Category:Languedoc-Roussillon region articles needing translation from French Wikipedia[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: per the 2016 reform of French regions, these regional categories need to be renamed and merged to match the current regions. Sadenar40000 (talk) 22:41, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, meanwhile all other French region categories have been renamed/merged, hopefully these are the last ones. @Sadenar40000: procedural request: could you please tag one of these category pages with {{subst:cfr||Category:Languedoc-Roussillon region articles needing translation from French Wikipedia}}, save and then change the date from 4 March to 3 March, then copy the script to the other category pages? See WP:CFD if this is too concise. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename GE/Lean Toward Merge for CBS & NBC GE is clearly defining to the articles, and "chief executive" seems the most common. The articles in the two network categories seems to be acting, or also President so a general executive category seems best. No objection to the other options laid out by the nominator; all the options here are better than the status quo. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
Nominator's rationale:delete, redundant category layer since it only contains one subcategory. Merging is not needed, the subcategory already has the right parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Pages using Template:Annual readership[edit]
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 category is useful for watchlist monitoring -- the template is often added to pages as they are experiencing an increase in views, and the category allows editors to keep track of this on their watchlist. Also, the category listing is more readable than the WhatLinksHere output. Trivialist (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't see a need for the category. The template has general utility and so might be expected on any article's talk page. The resulting category will therefore tend to be indiscriminate and too long to be useful. Andrew D. (talk) 09:38, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one subcategory (Christianity) and one article (Islam) and it is quite unlikely that a small town like this will have articles about Buddhism, Hinduism etc. Note for the merge target: I'm skipping Category:Culture of Hagerstown, Maryland as a target because currently it doesn't contain anything else than this religion category. There are no fundamental objections against Category:Culture of Hagerstown, Maryland, it can always be recreated when needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support These underpopulated categories don't aid navigation and growth (outside of individual houses of worship) is limited. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge, resisting temptation of double-entendre comments. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This intersection category only has 2 articles with limited growth, and neither target category is overly large: the Male genital piercings currently only has 1 direct article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Recipients of the Garland Clay Award[edit]
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.
Each year, the American Academy of Optometry gives out 12 awards and this one is for the authors of the most cited study in their journal. There was no main article so I created a short description and listified the contents here. 2 of the 3 articles mention this in passing in a long list of awards and one does mention it in the intro but it's a stub article. This award might be defining for the articles themselves but seems undefining to the prominent authors. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Anachronism. This category contains one article, the Battle of Walk. It took place in what was then the Duchy of Estonia (1561–1721) (aka "Swedish Estonia"); the rest of modern Estonia was in the Duchy of Livonia, whose area also included the present-day northern Latvia.
I am not intrinsically opposed to anachronistic categories, but I don't think it is viable to try to maintain anachronistic categories for contemporary names when shifting boundaries makes them so ambiguous. There might be a case for by-year categories for the Duchy of Estonia (1561–1721)if there were enough articles to populate them ... but at present we don't have any categories for that Duchy. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support but we have century categories for Estonia since the 12th century, so for consistency in the current tree we should merge to Category:17th century in Estonia rather than delete. The century categories are food for another nomination, I guess. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Although I created it I think it was one of the red categories I found. I have no objection to its deletion. Is there some guidance about the problems of anachronistic intersections of geography and history?Rathfelder (talk) 08:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Note: The category was deleted by @BrownHairedGirl (deletion log) with the summary 