From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 8 February 10 >

February 9

Category:Capital T

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:Capital T

Category:Computer game user templates

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:PC game user templates Timrollpickering ( Talk) 17:00, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Both are video games. Gonnym ( talk) 13:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Against computer games are for playing on a computer, and video games are for playing on a television. That is a big difference. Catfurball ( talk) 15:48, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Please familiarize yourself with the subject. See 2019 in video games which includes PC, console and mobile; Wikipedia:Naming conventions (video games)#Disambiguation which says to use "(video game)" over "(computer game)"; Category:Video games which, as the category says This category is for topic related to all video games regardless of platform, such as games for computers, consoles, and cellphones. A computer game is just one type of video game and not how you described it, that would be "console" game (though to be even more precise, you can play any PC game on a TV). -- Gonnym ( talk) 18:49, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 21:43, 9 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.

Category:Apple Inc. mobile phones

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:Apple Inc. mobile phones

Category:Immigration by continent

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. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Misleading titles. Most immigration is inside the continents, not from outside. And it might be worth considering renaming all these continental categories "migration" rather than immigration. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, I checked the European category and the larger amount of articles is about immigration to Europe. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:15, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - as some immigration is from within and some from without the continent, the suggested rename solves nothing. Oculi ( talk) 11:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Europe is different from the other continents. But even in Europe most migration is within the continent. The articles are mostly about immigration into particular countries. And the categories have to encompass the large numbers of articles about individual immigrants. I think "in" includes migration from outside as well as within the continent. Rathfelder ( talk) 12:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support generally The content of Category:Illegal immigration to Europe is about that to UK, France, and Italy. In the case of Italy, it is mainly from Libya (an African country), but the others are between European countries. An alternative might be Category:Illegal immigration to European countries. I also looked at the North America category, which is about immigration to US and Mexico and some notorious incidents. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, most of the "country" subcategories are ""immigration to … " so should the "continent" subcategories be different? Hugo999 ( talk) 03:20, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Would it be more sensible to delete the Illegal immigration continent categories? Apart from Europe almost all the articles are concerned with individual countries, and there certainly aren't so many that they need subdividing. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:07, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 21:41, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose in sense of Australia/Oceania, the issue is to JarrahTree 22:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The continents are destinations, not sources of illegal immigration. Dimadick ( talk) 09:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • There is a lot more migration within continents than between them. There are few articles in most of these categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 22:56, 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.

Awards of the Holy See

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Awards of the Holy See

Category:Dungeons & Dragons aberrations

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:Dungeons & Dragons aberrations

Category:Dungeons & Dragons giants

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:Dungeons & Dragons giants

Category:Forgotten Realms creatures

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:Forgotten Realms creatures

Category:Czech-speaking territorial units in Croatia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:Czech-speaking territorial units in Croatia

Category:Categories by branch

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
Nominator's rationale: merge, no clear distinction between these two categories in type of content. (By the way, purge Category:Military branches which is something completely different.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 21:33, 9 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.

Category:History of computing topical overviews

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:History of computing topical overviews

Category:United States Executive Cabinet members by presidential administration

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) 16:59, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename as option A to align with parent Category:Members of the Cabinet of the United States. A different rename (option B) to Category:United States cabinet members by presidential administration was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 19:12, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Neutral. Whatever is consistent is fine. By the way, I created the first actual subcategory for cabinet members by Presidential Administration; it is this one: Category:Clinton administration cabinet members. Just a little trivia for all you fans out there. I'm pleased to see this discussion here to improve the categories in general. thanks!!! -- Sm8900 ( talk) 22:26, 9 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.

Category:Sexual Minorities in Mahabharata

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:Sexual Minorities in Mahabharata

Category:The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air

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 ( WP:NAC). DexDor (talk) 08:42, 29 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 09:36, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Weak oppose, little content yes, but too little? Note that this is not a case of WP:OCEPON as this only applies to people categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:52, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Sufficiently large category. Dimadick ( talk) 11:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep; it appears that more content has been added which is valid, so the category is justified now. – Fayenatic London 12:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Meets the normal minimum of five articles. If we need more articles merge in the 6 articles in the seasons subcat. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 19:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • I have stricken "weak" in my comment above, since the category has been further populated. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - not sure why this was relisted. Oculi ( talk) 23:27, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as per others. J 947 ( c), at 03:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - not sure how 13 pages are not enough for a category. -- Gonnym ( 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.

Category:G4 (television)

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 16:35, 17 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Probably the best option here is to rename this for G4 Media, but I'm open to other options as well. Gonnym ( talk) 21:29, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 19:06, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, incoherent category. Where needed, the articles link to each other in the text. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Gonnym: please comment on the alternative suggestion to delete the category. – Fayenatic London 17:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Not sure deletion is correct. Links aren't the same as categories (not that I need to explain that). There are 2 sub-categories and 6 articles that are currently in the category. I don't really see how deleting the category helps in any way. As I said above, naming this after the company itself ( G4 Media) which is also the name used in the infoboxes of the relevant pages. The only pages that don't belong to G4 Media are G4 (Canadian TV channel) and Adult Digital Distraction, which only licensed the G4 name. -- Gonnym ( talk) 17:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and purge slightly per Gonnym. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 1 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.

Category:LaserDiscs

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
Nominator's rationale: To avoid confusion with Category:LaserDisc, and clarify that the category is about individual releases on LaserDisc, and not LaserDiscs as a whole. Trivialist ( talk) 15:30, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 19:06, 9 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.

Category:Transgender in South Africa

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 Timrollpickering ( Talk) 17:01, 23 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, 1 article in two categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:18, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 19:06, 9 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.

Category:Multiplayer gaming services

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 15:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus discussion at WTVG, "gaming" is discouraged and replaced with "games" or "video games" where possible. Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:58, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • The outcome of this discussion should be the same as in the discussion above (below after relisting). Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 18:58, 9 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.

Category:Online gaming services

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 15:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus discussion at WTVG, "gaming" is discouraged and replaced with "games" or "video games" where possible. Axem Titanium ( talk) 21:59, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Question, what js the intended scope of this category? Is it related to Games as a service? Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:24, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • It seems to be services that provide online functionality to video games. It's not related to Games as a service, which is a game development model where you provide ongoing updates to games similar to software as a service. Axem Titanium ( talk) 17:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
      • So we can look at it from two angles: they facilitate the activity of videogaming, or they facilitate the access to video games. Presumably both names can be used (although in fact neither of the two names are often used exactly with those words in the articles). Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
        • A quick scan suggests there may need to be some cleaning out to be done. -- Masem ( t) 20:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply
          • @ Masem: please go ahead, since the cleaning out is presumably unrelated to this rename proposal. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. -- Masem ( t) 20:46, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - I don't buy into the common belief that if a word has been commonly misused, we must eliminate that word entirely. The logical thing to do, at least on Wikipedia, is to eliminate the misuses, and as Marcocapelle pointed out this category is not a misuse of the word "gaming".-- Martin IIIa ( talk) 14:40, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 18:58, 9 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.

Category:Social casual gaming

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 for social-network games, so rename to Category:Social casual games.
Nominator's rationale: Per consensus discussion at WTVG, "gaming" is discouraged and replaced with "games" or "video games" where possible. Axem Titanium ( talk) 22:00, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support, the articles are about the games, not about the activity of gaming. But also a question here: is a social casual game a genre of games at all? Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:15, 30 January 2020 (UTC) reply
    • It seems to be a sub-genre of casual games, namely casual games with a significant social aspect. This is mostly a technical move request that just barely falls outside the scope of CFDS#C2B, given the recent change to WP:NCVG as a result of the linked discussion. Axem Titanium ( talk) 17:10, 31 January 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support - I created this category 10+ years ago; the move makes sense to me. - Wikidemon ( talk) 22:15, 1 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Recommend moving to Category:Social-network games as to match with Social-network game which is a better descriptor of the games in this. This is to distinguish from social game which includes more than just video games. -- Masem ( t) 20:38, 8 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more discussion between Category:Social casual games and Category:Social-network games.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidh e 18:57, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support alt rename to Category:Social-network games per Masem. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:46, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • @ Axem Titanium and Wikidemon: please comment on the alternative proposed. – Fayenatic London 12:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • Support alt rename per Masem. Axem Titanium ( talk) 18:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • I don't think it makes sense to describe these as social network games. The social network aspect is not a core feature, and usually not a feature incorporated at all of the games, which typically involve either one or two players. Some of the sources, and the article in question, sloppily describe any game distributed on a social network platform or that has added features like leaderboards as a social network game (e.g. Farmville, which does not appear to be sourced), but that would make even Tetris, chess, and solitaire social network games, which just isn't the case. - Wikidemon ( talk) 14:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC) reply
    • @ Axem Titanium, Masem, and Marcocapelle: please review your preference following the objection by Wikidemon. – Fayenatic London 17:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
      • I see the point made. Besides we already have e.g. Category:Facebook games for social network games. But now I start wondering: is there a defining commonality between the games in this category at all? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:52, 3 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.

Category:IUCN Category Ia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:IUCN Category Ia

Category:Moonshine by country

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) 19:17, 17 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a compelling list, but it is not an appropriate category. In the best cases, such as pisco, "moonshine by country" is a confusing tag. In the worst cases, such as brandy, it's largely misleading. — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 15:54, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Delete: as explained by the nominator. Category and article-list confuse illegaly produced spirits (=moonshine) and traditional brandies, which don't share the same technical and sociocultural contexts.-- Phso2 ( talk) 17:07, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. It's far easier to fix incorrect entries on a list, and one already exists so listifying is unnecessary. By the way, this seems to have been emptied during this nomination, which it shouldn't have been. Grutness... wha? 03:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Not emptied—relocated to Category:Moonshine by distilled drink, a move which does not address my primary concern of 'by' appearing in a category name. — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 12:05, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Well, it is empty, which it wasn't before the nomination. It should still have its articles. It also shouldn't have been merged while the CfD discussion was in progress. Nominating a category for renaming, or for deletion if it's unnecessary are fine - pre-empting the outcome of the discussion is not. As the instructions say, Except in uncontroversial cases such as reverting vandalism, do not amend or depopulate a category once it has been nominated at CfD as this hampers other editors' efforts to evaluate a category and participate in the discussion. Grutness... wha? 03:19, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Quite so, Grutness: I should have said not merely emptied or something to that effect. I was incensed by the relocation, and precision of language took its leave of me. — jameslucas ▄▄▄ ▄ ▄▄▄ ▄▄▄ ▄ 18:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Good article/list idea, not a suitable category. Hog Farm ( talk) 04:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The article is good, the category is inappropriate and genuinely erroneous for some entries. I'm seeing a genuine lack of competence here. oknazevad ( talk) 15:27, 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.

Category:Noggin (brand) original programming

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. (non-admin closure) b uidh e 04:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category refers to the TV channel Noggin, not the entire brand article as a whole (which includes non-TV services like a website, mobile app, etc.) Squittens ( talk) 14:22, 9 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.

Category:Males

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:Males

Category:Biology of gender

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22#Category:Biology of gender

Category:Microscopic organisms described by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek

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 (deletion was only opposed by one participant). – Fayenatic London 16:43, 31 March 2020 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Microorganisms etc. I'd also support deletion as this isn't a way that most organism articles are categorized; instead categorization is (amongst other things) by who named the organism (e.g. Category:Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus). This may also be non-defining (e.g. for Infusoria). DexDor (talk) 12:50, 9 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support, but please fix the spelling of the proposed category! Grutness... wha? 03:18, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Support if the spelling error in "microorganisms" is fixed. Hog Farm ( talk) 04:45, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Thanks - nomination adjusted. DexDor (talk) 06:43, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
  • Delete "described" is used in taxonomy categories such as Category:Plants described in 1753 which give the year of formal scientific description under the system established by Linnaeus. If DexDor hadn't mentioned "Taxa named by Carl Linnaeus" in the nom, I wouldn't have remember that "named" is used instead of "described" for categories based on the namer/describer. We don't have any categories for organisms observed/described by pre-Linnaean biologists (Aristotle provided the earliest (surviving) descriptions of some species, but doesn't have a category). van Leeuwenhoek is somewhat of a special case, as he is the first person who can be proven to have observed the species he did (many species new to science have been previously observed by indigenous peoples; van Leeuwenhoek observed species that couldn't have possibly been observed by anybody before him). If the category is kept, I'd suggest renaming to "Microorganisms first observed by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek" to avoid confusion with the categories for taxa "named by" and "described in YEAR". Plantdrew ( talk) 22:16, 10 February 2020 (UTC) reply
Yes, it'd be a bit odd if, for example, Eimeria stiedae was categorized for being described in 1895 and categorized for being described by Antonie van Leeuwenhoek (died 1723). I support rename proposed by Plantdrew or (preferably) deletion. DexDor (talk) 11:18, 14 February 2020 (UTC) reply
My preference is option e (then c, d, b and a) - deletion on the basis that this is non-defining and is a categorization scheme that only works for a tiny fraction of articles about microorganisms. It should also be noted that van Leeuwenhoek's article is a better source of info about what he observed (e.g. because it can include things such as muscle fibre) than this category. DexDor (talk) 12:38, 5 March 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_9&oldid=951527559"