Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 21 February 23 >

February 22[edit]

Category:Nobel laureates in Economics[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: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After all, it is not an official Nobel prize (Official name: Sveriges Riksbank Prize in Economic Sciences in Memory of Alfred Nobel). We should keep it separate from Nobel prizes. Störm (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support- this has been discussed before in 2008 and more recently at speedy in 2019, where I see I supported it. Oculi (talk) 21:40, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. As the article says, it is commonly called the Nobel Prize in Economics, and the current title is the normal title. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 20:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Necrothesp. The head article is at Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, but its lead begins The Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, commonly referred to as the Nobel Prize in Economics. The article is mistitled, but the category correctly follows the common name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 23 February 2020 (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:Star Wars Force-sensitive characters[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 top one, keep sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 14:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are three newly-created and completely in-universe categories that add no encyclopedic value. I believe one or more of these was created and deleted in the past, among other similar Star Wars character categories. — TAnthonyTalk 18:17, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It seems to be a perfectly reasonable way to divide the character category by factions. Dimadick (talk) 17:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Only the first one was tagged until today. The Sith category was previously discussed with no consensus at CFD 2008 September 2; it appears that it was later emptied by EEMIV([1]) and deleted as empty in April 2009. As Category:Star Wars Jedi characters was recently created to sub-cat its members from the parent Category:Jedi, where they were previously held (e.g. [2]), and likewise the Sith category,[3] those two categories must not be simply deleted but (if not kept) must be merged back. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, after the 2008 CfD, both Category:Star Wars Sith characters and Category:Star Wars Imperial characters were emptied and deleted on April 19, 2009 (with others, I seem to recall), but I don't know which discussion may have preceded that. Atvica recreated the Sith category on February 20, 2020. Perhaps EEMIV, who did some of the emptying, can recall more about this than I can?— TAnthonyTalk 22:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories sharing the same fate include Star Wars Separatist characters and Star Wars Old Republic characters. If I remember correctly, these were all created at the same time by a single editor.— TAnthonyTalk 22:31, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Star Wars Force-sensitive characters to Category:Star Wars characters per WP:NONDEF but keep the other two. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oy, my ears are burning. I don't remember exactly, but I suspect I was 1) merge-and-redirecting a bunch of character article stubs and 2) consequently nearly emptying a bunch of very specific cats (e.g. "Left-handed Sith characters with a beaded mustachio"). This was not only for characters but also vehicles, planets, etc. I think overall cat cleanup was also a deliberate objective -- cats embedded within each other a few layers down, cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria. This was during a general hux lull in Star Wars-ness -- not a ton of notable new content creation, and before the Disney resurgence and explosive growth of new content. So insofar as this particular CfD is concerned, I don't have an opinion. Nudge me if you'd like me to start clicking around the cats to try to come up with a somewhat informed opinion. --EEMIV (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2020 (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.

Categories by geography[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: Option B. (non-admin closure) Armbrust The Homunculus 16:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: Following the deletion of similarly-named categories created by Lmatt (talk · contribs) (whose work was considered disruptive and who was blocked as a result), see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_November_6#Categories_by_parameter, this older one remains. "Geographical categorization" here means location, language or ethnicity/culture, i.e. various aspects of human geography. It may be that it is useful to gather these together, in which case choose option A, because we don't need both these layers, and the shorter name is clearer. Otherwise, choose option B.
It is interesting to note that several other-language Wikipedias have implemented a similar structure (intentionally, not copied just by bots).
Note: if Option A is chosen, the first category page should be moved over the target page, since it is older.
(added at 21:56) If Option B is chosen, the sub-cats should be dismantled by returning the contents to where they were before.
Disclosure: I have moved categories by continent/country/etc back into Category:Categories by location, where they were before Lmatt moved them. – Fayenatic London 15:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why do I not like your suggestion of Category:Categories by geography? You are right that it is shorter but I disagree that it is clearer. Geography is a discipline and not a property of something. This is similar to another trend, where the word "geometry" is used when the structure of form of a body is meant. Geometry is the science of the planes and solid figures, so a subdiscipline of mathematics, not the property that a body has. Another commonly wrongly applied fashionably expression is the "architecture" of something, e.g. a molecule. Architecture is the art of construction, not a molecule property. CN1 (talk) 23:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I read the previous discussion, linked above, you were the only person who found "Categories by [foo] categorisation" clear. Perhaps "Categories by geographical parameter" would be an improvement. However , you have not explained (i) why it is useful to have language and culture/ethnicity categorised with location, or (ii) how it is useful to distinguish "geographical location" from simply "location". – Fayenatic London 21:09, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"Categories by geographical parameter" is acceptable. Alternative: "Categories by spatial parameter". to your (i) even if our world is globalized, language / culture / ethnicity still are ways of categorizing by space i.e. location. As to your (ii) the two terms you present are synonymous, which is exactly why I wrote that language / culture / nationality / ethniticy are »[geographical] location based classifications« = »location based classifications«. However I changed my vote to support your proposal B now. CN1 (talk) 23:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In common English usage geography, like history, can be a property of something. I have a history, Wikipedia has a history. The two ways in which the word can be used are not contradictory, and Option A represents perfectly proper English usage. MapReader (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2020 (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:Lists of historical period drama films[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 to Category:Lists of historical drama films. – Fayenatic London 11:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, aligning with the name of parent Category:Historical films. The films in this category are not necessarily drama films as suggested by the current title. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:58, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MapReader and Armbrust: pinging contributors to earlier speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the original nominator I would have expected the proposal that starts the discussion to have been my own, not an amended one from another editor. Suggest yours as an alternative in discussion, by all means, but IMO the existence of historical documentary films renders yours flawed from the outset (unless you intended to propose a merge of a batch of categories, which is really a whole separate discussion). MapReader (talk) 08:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of CFDS discussion
  • Object I am troubled by this proposal. There is a distinction to be drawn between historical fiction and dramatisations of history that are attempting to portray fact. However I do not have a solution to offer. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Not all historical films are dramas. See Category:Historical comedy films and its subcategories. Dimadick (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the original CFDS proposal You can have ‘historical drama’ and ‘period drama’, which mean pretty much the same thing (perhaps, ancient history and recent contemporary history films are less likely to be described as ‘period’ films, but that’s a nuance) but ‘historical period drama’ is a tautology. The pre-internet gold standard for encyclopaedias, Britannica, has ‘historical drama films’ as its subcategory, and its prevalence as usage overwhelmingly more common than ‘historical period drama’ can be checked quickly by Google - most hits for the latter derive from WP. Indeed within WP itself ‘historical drama film’ is already the most common usage within articles, with instances of the tautological phrase mostly contained to foreign language films, particularly Indian ones, for some reason (I have been editing these out, reflecting the change to the main article title, which has proved uncontroversial. This should have been a straightforward C2D and the only objection was on grounds of recency, not substance). So my proposal is simply to remove the redundant word ‘period’. MapReader (talk) 08:57, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
p.s. if other editors wish to discuss merging subcategories such as drama, comedy, documentary into one wider ‘historical films’ category, can we do so separately and later? Otherwise discussion of what was a straightforward C2D proposal is going to turn into a mess. Thank you! MapReader (talk) 09:07, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there would be no consensus about the current proposal then the CFDS proposal is a second best alternative, better than keeping as is. But again, the films in this category are not necessarily drama films as suggested by the current title or the title proposed at CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that some films might not be correctly categorised it not in itself an argument pertinent to the category titles. I still think you had a cheek overriding my proposal with your own, and would be grateful if we could establish first whether the CFDS proposal has any opposition. MapReader (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will most happily confirm that the CFDS proposal so far does not have any opposition compared to the current category name. However, there is no need to have two consecutive discussions about the same category, because it is the end result that counts. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we are now stuck in the Wiki mire thanks to the interventions of two editors neither of whom appear to have any substantive objection to what was always a straightforward C2D. How do we escape and get this simple change done? MapReader (talk) 18:02, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since Armbrust (talk · contribs) despatched us here, despite having no objection to the original proposal, perhaps s/he could advise us as to how to escape? MapReader (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2020 (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.

Mass media[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 (Talk) 16:19, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename for consistency with parent Category:Mass media by interest and grandparent Category:Mass media. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 22 February 2020 (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:IUCN Category Ia[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: delete. MER-C 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. It is mentioned in the infobox of every article, but more specific information on when, why and how these protected areas got onto the IUCN list is consistently lacking. Besides on the IUCN website I cannot find a list of these nature reserves (but perhaps I am not searching well enough). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even well-developed articles such as Baker Island make no mention of this in the article text and all the articles I checked are in much better categories. If not deleted it should be renamed to something more meaningful and articles placed in it properly (by a category tag).DexDor (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:34, 22 February 2020 (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:Males[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. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, these appear to be topic categories, which we normally do not pluralize. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure about the proposed names - how about deletion instead (recategorizing if necessary)? DexDor (talk) 13:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor:: If these categories were deleted, then how would their subcategories be recategorized? Why should these categories be deleted? Jarble (talk) 14:49, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for deletion would be that there isn't really a coherent topic here (i.e. it's not grouping articles about similar topics). The subcats I've looked at are in more suitable parent categories. DexDor (talk) 17:17, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've removed some redundant categorization. These cats now each have just 2 subcats. DexDor (talk) 17:29, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) Male twins, male mammals and animal male reproductive systems (the three subcategories) do not have a lot in common indeed, so deletion is certainly an option. However, the articles should be moved to parent Category:Sex in that case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are right. So I support either delete or rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or keep (not rename as proposed). DexDor (talk) 19:12, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:33, 22 February 2020 (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:Biology of gender[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. @Place Clichy: you may want to take your proposals forward after this. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge to Category:Sex or possibly move somewhere else. The category contains a hodgepodge of articles that belong in Category:Sex, Category:Sexual orientation, Category:Transgender, Category:Intersex, Category:Males or Category:Females. Besides, "sex" is a biological concept anyway, so a category for "biology of gender" does not add anything to the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Biology of gender includes biology of gender identity. --Sharouser (talk) 11:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see any articles in the category that are specifically about "biology of gender identity". The only article I know of that discusses this idea is gender identity and it isn't in the category. Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - This category is a jumbled mess. Most of the articles would be better suited in Category:Sex. Kaldari (talk) 22:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:33, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Biology does not have an identity. "Biology of gender" is equivalent to "Wetness of water". Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that analogy works! MapReader (talk) 16:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a bit forced I admit. But when wetness is removed from water, what remains of water? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2020 (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:Capital T[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: delete. MER-C 16:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. Downmerge the discography page to Category:Capital T songs. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discography page was re-created again with new sources and more information. I think the category can stay.--Lorik17 (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not make a difference. The two articles already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:32, 22 February 2020 (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:Apple Inc. mobile phones[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: No consensus Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant to Category:iPhone Mike Peel (talk) 22:00, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:42, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now, as part of a structure, without prejudice to a wider nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 27 February 2020 (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.

Awards of the Holy See[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 (Talk) 14:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, each of the categories only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory of recipients. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think WP:SMALLCAT is not an argument in this case, since there are many articles, just that they are in a subcategory, so this is part of the tree. This is a valid and useful tree structure. Debresser (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- They are both knighthoods, so that chivalry is appropriate. I think Debresser has misunderstood the potential outcome, which will be that the article on each order goes into the target category and the membership content becomes a subcategory. That would be wholly appropriate. We are not talking about the subcategories, which should probably be retained, though WP:OC#AWARD discourages award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, the sub-cats are not being deleted so SMALLCAT does apply to this intermediate category layer. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge Too small for having separate category. desmay (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons aberrations[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 (Talk) 14:09, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article has been deleted, so the category has no real utility in organizing the articles. As with most of the articles in the category structure, the majority are merge/redirect/deletion targets, so the number will be cut drastically in the coming weeks as well. TTN (talk) 13:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and we do not have any other aberrations categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a large and valid category. As I stated above, I see no problem with these Dungeons & Dragons categories. I do think they should have been grouped in one nomination. Debresser (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:SMALLCAT and as overly specific. It is unlikely to expand in the future and likely to grow much smaller.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:55, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge Too small for having separate category. desmay (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2020 (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:Dungeons & Dragons giants[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 (Talk) 14:10, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only five articles. This will only shrink from here. Upmerge to both categories. TTN (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per WP:SMALLCAT which specifies that categories with very few articles and without future potential for expansion should be merged.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge Too small for having separate category. desmay (talk) 14:32, 20 March 2020 (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:Forgotten Realms creatures[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: delete. MER-C 16:24, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This has no real organizational purpose because every article I've looked at is within the other categories in "Dungeons & Dragons creatures." I don't think the general reader needs to know the campaign settings in which the creatures are utilized. This is from when D&D had about five times the current number of existing articles. If there's an article I missed that's not already covered elsewhere, then it should be upmerged to "Dungeons & Dragons creatures." TTN (talk) 16:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:34, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Overly specific category that does not help the casual reader in any way. As Forgotten Realms is a setting of D&D, the base category is sufficient.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:54, 27 February 2020 (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:Czech-speaking territorial units in Croatia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 23#Category:Czech-speaking territorial units in Croatia

Category:History of computing topical overviews[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 but to the alternative targets suggested by andrybak. – Fayenatic London 12:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:History of industry topical overviews‎ to Category:Industrial history *
Merge Category:History of science topical overviews‎ to Category:History of science *
Merge Category:History of technology topical overviews‎ to Category:History of technology
Merge Category:History of the arts topical overviews‎ to Category:Art history *
Merge Category:History of the United Kingdom topical overviews‎ to Category:History of the United Kingdom *
Merge Category:History of the United States topical overviews‎ to Category:History of the United States by topic
Merge Category:Maritime history topical overviews‎ to Category:Maritime history
Nominator's rationale: There is no clear distinction between an article that is an overview and one that is not - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_January_7#Category:History_of_Australia_topical_overviews. DexDor (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: For those marked with an asterisk above an alternative merge target has been proposed below by andrybak. I support either target. DexDor (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, "overview" is subjective. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Topical overview" is not an accurate description. Dimadick (talk) 21:31, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unrelated comment: it seems there is inconsistencies in the top categories. Some use "X history", while others use "History of x". --Gonnym (talk) 15:29, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These categories have a clear scope and a useful role, i.e. based upon the articles contained in each one. --Sm8900 (talk) 02:30, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See the points made in the previous CFD (linked in the nom). DexDor (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- The topical overviews have the merit of enabling a short list of head topic articles to be picked out from the mass of detail, some of which may need to be purged from the target categories into various of their subcategories. I have a problem with the scope of Art/arts, which is mixing graphic arts (e.g. painting) with performing arts (e.g. theatre, film, etc). Arguably a head category on the arts might include everything that is not a science, but that is not necessarily helpful, except as a very high level category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree. I will be glad to support any changes or refinements that you might suggest. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 22:04, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 21:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:31, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt merge by Andrybak over the original merge proposal, since it is more specific. Note that this is my second vote, as I keep supporting the original nomination over the current situation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2020 (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:Sexual Minorities in Mahabharata[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 to Category:Androgynous characters in Mahabharata Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:39, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. Note that all four articles are already in Category:Characters in the Mahabharata. If the category is not going to be merged, it will at least need some kind of renaming, since we do not have any other Sexual Minorities categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- I looked at all four articles and had difficulty working out what its basis is. I think it is that certain characters of the Mahabharata, where either of ambiguous or alternating gender. This is somewhat different from LGBT or Transgender. One of the persons is described as androgyne, which has some similarities to intersex or non-binary, but this is mythology and does not fit with real life categories. Perhaps Category:Androgynes in Mahabharata. I think we should allow an exception to the normal minimum of 5 articles in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would go along with that, which is better than my suggestion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 19:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 04:30, 22 February 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_February_22&oldid=952716251"