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. ℯxplicit 04:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete this and downmerge the article Bibliography of Spider-Man to Category:Spider-Man in literature. This tangled web of Spider-Man categories that are being created is getting more complicated than it needs to be. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those two articles really should not be marged. One is about the characters appearances in all types of litterature that are official works of fiction by the Marvel company, and the other is a list of non-fiction books about the character and his media. I can respect all your other opinions here as very legitimate, but I don't think a merger of those two would be appropriate. They both need to be expanded (I'm working on that) but a merger is not appropriate.★Trekker (talk) 22:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like an obvious case of WP:SMALLCAT, even more because the target is also almost empty. @*Treker: you haven't made clear why the article does not fit in Category:Spider-Man in literature. Non-fiction is also part of literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Beacuse it breaks the naming convention of how the Comics project uses the "Subject in media" articles.★Trekker (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@*Treker: So how does the Comics project use the "Subject in media" articles? Marcocapelle (talk) 23:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Spider-Man in film, Batman in film and Spider-Man in video games are rather decent examples of how it's generally done. It applies to the characters appearances in licensed media and not of scholarly work such as non-fiction books or documentaries.★Trekker (talk) 23:27, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and comments below. I am honestly not sure how useful it is to distinguish at a franchise level between licensed media and non-fiction works, but I suspect in most cases (including this one) there simply is not enough article content to warrant such a split from a categorization perspective. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:28, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. Timrollpickering 11:40, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No current existing scheme for "Foo appearances by medium" for anything else, and there is little to populate this when placing the contents into the parent category would suffice. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:05, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support for both reasons mentioned by nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:57, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to me that a categorization scheme for such works already exists. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Offical media like the tv series or comics aren't the same thing as a non-fiction book about the characters history or a docummentary about the character. I can understand that the category would be deleted based on the fact that it does not have many articles yet but I don't think saying those are the same thing is correct.★Trekker (talk) 22:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. While I appreciate the creator's effort to improve categorization related to fictional topics, I don't think that creating a parallel category structure is the right way to go. I am honestly not sure how useful it is to distinguish "official media" from derivative works at a franchise level, but I suspect in most cases (including this one) there simply is not enough article content to warrant such a split from a categorization perspective. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:26, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:09, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and there is no categorization scheme of "music works about" for anything else. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:32, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll just have to recreate it once I'm done making the articles. Sucks, I like to make redirects with categoris to keep track of the stuff.★Trekker (talk) 21:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think Wikipedia needs to rethink how it works with categories honestly. There are many categories on pages that don't atually seem to fit what's in the article. Maybe I am trying to do too much but I feel something needs to be done. Right now there is little distinction between works that are actually about a character from an official media view and works about a character that non-fiction or derivative tributes of sort. Which I think is rather confusing and unhelpful. But maybe that needs to be disscussed on a more official Wikipedia plane.★Trekker (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I have no opinion about the principles behind the category, it is currently simply too early to make such a distinction. Single-article categories are most unhelpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. While I appreciate User:*Treker's effort to improve categorization related to fictional topics, I don't think that creating a parallel category structure is the right way to go. I am honestly not sure how useful it is to distinguish at a franchise level "works that are actually about a character from an official media view" from "works about a character that non-fiction or derivative tributes", but I suspect in most cases (including this one) there simply is not enough article content to warrant such a split from a categorization perspective. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:25, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering 21:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Seems good. But you could just move it pretty quickly without any discussion, I don't think this CFD is needed.★Trekker (talk) 21:27, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be considered out of process. Moving categories unilaterally should only be reserved for spelling errors and, perhaps, well-established naming conventions (which I didn't feel was the case here). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Did not know that, good to know.★Trekker (talk) 22:20, 26 November 2018 (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. I will update the hatnotes at each category in an effort to minimize confusion. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's confusing that "Israeli settlement" and "Israeli settlementS" are two distinct categories. They surely should be merged. ImTheIP (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the first is a topic category (for articles about Israeli settlement) and the 2nd a set category (for articles about particular settlements). Oculi (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(as creator): Oculi is correct regarding the intention of this category in contrast to Category:Israeli settlements. However I can also understand the confusion and would be open to a rename of the category, although right now I do not have a concrete proposal for an alternative name. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Why? It's the standard arrangement, not at all confusing. Oculi (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it is standard, but in similar other cases I can also imagine that it leads to some confusion. On the other hand, it is easy to say that I can imagine the confusion, but I do not have a good alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. Now I get it. I still think it's confusing! ImTheIP (talk) 11:33, 27 November 2018 (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.
Keep – there are two subcategories and four articles – and I can imagine more being added. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 11:58, 27 November 2018 (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:History of Eastern Orthodoxy in the United States[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. Timrollpickering 16:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, it only contains two articles and a subcat. The subcat does not need to be included in the merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2018 (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:Observances set by the Nepali calendar[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. Timrollpickering 16:17, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:merge, all entries here are religious festivals. Since all religious festivals in Nepal are set by a Nepali calendar, it is a duplicate characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 16:15, 3 December 2018 (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:Ministers of Information Technologies and Communications[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering 16:16, 3 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering 16:14, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There used to be articles on individual episodes which have since been deemed non-notable and redirected, resulting in a two-article category of the show itself and its list of episodes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- per nom. This seems like uncontroversial maintenance to me. ReykYO! 10:26, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've gone ahead and upmerged the episode-list (the article on the show was already in those cats). power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:46, 29 November 2018 (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.
