< April 30 May 2 >

May 1

Category:Operation Overlord people

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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:10, 17 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT which rarely if ever meets the criteria of WP:DEFCAT. Most of the people in it, ex. Charles Coleman (British Army officer), just happened to be there, but that's about it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:42, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Uncertain about what qualifies someone for membership in the category. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:51, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as noted, this is OVERCAT and non-defining for the vast majority of the thousands of people involved. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:19, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination as nondefining and overcategorization. BilCat (talk) 01:46, 3 May 2022 (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:Wikipedians interested in The Witches (novel)

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) 00:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCATNO. Overly narrow scope. 1857a (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2022 (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:Family saga

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 16#Category:Family saga

Category:Religious fiction

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 16#Category:Religious fiction

Category:Historical fiction

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While the parent category for this is Category:Works about history, this has a more ambiguous title, since historical can also mean "old". Worse, this sits atop many child categories that may need to be renamed from 'historical' to 'about history'. Since I don't know the gadget for mass nom, I am starting with this one and hope ore experienced category editors can help, assuming of course there's a general consensus to address this issue. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 16:26, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Hmmm. I see the idea, but "Historical fiction" is the very well known standard term, used in the industry and by readers, whereas "Fiction about history" isn't. I doubt much confusion is actually likely. Of course most of the fiction is not "about" history, it is about the characters, who are just given a historical setting. Johnbod (talk) 16:33, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod Fair enough. Category:Fiction with a historical setting would be even more clear. Categories should not be ambiguous. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:40, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More clear, but less familiar. I think "Historical fiction" is such a well known term that there is no ambiguity, as do others. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I dont see this as an improvement to a very well established term. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 1 May 2022 (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:Kintetsu

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: split. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split per WP:C2D: Kintetsu Group Holdings and Kintetsu Railway. Most articles are about railways but not all. This was opposed for speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Kintetsu to Category:Kintetsu Railway – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose As the main article is arguably Kintetsu Group Holdings so it would need a full discussion on whether to further refine it to "railway" as the group also owns other businesses such as department stores, etc. However, that would also disqualify the other ones from speedy move and require a full discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:51, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes it would. So the proposal is to split into a parent category and a subcategory. Neither of the two exists right now, so "split" is procedurally the right terminology. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle can this be closed? We are all agreeing here. Gonnym (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not appropriate when the nominator or one of the other discussants closes the discussion, WP:INVOLVED. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2022 (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:Wikipedians interested in hit and miss engines

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) 00:45, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCATNO. Overly narrow scope. 1857a (talk) 12:14, 1 May 2022 (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:Fictional characters with body dysmorphia

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. bibliomaniac15 20:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: purge and rename, only keeping characters with a clearly established mental disorder. The question at stake is what the encyclopedic purpose of these categories is and I would answer that question by getting information about how real life disorders are portrayed in fiction. These nominations were opposed at speedy renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussions
  • Category:Fictional characters with multiple personalities to Category:Fictional characters with dissociative identity disorder – C2D. Gonnym (talk) 09:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose Multiple personalities in a fictional context does not necessarily indicate that they have a mental disorder, as it does in real life. For example, Pyra/Mythra from Xenoblade is an example of a character who has multiple personalities due to magic, and on purpose. Robots can also have multiple personalities simply because they are programmed to. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The category states The main article for this category is Dissociative identity disorder. is in two "dissociative identity disorder" parent categories, and multiple personalities redirects to Dissociative identity disorder. This cannot be any more C2D than this. Gonnym (talk) 12:43, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, looking at the category's contents it very clearly does not match up to what its explanation describes it as. I also think that making the scope smaller would unnecessarily exclude some characters for no reason. Either way it needs a more complete discussion. It might require a split or subcategory rather than a move. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:45, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Fictional characters with body dysmorphia to Category:Fictional characters with body dysmorphic disorder – C2D: per Body dysmorphic disorder. Gonnym (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose As the category states that it encompasses several disorders including body dysmorphic disorder, anorexia and bulimia. The scope should be discussed in greater detail if it is to be changed. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:44, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again you oppose something that is C2D. body dysmorphia redirects to Body dysmorphic disorder. Feel free to split the contents to more specific categories, but the current name is incorrect and your opposition is not supported by the guideline. Gonnym (talk) 12:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I am merely saying that blindly moving the page ignores what it actually is and will miscategorize things. This seems like something that would require a WP:CFD split discussion before any move can take place. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:02, 25 April 2022 (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:Faculty by university or college in Finland

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 3#Category:Faculty by university or college in Finland

Category:Doctors of Divinity

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 to delete, but prune, removing people with honorary degrees. – Fayenatic London 11:51, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining per WP:COPDEF and WP:CATDEF. This appears to be the only doctorate or degree category that includes people. We don't have Category:Doctors of Philosophy for every university professor or Category:Doctors of Medicine for every physician with an M.D., nor Category:People with master's degrees, etc. People are notable because of their writings or actions, not because they achieved a higher degree (although the degree may be incidental to someone's notability). --Animalparty! (talk) 07:10, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Further information: Wikipedia:Categorization § Defining
@Moonraker: Is a Doctor of Divinity degree widely held to be more prestigious and significant than other higher degrees or honorary degrees, e.g. Doctor of Ministry, Doctor of Theology, Doctor of Letters, Doctor of Science or Legum Doctor? The article Doctor of Divinity indicates the degree can be either post PhD level or honorary. Is there something fundamental that unites D.D. holders beyond holding the same piece of paper, and that is distinct from, say Category:Theologians? We probably don't categorize M.D. holders because it would be nearly synonymous and substantially overlapping with Category:Physicians, and don't categorize PhD holders because it could combine physicists, art historians, economists, theologians, etc. that share very little functional similarities worth grouping. --Animalparty! (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Animalparty, I’d say the answer is yes, but all comparative judgements are subjective. Wikipedia:Defining says nothing about prestige or significance. We could find hundreds of categories that have no shred of prestige. It’s just a question of whether the characteristic is defining. We can of course disagree on that, but that is the issue. Moonraker (talk) 20:16, 1 May 2022 (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:Wikipedians interested in rail transport In Victoria, Australia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 17#Category:Wikipedians interested in rail transport In Victoria, Australia

More