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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 14#Category:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics. ℯxplicit 03:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics - Category:Lists_of_Marvel_Comics

Nominator's rationale:I propose Category:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics and Category:Lists_of_Marvel_Comics be merged. --occono (talk) 23:13, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The current category name is very confusing indeed. However, from what I see from its category contents, Category:Lists of comics by Marvel Comics is actually meant as Category:Lists of Marvel Comics publications, so it might be kept and renamed instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 25 July 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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 03:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Telecommunications companies established in the 2nd millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not sufficient entries to categorise by millennia Rathfelder (talk) 22:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - this includes a host of articles in sub-sub-cats. Oculi (talk) 22:20, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The sub categories are all companies by centuries. A more sensible way of doing it. Rathfelder (talk) 06:52, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This rationale should be in the nom. We have the whole Category:2nd-millennium establishments, not to mention Category:2nd millennium, all also arranged by centuries. And why do you refuse to indent properly? It is one of the tips on your own talkpage. Oculi (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; it's a sensible parent category for by-century. Nyttend (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- We have only had telecoms since 19th century so that there is no scope for more than 3 century categories. Even if postal services were included it would hardly be more than about 8: the precise number might be debateable. In general centuries is the highest category that we need: even for ancient Egypt, history does not go back beyond about 2500 BC, so that we could not get over 50 centuries which is not too much for one category. I vote to delete all millennium categories, except in distant prehistory, where dates are too imprecise to use centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under condition, anything that started after the year 1000 does not need a diffusion by millennium. However User:Rathfelder should add Category:Telecommunications companies established in the 3rd millennium to this nomination and tag it accordingly. It would not make any sense to delete the 2nd millennium category and to keep the 3rd millennium category. 20:51, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are about 40 types of companies in Category:Companies established in the 2nd millennium, so I think this hierarchy is useful. Deleting telecommunications alone wouldn't make sense. And to those who argue that telecoms only exist since the 19th century, you can find a much older history to them, such as the famous Persian Royal Road or the 18th-century Chappe telegraph. And also, you could have companies correctly described as telecommunications companies but established long before that on another business. Carmaker Peugeot was established long before automobile was invented. Place Clichy (talk) 15:44, 23 July 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: no consensus. ℯxplicit 03:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Clothing companies established in the 2nd millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not sufficient entries to categorise by millennia Rathfelder (talk) 22:11, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - as the nominator seems to have difficulty combining similar noms, coupled with serial problems in advancing a convincing rationale, one wonders if this is going to develop into a coherent demolition of Category:Companies established in the 2nd millennium or whether there was something particularly reprehensible about clothing companies in the 2nd millennium. The existence of Category:Clothing companies established in the 3rd millennium must be hanging by a thread. Oculi (talk) 22:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need a wider discussion about categories which are appropriately divided by millennia, but it's not obvious where that should happen. Rathfelder (talk) 06:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete for similar reasons to Telecom Cos. WE might possibly get 13th and 14th century companies (though I doubt it). That does not make even 10 subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete under condition, as we do not have any articles about this topic before the year 1000 we do not need a diffusion by millennium. However User:Rathfelder should add Category:Clothing companies established in the 3rd millennium to this nomination and tag it accordingly. It would not make any sense to delete the 2nd millennium category and to keep the 3rd millennium category. 20:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose same as above. Place Clichy (talk) 15:44, 23 July 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. Deletion would require a separate nomination which includes similar categories. ℯxplicit 03:28, 14 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Women in Film (pioneers) to Category:Women film pioneers

Nominator's rationale: Category not named in accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions for categories, either in the capitalization of "Film" or in the use of parentheses. In truth, I'm less than fully convinced that we need this category at all — "pioneer" is a subjective label rather than a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person, because literally every woman who was present in the early film industry at all can claim to be a pioneer. For example, Helen Keller is listed here on the basis of having been the subject of an early film, and is thus not usefully grouped alongside women who were actually directly involved in the film industry as makers, and there are plenty of other women here whose articles make no claim of any special importance or enduring influence as pioneers beyond the fact of existing as women in the early film industry. (And I also found a man filed in here for no apparent reason, as well.) Basically, the category appears to exist more to replicate another organization's proprietary and copyrighted list than to actually aid navigation among contextually related topics — but since "women in film" and various subcategories for women in specific film occupations already exist, there's not necessarily a compelling reason to have a subcategory that groups women across occupation based on time frame. But if it is kept, it definitely has to be renamed. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete who is a pioneer is inherently subjective; but if you read the category, it's for women film pioneers as recognized by some outside entity or by a Wikipedia article. Exclude the self-reference, which is problematic (see MOS:SELFREF) and retains the purely subjective inclusion/exclusion criteria of the authors from time to time, we ought not be adopting one source's list of "pioneers" and categorizing on it akin which is very much a WP:TOPTEN sort of problem. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:39, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• We also have Category:Cinema pioneers so straight deletion seems inappropriate. Purging and upmerging or renaming as nominated are all reasonable options. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 25 July 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 19:37, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tweenagers to Category:Adolescence

Nominator's rationale: One article. Questionable concept. Rathfelder (talk) 11:26, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there are in fact 2 articles, one being in a subcat. One would expect greater accuracy in a nom. One would also expect this nom to be combined with the one below, given the level of experience and competence of the nominator, and given advice previously offered together with a ferocious trouting on exactly this issue. Oculi (talk) 12:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge (and the sub-cat). EVen two articles is not enough for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per WP:SMALLCAT and the one article currently in the category Preadolescence isn't even about twins. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 25 July 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 09:51, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tween culture (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Very dubious concept. Only one article. Rathfelder (talk) 11:25, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, no need to merge because the one article does not belong here (anyone regardless age can subscribe to the service). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 25 July 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/delete. Timrollpickering 20:25, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Economists from Melbourne to Category:Australian economists
• Propose deleting Category:Economists by city

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, there is little reason to categorize economists by city, this is merely confusing in case they have moved and as an economist live in a different city than the place were they were born or grew up. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - why are economists being singled out from Category:People by occupation and city? Oculi (talk) 10:47, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question. I was only looking at this from the economists point of view. Same applies to the two nominations below. Presumably these nominations are not going to work. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment is there some inherent connection between Melbourne and economics; some cities have such a connection (see Chicago school of economics), but I cannot find anything of the sort for Melbourne. Moreover, in such cases, it may be better to categorize based on school of thought. Consider that merely being an economist who happens to be from Chicago, isn't necessarily subscribing to that school of thought - could even be a Marxist economist. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:46, 18 July 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 17:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Arab economists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, we do not categorize economists by ethnicity and all subcategories are already in Category:Economists by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - why are economists being singled out from Category:Arab people by occupation? Oculi (talk) 10:38, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Categories by ethnicity are to be avoided per (WP:CATEGRS) and nothing stands out here (e.g., we have no articles about Arab economists and short of a list or pure WP:SYNTH, none could be written). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This seems to be an attempt of having a multi-national category of people deemed to be Arabs. However I do not see a link between being Arab and being an economist, and even if an individual was self-defining as an Arab economist, I doubt that this would be the basis for an entire category. The only result to be expected here is otherwise well-intended editors going "Oh, this guy is Egyptian and called Yussuf, most Egyptians are Arabs, I'll categorize him as an Arab economist" without any attention paid to self-definition, sources or any other element of context. See the case of Joseph de Picciotto, who is currently in the category through Category:Egyptian economists. Place Clichy (talk) 15:44, 23 July 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/delete. Timrollpickering 10:05, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sinhalese economists to Category:Sri Lankan economists
• Propose merging Category:Sri Lankan Tamil economists to Category:Sri Lankan economists
• Propose deleting Category:Tamil economists

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, we do not categorize economists by ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Query - why are economists being singled out from the extensive Category:Sinhalese people by occupation, Category:Sri Lankan Tamil people by occupation and Category:Tamil people by occupation? Oculi (talk) 10:44, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - If economists aren't categorised by ethnicity perhaps they should be, like all of these occupations.--Obi2canibe (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• But why? Just because we can? There is (in most instances) no particular relation between occupation and ethnicity, so these are usually just trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is no relationship between occupation and nationality and yet we categorise occupations by nationality. Should we delete Category:Economists by nationality?--Obi2canibe (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Economists are often specialized in the economy of their own country. Nationality is also one of the few characteristic that is always used for diffusion per WP:CATDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Delete per nom. Categories by ethnicity are to be avoided per (WP:CATEGRS) and nothing stands out here (e.g., we have no articles about Sinhalese economists and short of a list or pure WP:SYNTH, none could be written). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ETHNICRACECAT: "Ethnic groups are commonly used when categorizing people...Ethnic groups may be used as categorizations".--Obi2canibe (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

From the same guideline: 1. Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The discussion continues at this much broader nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge/delete per nom What's the relevance between being an economist and the Sinhalese or Tamil ethnicity? Place Clichy (talk) 15:44, 23 July 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.