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:Archbishops of Monaco and Category:Bishops of Monaco. – Fayenatic London 23:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Monegasque Roman Catholic archbishops to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops of Monaco or Category:Archbishops of Monaco
• Propose renaming Category:Monegasque Roman Catholic bishops to Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Monaco or Category:Bishops of Monaco

Nominator's rationale: The actual use of these categories is for archbishops of Monaco who are of French nationality, instead of Monegasque nationality. (Note, if there is consensus about this rename, the parenting of these categories need to change accordingly.) Marcocapelle (talk) 23:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This is not a useful category for the nationality tree as many of the expected contents will often not be Monegasque nationals. I made the same point about Category:Monegasque politicians in a discussion last month around the politicians by nationality tree. Like bishops, the position has a geographic (normally national) basis, so it makes much more sense to categorise by country of the position, rather than nationality of the title holder. SFB 22:42, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Archbishops of Monaco etc. That is the title and that is what we should use. The nationality of the bishops is immaterial and it is unnecessary to state the denomination, except where this is necessary for disambiguation reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:26, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by closer: Although the Bishops category currently only contains the Archbishops, there is a Diocese of Monaco.[1] – Fayenatic London 23:05, 19 December 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 container category. – Fayenatic London 13:09, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television series by Viacom Media Networks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary supercategory. Viacom owns a number of production companies and networks all of which are subcategories of various Viacom categories. Since Viacom doesn't directly own or produce Television series only the subsidiaries that do, this is an unnecessary and misleading category. Geraldo Perez (talk) 20:03, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question What used to be in this category? It's currently empty. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The category was only created a few hours before it was nominated for deletion. The IP of the creator then started adding a series of articles to it, but the additions were very quickly reverted so the answer is effectively "nothing". --AussieLegend (✉) 15:39, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I added back a bunch that I had removed for the purposes of this discussion. They belong to subsiduary companies, not the Viacom division itself. Geraldo Perez (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note I added the TV series subcategories to the nominated category in a--at best--partially convincing attempt to salvage it.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep/Containerize As a container only category, this would be conceptually sound and match other corporate level categories like Category:Video games based on Time Warner properties. That being said, it wouldn't be difficult for a reader to drill down by the networks under the Viacom tree if they wanted this information. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Looks good. I agree that as a container only category it would work as that would put it at the proper level in the category hierarchy. None of the individual TV series that I originally removed and temporarily put back should show up here, just subsidiary component categories for the entities that actually produce those series that are already in the TV series articles. Geraldo Perez (talk) 03:02, 12 November 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.

Withdrawn by nominator given new, broader nomination dated 22 December

• Propose renaming Category:Australian sportspeople by ethnic or national origin to Category:Australian sportspeople by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: None of the contents relate to Australian sportspeople's nationality of descent. Move also brings category into line with parent Category:Sportspeople by ethnicity. SFB 14:14, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Question to @Sillyfolkboy: what is your view now that Category:Australian sportspeople of Italian descent has been added? – Fayenatic London 13:15, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: I think its presence challenges the basis of my argument. However, upon more thought think the category warrants deletion. The Italian category is a potential deletion candidate: I have never heard Italian ancestry discussed in an Australian sports context. It's simply not a topic of study, hence why global search results simply mirror the content of this Wikipedia category. Compare this with the example of extensive discussion of Indigenous Australian people in relation to sports[2]. On a similar basis, I think Category:Jewish Australian sportspeople also warrants deletion as a non-topic. The parents "Australian Jews" and "Jewish sportspeople" most clearly are relevant fields of study in themselves but I can't locate anything to suggest that intersection is a topic of study. I'll start a new discussion for those. On that logic, I would delete the nominated category here instead and move the sole Indigenous category to the parent. SFB 18:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Sillyfolkboy: In that case, do you want to withdraw this "rename" nomination, and add its merger into the new nomination? I suggest dual upmerge to Category:Australian sportspeople and Category:Sportspeople by ethnicity (i.e. move Category:Indigenous Australian sportspeople alone up into those parents.) – Fayenatic London 20:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus to rename. May be affected later by outcome of discussion on parent cat. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:11, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Canadian sportspeople by ethnic or national origin to Category:Canadian sportspeople by ethnicity

Nominator's rationale: None of the contents relate to Canadian sportspeople's nationality of descent. Move also brings category into line with parent Category:Sportspeople by ethnicity SFB 14:12, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose. The First Nations of Canada may be legitimately considered one or more nationalities: hence the term First Nations. It matches the parent Category:Canadian people by ethnic or national origin, so here there is a conflict between the terminology the two parent categories use. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:01, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Good Olfactory: I accept the above point, but is it also true that those nations are all equated with an ethnicity? If that is the case, then the "or national origin" qualifier doesn't add anything. Not only that, am I right in thinking that the First Nations should be considered a "nationality" and not a "national origin"? Following the patterns in the tree, a national origin should be in the form of Category:Canadian sportspeople of First Nations descent‎ surely? Bizarrely, the main category (Category:First Nations people‎) is currently a child of Category:Canadian people of First Nations descent. SFB 21:00, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The latter is not bizarre. People of full descent are a sub-cat of people of full or partial descent. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • All true (with the exception of the last point being bizarre, as pointed out)—which is why my opposition was weak. Right now, I think it could be legitimately named either way. But what happens when someone does create a "Canadian sportspeople of FOOian descent" category, and the FOOian is a national descent? Where would it be categorized if the nominated category was renamed? Or are you impliedly suggesting in the nomination that any such category would be inherently illegitimate? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • And do you have a proposal for the larger sibling, Category:American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin? – Fayenatic London 15:03, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Fayenatic london and Good Olfactory: Upon greater thought, I think this nomination ties in with my proposal to rename to "ancestry". Also, I think almost all instances of national origin (rather than ethnic) are prime for deletion. A limited few have a clear field of study attached (e.g. Category:American boxers of Italian descent‎) but topics like Category:American boxers of Nicaraguan descent are merely a combination of a subject's factors that do not bear relevance to each other. I will withdraw this nomination pending the outcome of the "ancestry" and pick off the fabricated collections of ideas separately. SFB 20:27, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • For reference, the "ancestry" discussion is at December 11. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 29 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:32, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:African raptors to Category:African birds of prey

Nominator's rationale: Per main article on this group of birds (Bird of prey) and parent category (Category:Birds of prey). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom or upmerge to Category:Birds of prey (which is not otherwise subcatted by location). A typical user:NotWith contribution: misname something, put a very few articles in it, and dash on to a rapid zigzag random path through arthropods, tetrapods, spiders, invertebrates, moths, butterflies, primates, skinks, arachnids, frogs, starting myriads of schemes and finishing nothing. (500 new categories created in 8 days, 24 Oct to 1 Nov: is NotWith a team?) Oculi (talk) 14:51, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Or should it be Category:Birds of prey of Africa, per Category:Birds of Africa or indeed Category:Parrots of Africa (created by NotWith in the same week of random inspiration)? Oculi (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This cateory, actually, is neither recent, nor created by NotWith; I hadn't thought beyond the word "raptors" (which, at least in my non-scientific circle, is used to refer to Velociraptor and its relatives). And while NotWith has been creating categories for small areas which are completely artificial, Africa is a big area with a clear, natural border almost all ther way around (ecept for the border of Egypt with Israel and Palestine). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite right (Category:Birds of prey of Africa is NotWith's). However, given that Category:African raptors is not recent - 2006 - and no-one has been inspired to create American or Asian sibling categories in 8 years, should we not accept that the idea of Category:Birds of prey by continent, although perfectly feasible, has not been greeted with enthusiasm and should be rolled back, without prejudice? Oculi (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to African birds of prey. While "Birds of prey of Africa" better follows the naming scheme, it's very awkward and resolves no ambiguity as a result. I think "animal type by continent" is an acceptable and useful type of grouping on the basis that many of the animal ranges will fall entirely within that continent, and the articles will likely be categorised in no more than two other categories (Europe and Asia in this example). As such, the navigational benefit is gained because the contents reflect well the shared primary range of the species. SFB 22:51, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:53, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tekkaman Blade images to Category:Images of video covers

Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, contains only one file. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not useful to navigation. SFB 22:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:32, 14 November 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:52, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dispositional beliefs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I can't figure out what this disparate collection of articles has in common. Editor2020, Talk 04:26, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This discussion has been listed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Philosophy. – Fayenatic London 07:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep No valid reason to delete. For the content inclusion, read the main article (section) stated in the headnotes. Hmains (talk) 18:41, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The section Hmains refers to is unsourced psychobabble, and gives no idea as to whether an article should be in the category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:00, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete science has not ascertained the validity of "dispositional beliefs" much less which beliefs they encompass (one would have thought that "religion" or "atheism" or "iconoclasm" or what-have-you would be included). I think one could cite the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church which tells the faithful that they remain Catholic even if they are asleep, in a coma, or otherwise brain impaired. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF, dispositional belief is not a defining characteristic of the concepts in this category.Marcocapelle (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I will withdraw my keep based on user Rubin's point Hmains (talk) 04:44, 11 November 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.