< August 3	August 5 >

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 15:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Face games to Category:Face (company) games

Nominator's rationale: Per proper naming conventions in Wikipedia if the company had an article. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:06, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Zxcvbnm:Well, the proposed renaming ain't bad so, go ahead... Roberth Martinez (talk) 18:19, 4 August 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: delete. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:09, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American inspired aircrafts to Category:American inspired aircraft
Propose renaming Category:Soviet inspired aircrafts to Category:Soviet inspired aircraft
Propose renaming Category:French inspired aircrafts to Category:French inspired aircraft

Nominator's rationale: plural of aircraft is aircraft Petebutt (talk) 10:32, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the nominator has blanked and depopulated each of these 3 categories. Why? Oculi (talk) 11:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have taken the liberty to merge the three nominations. @Petebutt: please revert the blanking and the depopulation of the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as they have no particularly encyclopedic value. If they are renamed they are unlikely to find a use on aircraft articles. MilborneOne (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Hi. I think that the categories should be renamed to solve the mistake I made, but they should be maintained. --NronQsr (talk) 14:58, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Once renamed ( if not deleted: I happen to agree with Milborne One) then they can be re-populated without any hassle. The category names were so obviously incorrect, it was not possible to leave them populated.--Petebutt (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFD: "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." @Petebutt: Please repopulate asap. Oculi (talk) 09:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Categories have been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I have repopulated and unblanked the 3 categories. Oculi (talk) 20:02, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if you ignore the current spelling, the categories are useless - they are a ragbag mixture of licenced built aircraft and aircraft that have been indigenously designed but by some vague process of Original Research are stated to be inspired by American, Russian or French aircraft, with the lingering suggestion that the Chinese (and these mainly are Chinese aircraft) cannot design aircraft on their own. There may be a place for a category for license-built aircraft, but as set up the categories are unhelpful in the extreme.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel Ish is now emptying the repopulated categories. This is becoming tiresome. (The ones I have looked at all have some cited reference to being 'based on' or similar.) Oculi (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed categories from two articles - one of which (Shenyang J-15) was blatantly false - the J-15 is evidently not "American influenced" - and both were before I was aware from this discussion- please withdraw allegations that I am blanking the categories.Nigel Ish (talk) 17:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigel Ish, all the aircraft that I have added have been reviewed one by one meticulously with information from Wikipedia. My original idea was to include more aircraft from all countries, including those created entirely by China and imitated in other countries because of his design. This was interrupted when user Petebutt noticed that I had written the categories wrong. For military history and enthusiasts it is important because it explains the mythical aircraft on which the industry has been based to develop its models around the world. Not judging who makes more or better aircraft.--NronQsr (talk) 05:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a defining characteristic (see WP:DEFINING). A potentially better idea is to write an article about imitation in the aircraft industry, including a list of examples. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fully agree with Marco, it's not defining but an article may be appropriate. --Trialpears (talk) 20:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nigel Ish. These categories as is are WP:OR, which has no place on Wikipedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:14, 23 September 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 to parents. MER-C 15:21, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Australian first-class cricketers of South African origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: For the same reason an almost indentical category was deleted at the end of last year. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment what we deleted was a NZ category. "First class" is redundant, because any others will be NN anyway. The category is in practice about South African expratriate cricketers in Autralia. At worst it should be upmerged, rather than deleted, but I suspect there may be scope for populating it better and getting it up to the normal minimum of 5. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it is conceivable that a played would play either T20I or ODI matches without playing first-class cricket, but that would be more likely for minor cricketing nations. It does seem like an unnecessary addition to the category name, however. Grutness...wha? 05:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge, trivial intersection by descent and occupation, and by the way we do not even have Category:Australian first-class cricketers. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can someone please explain or expand the acronyms? Rathfelder (talk) 21:20, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rathfelder: for future reference NZ = New Zealand, T20I = Twenty20 International, ODI = One Day International. MER-C 15:21, 12 August 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: do not rename. MER-C 09:46, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Clippers to Category:Clippers (ships)

Nominator's rationale: Talk:Clipper (disambiguation)#Requested move 26 June 2019 was closed as no consensus to disambiguate the ship at Clippers (singular), while Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 July 5#Clippers was closed as retarget "Clippers" to Clipper (disambiguation) which previously targeted Los Angeles Clippers. While the singular "Clipper" is certainly ambiguous, the plural "Clippers" is more so given that the tools for cutting things are more commonly known in the plural form. Category:Friends was converted into a DAB page as a result of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 2#Category:Friends despite the article being at Friends because again plural are used in the category namespace and there is more risk of confusion. In addition Category:Plymouth and Category:Perth are DAB pages even though Plymouth and Perth aren't. Category:Clippers should become a DAB to and can also include Category:San Diego Clippers, Category:Los Angeles Clippers, Category:Columbus Clippers, Category:Baltimore Clippers, Category:Agua Caliente Clippers, Category:Oakland Clippers and Category:Concordia Clippers. Some editors at the RM suggested using "Clipper ship", thus Category:Clippers ships might be a possibility. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically oppose the suggested solution Category:Clippers ships or Category:Clipper ships - both of these imply to some that a clipper barque, clipper brig, or clipper schooner, etc, are excluded from being a clipper - the point being that the ambiguous word "ship" can denote a fully rigged ship. This whole mess appears to arise from a historical difference between American clippers, which were designed to sail round Cape Horn and were virtually all fully rigged ships, versus the opium clippers, some tea clippers and others which were not. Therefore American focused sources can talk about "clipper ships" without any gross lack of correctness, whilst those directed at the Australian emigrant trade, the tea and opium trades and (though Wikipedia does not seem to have noticed this) transatlantic trade cannot. In short, this usage of "clipper" means a commercial sailing vessel designed to sail quickly and probably built between the mid 1830s and the end of the 1870s - it can be of any type of rig, whilst "ship" is ambiguous as possibly implying one rig. I have no problem with fixing the overall problem stated, but not with the suggested solution. I would offer Category:Clipper (ship type) as a possible alternative.ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 14:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Absolutely no need for a rename. Clippers are ships and this is the primary meaning of the word alone. Any other type of clippers will have another word added. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nom. A clipper is also an occupation in the hand-made shoe trade and no doubt his tool. A clipper is also a type of sailing ship. We should stock to the standard WP format of putting a disambiguator in brackets. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- A very obscure one! -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. No need; one looking for another usage will be referred there; those looking for the nautical usage (which itself is the parent of some others) will already be where they wanted to be. Kablammo (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why? as noted the name "Clippers" is highly ambiguous and there was even resistance to point Clippers in the article space away from the NBA team. Crouch, Swale (talk) 07:57, 18 August 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. MER-C 09:14, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Alkenones to Category:Enones

Nominator's rationale: Besides Alkenones, all of the pages in Category:Alkenones belong in Category:Enones but not Category:Alkenones. The six other pages each describe a chemical that has an oxygen-carbon double bond that's conjugated to a carbon-carbon double bond and is therefore an enone. Meanwhile, per the lead of Alkenone, the term alkenone only applies to a ketone that: has a methyl or ethyl group on one side and a linear hydrocarbon group on the other, which rules out all other members except Methyl vinyl ketone and 3-Penten-2-one; is formed by a member of the class Prymnesiophyceae, which I don't think applies to the other pages since Alkenone is the only page in the category that mentions phytoplankton; and has between 35 and 41 carbon atoms, which rules out all members of the category except Alkenone in and of itself. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 02:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contra: The content of Alkenones is very special. Alkenones are a complete subgroup of enones. They contain a keto group, a C=C-doublebond and rest is completely alkylic. There is no need that they ar conjugated. An enone contains only a keto group and a C=C-doublebond. And just think of Alk-en-one = Alkyl, a doublebond and the keto group. There is a need to rewrite the article alkenone. And de:Alkenone tells you, what an alkenone really is. By the way – The_Nth_User – have you studied chemistry, specially organic chemistry? PhD? Regards JWBE (talk) 17:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If they do not need to be conjugated, then they are not a complete subgroup of enones. Also, if Alkenone does not describe the category adequately, why is it the category's main article? The image on the page Alkenone has three double bonds, so your statement that alkenones have "a keto group, a C=C-doublebond and rest is completely alkylic" is at best misleading. If the category Alkenones is just about alkenes that happen to also have keto groups, I would argue that it should be deleted per the same rationale as Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_June_4#Category:Keto_acids. Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 16:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, according to the articles in this category this is about ketones, or more specifically α,β-unsaturated ketones. It seems that alkenone is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:39, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. There isn't a need to make a distinction between alkenones and enones. -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:05, 15 August 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: delete. MER-C 15:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Politicians by religion
- Propose deleting Category:Christian politicians
- Propose deleting Category:Hindu politicians
- Propose deleting Category:Muslim politicians
- Propose deleting Category:Sikh politicians
- Propose deleting Category:Jain politicians
- Propose deleting Category:Jain politicians by century
- Propose deleting Category:21st-century Jain politicians
- Propose deleting Category:21st-century Indian Jain politicians
- Propose deleting Category:20th-century Jain politicians
- Propose deleting Category:20th-century Indian Jain politicians
- Propose deleting Category:Indian Jain politicians
- Propose deleting Category:Indian Jain politicians by century

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIAL among others. Past CFDs (see here and here) have resulted in a pretty clear consensus that categories such as these are problematic and should be deleted. In addition the articles in this category are almost all from either Indian politicians, these categories would be too big if all politicians were included. Lastly there are already perfectly fine categories out there for politicians who belong to religious political parties and whose religion is relevant to their political career, namely Category:Politicians of Christian political parties, Category:Politicians of Islamic political parties, Category:Politicians of Hindu political parties etc. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:17, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep most or rename. A politician's religion (particularly in India) is far from trivial. It will determine how they operate in politics in support of their community (religion). However, we can lose the 20th/21st century split my merging; also Indian Jain since I doubt there will be enough non-Indian Jains to merit a category. The Christian category should be Category:Indian Christian politicians, which is correct for both articles. Christians are currently a persecuted minority in much of India, so that Chritian politicians will be particularly important to them. I only sampled Category:Muslim politicians, but those I looked at also seemed to be Category:Indian Muslim politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron I understand the logic of having categories for politicians whose heritage or beliefs are a defining factor, but unfortunately I must disagree in this instance and here is why: first for Category:Muslim politicians most politicians in this category seemed to be placed here because they either have an Islamic-sounding name, or are from Muslim-majority regions such as Pakistan or Kashmir. Therefore their Islamic faith is not a defining aspect in their political career, unless they are a part of an Islamic political party, which as mentioned before there is already a category for. Similarly for most of the articles for Christian politicians don't have any mention of the subjects faith and are placed there rather for their Christian-sounding names. Also there are several regions of India such as Mizoram and Nagaland where Christians form the vast majority and thus being a Christian would not be a defining characteristic at all. Similarly almost all the articles in Category:Hindu politicians belong to either the BJP or Shiv Sena, both of which are Hindu nationalists political parties so one would assume that the politicians belong to these parties are Hindu. The only category of which I am having second thoughts about is Category:Sikh politicians as like Jews, Sikhs are more of an ethno-religious group rather than other religions which are more trans-cultural and trans-national. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, we specifically have Category:Politicians of Christian political parties etc. to avoid trivial intersections. The nominated categories are apparently applied to India, but the principle remains the same there. For example if there is no Jain political party, it does not make sense to categorize someone as a Jain politician. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly in some places religion is very defining of politicians, but in many it isnt. I would only have the national subcategories.Rathfelder (talk) 14:32, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. -Nizil (talk) 06:33, 7 August 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. Renaming of the target should be considered in a new nomination. MER-C 09:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Institutes of the Roman Curia to ~~Category:Offices of the Roman Curia~~ Category:Dicasteries meanwhile the target has been renamed

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, it is not clear how the scope of these two categories is different. Note if the related discussion of yesterday is closed as merge, then this proposal is turning into merging with Category:Roman Curia. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inclined to support from argument provided. PPEMES (talk) 09:32, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—Pastor Bonus, which currently governs the Roman Curia, in articles 1 & 2, distinguishes between "dicasteries" and "institutes". The "offices" of the Roman Curia are a type of dicastery, like a congregation, pontifical council, or tribunal, but the "institutes" are not "dicasteries". The categories would be legally inaccurate if they were to merge "offices" with "institutes". Canon Law Junkie §§§ Talk 20:23, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Even Pastor Bonus does not provide clarity on how the terms are different. In the list there is a section "other institutes" suggesting that in fact all of them are institutes. Alternatively, after the merge, we may rename the category to Category:Dicasteries and institutes of the Roman Curia or simply Category:Organizations of the Roman Curia. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support something like a combined category like that. PPEMES (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per the nom. Upon evaluation, as far as I can tell, these two categories have the same general scope. I am no expert on the Roman Catholic Church, but these categories appear the same. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge under either Category:Dicasteries and institutes of the Roman Curia or Category:Organizations of the Roman Curia, with slight preference for Category:Dicasteries and institutes of the Roman Curia since those are the terms actually used for these institutions. --Trialpears (talk) 09:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There seems to be a consensus in favor of a merger, but the preferred name is uncertain, I believe a close to either name would be in order with a further nomination to move it if necessary. I've therefore filed an WP:ANRFC since keeping it open for longer won't do any good. --Trialpears (talk) 11:27, 18 October 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: delete. MER-C 09:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cow and Chicken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only five articles fall in this category. Of them, one is the main series article, one is the episode list, one is the creator, and the other two are about a related spin-off. This category does not need to exist. The editor who created this category has a questionable edit history. Paper Luigi ^{T • C} 00:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is completely valid as a topic category, unless you can cite a precedent for deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:27, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The category now only contains the main article and the episode list. The show's creator was removed by user:Trivialist,[1] and the spin-off by 170.244.28.169. – Fayenatic London 09:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough articles to justify a category, even if you include the show's creator. Trivialist (talk) 09:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with only two articles it is clearly too small. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 4 August 2019 (UTC) struck after further discussion below[reply]
Question @Trivialist: Why did you remove I Am Weasel from the category? Do you think the IP's removal of the show's creator and the list of episodes was justified, and why or why not? –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake, I forgot that it was a segment on Cow & Chicken. As for the creator's article, that shouldn't be in the category, since people aren't usually categorized under their works. Trivialist (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I know I can't vote on this, but I completely disagree that I Am Weasel can get into a category about its sister series, it has been separated from that show since 1999. In my opinion, this category is useless for having too few articles which would fall under it and should be deleted. It would be the same as to create a separate category for I Am Weasel, would be just another useless one. 170.244.28.169 (talk) 05:20, 10 August 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.

August 4

Category:Face games

Category:American inspired aircrafts

Category:Australian first-class cricketers of South African origin

Category:Clippers

Category:Alkenones

Category:Politicians by religion

Category:Institutes of the Roman Curia

Category:Cow and Chicken

Kings of Prussia

Kings of Sardinia