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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nobel laureates in Economics to Category:Nobel Memorial Prize laureates in Economics

Nominator's rationale: After all, it is not an official Nobel prize (Official name: Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). We should keep it separate from Nobel prizes. Störm (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support- this has been discussed before in 2008 and more recently at speedy in 2019, where I see I supported it. Oculi (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. As the article says, it is commonly called the Nobel Prize in Economics, and the current title is the normal title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Necrothesp. The head article is at Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, but its lead begins The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics. The article is mistitled, but the category correctly follows the common name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The head category is Category:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. The point seems to be that the usual name is inaccurate, as it is not a Nobel Prize. 19:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

• Reanme but to Category:Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences laureates. I am normally wary of long category names as adding to clutter, but Nobel prizes of any kind are scarce enough for that not to matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 27 February 2020 (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 top one, keep sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Star Wars Force-sensitive characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Star Wars Jedi characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Star Wars Sith characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: These are three newly-created and completely in-universe categories that add no encyclopedic value. I believe one or more of these was created and deleted in the past, among other similar Star Wars character categories. — TAnthony^Talk 18:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to divide the character category by factions. Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Only the first one was tagged until today. The Sith category was previously discussed with no consensus at CFD 2008 September 2; it appears that it was later emptied by EEMIV([1]) and deleted as empty in April 2009. As Category:Star Wars Jedi characters was recently created to sub-cat its members from the parent Category:Jedi, where they were previously held (e.g. [2]), and likewise the Sith category,[3] those two categories must not be simply deleted but (if not kept) must be merged back. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, after the 2008 CfD, both Category:Star Wars Sith characters and Category:Star Wars Imperial characters were emptied and deleted on April 19, 2009 (with others, I seem to recall), but I don't know which discussion may have preceded that. Atvica recreated the Sith category on February 20, 2020. Perhaps EEMIV, who did some of the emptying, can recall more about this than I can?— TAnthony^Talk 22:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other categories sharing the same fate include Star Wars Separatist characters and Star Wars Old Republic characters. If I remember correctly, these were all created at the same time by a single editor.— TAnthony^Talk 22:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Star Wars Force-sensitive characters to Category:Star Wars characters per WP:NONDEF but keep the other two. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oy, my ears are burning. I don't remember exactly, but I suspect I was 1) merge-and-redirecting a bunch of character article stubs and 2) consequently nearly emptying a bunch of very specific cats (e.g. "Left-handed Sith characters with a beaded mustachio"). This was not only for characters but also vehicles, planets, etc. I think overall cat cleanup was also a deliberate objective -- cats embedded within each other a few layers down, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. This was during a general hux lull in Star Wars-ness -- not a ton of notable new content creation, and before the Disney resurgence and explosive growth of new content. So insofar as this particular CfD is concerned, I don't have an opinion. Nudge me if you'd like me to start clicking around the cats to try to come up with a somewhat informed opinion. --EEMIV (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2020 (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: Option B. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option A

• Propose merging Category:Categories by geographical categorization to Category:Categories by geography

Option B

• Propose merging Category:Categories by geographical categorization to Category:Categories by parameter
• Propose merging manual deletion of Category:Categories by geography to Category:Categories by parameter
• Propose manual deletion of Category:Music by geography

Nominator's rationale: Following the deletion of similarly-named categories created by Lmatt (talk · contribs) (whose work was considered disruptive and who was blocked as a result), see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_6#Categories_by_parameter, this older one remains. "Geographical categorization" here means location, language or ethnicity/culture, i.e. various aspects of human geography. It may be that it is useful to gather these together, in which case choose option A, because we don't need both these layers, and the shorter name is clearer. Otherwise, choose option B.

It is interesting to note that several other-language Wikipedias have implemented a similar structure (intentionally, not copied just by bots).

Note: if Option A is chosen, the first category page should be moved over the target page, since it is older.

(added at 21:56) If Option B is chosen, the sub-cats should be dismantled by returning the contents to where they were before.

Disclosure: I have moved categories by continent/country/etc back into Category:Categories by location, where they were before Lmatt moved them. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support B1, merging Category:Categories by geographical categorization to Category:Categories by parameter. On the other hand Category:Categories by geography looks pretty incoherent, can't we dismantle it instead of merging it? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, agreed and changed in the nomination. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now support option B entirely. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• support B I made Category:Categories by geographical categorization because I was inspired by the german wikipedia which has, as Fayenatic already hinted at, a very similar category branch. Instead of Category:Categories by spatial categorization, which I've been preferring to the actual name for a few years but never made an attempt to rename it, I decided for "geography" in the name, because I thought it's more fitting for categorization by ethnicity, language, nationality, culture, etc. But no, it should have been "by spatial categorization" from the start, really. My intent with »____ by geographical categorization« is to have a single category, which can hold all these just mentioned geographical location based subcategories. So they do not all have to clog up a topic category, e.g. music, which already has many other subcategories.

Why do I not like your suggestion of Category:Categories by geography? You are right that it is shorter but I disagree that it is clearer. Geography is a discipline and not a property of something. This is similar to another trend, where the word "geometry" is used when the structure of form of a body is meant. Geometry is the science of the planes and solid figures, so a subdiscipline of mathematics, not the property that a body has. Another commonly wrongly applied fashionably expression is the "architecture" of something, e.g. a molecule. Architecture is the art of construction, not a molecule property. CN1 (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I read the previous discussion, linked above, you were the only person who found "Categories by [foo] categorisation" clear. Perhaps "Categories by geographical parameter" would be an improvement. However , you have not explained (i) why it is useful to have language and culture/ethnicity categorised with location, or (ii) how it is useful to distinguish "geographical location" from simply "location". – Fayenatic London 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Categories by geographical parameter" is acceptable. Alternative: "Categories by spatial parameter". to your (i) even if our world is globalized, language / culture / ethnicity still are ways of categorizing by space i.e. location. As to your (ii) the two terms you present are synonymous, which is exactly why I wrote that language / culture / nationality / ethniticy are »[geographical] location based classifications« = »location based classifications«. However I changed my vote to support your proposal B now. CN1 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In common English usage geography, like history, can be a property of something. I have a history, Wikipedia has a history. The two ways in which the word can be used are not contradictory, and Option A represents perfectly proper English usage. MapReader (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Option B. There was already a well-established hierarchy at Category:Categories by location covering geographical topics, and the other additions to these categories are better located at Category:Categories by parameter or deleted along with Option B proposition. Place Clichy (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2020 (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:Lists of historical drama films. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of historical period drama films to Category:Lists of historical films

Nominator's rationale: rename, aligning with the name of parent Category:Historical films. The films in this category are not necessarily drama films as suggested by the current title. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MapReader and Armbrust: pinging contributors to earlier speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the original nominator I would have expected the proposal that starts the discussion to have been my own, not an amended one from another editor. Suggest yours as an alternative in discussion, by all means, but IMO the existence of historical documentary films renders yours flawed from the outset (unless you intended to propose a merge of a batch of categories, which is really a whole separate discussion). MapReader (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Object I am troubled by this proposal. There is a distinction to be drawn between historical fiction and dramatisations of history that are attempting to portray fact. However I do not have a solution to offer. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't that objection equally apply to e.g. Category:British historical films? This is just an aligment proposal, not meant to be controversial in any way. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Not all historical films are dramas. See Category:Historical comedy films and its subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the original CFDS proposal You can have ‘historical drama’ and ‘period drama’, which mean pretty much the same thing (perhaps, ancient history and recent contemporary history films are less likely to be described as ‘period’ films, but that’s a nuance) but ‘historical period drama’ is a tautology. The pre-internet gold standard for encyclopaedias, Britannica, has ‘historical drama films’ as its subcategory, and its prevalence as usage overwhelmingly more common than ‘historical period drama’ can be checked quickly by Google - most hits for the latter derive from WP. Indeed within WP itself ‘historical drama film’ is already the most common usage within articles, with instances of the tautological phrase mostly contained to foreign language films, particularly Indian ones, for some reason (I have been editing these out, reflecting the change to the main article title, which has proved uncontroversial. This should have been a straightforward C2D and the only objection was on grounds of recency, not substance). So my proposal is simply to remove the redundant word ‘period’. MapReader (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. if other editors wish to discuss merging subcategories such as drama, comedy, documentary into one wider ‘historical films’ category, can we do so separately and later? Otherwise discussion of what was a straightforward C2D proposal is going to turn into a mess. Thank you! MapReader (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If there would be no consensus about the current proposal then the CFDS proposal is a second best alternative, better than keeping as is. But again, the films in this category are not necessarily drama films as suggested by the current title or the title proposed at CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that some films might not be correctly categorised it not in itself an argument pertinent to the category titles. I still think you had a cheek overriding my proposal with your own, and would be grateful if we could establish first whether the CFDS proposal has any opposition. MapReader (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I will most happily confirm that the CFDS proposal so far does not have any opposition compared to the current category name. However, there is no need to have two consecutive discussions about the same category, because it is the end result that counts. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we are now stuck in the Wiki mire thanks to the interventions of two editors neither of whom appear to have any substantive objection to what was always a straightforward C2D. How do we escape and get this simple change done? MapReader (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Armbrust (talk · contribs) despatched us here, despite having no objection to the original proposal, perhaps s/he could advise us as to how to escape? MapReader (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2020 (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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Arts and crafts media to Category:Arts and crafts mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Children's media to Category:Children's mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Cultural media to Category:Cultural mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Disability media to Category:Disability mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Environmental media to Category:Environmental mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Ethnic media to Category:Ethnic mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Feminist media to Category:Feminist mass media
• Propose renaming Category:LGBT-related media to Category:LGBT-related mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Libertarian media to Category:Libertarian mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Media by country and interest to Category:Mass media by country and interest
• Propose renaming Category:Media of the military to Category:Mass media of the military
• Propose renaming Category:Men's media to Category:Men's mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Music media to Category:Music mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Religious media to Category:Religious mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Scientific skepticism media to Category:Scientific skepticism mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Sports media to Category:Sports mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Student media to Category:Student mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Women's media to Category:Women's mass media
• Propose renaming Category:Yoga media to Category:Yoga mass media

Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency with parent Category:Mass media by interest and grandparent Category:Mass media. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. A minor point for Arts and crafts — it could be confused with Category:Art materials. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2020 (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 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:IUCN Category Ia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. It is mentioned in the infobox of every article, but more specific information on when, why and how these protected areas got onto the IUCN list is consistently lacking. Besides on the IUCN website I cannot find a list of these nature reserves (but perhaps I am not searching well enough). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Even well-developed articles such as Baker Island make no mention of this in the article text and all the articles I checked are in much better categories. If not deleted it should be renamed to something more meaningful and articles placed in it properly (by a category tag).DexDor ^(talk) 17:05, 9 February 2020 (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. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Males to Category:Male
• Propose renaming Category:Females to Category:Female

Nominator's rationale: rename, these appear to be topic categories, which we normally do not pluralize. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure about the proposed names - how about deletion instead (recategorizing if necessary)? DexDor ^(talk) 13:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DexDor:: If these categories were deleted, then how would their subcategories be recategorized? Why should these categories be deleted? Jarble (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion would be that there isn't really a coherent topic here (i.e. it's not grouping articles about similar topics). The subcats I've looked at are in more suitable parent categories. DexDor ^(talk) 17:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've removed some redundant categorization. These cats now each have just 2 subcats. DexDor ^(talk) 17:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) Male twins, male mammals and animal male reproductive systems (the three subcategories) do not have a lot in common indeed, so deletion is certainly an option. However, the articles should be moved to parent Category:Sex in that case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I think all the subcats and articles are currently already in Category:Sex via other routes - either directly (e.g. in the case of X-inactivation) or via cats such as Category:Sexual anatomy. DexDor ^(talk) 06:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You are right. So I support either delete or rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or keep (not rename as proposed). DexDor ^(talk) 19:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nom. Deletion could be an option I'll be fine with, and I agree with the topic category rationale. However these categories also contain categories for male/female individuals, albeit at lower levels below Category:Female mammals and Category:Male mammals: Women, Men, Individual cows, Individual bulls, Individual mares, Individual male horses. I do not really see a reason why notable individual animals from other taxons besides mammals (found here) would not be notable for reasons relative to their gender. Hence the topics of masculinity and feminity has potential for expansion besides the border of the mammal realm. Bring on the famous reproductive sharks, birds, octopuses and queen ants. Place Clichy (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2020 (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. @Place Clichy: you may want to take your proposals forward after this. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Biology of gender to Category:Sex

Nominator's rationale: selectively merge to Category:Sex or possibly move somewhere else. The category contains a hodgepodge of articles that belong in Category:Sex, Category:Sexual orientation, Category:Transgender, Category:Intersex, Category:Males or Category:Females. Besides, "sex" is a biological concept anyway, so a category for "biology of gender" does not add anything to the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Biology of gender includes biology of gender identity. --Sharouser (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What does Biology of gender identity mean? Of which articles is it a defining characteristic? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see any articles in the category that are specifically about "biology of gender identity". The only article I know of that discusses this idea is gender identity and it isn't in the category. Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - This category is a jumbled mess. Most of the articles would be better suited in Category:Sex. Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Biology does not have an identity. "Biology of gender" is equivalent to "Wetness of water". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that analogy works! MapReader (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit forced I admit. But when wetness is removed from water, what remains of water? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support. The fact that this biology category is currently a child of Category:Cultural anthropology and Category:Gender studies seems to show that the respective scope of all these sex/gender categories is unclear for most. Currently, Category:Sex seems to be purged of most of its content directly related to biology (which are in the nominated Category:Biology of gender) despite having as only parent Category:Biological processes. Category:Sex instead has the other following subcategories: Females, Gender, Intersex, Males, Sex selection, Sex differences in humans, Sexuality, Wikipedia books on sex. May I suggest the following roads:
  1. Make Category:Sex the main category about biological aspects relative to sex and gender, as differentiated from social aspects. In this case, merge as nominated (including moving parent Category:Sociobiology), maybe move some of the content of Category:Sex to Category:Gender, maybe make Category:Sex a child of Category:Gender (instead of the other way around as it currently is)
  2. Create a merged parent Category:Sex and gender with most content that would both belong in current Category:Sex and Category:Gender, and a subcategory e.g. Category:Biology of sex and gender for strictly biological aspects.

  Note that many articles with "sex" in the name (such as Sex segregation, Sex assignment or Sexual mimicry) are often about sex, gender or sexuality or several of them at the same time and cannot be clearly cut between biological and social and cultural aspects. I also acknowledge the creation of recent Category:Human gender and sexuality as a good umbrella category for much of these currently disorganized content, although Category:Sex also has much content about animal sex, sexuality & reproduction topics. Place Clichy (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I can Support Clichy's proposal above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Place Clichy and Laurel Lodged: how would you populate Category:Biology of sex and gender in this alternative proposal, other than by duplication of Category:Sex? After all, sex covers the biological aspects, while gender covers the social aspects. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: I think that the sex/gender biological/socio-cultural is a bit simplistic here, there is a huge grey zone belonging to both topics. Hence, in the proposed format, content belonging to both biological and socio-cultural aspects (such as Sex segregation or children Category:Male[s] and Category:Female[s]) would be in the root Category:Sex and gender, while content strictly related to biology (such as maybe Sex hormones) would be in child Category:Biology of sex and gender. In case that's not clear, there would be no need any more for separate Category:Sex and Category:Gender, which would be merged into Sex and gender. Seeing for instance that articles Matriarchy and Patriarchy are currently found inside Category:Biology of gender, I do not think that the current structure works very well, or that moving them to Category:Sex under the biological rationale would make the most sense. I'm still (weakly) supporting your original nomination though, as better than the status quo. Place Clichy (talk) 16:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, I see a lot of practical sense in what Place Clichy has written above. The proposal for merged parent ought to mop up a lot of ambiguous cases. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2020 (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 16:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Capital T (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. Downmerge the discography page to Category:Capital T songs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discography page was re-created again with new sources and more information. I think the category can stay.--Lorik17 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That does not make a difference. The two articles already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, the contents are sufficiently well linked without this category. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:OCEPON. Place Clichy (talk) 11:05, 28 February 2020 (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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Apple Inc. mobile phones (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant to Category:iPhone Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - part of Category:Mobile phones by company. This should be a set category of articles about phones, unlike Category:iPhone which is a topic category. Oculi (talk) 22:09, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but merge to Category:Apple Inc. hardware rather than straight delete. The parent Category:Mobile phones by company is not based on a closed set (of companies) anyway, unlike e.g. with countries. Many siblings can be upmerged as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:46, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now, as part of a structure, without prejudice to a wider nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 27 February 2020 (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 (Talk) 14:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Order of Saint Sylvester to Category:Orders of chivalry of the Holy See
• Propose merging Category:Supreme Order of Christ to Category:Orders of chivalry of the Holy See

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, each of the categories only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory of recipients. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I think WP:SMALLCAT is not an argument in this case, since there are many articles, just that they are in a subcategory, so this is part of the tree. This is a valid and useful tree structure. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- They are both knighthoods, so that chivalry is appropriate. I think Debresser has misunderstood the potential outcome, which will be that the article on each order goes into the target category and the membership content becomes a subcategory. That would be wholly appropriate. We are not talking about the subcategories, which should probably be retained, though WP:OC#AWARD discourages award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, the sub-cats are not being deleted so SMALLCAT does apply to this intermediate category layer. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge Too small for having separate category. desmay (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2020 (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 (Talk) 14:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dungeons & Dragons aberrations to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures

Nominator's rationale: The main article has been deleted, so the category has no real utility in organizing the articles. As with most of the articles in the category structure, the majority are merge/redirect/deletion targets, so the number will be cut drastically in the coming weeks as well. TTN (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and we do not have any other aberrations categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a large and valid category. As I stated above, I see no problem with these Dungeons & Dragons categories. I do think they should have been grouped in one nomination. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per WP:SMALLCAT and as overly specific. It is unlikely to expand in the future and likely to grow much smaller._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge Too small for having separate category. desmay (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2020 (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 (Talk) 14:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dungeons & Dragons giants to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures

Nominator's rationale: Only five articles. This will only shrink from here. Upmerge to both categories. TTN (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If merged, also merge to Category:Fictional giants. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose We have a category for humanoids and plants so we can have one for giants as well. I find 5 articles enough for a category. Debresser (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Per WP:SMALLCAT which specifies that categories with very few articles and without future potential for expansion should be merged._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge Too small for having separate category. desmay (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2020 (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 16:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Forgotten Realms creatures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This has no real organizational purpose because every article I've looked at is within the other categories in "Dungeons & Dragons creatures." I don't think the general reader needs to know the campaign settings in which the creatures are utilized. This is from when D&D had about five times the current number of existing articles. If there's an article I missed that's not already covered elsewhere, then it should be upmerged to "Dungeons & Dragons creatures." TTN (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Overly specific category that does not help the casual reader in any way. As Forgotten Realms is a setting of D&D, the base category is sufficient._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:54, 27 February 2020 (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 but to the alternative targets suggested by andrybak. – Fayenatic London 12:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of computing topical overviews to Category:History of computing

Merge Category:History of industry topical overviews‎ to Category:Industrial history *

Merge Category:History of science topical overviews‎ to Category:History of science *

Merge Category:History of technology topical overviews‎ to Category:History of technology

Merge Category:History of the arts topical overviews‎ to Category:Art history *

Merge Category:History of the United Kingdom topical overviews‎ to Category:History of the United Kingdom *

Merge Category:History of the United States topical overviews‎ to Category:History of the United States by topic

Merge Category:Maritime history topical overviews‎ to Category:Maritime history

Nominator's rationale: There is no clear distinction between an article that is an overview and one that is not - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_7#Category:History_of_Australia_topical_overviews. DexDor ^(talk) 19:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For those marked with an asterisk above an alternative merge target has been proposed below by andrybak. I support either target. DexDor ^(talk) 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, "overview" is subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Topical overview" is not an accurate description. Dimadick (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dimadick, is there another description that you would prefer?--Sm8900 (talk) 11:49, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Unrelated comment: it seems there is inconsistencies in the top categories. Some use "X history", while others use "History of x". --Gonnym (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These categories have a clear scope and a useful role, i.e. based upon the articles contained in each one. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the points made in the previous CFD (linked in the nom). DexDor ^(talk) 08:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep -- The topical overviews have the merit of enabling a short list of head topic articles to be picked out from the mass of detail, some of which may need to be purged from the target categories into various of their subcategories. I have a problem with the scope of Art/arts, which is mixing graphic arts (e.g. painting) with performing arts (e.g. theatre, film, etc). Arguably a head category on the arts might include everything that is not a science, but that is not necessarily helpful, except as a very high level category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I will be glad to support any changes or refinements that you might suggest. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support — what is or isn't an overview is too specific and subjective. However, for some of the categories on the list I propose other targets of merging, which are similar to the US categories merge in the original proposal:
  • Merge Category:History of industry topical overviews‎ to Category:History of industries.
  • Downmerge Category:History of science topical overviews‎ to Category:History of science by discipline.
  • Downmerge Category:History of the arts topical overviews‎ to Category:Art history by medium.
  • Merge Category:History of the United Kingdom topical overviews‎ to Category:History of the United Kingdom by topic.
• —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alt merge by Andrybak over the original merge proposal, since it is more specific. Note that this is my second vote, as I keep supporting the original nomination over the current situation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2020 (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:Androgynous characters in Mahabharata Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Sexual Minorities in Mahabharata to Category:Transgender topics and mythology and Category:LGBT topics and Hinduism

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. Note that all four articles are already in Category:Characters in the Mahabharata. If the category is not going to be merged, it will at least need some kind of renaming, since we do not have any other Sexual Minorities categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename -- I looked at all four articles and had difficulty working out what its basis is. I think it is that certain characters of the Mahabharata, where either of ambiguous or alternating gender. This is somewhat different from LGBT or Transgender. One of the persons is described as androgyne, which has some similarities to intersex or non-binary, but this is mythology and does not fit with real life categories. Perhaps Category:Androgynes in Mahabharata. I think we should allow an exception to the normal minimum of 5 articles in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If renamed this way, Category:Androgynous characters in Mahabharata may be slightly better. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I would go along with that, which is better than my suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Please close per consensus above. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt Category:Androgynous characters in Mahabharata. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 27 February 2020 (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.