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 Top Cow has a fictional universe in which their characters inhabit, but not all of them exist in that fictional universe, so this makes logical sense. That there is no head article doesn't mean that this isn't a logical separation. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Top Cow characters are characters that are notably or definitionally appearing in Top Cow imprint comics. Not all Top Cow imprint comics belong to the Top Cow fictional universe. Top Cow for instance, held the comic license for Tomb Raider, which does not belong in the Top Cow universe, but resides in the Tomb Raider universe. New characters created by Top Cow for Tomb Raider are Top Cow characters, but are not ones in its own fictional universe. Same as how DC Comics held the license for Star Trek comics, but characters DC created for Star Trek comics do not belong to the DC Comics universe, they belong in the Star Trek universe, but they are DC characters. etc. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:27, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "Top Cow characters" commonly implies characters conceived exclusively for the Top Cow fictional universe, see WP:OVERLAP. An alternative solution would be merging this category to Top Cow characters. Brandmeistertalk 08:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my slogan for these situations is "one franchise: one category". I would suggest that Category:Top Cow characters should be defined as relating to that universe. If the publisher has published other things, it would be appropriate to have a category for that universe, and perhaps a container category for all the universes of the publisher. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or maybe merge to Top Cow characters. I am not convinced we have reliable sources to even support this term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:10, 5 December 2015 (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.
Delete. Navigation is served by the songs and albums subcategories here. Not enough other content to warrant this eponymous category as a parent. WP:OCEPON. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:56, 6 January 2016 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Per main article Rock relief. "Rock-cut" should be hyphenated anyway. They are the same thing. Plan B: Rename to Category:Hittite rock reliefs, and I will tidy the few in the category that aren't. I don't really mind. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as nom. The two are covering the same subject; neither seems to have any narrow geographic area, so that the best solution is to amalgamate them. I would not oppose a reverse merge, if others preferred that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 29 November 2015 (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:Fictional characters who have made pacts with devils[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.
Oppose. It makes it sound like the characters do these actions multiple time, when they usually only do these actions once. JDDJS (talk) 22:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: When reading about fiction on Wikipedia, it's always written in the present tense but I don't believe you would read it and think something happens multiple times in a story just because of the tense. However, you could read or view the fiction multiple times. An example, in Lady Macbeth, the article states, "She dies off-stage, with suicide being suggested as its cause", not "she died". In Othello (character): "he commits suicide." In fact, in every stage version of Mcabeth, Lady Macbeth dies, so you can argue that it does happen multiple times. Every time I watch "Ghost in the Machines", Bender makes a pact with the Robot Devil. For every time it's played somewhere in the world, it's happening, so again, I can argue that that's multiple times. AnemoneProjectors (Peter O'Connor) 11:34, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The attempted suicide, it can happen multiple times but sometimes it only happens once where something stops the individual.Awinters90 (talk) 16:29, 1 December 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Legal professional privilege is the general article about this legal principle in all common-law countries. Attorney–client privilege is an article about legal professional privilege in the United States. The nominated category is collecting articles about the general principle, regardless of jurisdiction, and so should be named after the broader, general principle, not the US-specific term. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:49, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Leave Redirect if Moved The target name will be almost unknown to American readers/editors so please leave a redirect if moved. I'll defer to other editors if this proposal provides more of a global perspective. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:46, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support (with cat-redirect to remain). Legal professional privilege is the British term, and probably applies in other Commonwealth countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 29 November 2015 (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.
Works by Hugo Pratt: Category:Works by Hugo Pratt. I created this category, but "Category:Comics by Hugo Pratt" covers the matter better and is more in line with categories of works by other comics artists. Since the category has no pages now it can be deleted as soon as possible. - User:Kjell Knudde, November 26, 2015 7:41 (CET).
Speedy per WP:G7, author request. @Kjell Knudde:, if you create a category and then immediately think better of it, you just need to go to an admin's talk page and ask them to zap it for you; a CFD nomination isn't needed. Check some of the earlier CFD discussions to see who closed them if you need some contacts.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 26 November 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Works by Hergé": Category:Works by Hergé: I have nothing against this category, but all the other comics artists have their works categorized as "Comics by...". Therefore I feel the category should be renamed as "Category:Comics by Hergé". - User:Kjell Knudde, November 26, 2015 7:50 (CET).
Weak Support Interspersed among many comics is one script for a play, The Mystery of the Blue Diamond, which gives me pause. It looks like it is based on the comic book characters and is a comic-esque play though. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:41, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another suggestion for the category would be keeping "Works by Hergé", if only for that one play, and recategorizing all the comics as the subcategory "Comics by Hergé". That way the play can be listed under "Works by Hergé" and all his comics under "Comics by Hergé", which enables them to be categorized on the "Comics by writer" category page. - User:Kjell Knudde, November 26, 2015 12:15 (CET).
That would probably be better. Support 2nd suggestion If you want to withdraw this nomination, you could do that on your own. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so I see a lot of support for the second suggestion. Then I'll just remove the suggestion tag and make the proposed changes right now? Or do I have to wait a few more weeks first? - User:Kjell Knudde, November 30, 2015 13:07 (CET)
Support 2nd suggestion – create subcat, move comics to it. Oculi (talk) 14:35, 26 November 2015 (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.
Identical military awards issued more than once to the same person[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:upmerge. Instead of creating multiple lists which may or may not be maintained, I am pasting the contents of each category (except for the Medal of Honor since a list already exists at Medal of Honor#Double recipients) to the talk page of the respective article about or list of recipients of the award:
If someone wishes to create one or more lists, I recommend either creating a single List of recipients of [military award] for each award and simply identifying multiple-time recipients in some manner, or expanding existing content within the articles (e.g. Order of the Red Star lists multiple-time recipients). -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:50, 26 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These categories all group people by how many times they have received the same exact military award, not different levels or degrees of an award. This seems trivial because the people who won the Red Bannner 7 times don't have any more or less in common with each other than those that only won it 4 times, for example. (I'm not asserting that winning the underlying award is undefining under WP:EPONCAT.) For earlier CfD discussions with multiple award subcategories, see here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and per precedents. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for Heroes of the Soviet Union and Medal of Honor, support other. Hero of the Soviet Union and MoH are the highest military awards, so receiving them multiple times is noteworthy. Out of 3,512 MoH recipients only 19 received it twice and none received more than two. Similarly, receiving Hero of the Soviet Union three times for example is quite extraordinary. Brandmeistertalk 18:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Receiving a prestigious award multiple times is noteworthy (i.e. should be covered in the relevant bio article and possibly in a list), but is unnecessarily elaborate categorization (WP:DNWAUC etc). Also, this category structure it is not categorizing on a permanent characteristic (if someone wins the medal again they would be moved to a different category). DexDor(talk) 19:38, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The fact that multiple awards have taken place does not mean that we need multiple categories. Since these are high national awards, they probably fall into the exception to the prohibition mon awards categories, but one category per award should be enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support rare we categorize on multiple instances of inclusion criteria. We certainly don't on other achievements, such as songs that reach number 1 twice, three times, etc., whether an individual is twice in the same titled office (governor, bishop of Foo, senator), or such...regardless of how momentous Grover Cleveland is in Category:Presidents of the United States, not Category:Two time Presidents of the United States or some such formulation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge at a minimum, such is just over categorization. Although I really think we should just delete these categories for now and consider if any of these are really justified categories at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:12, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WARNING While as category they may be not very defining, however the information that a certain person was awarded the highest award several times is definitely encyclopedic. therefore before merging I suggest to create articles List of five times receipients of This or That Order .Staszek Lem (talk) 23:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Receiving a military award more than once is noteworthy and we should keep the categories. Kges1901 (talk) 12:01, 22 January 2016 (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.
