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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT-related horror films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:NON-DEFINING and at the border of hilarity. By the same token one can create Category:Asexuality-related horror films, Category:Obesity-related horror films, etc. Brandmeister^talk 21:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Not at all. I'm sorry but what a terribly flawed rationale, imo. None of those offered examples are part of a category structure like Category:LGBT-related films by genre, with seemingly every such sub-genre represented. I see no reason at all why we should single out and delete this category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think so, Category:LGBT-related documentary films‎ for example is a defining category; however, for horror films LGBT theme is not defining, this is not a genre of horrors. The defining themes for them are Category:Supernatural horror films, Category:Gothic horror films‎, etc. Brandmeister^talk 10:03, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As part of the bigger scheme of Category:LGBT-related films by genre. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is an interesting category, since gays and lesbians were cast stereotypically as monsters in films for a few decades. -- Beland (talk) 14:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A <redacted> rationale that doesn't make much sense. The horror genre in particular is very popular amongst the LGBT community due to its representation of gay characters and frequent gay themes since the early 70s, something other genres rarely did in mainstream film. Keep your personal views out of things like this. --MississippiSouth (talk) 17:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: fits perfectly in the LGBT-related films cat tree. Aristophanes68 (talk) 21:10, 23 August 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Computing to Category:Information technology

Nominator's rationale: "Category:Information technology" is currently a subcategory of "Category:Computing". This is very confusing. If anything, it should be the other way around, since I can't really think of anything that would fit into IT that wouldn't fit into computing. But there is very little if anything that I would call IT that is not computing, so I think it would be best to use one category for both. -- Beland (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as is The main article Computing states with citation "..and it defines five sub-disciplines of the computing field: Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Information Systems, Information Technology, and Software Engineering.". This clearly means that Information Technology is a subset of Computing and is so reflected in the current category structure. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Hmains; computer science/engineering are not technology -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: OK, though I find many of these distinctions academic and not very useful in the real world, at least they are clearly explained in the articles. I added definitions to the top of the two categories to guide readers as to where articles of interest are categorized. -- Beland (talk) 15:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Although at first glance these are very similar, the clear deal breaker is that information technology is an applied discipline. It is not an appropriate location for theoretical topics, such as computational mathematics. SFB 07:44, 16 August 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 pre-1918 categories as nominated; do not rename the rest. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1941 in Lebanon to Category:1941 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1939 in Lebanon to Category:1939 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1938 in Lebanon to Category:1938 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1937 in Lebanon to Category:1937 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1935 in Lebanon to Category:1935 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1933 in Lebanon to Category:1933 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1930 in Lebanon to Category:1930 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1927 in Lebanon to Category:1927 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1926 in Lebanon to Category:1926 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1924 in Lebanon to Category:1924 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1921 in Lebanon to Category:1921 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1920 in Lebanon to Category:1920 in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1920s in Lebanon to Category:1920s in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1930s in Lebanon to Category:1930s in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1941 establishments in Lebanon to Category:1941 establishments in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1939 establishments in Lebanon to Category:1939 establishments in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1938 establishments in Lebanon to Category:1938 establishments in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1937 establishments in Lebanon to Category:1937 establishments in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1935 establishments in Lebanon to Category:1935 establishments in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1933 establishments in Lebanon to Category:1933 establishments in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1930 establishments in Lebanon to Category:1930 establishments in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1924 establishments in Lebanon to Category:1924 establishments in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1921 establishments in Lebanon to Category:1921 establishments in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1930s establishments in Lebanon to Category:1930s establishments in Mandatory Lebanon
• Propose renaming Category:1920s establishments in Lebanon to Category:1920s establishments in Mandatory Lebanon

And categories referring to Ottoman Syria:

• Propose merging Category:19th century in Lebanon into Category:19th century in Ottoman Syria
• Propose merging Category:18th century in Lebanon into Category:18th century in Ottoman Syria
• Propose merging Category:17th century in Lebanon into Category:17th century in Ottoman Syria
• Propose merging Category:16th century in Lebanon into Category:16th century in Ottoman Syria
• Propose merging Category:Years of the 19th century in Lebanon into Category:Years of the 19th century in Ottoman Syria
• Propose merging Category:1890s in Lebanon into Category:1890s in Ottoman Syria
• Propose renaming Category:1898 in Lebanon to Category:1898 in Ottoman Syria
• Propose renaming Category:1898 establishments in Lebanon to Category:1898 establishments in Ottoman Syria
• Propose renaming Category:1890s establishments in Lebanon to Category:1890s establishments in Ottoman Syria
• Propose merging Category:19th-century establishments in Lebanon into Category:19th-century establishments in Ottoman Syria
• Propose merging Category:19th-century Lebanese people into Category:19th-century Ottoman people
• Propose merging Category:18th-century Lebanese people into Category:18th-century Ottoman people
• Propose merging Category:17th-century Lebanese people into Category:17th-century Ottoman people
• Propose merging Category:16th-century Lebanese people into Category:16th-century Ottoman people

Nominator's rationale: This is another case of anachronistic category, which is applying the modern state of Lebanon (1943-present) to the previous French Mandate on Greater Lebanon (1920-1943); propose to rename of all Mandate related categories as previously done for Mandatory Syria [1] and Emirate of Transjordan [2] articles.GreyShark (dibra) 18:55, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose As far as I'm aware, Lebanon was not commonly referred to as "Mandatory Lebanon", but was just "Lebanon". Plus the main article for this category tree is actually at Greater Lebanon, so the categories should match that if people are not happy with simply Lebanon. Number 57 19:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't matter whether it was mainly referred as just "Lebanon" - see the case of Category:1941 in Mandatory Palestine (commonly referred as just Palestine). We must differentiate independent states and colonies/mandates/protectorates/dependencies.GreyShark (dibra) 19:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC) (category tag fixed DexDor (talk) 21:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC))[reply]

No, we don't have to do that at all. See the case of Category:1944 in Jamaica and many more like it. If the name of the state stays the same, then so should the category. Number 57 19:52, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename especially for the pre-1918 categories. I think going to the Mandatory name would avoid some confusion as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  What confusion does it cause? Number 57 10:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  No, agree with Number 57, unnecessary and there is no confusion. We don’t need separate titles for colonies, mandates or protectorates. Such as "1844 in the Colony of Australia" or "1878 in the Colony of New Zealand". Particularly as there was no Colony of Australia just the Colony of New South Wales etc. Hugo999 (talk) 23:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• REname for Ottoman Syria categories. Oppose adding "Mandatory": I think that the boundary of the present state and the mandatory "colony" are identical. It is useful to prefix Palestine 1918-47 with Mandatory, as the present polities of the West Bank and Gaza are not the same as the area subject to the British Mandate. I suspect that the present republic is rather larger than Mount Lebanon Mutasarrifate, so that it cannot be the target, and Beirut Vilayet, which might have been a better target appears also not to be co-terminous. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 17 August 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Former United States state capitals to Category:Former state capitals in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Name should be consistent with the (less awkward) name of the parent category, Category:State capitals in the United States. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Proposed name also matches Category:Former capitals of the United States, and avoids having "States state" in the title. Number 57 15:56, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Sounds much better. kennethaw88 • talk 03:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Nom's rationale for consistency is enough for speedy close IMHO, but "States state" (not to mention "Former United States"-?) should really just cinch it. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:18, 16 August 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:United States colonial and territorial capitals to Category:Former colonial and territorial capitals in the United States

Nominator's rationale: There are various issues with the existing category name. First, "United States" seems to modify colonial and territorial capitals, yet the colonial capitals in question were not capitals of U.S.-run colonies, but rather capitals of the colonies of European countries in the U.S. Second, the existing name is also ambiguous in that it could also refer to the capitals of U.S. colonies and territories worldwide, when the intent of the category is to capture former colonies on U.S. soil. Third, category naming should be consistent with related categories at Category:State capitals in the United States, Category:Capitals of political divisions in the United States and Category:Former colonial capitals. Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – All given rationales are valid and make a clear-cut case. SteveStrummer (talk) 03:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - No objection to rational, no current colonial or territorial areas exist.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 23:13, 18 August 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 to Category:Documentary films presented by John Pilger. There in no consensus to delete, but consensus that it should not remain under its present name. – Fayenatic London 22:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Documentaries of John Pilger (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As explained on the category talk page, Category:Films directed by John Pilger was redirected here because he is not the director for many of these works. However, we do not have a category tree for Documentaries "of" for individuals, and I am loathe to start one (especially as that might be considered to be a violation of WP:PERFCAT if he is presenting and starring in docs directed by others). Templates have much more flexibility in this regard, and I wonder if we should not just delete, as we do already have the perfectly adequate Template:Documentaries of John Pilger? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It is quite common to find categories and templates in artefact articles which duplicate each other, see for example Template:Michael Moore and the category Works by Michael Moore. Part of my motivation for changing the category name was that 'Films directed by John Pilger' was likely to be reinstated, and the inaccurate classification repeated for most articles at some point. In the field of television documentaries it is quite common for the author (writer & presenter) to be different from from the director (although admittedly the works of David Attenborough only have a template at present). There will doubtless be many other examples which necessitates that a category tree on the line of 'Documentaries of..." should be created, presumably not all of them will have a template already created. If WP:PERFCAT should be thought to apply here, I would argue that it also applies to categories like Category:Novels by Charles Dickens and those applied to the works of other novelists. Philip Cross (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno how doubtless it is: we've managed to get this far without a 'Documentaries of...' category tree. Why don't we just rename to Category:Works by John Pilger? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to Category:Documentaries written by John Pilger or Category:Documentaries presented by John Pilger. Pilger is a significant journalist (war correspondent). As a journalist, he evidently prefers to prestn his work in front of the camera, rather than undertaking a technical job behind it. However, we only need one category for his documentaries, whatever we call it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Documentary films presented by John Pilger. I agree that this is a defining feature of the films being categorized, but 'documentaries of X' is ambiguous and could refer to films (or other works) directed, written, presented, or produced by X as well as documentaries about X. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:38, 24 August 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tunceli Province geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Evidently, this province was officially renamed in March to Dersim Province. A new category has been built under the new name, and all articles moved already. Dawynn (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete It was created a few days ago as a copypaste from Category:Dersim Province geography stubs. The editor that did it made all of their edits within a 24-hour span, and the vast majority of them involved changing "Dersim" to "Tunceli"; in several cases, they moved pages by copypaste. I cleaned most of them up: more at User talk:Redrose64#Tunceli/Dersim Dispute. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:32, 14 August 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 all to Category:Political party alliances and similar. – Fayenatic London 13:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Coalition of parties to Category:Political alliances

Nominator's rationale: "Coalition of parties" is an extremely awkward name, and one I had never seen prior to Wikipedia. There are many terms used to described groups of parties, but I believe "Political alliances" is probably the best catch-all term, as the word "coalition" has connotations with being in government, and "electoral alliances" limits the scope to alliances that contested elections (whereas in reality, many are formed mid-term or shortly after elections, not necessarily with the aim of contesting an election together). "Political party alliances" could be a more specific alternative if anyone is concerned that it could be confused with alliances between individual politicians unrelated to party matters, and "Political blocs" is another potential solution, although this phrase has associations with groups forming in parliament following elections. I am also listing several subcategories, as detailed below. One sub-category already uses "Political alliances" Number 57 11:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as proposed political alliances has an extremely broad meaning, including internationally and historically, and has nothing to do with party politics. Look at medieval politics for political alliances run amok. "Political party alliances" is also problematic, as political parties also have international alliances. The current name "coalitions of parties" lose most those out of jurisdiction connotations, if you restrict it to political parties. (which will need to add "political" to the names of these categories, as they already don't state that. "Party" is highly ambiguous). I suggest all these be called "Category:coalitions of political parties" -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not support "coalitions of political parties" for the same reason stated above (the whole reason I brought this to CfD was to get rid of the term "coalition", as in some countries this refers commonly to government formations), but I would be amenable to "Alliances of political parties", which does not carry any unnecessary connotations. Number 57 08:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Alliances of political parties" is much better than the original proposal. But I have concerns about the cross-jursdictional issues (such as alliances between political parties in different countries) that are not evident with the word "coalition" when used with "political parties" -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 07:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename parent to Category:Political coalitions to match main article and subcats to Category:Political coalitions in Angola‎, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main article is at Political alliance. Number 57 18:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Political party coalitions or Category:Political party alliances. Although we should be considered about the potential ambiguity associated with "alliance" and "coalition", I think it is even more important that we ensure "political party" is part of the title. Although Category:Political alliances and Category:Political coalitions are much too broad in scope, Category:Alliances of parties (or Category:Party alliances) and Category:Coalitions of parties (or Category:Party coalitions) are even more vague. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be happy with "Political party alliances". Number 57 00:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further reflection, I agree that "alliance" is a better term than "coalition", since the latter heavily implies coalition governance. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:20, 25 August 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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Universities and colleges in the People's Republic of China to Category:Universities and colleges in China

Nominator's rationale: This follows the policy adopted some time ago to upmerge most "Peoples’ Republic of China" categories to "China" categories; see eg Category:Higher education in China Hugo999 (talk) 10:57, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- I assume that any Republic of China category (for Taiwanese universities) has long since been moved to Taiwan. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Support The China/Taiwan naming discussion was bizarrely partisan to the point I question whether it was a real consensus. But it did leave us with a clear naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:03, 24 August 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 there is majority agreement on keeping the split from (types of) habitats. – Fayenatic London 22:55, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Habitat to Category:Habitats

Nominator's rationale: Category:Habitat is largely redundant to the plural category, both in name and apparent scope. Additionally, most of the articles placed in "Habitat" are not about habitats but other ecological concepts (e.g. an endangered species or is not a habitat, save semantic twisting regarding parasites. Environmentalism is not a habitat.) Only articles dealing with places organisms live should be categorized as such, per WP:NON-DEFINING. Having two nearly identical categories, one nested in the other, simply invites more misplaced or overcategorized articles, which hinders both efficient browsing and categorizing. --Animalparty-- (talk) 03:42, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – Category:Habitat (general topic category of articles related to habitat) was nested as a subcat of Category:Habitats (list category of articles about a specific habitat) which is the wrong way round, so I've changed it. I would suggest 'keep but re-organise'. (See eg Category:Opera (general topic category of articles related to opera) and Category:Operas.) Oculi (talk) 09:29, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both but some of the articles in Habitat relate to habitat types. I think the solution is to rename Category:Habitats to Category:Habitat types and to purge Category:Habitat of articles that should be in "types". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 17 August 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.