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: do not merge. MER-C 17:26, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:All Wikipedia List-Class vital articles to Category:List-Class List articles

Nominator's rationale: I find that Category:All Wikipedia List-Class vital articles is duplicated with Category:List-Class List articles. Is it better merging the two categories? --Kanashimi (talk) 23:41, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose They're not duplicates - for a start, the sheer difference in size: All Wikipedia List-Class vital articles has 42 members; List-Class List articles has "approximately 98,764" so clearly not all list articles are vital. Nor is one simply a subset of the other - it didn't take me long to find that Talk:Beer glassware is in the smaller category but not in the larger. The two categories are produced by different talk page banners: All Wikipedia List-Class vital articles is due to ((Vital article|class=List)) and List-Class List articles is due to ((WikiProject Lists|class=list)). Only if a talk page bears both banners will it be in both categories. Since these are different WikiProjects, and each WikiProject reserves the right to decide which articles fall within their respective scopes, this is not a CFD matter but instead the members of these WikiProjects should have the say in whether they should be merged. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - as Redrose64 says, they are completely different. One does wonder why List is repeated in Category:List-Class List articles. A list-class article is presumably a list. Oculi (talk) 14:15, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Oculi: For categories in the Category:Wikipedia 1.0 assessments tree, the format is Foo-Class Bar articles, where Bar is based on the WikiProject name, which in this case is WikiProject Lists; and Foo is one of the valid class names for that WikiProject. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:38, 1 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 to Category:Monster Allergy and Category:Fantasy television characters. MER-C 17:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Monster Allergy characters to Category:Monster Allergy

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. TTN (talk) 19:02, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in principle but shouldn't it also be merged to Category:Fantasy television characters? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Triple Double upmerge to the parent categories is what I'm seeing, right Marcocapelle? --Doug Mehus T·C 23:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Initially I thought so too, but a merge to Category:Animated characters is not necessary because the article is already in Category:Lists of characters in French television animation. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle, Ah, that makes sense. Essentially, Category:Animated characters is already listed as a subcategory of Category:Lists of characters in French television animation from the sounds of it? Thanks! Doug Mehus T·C 03:44, 25 January 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. MER-C 17:16, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Kim Possible characters to Category:Kim Possible

Nominator's rationale: Only three articles. Probably should upmerge to all aside from "Animated television characters by series." TTN (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Triple upmerge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 23 January 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. MER-C 17:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Aqua Teen Hunger Force characters to Category:Aqua Teen Hunger Force

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. TTN (talk) 18:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 23 January 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, and merge the current member page to Category:Lists of animated science fiction television characters (a sub-cat of Category:Animated characters); the category can immediately be expanded to three pages with the lead article and the episode list. The other article Professor Moshimo was PRODded and has been redirected to the list, so it does not need to be included in the category. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Robotboy characters to Category:Robotboy

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. The series does not currently have a category. It should be moved out of this category structure. TTN (talk) 18:57, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I’m sure I created this category after it appeared in Special:Wantedcategories, but it doesn’t even need to exist. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:33, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Category:Animated characters per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 23 January 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. MER-C 17:19, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:The Jetsons characters to Category:The Jetsons

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. TTN (talk) 18:54, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:The Jetsons per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 23 January 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 18:47, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hotel Transylvania characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: All these articles are for the wider original creations, not the HT versions which are barely (it at all) mentioned. ★Trekker (talk) 18:23, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:59, 24 January 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) 15:07, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Black Belt (U.S. region) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: While there does appear to be some usage from the 1820s to the 1910s in modern usage this is rarely used. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Reason: the nominator's rationale is simply not true. It doesn't take much googling to realize this. Some examples: this [1], this [2] and this: [3]. See the article Black Belt (U.S. region) for more details. Pamrel (talk) 18:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Pamrel is the creator of this category and that all 90 pages that are in this category were added by Pamrel in the last 24 hours.

Searching for and finding a few obscure sources that use the phrase is not sufficient. Per WP:DEFINING,

"A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having" (emphasis in original).

--Guy Macon (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably keep -- The very fact that the name is now obsolete is a reason for having an article. Nevertheless, I would question whether we also need a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Peterkingiron, I am not sure what the above means. Are you advocating keeping the category? Nobody is proposing deleting the article, but we are listing Montgomery bus boycott, Calhoun Colored School, and Macon County, Alabama as if being located over a certain geologic formation is a WP:DEFINING feature, --Guy Macon (talk) 17:38, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep Reason: the nominator's rationale is simply not true. There are over 5000 recent scholarly books and articles published since 2010 that use the terminology in African-American history. Here is the [list from Google scholar] Furthermore, there over 500 citations in 2019-2020 in the scholarly literature Here are a few recent titles in the scholarly historical journals (1) "Black Belt and White Line" Journal of the Gilded Age & Progressive Era Oct 2017; (2) "Cabins as Far as the Eyes Can See: An Introduction to the Black Belt Slave Housing Survey." Alabama Review. Jan 2017; (3) "Visions of the Black Belt" Alabama Heritage Fall 2015; (4) “An Analysis of Differential Migration Patterns in the Black Belt and the New South.” Southeastern Geographer (2012)--- And Here are some recent full-length scholarly books that use black belt in the titles: (1) Bloody Lowndes: Civil Rights and Black Power in Alabama’s Black Belt (New York University Press. 2009); (2) Abandonment in Dixie: Underdevelopment in the Black Belt (Mercer University Press 2013) (3) Visions of the Black Belt: A Cultural Survey of the Heart of Alabama (University Alabama Press; 2015). And let me add a few examples of how historians use the term in scholarly monographs: (1) "Though King influenced the struggles that took place in the Black Belt regions of Mississippi, Alabama, and Georgia, those movements were also guided by self-reliant local leaders" in Martin Luther King Jr. and the Civil Rights Movement (2007); *2) " As civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out to President Lyndon Johnson, all of the Black Belt states that Goldwater carried had near majorities of African American residents who were not allowed to vote." [Rule and Ruin: The Downfall of Moderation 2012]; (3) Re: white opponent of the civil rights movement: "the impetus, the organization, the leadership, and the control of this movement rested in the hands of the traditional Black Belt ruling class that had emerged after Reconstruction. That class was still centered in the Black Belt." [Class, Race, and the Civil Rights Movement (2019) p 131. Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Marcocapelle. While I agree that this is a still-relevant socioeconomic concept (see Talk:Black Belt (geological formation)#Obsolete term?), this is not a defining characteristic of the individual counties, which are the only members of this category.--Pharos (talk) 18:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the socio-economic structure of the counties involved is historically and currently shaped by their Black Belt status. they have a large African Am population, poverty, rural conditions with low access to urban facilities--rarely have own TV station. That's what 'defining characteristics' look like Rjensen (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your claim about what defining characteristics "look like" is at odds with WP:DEFINING. Georg Händel was a Baroque Composer. Baroque Composer is a defining characteristic of Händel, and multiple sources call him that. Brunswick County, Virginia has never been called a Black Belt County by anyone, anywhere.

You appear to be confusing "member of a group" with "defining characteristic". Händel was also a coppersmith and a barber, but those are not defining characteristics. Händel has never been called 17th-century coppersmith Georg Händel by anyone, anywhere -- yet he was one. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. Brunswick County, Virginia does indeed consider itself Black Belt. Its Board of Supervisors released a promotional brochure in 1907 declaring "Being situated in the heart of the Black Belt, which contains over three-fifths of the negro population of the State, it is ideally located;..." The most famous institution is the historically black Saint Paul's College, Virginia In 1914 it boasted that "The location of the school in the heart of the Black Belt of Virginia, with a Negro population of 100,000 almost at its very doors, is most favorable for the prosecution of uplift work."[cite = Margaret Jefferys Hobart, Then and now (1914) p 51.] Rjensen (talk) 04:03, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Georg Händel was indeed a coppersmith. You keep repeating the same error, as if you didn't read what I wrote. The question is not whether Georg Händel was a coppersmith or whether Brunswick County, Virginia is situated in the heart of the Black Belt. Both are true statements. The question is whether those are defining characteristics as defined in WP:DEFINING. They are not.

Also, 1907? Seriously? A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having. Clearly you just spent a lot of time searching and the best you can come up with is a primary source from 113 years ago? --Guy Macon (talk) 05:26, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, I did the actual research instead of making flippant and totally irrelevant comments about Händel. The point was that in 1913 white leaders of the county, and Black leaders of its college, were boasting of its critical location in the center of Virginia's Black Belt. The same is true in the 21st century, as seen in the biography of The county's most famous citizen James Solomon Russell: Former Slave, Pioneering Educator (2014) p 221, which underscores the Black Belt characteristic. Its not a good practice to make false claims in the opening Nomination about how little use the concept is used today when in fact it is very heavily used today and has been for two centuries. The same goes for erasing the serious work of multiple editors who use "black belt" as an important characteristic of the deep South in their Wikipedia articlesRjensen (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to miss the point. This is not about removing Black Belt from Wikipedia. This discussion is about the fact that e.g. Bamberg County is not consistently referred to as a Black Belt county. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:46, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong--Bamberg county is indeed included in the Black Belt according to Ronald C Wimberley, & Libby Morris, The Reference Book on Regional Well-Being: U.S. Regions, the Black Belt, Appalachia (Southern Rural Development Center, Mississippi State University, 1996) It's also in the Black Belt on ALL the maps I have seen Rjensen (talk) 16:01, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to stop responding to your continued WP:IDHT. BEING IN THE BLACK BELT DOES NOT MAKE BLACK BELT A DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC ANY MORE THAN BEING A COPPERSMITH MAKES COPPERSMITH A DEFINING CHARACTERISTIC. I fully expect the closing administrator to completely discount your argument as being in direct conflict with WP:DEFINING. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Articles about counties are well categorized in Category:North Carolina counties etc. Placing them under categories such as Category:African-American history etc is overcategorization. This category is bizarre in that its main article is about (an area of) black soil, but the category (based on its parentage) is about African-Americans. DexDor ^(talk) 21:29, 12 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. MER-C 17:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Gandaki Zone geography stubs to Category:Gandaki Pradesh geography stubs

Nominator's rationale: As of 2015, Nepal has adopted provinces as regional divisions and discontinued use of zones. The stub template, ((Gandaki-geo-stub)), is fine as is. (Some re-sorting will be necessary.) Her Pegship (I'm listening) 16:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, see Gandaki Zone and Gandaki Pradesh. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Her Pegship. Grutness...wha? 23:53, 23 January 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. MER-C 17:18, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dragonlance deities to Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities

Nominator's rationale: Only a single article. Upmerge to both. Redirects should be moved to a redirect containment category if not already there. TTN (talk) 14:19, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual merge to both parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual upmerge to Category:Dragonlance characters and Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities as articulated by Marcocapelle. My understanding is that the redirects for CfDs merged are generally not correct, right? Unless there's a specific reason, we generally don't. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:45, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• That is right, see WP:RCAT. I would personally stress that redirects should certainly not be in the same category as the article they are redirecting to, as this would lead to useless extra navigation efforts by readers who scrape the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:17, 24 January 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. (See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 20#Category:Drawers (artists) for links to previous related CFDs.) – Fayenatic London 22:22, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Draughtsmen to Category:Draughters Category:Drafters

Nominator's rationale: To match the equivalent article Drafter, as the category also includes women. Should apply to similarly-named child categories, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:47, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As the article is Drafter should it not be Drafters? Being UK I am not sure of the US usage; and can we have a redirect from Category:Draughtsmen. The comment about women is irrelevant - Draughtsmen is the term in the UK for men and women. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies; yes, it should (with "Category:Draughters" as a redirect). But no, we should not be referring to women as men. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep linguistic gymnastics aren't necessary here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough (the apparently calm and reasonable) 15:31, 23 January 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  
• Comment, there is a related discussion on 20 December, not closed yet. The original proposal was to merge Category:Drawers (artists) to Category:Draughtsmen. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it's fairly normal in WP, if there is no recognised trans-Atlantic term, to use whichever was used first for categories. The term drafters is largely unknown in Commonwealth English, where the term for both males and females is draughtsman or the concocted neutral "draughtsperson". Grutness...wha? 03:17, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The CE term for women drafters is "draughtswoman": [4], [5], [6]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:31, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for that. It still remains a trans-Atlantic language issue, so I support keeping it as is. Drafter means nothing outside the US. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 27 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename so that the category corresponds to the article title and uses more inclusive terminology. Richard Nevell (talk) 13:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is an ENGVAR issuer. Drafters is meaningless in British English: I would take to mean a person who drafted a man into the US army. The term is used in various contexts: a Parliamentary Draughtsman prepares legislation to be laid before Parliament. An architect's draughtsman prepares plans of buildings; etc. I agree that the correct feminine is draughtswoman. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You agree that the correct term for women in this field is is draughtswoman, but nonetheless you want us to keep classifying them as men? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:C2D and it avoids the gender issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 14 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) 15:06, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Conservative Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies to Category:Conservative Party MPs for English constituencies, also

• Category:Conservative Party (UK) MPs for Welsh constituencies to Category:Conservative Party MPs for Welsh constituencies
• Category:Labour Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies to Category:Labour Party MPs for English constituencies
• Category:Liberal Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies to Category:Liberal Party MPs for English constituencies
• Category:Liberal Party (UK) MPs for Welsh constituencies to Category:Liberal Party MPs for Welsh constituencies
• Category:Liberal Democrats (UK) MPs for English constituencies to Category:Liberal Democrat MPs for English constituencies
• Category:Liberal Democrats (UK) MPs for Welsh constituencies to Category:Liberal Democrat MPs for Welsh constituencies
• Category:Social Democratic Party (UK) MPs for English constituencies to Category:Social Democratic Party MPs for English constituencies
• Category:Social Democratic Party (UK) MPs for Welsh constituencies to Category:Social Democratic Party MPs for Welsh constituencies
• Category:Social Democratic Party (UK) MPs for Scottish constituencies to Category:Social Democratic Party MPs for Scottish constituencies
• Category:Whig (British political party) MPs for English constituencies to Category:Whig MPs for English constituencies
• Category:Whig (British political party) MPs for Irish constituencies to Category:Whig MPs for Irish constituencies
• Category:Whig (British political party) MPs for Scottish constituencies to Category:Whig MPs for Scottish constituencies
• Category:Whig (British political party) MPs for Welsh constituencies to Category:Whig MPs for Welsh constituencies

Nominator's rationale: Redundant disambiguation. It is superfluous to state that an MP for a UK constituency will be from a UK party. WP:CATNAME confirms that standard WP:Article titles policy also applies to category titles, and that includes WP:PRECISE (no more precise than necessary) and WP:CONCISE. Opera hat (talk) 03:15, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See also Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles#Use shorter forms for unambiguous subtopic names and Wikipedia:Consistency in article titles#Don't add unnecessary disambiguators simply for consistency. Opera hat (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all - it has long been customary at cfd to retain disambiguation throughout a category tree (some subcats may be ambiguous, others not - it is tiresome to consider each separately). Indeed a nomination in the opposite direction would be speediable. Oculi (talk) 11:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Or, in WP:AT policy terms, that category titles should be WP:CONSISTENT. But they aren't. Other categories for holders of offices that are unique to the UK do not use the (UK) qualifier in their political party subcategories. E.g. Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by party, Category:Police and crime commissioners by party, Category:Members of the London Assembly. I really don't want to believe that you would consider Category:Labour Party (UK) Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom a desirable category title. Opera hat (talk) 10:10, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• weak keep. Some British political parties have different organisations for different constituent countries. Categories such as Category:Liberal Party (UK) MPs for Welsh constituencies‎, for example, make it clear that Wales, unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, does not have a separate Liberal Party. As such, the current tree has specific uses and nuances that make it worth keeping. Grutness...wha? 14:05, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  If these categories are expected to reflect that sort of level of nuance then they will need substantial overhaul. For example, Keir Hardie (a Scotsman who sat for a Welsh constituency in the 1910s) is in Category:Welsh Labour Party MPs, but Welsh Labour was only founded in 1947. Opera hat (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't make it clear - "UK" looks like it is to distinguish from another Liberal Party involved in politics in Wales. Peter James (talk) 10:22, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all to maintain consistency with their parent categories (per WP:C2C) and their respective head articles (per WP:C2D). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More counter-examples are the subcategories of Category:Democratic Party (United States) politicians, Category:Republican Party (United States) politicians and Category:Whig Party (United States) politicians, which do not use the disambiguation for offices that are unique to the United States. Opera hat (talk) 10:53, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've posted notifications at the talk pages of WP:AT and WP:POLUK to try and attract some more discussion. Opera hat (talk) 10:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all. though the world wouldn't stop turning if the categories remained with the same name, the disambiguation is indeed redundant in these cases. There are plenty of examples of category naming that don't match exactly the parent category. Sionk (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain, but if kept, all of the above red links should be created as redirects. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:50, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all. A redundant disambiguation. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all. If it is a British constituency, it is the British party we're talking about. The redundancy is useless. Place Clichy (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all Because a lot of other similar categories don't use (UK) to distinguish, neither moving or keeping would increase consistency (ergo, WP:CONSISTENT shouldn't come into consideration here). However, cutting out the redundant UK disambiguation would make the categories adhere better to the policies contained in WP:CONCISE, and in particular WP:PRECISION. Editing with Eric (talk) 09:44, 5 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 and move contents, I.e. merge to Category:People from Manchester. – Fayenatic London 15:55, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People from Manchester (district) to Category:People from the City of Manchester

Nominator's rationale: There is no such place as Manchester (district). It ] is a city and metropolitan borough. The main article is entitled Manchester but the contents spill over into Greater Manchester, and this category is the same. Many of the biographies are of people from the other boroughs of Greater Manchester. I dont think we can easily fix the article, but I think we can bring this category into line with the rest of Category:People from Greater Manchester. NB there is a separate category Category:People from Manchester, not affected by this nomination except that is a sub-category Rathfelder (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this cat & move its subcats to Category:People from Manchester. Manchester refers only to the city & as you say there isn't a Manchester district. Jim Michael (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support there is a district called "Manchester" that includes places like Wythenshawe but excludes places like Old Trafford. Per WP:UKDISTRICTS "City of Manchester" is the correct title when we make a distinction. Note that the district was formed from the CB and the parish of Ringway so all sub categories for the other places (such as Category:People from Rusholme) should probably be moved to Category:People from Manchester. Alternatively delete per Jim Michael since the distinction doesn't seem that helpful here. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  City of Manchester is a redirect to Manchester ("This article is about the city of Manchester in England"). I would expect there is no identifiable Manchester (district) and indeed places like Fallowfields are suburbs of Manchester. Oculi (talk) 18:45, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because there's no separate article on the district. See Salford (a settlement) and City of Salford (a district with city status, Salford (district) redirects to the district). Note that Manchester (borough) and Metropolitan Borough of Manchester do exist as redirects that go to the Manchester article. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories in Wikipedia follow articles. No article implies no category. These Foo (district) categories were mostly created long ago by one misguided editor and most of them have been cleared up, eg People from Sheffield (district). Oculi (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As you noted in the Calderdale discussion their from the the ((Cathead English people by place)) template. There are rare cases where a distinction may be desirable in the category namespace but as noted we should indeed follow articles so if this isn't deleted it should be renamed as proposed so that it has the title the article would be given if it had a separate article. As was also noted the Sheffield one does appear to have been a mistake and its one of only a few that has post 1974 boundaries and more than a few villages difference from the settlement. See the pre 1974 district and the current one. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this category per Jim Michael above and move its subcats to Category:People from Manchester or Category:People from Greater Manchester as appropriate. Note also there is no Category:Manchester (district). Oculi (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The situation is similar to that of Los Angeles within Los Angeles County. As some people are mistaken/confused about the distinction between city, county, urban area etc., perhaps it would be a good idea to write an explanation on Category:People from Manchester that is similar to the one that's on Category:People from Los Angeles. Jim Michael (talk) 19:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:People from Manchester is needed for people who come from the centre of the city (or whose exact provenance is unknown), as opposed to those who come from the areas outside the centre which are listed at Category:People from Manchester (district).Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester isn't only the city centre - it's to GM what Birmingham is to West Midlands (county). People from Walsall, Wolverhampton, Dudley etc. wouldn't be classified as from Birmingham. Jim Michael (talk) 23:13, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The present arrangement does not work. There are two categories: Category:People from Manchester (district) and Category:People from Manchester. How are editors supposed to decide which of them to allocate articles to? There were more than 650 in Category:People from Manchester when I started work on it. At least 20% clearly didnt belong there because they were from other boroughs in Greater Manchester. For about half the remainder the article just says they come from Manchester, with no detail, so its impossible to know what is meant by "Manchester", but if they were born in the last hundred years its very unlikely they were born in the city centre, because hardly anyone actually lived there. Category:People from the City of Manchester has the advantage of relating to a defined area.
• Rename probably per nom. Manchester City Council is a metropolitan borough council. Before the abolition of metropolitan counties, it was one of its districts. Salford and Stockport were others, both remaining part of Greater Manchester. I would not like to see a separate category for people from Manchester city centre, as its extent is not clear. Please do not use US analogies as the administrative arrangements are different. Category:People from the Manchester (city) would be a viable alternative, but I do not like it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Indeed Category:People from the Manchester (city) probably wouldn't be helpful since many wouldn't know that places like Old Trafford aren't in the district with city status in addition to the fact that there are other cities called "Manchester". Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• We need to make whatever distinctions we think defensible much clearer. I've just had to edit an article which said the person lived in "Rochdale, a suburb of Manchester". We also need to deal with the many articles which just say the person "came from", or "was born in", Manchester, without any more information at all. The situation may need differentiating by date - people before 1850 probably did come from what is now the city centre. More modern people it's anyone's guess what is meant. Rathfelder (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Manchester is different from most other metropolitan areas in England because the same name is used for the the city and the metropolis. I assume the confusions I am seeing would not be so common in Birmingham, Liverpool or Leeds. Rathfelder (talk) 11:10, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The official boundaries in all those cases are clear. The city & county having the same name make it more likely that some editors will miscat articles, but the city is called Manchester & the county Greater Manchester. Likewise Los Angeles in Los Angeles County, Aleppo in Aleppo Governorate & Ankara in Ankara Province. In all those cases, we name the article & cat after the city. Jim Michael (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If bio articles merely say that the subject was born in &/or grew up in Manchester, we should assume that to mean the city, because that's the usual usage & meaning. Jim Michael (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How do you know that's the usual usage & meaning? Clearly plenty of editors dont know that. Rathfelder (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries of Manchester and Greater Manchester are clearly defined. Our use of them is in articles & cats is defined likewise. No-one would say that they're from Rochdale in Manchester, Wigan in Manchester etc. Some editors being mistaken doesn't mean that we should change the cats, although a notice on the cat to say that it means the city only could be written on it. Jim Michael (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:People from London has the defining note: Natives or long-time residents of the London region (also known as the Greater London area) of England in the United Kingdom. Why should Manchester not be treated the same? Rathfelder (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London and Greater London cover exactly the same area, which is considerably different to Greater Manchester covering an area multiple times larger than Manchester. That's why we need Manchester cats which are subcats of GM cats, whereas we don't have or need GL cats. Jim Michael (talk) 09:45, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Who says London and Greater London cover exactly the same area? Rathfelder (talk) 16:43, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's well-established since 1965, when London's boundaries were greatly enlarged. It's supported by our articles & in maps. Whilst there are things like the London phone code area, London postcode area, area within the M25 etc. which have different boundaries - & many people wrongly state where the boundary between London and the home counties is, the definition of the 32 London boroughs plus the City of London (square mile) where 9 million people live is the official definition & what is used in government & by the emergency services. Prior to 1965, much of what is now outer London was outside it. Towns which adjoin London & which are part of the conurbation, such as Epsom & Dartford, are just outside London. Jim Michael (talk) 18:28, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By their nature these biographical categories stretch back into the distant past. The sources from which they are drawn may well not use those boundaries. But as far as Manchester is concerned my point stands. There is no such place as Manchester District and never has been. Using it as the definition of a category does not work because it is undefined. Large numbers of editors have misinterpreted it. The City of Manchester does exist and is well defined. Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The boundaries of many cities, including London & Manchester, have changed - but we categorise people by what the names & boundaries were at the time. The fact that many people are mistaken about the boundaries & mix up cities, counties etc. as well as put articles in the wrong cats isn't a reason to change the cats. An explanation could be written on the often misunderstood cats. The City of Manchester means Manchester, which is why it redirects to it. If Category:People from the City of Manchester should be created, it should be as a redirect to Category:People from Manchester. Jim Michael (talk) 13:28, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Putting explanations on category pages is completely ineffective. Hardly any editors eve see them. If we accept that the City of Manchester means Manchester then the reverse is also true. The difference is that there is a definition of the City of Manchester. Rathfelder (talk) 16:24, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The definition in our article is that City of Manchester and Manchester are the same thing. No-one is arguing for the retention of Category:People from Manchester (district) which is merely a parent category for various areas, which are are either in Manchester or Greater Manchester, and should be distributed appropriately. (Eg Burnage is in Manchester. Fallowfield is in Manchester. They are listed in Category:Areas of Manchester, not to mention Greater Manchester#Metropolitan boroughs and components.) Oculi (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Surely places like Old Trafford would be covered by Category:People from the Manchester (united) ;) More seriously, People from the City of Manchester has the advantages of making it obvious that there is a separate entity to the more inclusive "Manchester", and makes the category uniform with Category:People from the City of London. Grutness...wha? 00:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Old Trafford is a subcat of Category:People from Trafford (district), which in turn is a subcat of Category:People from Greater Manchester. Whilst many people from outside GM don't realise that OT is outside Manchester, we categorise by what the boundaries actually are.

Our cats are Category:People from Manchester, with subcats by occupation, including Category:Actors from Manchester. It doesn't make sense to change the first cat to Category:People from the City of Manchester, especially when our article about the city is at Manchester & City of Manchester is a redirect to it.

Category:City of London (the square mile) only covers a tiny part of central London. The large majority of its buildings aren't residential & it has a population of about 10,000, a small fraction of a percent of London's 9 m people. The cats Category:People from London - & its subcats including Category:Actors from London - cover all of London, not merely the square mile. We clearly define The City of Manchester to be the same thing as Manchester, so they have the same definition & boundaries. Jim Michael (talk) 13:32, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We've got a category Category:People from the City of Salford. Why should Manchester be treated differently? Rathfelder (talk) 15:56, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because City of Salford and Salford are different, as are Category:City of Salford, Category:Salford, Category:People from the City of Salford, Category:People from Salford. City of Manchester and Manchester are the same and there is no Category:City of Manchester. Categories in Wikipedia follow articles; please write an article City of Manchester first before basing categories on it. Oculi (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is pretty disgraceful that there is no article City of Manchester. Rathfelder (talk) 08:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such an article could be written, but it would be about it as an administrative area, rather than about the city itself - which is already covered in Manchester.

The City of London is a tiny part of London, the City of Salford is Salford plus some surrounding areas. Greater Manchester is Manchester plus a lot of surrounding areas. Those are very different from Manchester & the City of Manchester, which cover the exact same area. What would be the point of a cat which covers the exact same area as another cat? It would be pointless duplication.

I'm not aware of anyone wanting to keep Category:People from Manchester (district). It appears that, with the exception of you, everyone who has expressed an opinion on this cat wants it deleted & its contents moved to Category:People from Manchester, providing that we have a RS that says that the subjects of the articles in it are from Manchester. It appears that you alone want Category:People from the City of Manchester to be created. Jim Michael (talk) 16:13, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People from Manchester (district) has 27 subcategories. These are in reality for districts of the City of Manchester. The term "Manchester" is undefined and ambiguous. People use it in many ways. It is not a sensible basis for classification. The same problem occurs with many city categories, but this is the only one I've found which bases the categorisation on something undefined. Rathfelder (talk) 20:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Manchester (district) should be deleted & all its subcats moved to Category:People from Manchester. Manchester & the City of Manchester are the same thing, with the same defined boundaries. Many people being uncertain/mistaken about Manchester's boundaries is no reason to delete or rename articles or cats. Many people are uncertain/mistaken about the boundaries of many cities. Jim Michael (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If this is deleted, Category:People by district in England would be incomplete. It could be merged, and the subcategories should probably be moved into Category:People from Manchester, but that is in Category:People from Lancashire (before 1974) - these could be merged now, but if there are any notable people from Ringway they wouldn't belong in the merged category. "Manchester (district)" should be "City of Manchester", which may also be a better name if they are merged, although it doesn't match the article. Peter James (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It what way would naming it Category:People from the City of Manchester be helpful? It's the same thing as Category:People from Manchester. Jim Michael (talk) 16:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Manchester would join Category:People from Sheffield in Category:People by district in England. Oculi (talk) 10:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The City of Manchester is a defined entity, with an article. There is no District of Manchester. Manchester, of course, exists, but without further qualification it's not clear what exactly is meant. Rathfelder (talk) 18:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manchester district not existing is a good reason to delete its cat. All the entries - with the exception of Category:People from Manchester - should be moved into Category:People from Manchester. It can be made clearer on relevant articles & cats that Manchester & the City of Manchester are the same thing. Jim Michael (talk) 21:41, 14 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. (non-admin closure) Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:17, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:MGM/UA Premiere Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Why list every station that's carried a syndication service? Mvcg66b3r (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/23/movies/film-studio-s-new-approach-to-tv.html RevinCBHatol (talk) 04:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @RevinCBHatol: this may have potential as an article, rather than as a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:C1, the category has been empty for over a week. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per CSD #C1 and Marcocapelle. (Sidebar: I've speedy tagged it.) --Doug Mehus T·C 23:41, 23 January 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.

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

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to both. Only six articles. Expansion is extremely unlikely. Half the articles are clearly non-notable, so they're easy deletion/redirect targets. TTN (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support dual upmerge, for clarity, to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures and Category:Fictional artificial intelligences, per nom. (Sidebar: I find the CfD proposal options in Twinkle rather limiting. That is, it doesn't provide for dual upmerging, for one one. How do we propose to discuss about getting this fixed, Marcocapelle or SMcCandlish?) --Doug Mehus T·C 23:38, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding the sidebar, you might leave a request at Wikipedia talk:Twinkle. Personally I think a more user-friendly solution for batch nominations should have the highest priority, but I realize that this would also require a very substantial amount of development effort. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Marcocapelle Thank you, and I agree with you that Twinkle batch nominations should also be a higher priority, to streamline these nominations. --Doug Mehus T·C 03:47, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Sounds reasonable, though I'm not a regular Twinkle user, and this isn't really the venue for proposed functionality changes to it. On the proposed move and this entire related spate of them, support dual upmerge as needed (though in the fey case, I think these should be checked for accuracy. I haven't played the game in ages, but do not recall that term being uses as a fictional-race classifiers [A]D&D at all. But maybe that happened in a later edition than I was using.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:40, 25 January 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. MER-C 17:21, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Only three articles, upmerge to both. TTN (talk) 11:53, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to both parent categories is meant, I guess. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support dual upmerge, for clarity, to Category:Dungeons & Dragons creatures and Category:Fictional fey, per nom. No concerns. --Doug Mehus T·C 23:34, 23 January 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. MER-C 17:20, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Heart Failure Society of America to Category:Heart disease organizations

Nominator's rationale: Contains only a single eponymous organization in the Heart Failure Society of America. Looking through the parent category, Category:Heart disease organizations, it looks like we generally don't create categories for every heart disease organization. Thus, I recommend delete-ing and upmerge-ing this category with Category:Heart disease organizations. Doug Mehus T·C 02:49, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge per WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and merge per nom. – DarkGlow (talk) 18:38, 23 January 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.