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. WP:NOTBURO. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:05, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Breweries (buildings) to Category:Brewery buildings
• Propose renaming Category:Breweries (buildings) in the United States to Category:Brewery buildings in the United States

Nominator's rationale: I would think WP:NATURAL disambiguation would still be advantageous in category naming, yes? There's no Brewery (building) that we need to match. Compare to Category:Church buildings and its subcats, which were named after much discussion, as I recall, and actually do have a Church (building). --BDD (talk) 23:35, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- The target is much more naturally named. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:26, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Clearly a much more better name, and this rename brings the category inline with similar categories like Category:Church buildings, Category:Hospital buildings and Category:School buildings. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:02, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. It has been awhile since this was created and I'm sure at the time it made sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 23 April 2014 (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. – Fayenatic London 08:21, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross to Category:Recipients of the Navy Cross (United States)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. For consistency with the (now disambiguated) article title. R'n'B (call me Russ) 20:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Another unneeded categorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please check and be sure whether or not a categorisation is needed, instead of saying "it's an award category - delete". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the United States Navy Cross is overwelmingly the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here; the article should be renamed, not the category. As for whether or not this is "unneeded categorisation by award", I quote from the article: the "second highest military decoration for valor" - second only to the Medal of Honor. These things are not handed out like candy and being awarded one is highly WP:DEFINING. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC here is so overwhelming I've WP:BOLDly moved the article (and the dab page) accordingly. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:17, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong support it doesn't matter if it is the primary topic. Categories should not be ambiguous. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Noting several CfD regulars are philosophically opposed to pretty much any order and decoration category, raising any order or decoration category for a CfD for anything other than deletion is perilous at best. However, since this is now on their radar, it needs to be retained in a disambiguated form - if not disambiguated, this category will inevitably mingle recipients of both the US and South African awards which is contrary to WP:ODM practice for order and decoration categories (unless a parent category, they should be unique to a specific country's order or decoration). AusTerrapin (talk) 21:02, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Whatever about the article title, ambiguous category names cause miscategorisation which is hard to detect. The proposed rename removes any ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 29 April 2014 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Clean comedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a subjective and WP:OR category. "Never use profanity or lewd content" is hard to prove. Neither member articles claim subject is clean, therefore non-defining. Richhoncho (talk) 19:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I'm surprised we don't have an article on Clean comedy (or Family comedy or something). As such, it would be very difficult to maintain this objectively. --BDD (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete subjective inclusion criteria.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge back to parent). Too much POV is involved.Peterkingiron (talk) 20:28, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete what is considered "clean" is in the eye of the beholder. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 05:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It could even be mistaken for a category for comedians who have recently taken a bath or shower, which would be trivia and original research. 108.216.22.69 (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The category is quite clear. It refers to any comedian who does not use bad language or dirty jokes in their act. Simply put. This is usually the case which Christian comedians. I think this category would be useful for people who are looking for such entertainers. Any comedians who do include such material do not go into this category. That's all there is to it. Cexycy (talk) 23:37, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Cexcyc: You should have disclosed that you are the category creator. It seems that your definition of "clean" amounts to what is perceived in that way by some strand of Christianity, tho you don't specify what sort of Christianity or in which era. An English Quaker's ideas of what counts as "clean" may be v difft to those of an Egyptian Coptic christian, a Mexican Roman Catholic or a Pentecostalist from Mississippi. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While it is clear that some comedians are known for trying to have "clean" acts, and avoid sexual references and the like, the exact line is hard to define. Also, what happens if someone was such a comic, and then starts having occasional jokes in their act. If someone is known for this and it can be shown from reliable sources, by all means mention it in the article, but there is no reason to have a category for it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Definitions of profanity vary massively between cultures and over time, so there can be no stable and objective definition of what counts as "clean". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:58, 26 April 2014 (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 four:

1. Category:Fictional characters with electric abilities to Category:Fictional characters with electric or magnetic abilities
2. Category:Fictional characters with ice abilities to Category:Fictional characters with cold abilities
3. Category:Fictional characters with nuclear abilities‎ to Category:Fictional characters with nuclear or radiation abilities

5. Category:Fictional hypnotists to Category:Fictional hypnotists and indoctrinators

and no consensus on Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers‎. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming:

1. Category:Fictional characters with electric abilities to Category:Fictional characters with electric or magnetic abilities or Category:Fictional characters with electromagnetic abilities
2. Category:Fictional characters with ice abilities to Category:Fictional characters with ice or cold abilities
3. Category:Fictional characters with nuclear abilities‎ to Category:Fictional characters with nuclear or radiological abilities
4. Category:Fictional characters who have mental powers‎ to Category:Fictional characters who use psychic abilities
5. Category:Fictional hypnotists to Category:Fictional hypnotists and indoctrinators or Category:Fictional hypnotists or characters with indoctrination abilities

• Nominator's rationale: For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than creating more categories.

1. Some technically do not have "electricity" abilities, but all do have powers related to "electromagnetism"
2. Some technically do not have "ice-water" abilities, but all do have powers related to "negative temperatures"
3. Some technically do not have "nuking" abilities, but all do have powers related to "radiations"
4. Consistent with List of psychic abilities and less ambiguous
5. Most aren't professional "stage-craft magicians" in the technical sense. Seems like a list of any notable character known for denying "free will" of others.

--172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:06, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural note None of the categories were tagged as described at WP:CFD#HOWTO. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:57, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:47, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 03:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose 4, neutral to the rest. The 4th nomination here is in the opposite direction to the others, shrinking the boundaries of the category. In particular the category currently includes Category:Fictional hypnotists, which is not normally considered a psychic ability. We need to consider what the best way to delimit this category will be. This category is already parent to Category:Fictional psychics, but partially duplicates that category. Probably we're better off tidying the categories, moving Category:Fictional empaths‎, Category:Fictional telekinetics‎, Category:Fictional characters with precognition‎, Category:Fictional technopaths, and Category:Fictional telepaths‎ (in both) down, and keeping this as a broader umbrella category.

I find the other suggestions here a little clunky, but okay. Perhaps, we ought to make these as concise as possible, such as 2. Category:Fictional characters with cold abilities.

Also to consider: the relationship with the Category:Video game characters by superhuman feature or ability subcategories. --Andrewaskew (talk) 01:14, 13 May 2014 (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: keep as part of Category:Live albums by record label. – Fayenatic London 10:27, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Definitive Jux live albums to Category:Definitive Jux albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Seems like needless diffusion of a category when the only contents of the subcategory is a single redirect whose target offers little info on the non-notable topic. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:04, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:OC#SMALL. It's a part of an established category tree, Category:Live albums by artist. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:59, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For a single redirect that offers no content? Don't need live albums, Eps, compilation categories for every artist and record label except for purposes of diffusion. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge We do not need categories that only have 1 redirect.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The fact that its only content is a redirect is irrelevant; it is still part of an established category tree and its contents are, in fact, properly categorised. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:06, 25 April 2014 (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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Jewish villages in the Ottoman Empire to Category:Jewish villages in Ottoman Palestine

Nominator's rationale: Rename, refining to match the category explanation and its contents. Alternatively, rename to Category:Jewish villages in Ottoman Syria, to match the parent and article Ottoman Syria. (Ottoman Palestine redirects to that page.) Note that the sibling categories Category:Jews in Ottoman Palestine‎ and Category:Rabbis in Ottoman Palestine‎ were created by splits from "X in Ottoman and British Palestine" per CFD 2012 Nov 13 and CFD 2012 Dec 12. If anyone thinks those should be merged/renamed to "Ottoman Syria" rather than "Ottoman Palestine", say so and I will withdraw this and nominate all 3 together. – Fayenatic London 10:44, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The Ottoman Empire is by far the commonly used term for that area during this era. If anything, Ottoman Syria would be a better alternative than Ottoman Palestine as you yourself suggested, but the current title is the right one and should not be changed. Yambaram (talk) 12:01, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There were multiple villages throughout Ottoman Empire (not only in Ottoman Syria). To distinct Jewish villages in the Levant (Syrian provinces) from the rest of the Ottoman Empire one can create an additional category:Jewish villages in Ottoman Syria.GreyShark (dibra) 16:52, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as Jewish villages in Ottoman Syria, which is the contemporary polity for Palestine. I checked a sample of the contents and all are in fact in the present Israel or the Golan Heights. Purge if necessary. I found one case that was post-WWI, possibly just preceding the British Mandate. The rest seem to be settlements by Europeans Jews in what had been ancient Israel. If there were Jewish villages in the provinces of Baghdad, Mosul, etc. they can have appropriate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:41, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not all of these we in some definitions of Palestine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Pack Lambert, can you not support the stated alternative Category:Jewish villages in Ottoman Syria? – Fayenatic London 09:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I really think the current name works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose instead create subcategories and move the description to a subcategory. IIRC there should be some villages in Ottoman Mesopotamia? -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 05:20, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no data on that. Your proposal would leave an empty category with only a sub-category. Unless forbidden by the closer, I propose to do this anyway. – Fayenatic London 09:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete categorizing villages by the religion or ethnicity of (all?, some?, most?) of its inhabitants (at what time?) is not good, see all the majority/plurality racial categories of cities in the US that we deleted. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2014 (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/merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Prehistoric fantasy films to Category:Films set in prehistory
• Propose merging Category:Prehistoric fantasy novels to Category:Novels set in prehistory (added by 108.216.22.69 (talk) 22:30, 11 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to fit with others in Category:Films by period of setting. Also, not all are fantasy; there are other genres here e.g. comedy. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename mixing setting and genre is not helpful. Although I have to admit I find "prehistoric" a slightly problematic term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I've also added the corresponding novels cat as well. 108.216.22.69 (talk) 21:06, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there seems to be two things categorized that don't belong together: Films set in prehistoric times (One Million BC) and films set in other eras but featuring creatures of prehistoric times (usually dinosaurs). "Prehistoric fantasy" is susceptible to either meaning, I suppose. Anyway, I am ok with the rename/merge, but you need to purge things like the Jurassic Park franchise, which are set in "present-day" but feature pre-historic creatures; several other films and sub-cats I noticed also have this problem: "Journey to the Center of the Earth" type films are all set in the 19th or 20th centuries but dinosaurs show up... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: thanks for pointing that out. I have added a "see also" link to Category:Dinosaur films and will revise the description and prune the contents accordingly, if the proposal is agreed. – Fayenatic London 10:07, 28 April 2014 (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: not merged. --BDD (talk) 18:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Works by John Mellencamp to Category:John Mellencamp

Nominator's rationale: I created this category to host his work and other navigational bits and pieces. A "Works of..." category isn't necessary because he hasn't created in so many media as to be unnavigable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Part of two "Works" parent trees, which the proposed target would not be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:09, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there is sufficient content to justify both, although a little pruning of duplicate categories would be desirable. – Fayenatic London 10:10, 28 April 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Category definition templates to Category:Category header templates

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I created this in 2010. Next month, Category:Cathead was created, which was later renamed as the target category. This has the same purpose and is better populated. – Fayenatic London 07:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• merge sounds reasonable to me.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:08, 23 April 2014 (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.