< November 8	November 10 >

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:PlayStation characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no clear inclusion criteria for this category. If it is supposed to be any character that is associated with the PlayStation brand, then it likely fails WP:CATVER. We also already have Category:Sony Interactive Entertainment characters for characters made by Sony. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Recently created category of unclear inclusion criteria by newish CIR-banned user. SnowFire (talk) 03:29, 15 November 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Disney protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:INDISCRIMINATE, considering that any character in their 100 year history could be a protagonist in one film/show/game or another. (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Recently created category of unclear inclusion criteria by newish CIR-banned user. Note that I think that essentially all "Categorization by status as protagonist" is incorrect and should be deleted, but CFDs have failed on such grounds before; that said, don't let the sickness spread further. SnowFire (talk) 03:30, 15 November 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:25, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ongoing events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Marcocapelle's reasoning here: it is never a good idea to categorize by something "ongoing" because it will end at some point of time. Possible issues relating to WP:RECENTISM. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since these five nominations share a common rationle and concern similar categories, they could have been bundled into one CfD. Definitely delete all based on the observation that unlike lists such as List of ongoing armed conflicts, category membership is prone to becoming outdated, since many articles on obscure topics don't get updated for years. And several current-events lists have been deleted at AfD for a similar reason, such as List of currently erupting volcanoes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, the whole tree under Category:Years mainly contains events so this is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We do not usually allow current/past distinctions in categories, because we cannot be sure things will be moved when they cease to be ongoing. The better solution is to place items in a 2022 category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose By this logic we must delete also Category:Future events because it will be past events at some point of time. The whole Category:Future is going to become past and we cannot be sure things would be moved when they become past.
And how category is "prone to become outdated" anymore than list? Lists contain less "obscure" topics?
I believe that Category:Years contains all ongoing events but, given the size and structure of the tree, it would take hours to find them.--Maxaxa (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support - redundant to Category:Current events. Oculi (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That category also contains a number of questionable subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to User:Maxaxax: Category:Future events is a container category mostly for (deeper down in the tree) subcategories of 2023, 2024 etc so that is less of an issue. In contrast, Category:Ongoing events largely overlaps with Category:2022. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for deletion We do not categorize by current status. E.g. Category:Presidents of the United States has more than one member. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 10 November 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ongoing legal cases (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Marcocapelle's reasoning here: it is never a good idea to categorize by something "ongoing" because it will end at some point of time. Possible issues relating to WP:RECENTISM. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose in the case law by year tree the articles are categorized based on the concluding year only (correct me if I am wrong). For that reason the nominated category might be kept as a maintenance category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We do not usually allow current/past distinctions in categories, because we cannot be sure things will be moved when they cease to be ongoing. This applies particularly because legal cases should be soon over. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many different categories in Wikipedia (such as Category:Living people) depend on a temporal distinction. These categories have to be, and most often are, updated in due course. A concentration of ongoing legal cases in a single category is useful for multiple purposes. To give just three examples, this category serves: (1) readers who are looking for a recent case, discussed in the news or some other forum, but are not certain of its precise details; (2) readers who are making their first steps in the law - whether as students or general-interest participants - and wish to read about present legal cases to understand the current operation of the law; (3) law students, and perhaps legal practitioners, who require a list of ongoing legal cases, from multiple jurisdictions - a feature that even well-established legal research platforms do not provide. In addition, contrary to Peterkingiron's comment, many legal cases are not over so quickly. Finally, Marcocapelle's comment, about maintaining the category as a maintenance category, can also be supported. A.R. (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for deletion We do not categorize by current status. E.g. Category:Presidents of the United States has more than one member. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 10 November 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ongoing protests (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Marcocapelle's reasoning here: it is never a good idea to categorize by something "ongoing" because it will end at some point of time. Possible issues relating to WP:RECENTISM. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, protests are already categorized by year so this is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We do not usually allow current/past distinctions in categories, because we cannot be sure things will be moved when they cease to be ongoing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Collection: Many different categories in Wikipedia (such as Category:Living people) depend on a temporal distinction. These categories have to be, and most often are, updated in due course. A concentration of ongoing protests in a single category is useful for multiple purposes. To give just three examples, this category serves: (1) readers who are looking for a recent protests, discussed in the news or some other forum, but are not certain of its precise details; (2) readers who are making their first steps in the sociology and law - whether as students or general-interest participants - and wish to read about present protests to understand the current operation of the case; (3) law and sociology students, and perhaps practitioners, who require a list of ongoing protests cases - a feature that even well-established legal research platforms do not provide. On the other hand, by this logic we must delete also Category:Future events because it will be past events at some point of time. The whole Category:Future is going to become past and we cannot be sure things would be moved when they become past.
- And how category is "prone to become outdated" anymore than list? Lists contain less "obscure" topics?
- I believe that Category:Years contains all ongoing events but, given the size and structure of the tree, it would take hours to find them. --BoldLuis (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxaxax: your analogy does not hold here, because there is no Category:Future protests. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 10 November 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:26, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ongoing conflicts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Marcocapelle's reasoning here: it is never a good idea to categorize by something "ongoing" because it will end at some point of time. Possible issues relating to WP:RECENTISM. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, conflicts are already categorized by year so this is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We do not usually allow current/past distinctions in categories, because we cannot be sure things will be moved when they cease to be ongoing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:43, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Collection: Many different categories in Wikipedia (such as Category:Living people) depend on a temporal distinction. These categories have to be, and most often are, updated in due course. A concentration of ongoing conflicts in a single category is useful for multiple purposes. To give just three examples, this category serves: (1) readers who are looking for a recent conflicts, discussed in the news or some other forum, but are not certain of its precise details; (2) readers who are making their first steps in the sociology and law - whether as students or general-interest participants - and wish to read about present conflicts to understand the current operation of the case; (3) law and sociology students, and perhaps practitioners, who require a list of ongoing conflict cases - a feature that even well-established legal research platforms do not provide. On the other hand, by this logic we must delete also Category:Future events because it will be past events at some point of time. The whole Category:Future is going to become past and we cannot be sure things would be moved when they become past.
- And how category is "prone to become outdated" anymore than list? Lists contain less "obscure" topics?
- I believe that Category:Years contains all ongoing events but, given the size and structure of the tree, it would take hours to find them. --BoldLuis (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@QueenofBithynia: Category:Ongoing conflicts by continent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and subcategories should also be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxaxax: your analogy does not hold here, because there is no Category:Future conflicts. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for deletion We do not categorize by current status. E.g. Category:Presidents of the United States has more than one member. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 10 November 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:27, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ongoing insurgencies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Marcocapelle's reasoning here: it is never a good idea to categorize by something "ongoing" because it will end at some point of time. Possible issues relating to WP:RECENTISM. QueenofBithynia (talk) 18:23, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, a better way would be to start a tree of insurgencies by decade. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support We do not usually allow current/past distinctions in categories, because we cannot be sure things will be moved when they cease to be ongoing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:57, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Collection: Many different categories in Wikipedia (such as Category:Living people) depend on a temporal distinction. These categories have to be, and most often are, updated in due course. A concentration of ongoing insurgencies in a single category is useful for multiple purposes. To give just three examples, this category serves: (1) readers who are looking for a recent insurgency, discussed in the news or some other forum, but are not certain of its precise details; (2) readers who are making their first steps in the sociology and law - whether as students or general-interest participants - and wish to read about present insurgencies to understand the current operation of the case; (3) law and sociology students, and perhaps practitioners, who require a list of ongoing insurgency cases - a feature that even well-established legal research platforms do not provide. On the other hand, by this logic we must delete also Category:Future events because it will be past events at some point of time. The whole Category:Future is going to become past and we cannot be sure things would be moved when they become past.
- And how category is "prone to become outdated" anymore than list? Lists contain less "obscure" topics?
- I believe that Category:Years contains all ongoing events but, given the size and structure of the tree, it would take hours to find them. --BoldLuis (talk) 10:10, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 19:03, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Maxaxax: your analogy does not hold here, because there is no Category:Future insurgencies. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for deletion We do not categorize by current status. E.g. Category:Presidents of the United States has more than one member. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:39, 10 November 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.

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 per nom. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose ~~deleting~~ selectively merging Category:Muslim historians to Category:Historians of the medieval Islamic world
Propose merging Category:Muslim historians of Al-Andalus to ~~Category:Scholars of Al-Andalus history~~ Category:Al-Andalus historians
Propose merging Category:Muslim historians of the Ottoman Empire to Category:Historians of the Ottoman Empire

Nominator's rationale: delete/merge per WP:OCEGRS, trivial intersection between religion and occupation. We do not have Category:Christian historians or Category:Buddhist historians either. Most articles directly in Category:Muslim historians are already somewhere in the tree of Category:Historians of the medieval Islamic world as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated target category for Al-Andalus. Al-Andalusi (talk) 07:31, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I created Category:Scholars of Ottoman history and moved the articles for the modern specialists in Ottoman studies into it. This should address the concerns raised by Peterkingiron. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rename first two -- Category:Historians from Muslim lands: in practice this is historians from past centuries, Muslims chroniclers and other historians of their own countries; Category:Historians of Al-Andalus: with the subcats there are enough to merit a category. The scholars category seems to be for modern historians studying the subject. Support Ottoman case. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That does not really change things. We also not have Category:Historians from Christian lands or Category:Historians from Buddhist lands. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:17, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:41, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment - If you do not like my suggestion, please suggest something better. We need to draw a distinction between medieval and early modern historians who become a source for contemporary writers of history and modern historians who happen to be Muslim. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion is as nominated. We do not need a Muslim historians category as we also do not need Christian historians category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: see the new category Category:Scholars of Ottoman history which mimics Category:Scholars of Al-Andalus history and Category:Scholars of medieval Islamic history. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging: but keep Category:Muslim historians. I believe those were created to distinguish "traditional" Muslim scholars (including modern scholars writing in 2022) from the scholars of the Anglo-European scholarship on Islam. Using Muslim vs Non-Muslims to signify the difference between the 2 historical traditions was ill-conceived IMO as there are many Muslim scholars writing within the "Anglo-European" tradition. As far as historians are concerned, this should be less of an issue now that we have Category:Scholars of medieval Islamic history, Category:Scholars of Al-Andalus history, and Category:Scholars of Ottoman history. Al-Andalusi (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the articles in Category:Muslim historians category are about medieval historians, so a better solution is selectively merging to Category:Historians of the medieval Islamic world, I have changed the nomination accordingly. A modern scholar like Bai Shouyi should be purged however (the article is not even clear on whether he was still a Muslim while he was a historian). If the category would be kept it would become especially awkward when articles would be added about modern Muslim historians who write about the history of e.g. England. So far that has not happened yet, but the category title does not exclude that possibility. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Do not think religious status of historians is something that should be highlighted - can lead to bad places like discounting work because it's not the "right" religion. (Yes, Category:Jewish historians exists and is also a bit problematic, but that's officially categorization by ethnic group and not religion.) SnowFire (talk) 03:34, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, and the comments above. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:51, 19 November 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.

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:Fight Club. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fight Club (franchise) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No published sources discuss the series of books and one film as a "franchise". Binksternet (talk) 17:35, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, the category contains articles about the same subject in different media (film, novel, comics, video game), that makes it a franchise category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fight Club to match parent article. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Fight Club. 7 valid and distinct articles is just about enough to warrant a category. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(voted earlier) I have no issue with a rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 11 November 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 21:15, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big Bang Entertainments
Category:Big Bang Entertainments films
Proposing delete. Narrow category with only a few entries. Parent article deleted via AFD, currently serves as to bypass the AFD. Lacks notability.--2409:4073:4D0D:710F:3DE5:EEA0:3653:C76E (talk) 13:38, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:48, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:43, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 10 November 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge/delete as an example of overcategorization. The articles here should already be categorized according to their occupations. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:42, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:British viceroys educated at Eton College to Category:Viceroys of the British monarch educated at Eton College

Nominator's rationale: per parent Category:Viceroys of the British monarch. While this would be a speedy, an alternative is to upmerge to its parents: it is no great surprise that a member of the British establishment went to Eton, no doubt following his father there. Can we expect Category:People educated at Eton College whose father was educated at Eton College? Oculi (talk) 01:55, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The great majority of these are not "viceroys" AT ALL, but governors of Gibraltar, Kenya etc. As Viceroy#British_Empire makes very clear, only governors of India and Ireland, at various points in the 19th century, were ever referred to as the "viceroy". Merge most to Category:British colonial governors and administrators. The parent "Viceroys of the British monarch" should be urgently renamed too. How have we had this nonsense since 2007? The Etonians should be non-diffusing, or merged back to the main cat. Johnbod (talk) 04:31, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow, I can see that the parent category is too large, but a by-century split would be far more natural than a split by a later occupation that people did not have yet when they were studying at this school. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The point of going to these schools is to ensure a prestigious occupation. It clearly does. Rathfelder (talk) 10:56, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories are not meant to make a point. Besides the existence of the category does not even make the point you describe. The fact that some governors were educated at Eton does not prove that there is a correlation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to renaming. I thought some of them might be viceroys of other countries, but they dont seem to be. Viceroys seemss to be the generic term for a wide range of posts with different names. This categorisation seems a lot more significant to these people's careers than recording where they were born. Rathfelder (talk) 07:48, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No "viceroy" ISN'T "the generic term for a wide range of posts with different names" AT ALL!! Evidence for this? It would be "colonial governor" or "colonial administrator" (for British ones). Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Viceroys is the superior category for Category:Representatives of the British monarch. Rathfelder (talk) 17:57, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and that's a mistake. The whole "viceroy" tree is infected, and should be renamed. Every diplomat is a "representative" of their "principal". But at least the situation in the British Empire is clear enough, and we should use the correct terms. Johnbod (talk) 18:10, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- The name is long enough already. It is unfortunate that the parent is called "viceroys" when that title was only used for the ruler of India. The rest of the content relates to Governors-General, Colonial Governors, etc. Spain had viceroys in Spanish America. I cannot think of the term being used much elsewhere. The possibility of a person other than a British subject (including Commonwealth) being the local governing representative of the British crown is remote, so that the present name is not misleading. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, mostly, but the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland was at least informally called the Viceroy, mostly in the 19th century I think. Johnbod (talk) 17:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would Category:Representatives of the British monarch educated at Eton College be an improvement? That could include the Category:Lord Lieutenants educated at Eton College. Rathfelder (talk) 18:00, 25 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:51, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Marcocapelle. The now-blocked creator's comments above suggest these categories are being created to make a WP:POINT and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Note also that Category:British viceroys educated at Harrow School has now been merged. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete. This intersection of school and occupation is pure overcategorisation. Another problem is that in many cases it highlights one particular part of an individual's career over the others. Note that most of these individuals will already be in the specific category for their governorship(s) so in most cases a merge to Category:British colonial governors and administrators will be unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:53, 15 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or delete, like the rest of these intersections. — Qwerfjkl talk 16:54, 19 November 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.

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: Speedy rename WP:C2C and C2D. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICC T20 World Cup Qualifier to Category:ICC Men's T20 World Cup Qualifier

Nominator's rationale: Due to the renaming in the phrase of the tournament in 2018, already 2022 tournament category page renamed for this reason. Also women's tournament evolving simultaneously and accurate title name phrasing could be inevitable among articles and categories. Kirubar (talk) 16:18, 9 November 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.

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: Speedy rename WP:C2C and C2D. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICC T20 World Cup-related lists to Category:ICC Men's T20 World Cup related lists

Nominator's rationale: Due to the renaming in the phrase of the tournament in 2018, already 2022 tournament category page renamed for this reason. Also women's tournament evolving simultaneously and accurate title name phrasing could be inevitable among articles and categories. Kirubar (talk) 16:17, 9 November 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.

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: Speedy rename WP:C2C and C2D. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICC T20 World Cup tournaments to Category:ICC Men's T20 World Cup tournaments

Nominator's rationale: Due to the renaming in the phrase of the tournament in 2018, already 2022 tournament category page renamed for this reason. Also women's tournament evolving simultaneously and accurate title name phrasing could be inevitable among articles and categories. Kirubar (talk) 16:15, 9 November 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.

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: Speedy rename WP:C2C and C2D. – Fayenatic London 22:38, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICC T20 World Cup squads to Category:ICC Men's T20 World Cup squads

Nominator's rationale: Due to the renaming in the phrase of the tournament in 2018, already 2022 tournament category page renamed for this reason. Kirubar (talk) 16:13, 9 November 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.

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: Speedy rename. WP:C2C and C2D. – Fayenatic London 22:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ICC T20 World Cup Finals to Category:ICC Men's T20 World Cup Finals

Nominator's rationale: Due to the renaming in the phrase of the tournament in 2018, already 2022 tournament category page renamed for this reason. Kirubar (talk) 16:12, 9 November 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.

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in Brooklyn to Category:Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, unnecessary category with only one member page and only one parent. The member page is already in another Brooklyn churches category. – Fayenatic London 16:08, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:36, 10 November 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.

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) Qwerfjkl talk 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Medicine in the medieval Islamic world by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Science in the Fatimid Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Science in the Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Medicine in the Fatimid Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Medicine in the Umayyad Caliphate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: These are unnecessary category layers, containing only sub-cats for physicians, which are already within the ultimate parents via Category:Physicians of the medieval Islamic world. – Fayenatic London 12:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support at the bottom of Science in the Fatimid Caliphate, I found one man described as a mathematician, astronomer and physicist, Ibn al-Haytham, who is well-categorised already. All the rest seemed to be medics. The tree needs a lot of simplification. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 12 November 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.

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:14, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Singlechart called without song to Category:Single chart called without song

Nominator's rationale: Parent template was renamed Template:Single chart in the past. Category should match template name. (Surprised I could not find a WP:CFD/S criterion for this.) Steel1943 (talk) 07:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - none of Category:Singlechart usages has been changed. Oculi (talk) 13:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: Good find. I just found one of the ... many. Didn't realize such a change affected that many categories. Steel1943 (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I was wondering why all these "singlechart" categories haven't been renamed. I think it's time we start working on that. ResPM (T🔈🎵C) 17:07, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this category is moved, Template:Single chart will need to be updated since it links to the current title of the category. Steel1943 (talk) 17:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I support all of those being renamed, but I think you will need to create a new discussion for this. --Muhandes (talk) 12:05, 11 November 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.

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 disperse. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Civilization museums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, civilization museum seems a made-up type of museum. Disperse the content to the tree of Category:History museums insofar it is not already there. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and upmerge into Category:History museums as appropriate. Civilisation museum is a made up term. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 11 November 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.

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: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 21:12, 17 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Heads of state of Egypt to Category:Rulers of Egypt

Nominator's rationale: procedural nomination, suggested by User:Oculi in a different discussion and I would rather split the different suggestions to separate discussions. The rename would allow Category:Governors of Egypt (after the split as proposed below) to become an additional subcategory. Personally I am not thrilled by the suggestion, as it would break the tree of Category:Heads of state by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just create Category:Rulers of Egypt, keep Category:Heads of state of Egypt for the independent Egypt and move the governors out of the latter and into the former. Also there were British ones who should be added. Oculi (talk) 12:01, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That resolves my initial concern, obviously, but adds another category layer which isn't quite necessary imho. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- There are for example Category:Rulers of Ethiopia and Category:Rulers of Crete inter alia - the layer already exists. Oculi (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw, apparently I misunderstood Oculi's intention. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 10 November 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.

November 9

Category:Ottoman architecture in Algeria and Tunisia

Category:PlayStation characters

Category:Disney protagonists

Category:Ongoing events

Category:Ongoing legal cases

Category:Ongoing protests

Category:Ongoing conflicts

Category:Ongoing insurgencies

Category:GAA people by province

Muslim historians

Category:Fight Club (franchise)

Big Bang Entertainments

Category:British viceroys educated at Eton College

Category:ICC T20 World Cup Qualifier

Category:ICC T20 World Cup-related lists

Category:ICC T20 World Cup tournaments

Category:ICC T20 World Cup squads

Category:ICC T20 World Cup Finals

Category:Polish-American Roman Catholic parishes in Brooklyn

Medicine by caliphate

Category:Singlechart called without song

Category:Civilization museums

Category:Heads of state of Egypt

Category:Governors of Egypt