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: Without prejudice to the discussion about what the category should be called, there should only be one category for each country. Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong reverse merge Existing discussions on this matter make it clear that military doctor is the much prefered term. It is widely accepted that doctor is the most common term for this position. Second to doctor is surgeon, and discussions of changes in the military medical profession at present have little impact on a category that does not reach past 1990.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: military doctors and naval surgeons are the terms in wide use. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't object to a reverse merge, but debate about what these categories should be called is ongoing. There should only be one category and Category:Soviet military physicians is the older and better populated of the two. Let us agree to merge them first and them rename the category in line with all the others, if that is what is decided. I am quite happy with them all being called military doctors. Rathfelder (talk) 16:06, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is absolutely no reason to agree to a flawed merger, and the second category came about because the proposed target here is so badly named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 26 December 2017 (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 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.
It appears a number of these are ones I tagged for nomination but inadvertently left off the list in the original CfD. The remaining categories have not been individually tagged for this nomination, however. In any event, I support the change. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:48, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comment. I updated them. Tijd-jp (talk) 10:09, 17 December 2017 (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: There are no instructions for which BLPs to include; some if not most biographies don't mention the Weinstein scandal at all. The category smacks of WP:OR.– Gilliam (talk) 09:05, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Because we already have a specific category for sexual misconduct allegations, where people are supposed to find all articles about that particular topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The key article is undergoing a renaming request (understandable, given that the current title is a not widely used neologism). Grutness...wha? 01:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When the category includes the article on the accusations of rape and sexual harrassment against William Jefferson Clinton, a set of allegations that were all made public before the Weinstein controversy came to a head at the start of October 2017, the whole category reeks of presentism. There may be a level of something that tipped with the allegations against Weinstein, but much of this seems to be presentist ignorace, ignoring how allegations brought down O'Reilly, brought criminal charges against Larry Nassar, and many other issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there's obviously a case to be made that the Harvey Weinstein affair had an effect on how many sexual misconduct claims have come forward this year and how much more seriously they're getting taken than they would have in the past, it's far less clear that "Weinstein effect" is the standard and defining name of the phenomenon — and it's definitely not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of every individual allegation that's come forward this year. We already have a category for Category:Sexual misconduct allegations — we do not need separate categories to distinguish the allegations by the matter of whether they came forward pre-Weinstein or post-Weinstein. Bearcat (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Weinstein effect has its own, lengthy article, which defines the effect as "a global trend in which people come forward to accuse famous or powerful people, mostly men, of sexual misconduct." If someone believes this isn't a real phenomenon, the correct course of action would be to nominate that article for deletion first. The whole Weinstein effect/phenomenon is big enough to merit its own category. --Tataral (talk) 14:14, 8 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: Unimportant category being mass-added to articles about a chart which does not have any notability itself in Wikipedia. Nowhere is the chart sourced or the chart positions, rendering this category as redundant. —IB[ Poke ] 08:06, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here it is, enjoy: List of Club 40 number-one hits. Could you please not interfere with my attempt to improve the coverage of French charts on the English Wikipedia? You could have asked me before proposing the category for deletion. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This mass change/addition of French chart categories has been going on for a while now. First we had most pages under Category:Number-one singles in France changed to Category:SNEP Top Singles number-one singles with barely an explanation, now we have Club 40 number-ones with a category of their own. Although I really don't think chartsinfrance.net qualifies as a "major media outlet", perhaps the Club 40 chart is relevant enough to have an article (it has existed since 2010). However, all the Club 40 number-one songs with a category of their own? Not really. Ss112 15:12, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get your reasoning. If one substitutes the words "Club 40" with "Dance Club Songs", the result in an equally good reason to delete the category "Category:Billboard Dance Club Songs number-one singles". Yes, Chartsinfrance.net is a major media outlet as it is the only online media outlet fully dedicated to French music news. --Moscow Connection (talk) 17:00, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a very good reason to delete that category but that is not up for deletion. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ss112: "With barely an explanation." — The explanation is that people on Wikipedia add French charts to articles without understanding what charts those are. The category Category:Number-one singles in France is a mess cause it lists songs that charted at no. 1 in different charts, including some that may not be official. It should be sorted into subcategories. I saw a problem and I'm attempting to fix it. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User talk:Ss112/Archive 10#French charts. — I've noticed this discussion started by Richard3120 on your talk page. So you know about the problem and you know that you don't know which charts are which. I don't think Wikipedia editors should continue with an attitude of "No one cares if the peaks on different charts are sometimes several places lower or higher. Let's use just any random chart and forget about it." --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Moscow Connection: Oh, I'm very well aware about which charts are which, thanks very much. If you'd actually read the conversation, you'd know I did and justified what I said ("you know that you don't know", yep, sure—what a great and totally wrong analysis). This isn't the place to continue on a conversation with me. Don't act like you're the only person who understands how French charts work. I disagree with this category existing and looks like the others voting below do too. Don't ping me again on this topic, I don't really care about what you have to say about French charts hence why I support this chart's category's deletion. You don't have to get all bent out of shape and defensive just because somebody nominated your category for deletion. Ss112 06:49, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link, I'm very well aware of our policies regarding how to speak to other users. Nothing I said wasn't civil. I said this isn't the place to bring up a concern about what I said elsewhere, because it isn't. I disagree with your unsolicited analysis of a conversation I had with another user on my talk page. I asked you not to ping me again, which is reasonable. Then I said you don't have to get bent out of shape, because you did. You came here and told me that I don't know what I'm talking about in regards to another topic when that has nothing to do with why I support this category's deletion. Ss112 07:03, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't "another topic". At least it was you who raised the topic here in this thread when you said I had changed categories "with barely an explanation". I thought you wanted an explanation and I provided it. I didn't expect you to say that you didn't "really care" about what I had to say. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I meant you mentioning my discussion of French charts that I had on my talk page. That is another topic, not relevant and appeared to be you wanting to have a go at me. So please don't bring up or go looking for things that I did not say nor allude to in my message here. French chart categories is all I talked about here and all I care to talk about here going forward. Ss112 09:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was relevant. And I didn't "dig through your talk page", I remembered seeing that thread some time ago. (I often see your edits in my watchlist and I visit sometimes.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 11:42, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was about an entirely different French chart. This is about a French dance music chart. It is not relevant to my agreeing this category should be deleted, and it read like an attempt to discredit my opinion ("you don't know what you're talking about") and felt uncivil. I'm not going to keep going back-and-forth with this. I think it would be wise in future to not bring up discussions you've seen on people's talk pages especially when it isn't even about the current specific thing (in this case, the chart category) under discussion. Thank you. Ss112 12:28, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You are continuing to attack me. Why? No, it wasn't an attempt to discredit your opinion. I didn't say "you don't know what you're talking about", why are you citing something I didn't say? Okay, let's stop here... --Moscow Connection (talk) 12:35, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How you interpret me saying it felt like an attempt to discredit and felt uncivil as an "attack" on you is beyond me. Don't be dramatic. The end fact is you brought up a discussion now on an archive of my talk page when it isn't even about what is specifically being addressed here. I paraphrased what felt like your intention with bringing it up; you said "you don't know which charts are which" when nowhere on my talk page did I express confusion about anything. I would generally think the thing to take away from this is that discussions that have happened elsewhere and not concerning you are probably not relevant to bring up and are going to distract from the overall intent here. I still believe this chart category is not relevant and I support its deletion. That's it. Ss112 12:46, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the chart itself is notable, it deserves an article, it does not mean reaching number one on the chart is a defining aspect of those songs. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:08, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for putting into words what I didn't quite get to above. A chart meeting our guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia doesn't mean a song going to a number-one on that chart means we need to have a category for it included on the article. Ss112 07:11, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both the English and French wikipages lack secondary sources to determine notability for the chart. Is there a way to verify that the chart is actually affiliated with SNEP? Or which songs reached number one? snapsnap(talk) 17:34, 14 December 2017 (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:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles in the category. Not sure if all parent categories are suitable merge targets, the nomination only specifies those three parents that are beyond doubt. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 14 December 2017 (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: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles in the category. Possibly also merge to the second parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Go ahead. I started the category at some point ... I don't remember how I picked the name, but searching for "orgone technicians" I find only a few hits for the quoted phrase beyond our own penumbra. With effort a justification might be found to add a few more names to the list, but honestly, I'm not going to put in that effort now and neither is anyone else, and the merged category is certainly not too large to find stuff. Wnt (talk) 16:30, 15 December 2017 (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: Is it Egyptian or is it American? I'm very confused, and with such a strange setup I don't think it is useful for navigation. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:22, 14 December 2017 (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: The category contains only subcategories of characters with illegal occupations, not articles/subcategories for illegal occupations that do not exist in real life. I am nominating Category:Fictional gendered occupations for the same reason. 165.91.13.225 (talk) 05:11, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Added 10 similarly named categories. Someone please tag these for me. 02:10, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Rename per nom These are about characters, not the occupations which they hold. Dimadick (talk) 07:23, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The category name makes me expect organlegger (alas, no longer really so fictional!) or Bene Gesserit (with one exception), not "fictional cheerleaders" and such. (Are cheerleaders still a gendered occupation? There's a can of worms for you...) Wnt (talk) 16:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as it contains only subcategories. Raymond3023 (talk) 16:20, 22 December 2017 (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.
Strong delete Pointless right now. I'm open to recreation if more articles closely related to Toadstone are created. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 01:11, 15 December 2017 (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: Looks like a WP:OC#TRIVIA. The only two members are Category:Bubble Bobble, which isn’t really defined by being about bubbles, and Shabondama, which is about a bubble but does not seem to be defined by being about a bubble. There is nothing special about bubbles that would warrant a category like this. 165.91.12.145 (talk) 04:28, 14 December 2017 (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 - Is there a potential need to organize fictional characters by the languages they speak? --Samantha Ireland (talk) 20:31, 16 December 2017 (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 The jungle is a relatively common setting in fiction, in stories about "jungle men" such as Mowgli and Tarzan, and "jungle girls" such as Sheena, Queen of the Jungle and Rima. In most cases it represents a location out of the reach of civilization. Rainforest refers to forests with high rainfall, and seem to be a more modern concept. I am not certain of their relevance to fictional works. Dimadick (talk) 07:36, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The 'jungle' of Kipling's The Jungle Book (two books, actually) is not a rainforest, being probably the drier forest near Seoni (Madhya Pradesh) mentioned in the story. Since Kipling's stories are archetypical 'jungle' fiction, and seem to have brought the word into English, I'd think that equating fictional jungle to rainforest would probably be a mistake. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:45, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Jungle" in literature is a semi-mythical setting with certain conventions (like it never gets cold) that rainforests don't necessarily obey. A movie about a guy stalked by a giant bear in the Oregon rainforest is going to have some very different conventions from traditional offerings of something set in Africa, e.g. he doesn't get sick, fall into delirium, get rescued by a magic negro, and inevitably fall in love with a white princess in need of defending. Wnt (talk) 16:44, 15 December 2017 (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.
While this could probably be expanded, Yōkai seems to be a Japanese term which encompasses a variety of legendary creatures: monsters, spirits, demons, and shape-shifters. They could probably be incorporated to categories about the English terms. Dimadick (talk) 07:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Umm... aren't all Yokai fictional? Anyway, Inuyasha would fit easily in "Yokai in popular culture" instead.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 05:05, 20 December 2017 (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:Video game characters who can duplicate themselves[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.
Nominator's rationale: Currently 6 articles; the parent has 48. And there are no categories for characters in other media. 165.91.12.186 (talk) 02:13, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom The parent category is small and does not need subcategorization. Dimadick (talk) 07:44, 14 December 2017 (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 countries in other worlds[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.
CommentSome of them may be miscategorized. The Conan the Barbarian tales take place on planet Earth in a supposedly forgotten era of prehistory. The peoples and countries which Conan encounters are supposed to be distant ancestors of historic civilizations. Videssos is a fantasy version of the Byzantine Empire, and it is unclear whether the setting is another planet. Dimadick (talk) 08:04, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "a world" is not necessarily equal to "a planet", it may also mean "a universe", so I'm not sure that "in" is entirely wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 23 December 2017 (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.
