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. – FayenaticLondon 17:36, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The difference between "animation films" and "live-picture films" is not one worthy having two different categories on the same thing. This just leads to WP:OVERCAT problems (as a quick look will show, many films have both...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2022 (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:Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Plon-Rethwisch
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 deletingCategory:Dukes of Schleswig-Holstein-Sonderburg-Plon-Rethwisch (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:delete, there were only two dukes and neither of the two has his own article. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. But what a delightful name! Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2022 (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:Works involved in a lawsuit
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. – FayenaticLondon 17:35, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "involved in" is extremely vague and likely to lead to overcategorisation problems. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Subject" is equally vague. Overcategorization has never been one of Wikipedia's problems. Undercategorization is plaguing it, and many articles have not been properly categorized. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, "subject to a lawsuit" is not vague. It literally means "Works that have been the element of contention of a lawsuit" (as opposed to merely being mentioned in one) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, it is just clearer language. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 13 February 2022 (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:Iranian Azerbaijani grand ayatollahs and clerics
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 17:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Iranian Azerbaijani grand ayatollahs and clerics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:OCEGRS (trivial intersection with ethnicity) and largely overlapping with Category:Iranian Azerbaijani politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. - Kevo327 (talk) 17:26, 21 February 2022 (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:Songs about Earth
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 17:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, hardly any of these songs is specifically about the planet Earth, articles are in here because titles and lyrics contain the word "earth" or "world" as generally the place we are living. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:24, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. One entry is in Category:Songs about Earth, Category:Songs about happiness and Category:Songs about amphibians, there is nothing in the text to confirm what the song is about, although it confirms the lyrics are nonsense and the opening line is Jeremiah was a bullfrog. Fails WP:CATDEF on all three categories. Further proof that no thought or consideration is given to 'songs about xxx' --Richhoncho (talk) 11:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The "world" seems to be a much broader and harder to define concept than being about Earth which few of these songs are actually about. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:24, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Way too ambiguous. -2pou (talk) 19:48, 25 February 2022 (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.
Garden design history
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 all. Despite the objection on the English category, I can't see sufficient justification for leaving it behind as an outlier. – FayenaticLondon 17:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and move these categories to under Category:Garden design history, per actual content, this is mostly about gardens. Parks subcategories should be purged, these are not about history. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support all these renames, but not the purging of parks. One could imagine actual "Landscape design" categories, but WP is pretty weak in this area, & I doubt we could fill them (one would probably want to start with the US). But I disagree with purging the parks - prominent parks (often former grand gardens) tend to have plenty of history, and our articles are usually strong on this (even when weak on everything else) - see Parque del Buen Retiro, Madrid for example, the grounds of a royal palace. It would also be unfair, as only England, France & Spain have dedicated "parks" subcats; in the other countries many of the "gardens" are actually public parks, the distinction between the two being rather elastic. Lower down the tree, the English cats take them together: Category:Grade I listed parks and gardens in Buckinghamshire for example has some of the most notable English gardens. Btw, almost all of Category:Chinese gardens are outside China - something should be done about this Category:Chinese gardens outside China maybe. I expect Japan is the same. Johnbod (talk) 18:23, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support most but oppose England where the landscaped parks of Capability Brown, Sanderson Miller, Kent and others are on a much more substantial scale than anything I would recognise as a garden. This will also apply to the parks of royal palaces that have become public places. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 19 February 2022 (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.