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.
Propose merging Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Berlin to Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Germany
Propose merging Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Nuremberg to Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Germany
Propose merging Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Flensburg to Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Germany
Propose merging Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Lüneburg to Category:Nazis who committed suicide in Germany
Nominator's rationale: Where they committed suicide is not defining. Rathfelder (talk) 22:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The place of suicide is relevant to mention in the articles but it does not define the person. Note that more branches of this tree may be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The categories reflect the location of death, which helps with the category tree of Category:Deaths by location.
WP:OCLOCATION. The death categories are just meant to distinguish by cause of death and they are intersected by country in order to avoid they become too big. Intersecting at city level is certainly not helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Unnecessary intersection, not really necessary for diffusion. Note that place of death does not even relate to a specific event (e.g. the fall of Hitler's bunker) but could gather unrelated events very far away in time. Being dead in Flensburg or Lüneburg can be due to purely anecdotal reasons, not linked to the fact of being a nazi. Place Clichy (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither cause not place of death are defining for most articles. Rathfelder (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; the Germany category isn't so full to divvy up by city. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Better to have these all subcategories added to a country specific category. --Yoonadue (talk) 01:35, 4 June 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.
Category:Dead by Daylight characters
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.
Nominator's rationale: None of these characters were created for the game. They're just gueststars, which makes it non-defining. ★Trekker (talk) 18:55, 29 May 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.
Category:Types of populated places
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.
Nominator's rationale: These are the same categories only differently named (type of <CATEGORY> = <CATEGORY> by type). Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, one category should contain types, the other category should contain actual places (organized by type). Some articles and subcategories should be moved from one category to the other though. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Marcocapelle, the first is a set category for articles on various types of populated places, and the 2nd is, or should be, a container category including a subcat scheme for Category:Populated places. Neither should be a subcat of the other. Oculi (talk) 16:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marcocapelle and Oculi. One is a topic category, the other is a set category. The nominator Kazkaskazkasako could have saved everyone some time by simply looking at the contents of both categories before nominating. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose one cat is about the types, the other is about places that fit in each type. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:15, 4 June 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.
Comment - this has been at cfd recently; it has possibly had its parents or contents changed because at present it is indistinguishable from Category:iPhone. I think that the phones in Category:iPhone should be moved to a set subcat which could well be Category:iPhones. (I am not aware of any apple mobile phones other than iPhones.) Oculi (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The difference between Category:Apple Inc. mobile phones and Category:iPhone is that the former also has IPhone (the article about the entire line). On the other hand, the categories for iPads and iPods have the article for the lines of devices within themselves. RedBulbBlueBlood9911|Talk 12:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, same vote as in the previous discussion. I do not think that the content of the category has changed since the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 29 May 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.
Category:Rulers of the Kingdom of Kongo
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.
Reverse merge to the earlier creation. Wikipedia should defer to local usage, where feasible. (I met the Oloffa of Offa once. Now that is a splendid title, well worthy of an article.) Oculi (talk) 09:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: following your rationale, local title Manikongo (well, actually a Portuguese term) is the earlier creation. Then why would you suggest a reverse merge? Place Clichy (talk) 12:21, 29 May 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.
Category:Fort Boykin, Virginia
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 action. Both categories redlinked, cannot merge. (non-admin closure)buidhe 09:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Fort Boykin, Virginia to Category:Fort Boykin
Nominator's rationale: Merger of Commons categories under C2D for consistency with article name. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 07:04, 29 May 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.
Category:Municipal City Heads (gorodskoy golova) of Moscow
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.
Propose merging Category:Municipal City Heads (gorodskoy golova) of Moscow to Category:Mayors of Moscow
Nominator's rationale:merge, in the articles the word "mayor" is used so there is little reason to keep the articles of this category apart from those in Category:Mayors of Moscow. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moscow had only 3 mayors (in Russian: мэр - mer) in 1991-2020. Obviously articles use the word "mayor" for simplification. The post established by Empress Catherine II in 1767 and the post of the head of a subject of the Russian Federation are different offices. TarzanASG (talk) 19:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is the difference, why aren't they mayors? Isn't "Municipal City Head" a perfect description of the function of mayor? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: there is a difference: governors-general of Moscow are the heads of the country subdivision Moscow Governorate. In contrast, the articles in this category are the heads of the municipality of Moscow. Btw I agree that the articles are lacking information about it but I am not confident enough about this to purge these articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that is so, then they should be in a separate section of Mayor of Moscow. But for some reason, only Vadim Rudnev is in that list article, and he is listed as governor-general. Perhaps we need an expert on Moscow history to have a look at this. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 17:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Does not require separate category since it has very few names. -Yoonadue (talk) 02:38, 30 May 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.
Category:Country data templates of other entities
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. – FayenaticLondon 09:05, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Country data templates of other entities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Maybe rename it to something like Category:Country data templates of non-state entities or "...of sovereign entities"? That seems more characteristic than the two entities' UN observership. SiBr4 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It looks like a rename rather than a delete is being discussed. Would like to see some discussion about what target name would be best.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 17:53, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Merging is not necessary, both templates are already part of a country category (of Vatican City and of Italy). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 29 May 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.
Category:First Secretaries of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU
Category:Albums produced by Andrew Watt (musician)
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.
Nominator's rationale: Andrew Watt is primarily know as a record producer and his bio page is know known as such. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:15, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment can't we just drop the parenthetical, as none of the other Andrew Watt biographies has produced an album nor are likely to. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wondered this too @Carlossuarez46: but I believe categories are matched to the main bio article name where there is one. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 20:52, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If confusion would otherwise result, yes. Where there is no possibility of that, I don't think that's a rule. See the subcategories of Category:Mercury (element), which don't include the parenthetical, but the planet and the god don't have compounds, poisoning, isotopes, or whatever elements tend to have. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:00, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename to match parent. This is WP:C2C, supported time after time (rather than scrutinising every Andrew Watt, past, present and future, to see whether ambiguities are caused). Follow the article - it's an easy concept. Oculi (talk) 10:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename to match the main article. --Yoonadue (talk) 08:07, 5 June 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.
Video game series
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. No outstanding opposition has emerged regarding the proposed renames. bibliomaniac15 05:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. These were opposed by Zxcvbnm on the Speedy page because he would only accept renaming to the short titles with no qualifier at all, but the main titles are ambiguous – see F.E.A.R. (disambiguation) and White Knight Chronicles which is only about the first gamein its series. – FayenaticLondon 21:31, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
Category:F.E.A.R. (series) to Category:F.E.A.R. – C2D: Main article does not have disambiguation ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ZXCVBNM, you already made that nomination back in December, when it was opposed because F.E.A.R. is ambiguous. So now I will oppose speedy because C2D doesn't apply for an ambiguous title. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 14:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If not moved to proposed title, should at least move to (video game series) as proposals below. "series" is just a meaningless word without the media it's about. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not actually ambiguous, because the main article is called F.E.A.R. and is about the video game. I am simply saying that the category should match the main article.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Where a word or phrase has multiple meanings, articles may be named according to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, but a much higher threshold is required to do that for categories, and it requires a full CFD discussion (for an example, see e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_6#Major_US_cities). You cannot use speedy renaming for categories with a name that is in any way ambiguous.
Please state whether you oppose renaming to Category:F.E.A.R. (video game series), as that could go ahead under C2C if unopposed. Your comments here and in the one below currently imply opposition to that alternative. – FayenaticLondon 07:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:White Knight Chronicles (series) to Category:White Knight Chronicles – C2D: Main article has no disambiguation ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If not moved to proposed title, should at least move to (video game series) as proposals below. "series" is just a meaningless word without the media it's about. --Gonnym (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The series page, if it existed, would likely not be disambiguated. There is no practical reason to disambiguate as there is nothing conflicting with the title.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 11:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per nom. Oculi (talk) 22:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:12, 29 May 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.
Category:YouTube music videos
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.
Nominator's rationale: What makes a music video a YouTube music video that being available on YouTube becomes a defining aspect of the song? Number of views? Exclusivity? Or simply because it was uploaded onto the artist's YouTube channel? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:19, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps rename to Category:Music initially released on YouTube, or else delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hardly defining for every release in the past 20 years plus. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:22, 31 May 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.
Category:South Delhi Residential Colony
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. bibliomaniac15 05:54, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 04:06, 29 May 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.
Category:Sturt Football Club Hall of Fame inductees
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.
We don't have an article on the Sturt Football Club Hall of Fame , the Sturt Football Club makes no mention of it, and only 8 of the 25 articles in the category even mention it so it's clearly not defining. (In contrast, the Australian Football Hall of Fame, if received, is clearly defining to those players.) If anyone wants to create a list/main article, I listed the current category contents right here so no work is lost. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 29 May 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.
Category:New England Auto Racers Hall of Fame inductees
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 16:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:New England Auto Racers Hall of Fame inductees
The New England Antique Racers vintage car club has about 350-400 members and created the New England Auto Racers Hall of Fame in 1998. The inductees have a variety of racing experiences (demolition derby, NASCAR, Formula One, Indy 500) but all are from or otherwise tied to New England. In the articles, the award is generally mentioned in passing (often with other halls of fame) so it doesn't seem defining. The contents of the category are already listified here within the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
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.