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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:42, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Romantic comedy animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Outside of anime, which is covered in a different cat, animation rarely focuses on romance, let alone a romantic subgenre. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "animation rarely focuses on romance" As a lifelong animation fan, I would disagree here. In the List of Walt Disney Animation Studios films, many of the films focus on elements of romantic love, and many of the Disney sequels follow the same pattern. Disney animated short films focus on couples like Mickey and Minnie Mouse, Donald and Daisy Duck, etc. Even Chip 'n' Dale had a short film where both of them were trying to romance the same woman (Clarice, a nightclub singer). The Popeye the Sailor (film series) mostly focused on the eternal love-triangle between Popeye, Olive Oyl, and Bluto, and there are few films in the entire series which do not feature it. Tom and Jerry films often focused on the boys' love lives. Including a film which had both of them attempting to commit suicide, because their girlfriends cheated on them and married their other lovers. (Trust Hannah and Barbera to add drama in a comedy series. ) Almost all of the Pepé Le Pew films focuse on the character's unrequited love for various cats, and his stubborn pursuit of his love interests. Superhero animation also thrives on depicting the love lives of its heroes and villains. In animation, Batman (for example) has been variously paired with Catwoman, Cheetah, Wonder Woman, Zatanna, and a couple of other women. Dimadick (talk) 08:48, 15 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Romantic drama animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: While the anime subcategory is a populated category, this is a empty category. Outside of anime, animated romantic dramas are extremely rare. It's a rather trivial triple intersection. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:53, 12 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:40, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Romantic fantasy animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Basically unpopulated. I think that it's a rather trivial intersection of genres. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 22:50, 12 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Flash character redirects to lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The current title is not sufficient, as it could mean either the 2014 or 1990 TV series. It also does not follow the parent's disambiguation which is The Flash (2014 TV series). All former and new redirects are already using the correct category. If possible, this should be create protected, as to not be recreated per its ambiguity. Gonnym (talk) 21:46, 12 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:00, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Flash episode redirects to lists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The current title is not sufficient, as it could mean either the 2014 or 1990 TV series. It also does not follow the parent's disambiguation which is The Flash (2014 TV series). All former and new redirects are already using the correct category. If possible, this should be create protected, as to not be recreated per its ambiguity. Gonnym (talk) 21:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. I'm glad that you moved all of the episode redirects to Category:The Flash (2014 TV series) episode redirects to lists for obvious reasons, but I've come across this kind of thing a few times and you probably didn't need to bother at this point. There are no episode redirects to the 1990 series that I know of, so in a way the new category is an unnecessary disambiguation. But of course, there may someday be 1990 redirects, so why not. Thanks!— TAnthony^Talk 21:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment You shouldn't empty a category that you are proposing for renaming or deleting. You should refrain until this discussion is closed or propose the category for a speedy rename. It's disruptive to empty a category while it is being considered for deletion. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm sorry, but while I'm in the middle of creating new character redirects and going over dozens of comic-related articles, trying to track down the various missing and wrong links targeted at comic articles instead of the TV series redirects and linking to them, I'm not going to create new redirects that are linking to the wrong category. When a redirect category is moved, it does not change these redirects pages, as they aren't tagged in the categories, but use a redirect template that automatically categorizes them. I'm not going to create new redirects that target the wrongly named category, just so later I'll have extra work and pointless edits. -- Gonnym (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- a category for redirects is a rather useless entity. We might need a dab-category to house categories for the two series, to prevent miscategorisation, but that is all. Rather than empty it, if what Gonnym did in recategorizing articles, Gonnym should have added a new category. When this discussion is closed, the original version would be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 15 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 22:01, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tornadoes in Alabama by location‎

• Propose deleting Category:Tornadoes in Wyoming by location‎

Nominator's rationale: delete as duplicate categories. E.g. the articles in Category:Tornadoes in Alabama by location‎ are already in Category:Tornadoes in Alabama but now they are sorted by location. This is exactly the same type of nomination as a few weeks earlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl, Dimadick, Colonies Chris, UnitedStatesian, and DexDor: pinging participants to the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete - mainly as having multiple categories for different sort orders could lead to a plethora of categories. Lists should be used instead. DexDor ^(talk) 23:15, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom as pointless duplication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repeat my explanation of the purpose of these subcategories.

1. I noticed that many tornado-related categories are a mess, in the sense that the articles within them are listed in no discernible order, and thus of no use to anyone looking for a particular article. For an example, see Category:F3 tornadoes.
2. Generally, tornado article titles identify an outbreak by date and location, which are the primary things any reader looking for an article is likely to want to search on; however a typical tornado-related category such as Category:Tornadoes in Kansas does not guide an editor towards which of the sort keys would be appropriate. The result has been that most tornado articles simply use the default sortkey of article title, with the random results that you can see in any of the tornado-related categories.
3. My plan for fixing this problem, which I had started working on, was to create subcategories, by date and by location, and modify each tornado article's categories to use these subcategories with apropriate sort keys. Thus, a reader would be able to click on, for example, Category:F4 tornadoes by location, to see an appropriately ordered list that would, hopefully, contain the one they're looking for.
4. Objections to this proposal take several forms: (1) It's creating a lot of small subcats. This is true, but I don't see why it's a problem. If it's useful to our readers, why not? (2) We've never used subcats like this before for ordering in different ways. Also true, as far as I know, but again, why not? (3) There are other methods available, such as a sortable list. Yes, but that's more work to set up and would require separate updating whenever a new article was created, and so would inevitably get out of step. Why choose a difficult method over an easier one? (4) Categorising is not indexing. This objection is a bit of a mystery to me. If the items in a category are not in any useful sequence, they're unsearchable and therefore no use, so what's the point of the category at all?

I'd like to point out that in my point 4, I asked a number of questions about the objections, which no-one has responded to. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Articles do not need to be in a particular order within a category. By default the order is by alphabet which is kind of random and yet works perfectly well. Readers can simply decide whether or not they want to read an article based on its title (rather that based on its sequence order). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Readers are expected to scan an entire category in the hope that the one they want is there? That's about as much use as a dictionary with the words in random order. Why does the category sortkey facility exist, if not to put the members of a category into a useful sequence? Colonies Chris (talk) 21:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not meant to find one article, they are meant to find all articles about a certain broader topic. Readers who are in search of one particular article can simply use the search bar, that is not what categories are intended for. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is frankly incomprehensible. So someone uses a category to find all articles about a topic, and then what do they do - just sit and stare at them? What actually is the point of a category then? Colonies Chris (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This question frankly is incomprehensible. What do readers do who are interested in a certain broader topic? They read the articles that are in the category, obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really. They just sit down and read through all of them. No thought of selecting those that fit their particular inquiry. So it doesn't matter at all what order the articles appear in, because they're just going to read them all anyway. This is obviously nonsesnse, and what is the point of category sortkeys then, if that's the case? Colonies Chris (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It is pointless to continue this discussion if you do not believe that some readers have a broader interest rather than a particular inquiry. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Readers are generally expected to use links from other articles (e.g. lists) rather than categories to navigate (category links at the bottom of articles aren't even shown to many/most readers). If you don't want to create lists that's fine (we're all volunteers), but don't try to expand categorization to duplicate the job that lists do better. You might also want to check out WikiData which may (one day) be able to provide things such as maps with the locations of tornadoes linked to their wp articles. DexDor ^(talk) 22:37, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is completely irrelevant. I'm not trying to do anything like what you describe - just ensuring that existing articles are listed in a useful sequence. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonies Chris: all your points above were comprehensively responded to in the previous CFD, where there was zero support for your idea.

That CFD was closed as a clear consensus not to retain that sort of category. Is there a WP:IDHT issue here? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you threatening me simply for disagreeing? That is entirely unacceptable behaviour on your part. I've been totally upfront about my purposes here, and I haven't done anything to obstruct the previous decision - and no, my questions were not answered in the previous discussion, nor have they been answered here. If I'm misunderstanding the function of categories, perhaps someone would like to explain specifically what the purpose of them is, why it doesn't matter if they're in no particular order, and if that's the case, why the category sortkey facility exists and is widely used. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:02, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Colonies Chris, your questions were answered in the previous discussion. At least until they became circular.

The answer is simply don't create duplicate categories just to add a different sort key. Please don' expect anyone to repeat all the whys of that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:08, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's not an answer, it's an instruction. Absolutely nobody has explained why not to do that. There have been a lot of statements along the lines of "we've never done that before" or 'it would lead to a lot of small subcats' or 'there are other ways' but no answers to my responses to those statements. Why can't you just answer those questions, or the questions in my previous comment? If you think I'm wrong and I've misunderstood what categories are for, educate me, don't threaten or bully me. Colonies Chris (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trying explaining does not help either, see above. The problem is that the creator of the category got stuck in their own idea of using categories and fails to understand general usage of categories by other editors. Yes I think there is a WP:IDHT issue here. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've already acknowledged the obvious, that my idea of how categories are used clearly does not match with your idea. But what isn't clear. and what I've repeatedly tried to get you to explain, is how someone does use a category, and why that usage isn't dependent on the sequence, and why, if that's the case, the sortkey facility, designed to provide a sequence, is so widely used. Try coming up with a clear explanation of these questions, and this argument will be over, I'm well aware that the consensus is for deleting these categories. but I made them, in good faith, with the intent to help our readers, and I'd like to have a clear understanding of how you think they are actually used, and why you don't think that having categories sorted in a useful searchable sequence, is helpful, even though many of them are very much intentionally sorted (by the use of sortkeys). Colonies Chris (talk) 09:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Last attempt. ""So it doesn't matter at all what order the articles appear in, because they're just going to read them all anyway."" That was right. "This is obviously nonsense". And that was wrong. Perhaps a bit of nuance: of course you do not have to read all articles, you can also pick and choose from the articles in a category based on the article title. And for picking and choosing, an alphabetic order helps a little bit. The sort key can be used e.g. to sort people on alphabet by surname while their article title is by first name. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I refer you to WP:SORTKEY. This starts with the statement "Sort keys are sometimes needed to produce a correct ordering of member pages and subcategories". Note the choice of words: "a correct ordering". There is such a thing. That section goes on to list 11 more reasons to use a sortkey (your example appearing above that list, making a round dozen in all). You might look particularly at item 6 which uses the phrase "proper numerical ordering" and item 7, which says "Systematic sort keys are also used ... where the logical sort order is not alphabetical". How much clearer could it be? Nowhere does it say "You might try to put members in some sort of sequence but don't worry too much about it, it's not really important". Sequencing is important. It's not an optional nice-to-have extra to possibly make life a teensier bit easier - it's basic to the system. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Unless you are planning to create sub-categories specific to cities or settlements, the category seems pointless. It is redundant to its parent category. Dimadick (talk) 08:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @Colonies Chris: I will make one further attempt to explain to you the issues here. There is a long-standing convention that there should not be categories with broadly the same scope as other categories (see e.g. WP:OVERLAPCAT). In this case, what you have done is to create categories with an identical scope, for which AFAIK there is no precedent (and I have been a regular CFD participant for over 12 years).

There is are two very simple pragmatic reasons for WP:OVERLAPCAT: a) it creates a maintenance headache, and b) it confuses readers by creating avoidable category clutter on articles.

We also have a secondary problem: the way you have chosen to name these categories adopts the naming convention used throughout the rest of the category tree for container categories. For example, in conventional usage Category:Tornadoes in Michigan by location‎ would contain only subcategories such as Category:Tornadoes in Foo County, Michigan or Category:Tornadoes in MyCity, Michigan. Your use of that name misleads readers about the nature of Category:Tornadoes in Michigan by location‎. This problem could of course be resolved by using a different name, such as Category:Tornadoes in Michigan sorted by location‎ ... but renaming would not resolve the core problem of these being duplicate categories which cause category clutter.

I do understand the problem which you want to resolve: that each of the by-state categories could be sorted in several different ways, and you want to give readers the tools to do so. That's a laudable goal, and it exposes yet again the hideous crudeness of the underdeveloped category software which we have to work with. Ideally, readers would be able to sort any category under multiple attributes ... but the current software doesn't allow that, and your workaround creates problems which outweigh the benefits. So what we do for now is to create one least-worst ordering for any category, and if we want to do provide than that we use lists with sortable tables. As one example of sortable lists, see List of women cabinet ministers of the Republic of Ireland, which I created: it is sortable under 8 attributes. That is a much more user-friendly solution that 8 duplicated categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this response. I would make the following points:

1. The fact that we haven't done this before is no reason to reject a proposal outright
2. I had no intention of creating more than two subcats - I was only concerned with the two characteristics that are normally in the title - date and location.
3. I don't think the comparison with potential categories such as "1852 religious leaders" is apposite here - one person could be in a large number of those year categories, but tornado articles would fall into at most two subcats. In fact, many of them already fall into multiple similar categories such as Tornadoes in Kansas, Tornadoes in Missouri, etc.
4. Sortable lists have merit, of course, but they are a significant amount of work to create and to maintain, especially as new tornado articles are always being created. Using subcats removes the need for constant maintenance, as the new article simply needs to be categorised correctly, which is a normal part of creating an article.

That said, I appreciate that you have acknowledged that I was making an honest attempt to solve a real problem, and that you have finally engaged properly with a full explanation, rather than just trying to dismiss my work. I will take this no further. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:51, 17 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Lists of action television characters by series to Category:Lists of action television characters

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure how the scope of these two categories are different. The "by series" seems extraneous as I don't think there are any other types of lists of action television characters except by series. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:11, 12 December 2018 (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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 5#Category:Germanic people. Steel1943 (talk) 21:18, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Germanic people to Category:Germanic peoples

Nominator's rationale: Hesitant why this is split? Either as proposed, or perhaps merged which Category:Germanic ethnic groups‎? Chicbyaccident (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 21:58, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Uzbekistan First League to Category:Uzbekistan Pro League

• Propose renaming Category:Uzbekistan First League seasons to Category:Uzbekistan Pro League seasons

Nominator's rationale: Main article (Uzbekistan Pro League) was previously moved by Akhemen Hhkohh (talk) 12:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - to match name of parent article. 21.colinthompson (talk) 16:01, 14 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who have been to the Golden Gate Bridge (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit the project to categorize users based on past landmarks they have visited. VegaDark (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Agreed. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marvin The Paranoid (talk • contribs) 15:32, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Don't see the point of this category. Kevinsam2 (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support I made the category, --@Boothsift 18:25, 15 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:20, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Buddhist temples in Busan‎ to Category:Places of worship in Busan‎ and Category:Buddhist temples in South Korea
• Propose merging Category:Buddhist temples in Galle‎ to Category:Places of worship in Galle‎ and Category:Buddhist temples in Galle District
• Propose merging Category:Buddhist temples in Hong Kong‎ to Category:Places of worship in Hong Kong‎ and Category:Buddhism in Hong Kong‎ and Category:Buddhist temples in China
• Propose merging Category:Buddhist temples in Kalutara‎ to Category:Places of worship in Kalutara‎ and Category:Buddhist temples in Kalutara District
• Propose merging Category:Buddhist temples in Matara, Sri Lanka‎ to Category:Places of worship in Matara, Sri Lanka‎ and Category:Buddhist temples in Matara District
• Propose merging Category:Buddhist temples in Polonnaruwa‎ to Category:Places of worship in Polonnaruwa‎ and Category:Buddhist temples in Polonnaruwa District
• Propose merging Category:Buddhist temples in Trincomalee‎ to Category:Places of worship in Trincomalee‎ and Category:Buddhist temples in Trincomalee District
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in Balangir‎ to Category:Balangir‎ and Category:Hindu temples in Odisha
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in Comilla‎ to Category:Comilla‎ and Category:Hindu temples in Chittagong Division
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in Jaffna‎ to Category:Places of worship in Jaffna‎ and Category:Hindu temples in Jaffna District
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in Kendrapara‎ to Category:Kendrapara district and Category:Hindu temples in Odisha
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in Matale‎ to Category:Places of worship in Matale‎ and Category:Hindu temples in Matale District
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in Mysore‎ to Category:Buildings and structures in Mysore‎ and Category:Hindu temples in Mysore district
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in Negombo‎ to Category:Places of worship in Negombo‎ and Category:Hindu temples in Gampaha District
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in New York City‎ to Category:Places of worship in New York City‎ and Category:Hindu temples in New York (state)
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in Point Pedro‎ to Category:Places of worship in Point Pedro‎ and Category:Hindu temples in Jaffna District
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in Trincomalee‎ to Category:Places of worship in Trincomalee‎ and Category:Hindu temples in Trincomalee District
• Propose merging Category:Hindu temples in Vijayawada‎ to Category:Places of worship in Vijayawada‎

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories contain 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 12 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:18, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Novels featuring female protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: A similar titled category called "Films about women" was deleted, so this category should be deleted because it's too similar. MagicatthemovieS (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]

Oppose on stated rationale. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 25 for the "Films about women" discussion. The consensus was that the category should be deleted because it was indiscrimiate - almost any film could be "about women" in some way. The category nominated here has much more clear cut inclusion criteria (for example, Harry Potter does not belong in the category even though it has plenty of major female characters), so that discussion doesn't apply here. Kevinsam2 (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Changed position to delete. We could get in a long and subjective argument about whether this is a worthwhile categorization to make, but it's hard to argue with Marcocapelle's point about size. This category, if properly populated, would be so large as to be unusable. Kevinsam2 (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, nearly all novels contain a female and/or male protagonist, so it is pretty indiscriminate. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indiscriminate isn't the same as large. The problem with "Films about women" was that it couldn't be meaningfully distinguished from "Films". This category doesn't have that problem. I'd be open to considering deletion for other reasons, I just don't buy the rationales so far. Kevinsam2 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Non-defining was the better word, having a female (or male) protagonist is not the first thing that comes to mind when describing a novel. And, while you're mentioning it yourself, size is also a problem, this will result in probably thousands of novels in a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for explaining. Changed position based on the size argument. Kevinsam2 (talk) 06:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It is not always so clear-cut who is the protagonist of a novel. For example, Noble House (1981) has multiple main characters, but by the end focuses almost entirely on businesswoman Casey Tcholok who takes over the company of her deceased mentor, and starts being transformed into the first female tai-pan of the 20th century. Dimadick (talk) 09:11, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but that's a bit of an edge case. Based on your description, I'd say it does belong in this category, whereas A Game of Thrones does not (no single protagonist). My guess is that for 99% of novels the answer is going to be pretty obvious. Kevinsam2 (talk) 05:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as over-categorization (e.g. it's better to have a smaller number of more complete categories). There are much better ways to categorize novels (author, genre, century etc). Categorizing by characteristics of a character in novels could lead to a plethora of categories that would probably only ever be very incomplete. DexDor ^(talk) 08:43, 16 December 2018 (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.