be part of an alternate system of classification for related species of orchids. Nowhere on the Laeliinae or related articles does it explain what this classification scheme is. Even looking past that, we don't normally provide several different category trees for each classification that's out there. The original contributing author has been inactive since 2012. Each of the articles contained within these categories is already categorized in a proper genus category -- usually one of the subcategories of Category:Cattleya -- so there's no need to merge; a simple deletion will do. Rkitko(talk) 22:29, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Pichpich (talk) 22:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or merge back -- MCMXCIX is 1999 in Roman numerals. We have no main article for this 1999 classification. Unless we get one quickly, we should get rid of this. However, I am not expert. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2015 (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 12:08, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I appreciate all the good folks who keep chipping away at these non-defining, non-endemic species categories. Neutralitytalk 20:14, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support all per nom and previous cfds. Oculi (talk) 09:57, 10 June 2015 (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 12:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, could have been nominated for speedy rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:11, 14 June 2015 (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 12:49, 28 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is not a defining characteristic so the category groups games that have little if anything in common. Pichpich (talk) 03:53, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Pichpich is there a way that this category might develop. I found Category:4 player games and, at least for the time being, have linked the categories together. GregKaye 13:02, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the number of players to a game may be defining for card games per Category:Card games by number of players, the same really can't be said of video games. I believe they tend to fall into 3 categories - solo, multi, and mmo. - jc37 04:09, 27 June 2015 (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 12:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, could have been nominated for speedy rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:12, 14 June 2015 (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.
