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 all to Category:Burials at the Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Kamehameha Tomb (Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii) to Category:Burials in the Kamehameha Tomb
• Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Kalākaua Crypt (Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii) to Category:Burials in the Kalākaua Crypt
• Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Wyllie Tomb (Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii) to Category:Burials in the Wyllie Tomb

Nominator's rationale: There isn't another Kamehameha Tomb, is there? --BDD (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the principle articles however are Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii and List of burials in the Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii, so rename to Category:Burials in the Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii.Eustachiusz (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)(my mistake for not reading the thing properly)[reply]

  There's already a parent cat Category:Burials at the Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii. I hadn't noticed that it had two other subcats similarly named, though. I'll add them here. --BDD (talk) 16:16, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all three as per nom - no need for dab. I'm not entirely convinced however that there is any need for three separate subcats here - the burials in the entire mausoleum are not that numerous. Eustachiusz (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to parent. The list already separates these three groups by tomb. – Fayenatic London 11:31, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Burials at the Royal Mausoleum of Hawaii. Like Fayenatic, I do not see the need to subdivide this category of approximately 50 articles by tomb. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:20, 20 April 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Specialist schools in England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Specialist schools in London (already emptied out of process)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Specialist schools no longer receive extra funding and probably all secondary schools are now specialist, so it is no longer a defining characteristic. This has already been agreed in principle at WT:CFD. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I don't see any agreement in principle at the linked page (I see an editor proceeding regardless to empty and delete categories out of process) and the rationale does not cover say technology Colleges. This one is clearly still a language college (and also a comprehensive school) and this one is a sports college. The absence of extra funding is irrelevant. The London ones should be re-instated. Oculi (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a case of the type of the school changing? If so, then it should be retained in the category for the previous type. It was one of those, so it can be in the category. Right? Do we only categorize by current types of schools? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:38, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete That a school, for a few years, (claimed to) specialise in 1-2 subjects (because a government initiative gave them extra money for doing so) is not (especially in the long term) a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that school. The articles in these categories are (AFAICS) about normal schools that offer the normal range of secondary school subjects (unlike, for example, colleges dedicated to nursing, agriculture etc). DexDor (talk) 18:33, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to List of specialist schools or to multiple lists of schools by field of specialization. A temporary administrative designation (typically 5-10 years since the program did not really take off until the early 2000s) is not a particularly defining characteristics of these schools; these details are appropriate for a stand-alone list but less so as a basis for categorization. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:42, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to the equivalent Secondary Schools categories (possibly renamed to a state schools category (as opposed to public and other private schools). In Worcestershire (my local county), I found a separate subcat for Comprehensive Schools. The specialisms may well be a short-term phenomenon. Equally whether they are still under local authority control/voluntary aided on the one hand or academies on the other is also likely to be a short-term phenomenon, as they will probably all be academies within a few years. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:44, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The specialist schools programme has ended and schools no longer get extra funding from the Department of Education for specialisms. While a number of these schools claim to still have specialisms, these are entirely self-appointed, and increasingly do not feat neatly into these categories any way. Ive always thought these categories are too broadly named considering the specific types of school they contain - Would a reader assume that [Category:Language Colleges in London] only contained a number of state-funded secondary schools who used to receive extra funding for a few years for languages? I doubt it. Delete. - Bleaney (talk) 21:55, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The claim to specialize in specific subjects is not defining for the schools, especially since it is often only for a short period of time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:41, 20 May 2014 (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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:45, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Kosovska Mitrovica to Category:Mitrovica, Kosovo
• Propose renaming Category:People from Kosovska Mitrovica to Category:People from Mitrovica, Kosovo

Nominator's rationale: Per this recent move, we should be consistent. Regards IJA (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Mitrovica, Kosovo and Category:People from Mitrovica, Kosovo. The main article is now at Mitrovica, Kosovo so these could be closed speedily (WP:C2D). "Kosovo" is needed because there are also Sremska Mitrovica (Mitrovica of Srem) and Mitrovica of Mačva. – Fayenatic London 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Neither of the category pages were tagged by the nominator, but I have done this now, using the names he proposed above. – Fayenatic London 21:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I've adjusted my proposal to reflect User:Fayenatic london's sensible reasoning. IJA (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename following RM. – Fayenatic London 11:08, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming of Category:Georgian alphabet to Category:Georgian scripts

Nominator's rationale: per Georgian scripts. Georgian alphabet is a part of the Georgian scripts thus suggest we move it. Jaqeli (talk) 14:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Was this a contested speedy? It would seem to fit criterion C2D. --BDD (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it was not. Why should it? Jaqeli (talk) 05:47, 11 April 2014 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Coimbra Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: That a university is (or has been) a member of an association is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a university (e.g. in the University of Oxford article it's just one of several affiliations). For info: there is a list at Coimbra_Group#Members. For info: An example of a previous similar CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_2#Category:City_University_Network. DexDor (talk) 05:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: this is not alone in Category:Universities and colleges by association. Following the above CfD link, this seems to be in a chain of similar categories being nominated one at a time. Would it not be better to consider them together? – Fayenatic London 11:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  There is also Category:University associations and consortia; however, I don't think that a group nomination is necessarily the right way in this case. Not all affiliations are equally significant, and so a good case could be made for considering each category individually. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:56, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This is an association of universities. I am not sure that we should categorise universities by membership of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is not a defining characteristic of the universities involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2014 (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 to Category:Banbury. All five articles already appear in Category:Housing estates in Oxfordshire. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Estates of Banbury to Category:Housing estates of Oxfordshire Category:Housing estates in Oxfordshire and Category:Industrial parks in the United Kingdom and Category:Banbury

Nominator's rationale: If category description is accurate, contains a mixture of housing estates and industrial estates (industrial parks). These are usually categorised in different trees Category:Housing estates and Category:Industrial parks. Tim! (talk) 11:21, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support split/upmerge per nom, except that renamed Oxfordshire category name should use "in" - see below. – Fayenatic London 15:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: all five current members seems to be housing and not industrial. – Fayenatic London 18:07, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete As somebody who was actually born in Banbury Calthorpe, went to school in Easington, and lived nearby for some 20 years (on and off), and still visit my mother there several times a year, I do have some local knowledge. I feel able to state that none of these (Calthorpe, Easington, Grimsbury, Neithrop, Ruscote) are estates - housing or otherwise. They are villages that got engulfed by the expanding Banbury, and whose names are still seen on local maps (example) and in the names of council divisions and wards. These five areas do include housing estates within their boundaries, but the estate as such does not comprise the whole of the area. Housing estates in Banbury include: Bodicote Chase (in Easington); Bretch Hill (in Neithrop); Cherwell Heights (in Calthorpe); and several others. There are industrial estates too - Beaumont Road Ind. Est., for example, is within Ruscote. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• OK then, just upmerge to Banbury. There used to be articles on at least one estate, Cherwell Heights, but that was merged. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 16 April 2014 (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: no consensus. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Industrial estates in Singapore to Category:Industrial parks in Singapore

Nominator's rationale: duplicate categories Tim! (talk) 11:27, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator....William 11:39, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In Singapore, an Industrial Park is a "themed" estate where clusters of establishments are grouped by industry. They are mostly a subset of an Industrial Estate. The current three entries under the Industrial Estate category (there are actually quite a few more. We just have not created articles for them yet) are certainly not industrial parks.--Huaiwei (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• In that case, reverse merge and redirect, to reflect local usage, adding explanatory text; we do not need both levels, and the parent belongs in Category:Industrial parks per lead article Industrial park. – Fayenatic London 15:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would you classify Changi Business Park and International Business Park then? Calling them an industrial park is acceptable here, but to call them an industrial estate sounds strange in local contexts. Because we usually associate an industrial estate with..well...a traditional industrial estate with grimy factories set in dusty, unspectacular surroundings. Some of those "industrial parks" (designated as such by local authorities) are actually "Business parks" dominated by high-end offices in immaculately landscaped surroundings, although they have some light industrial buildings as well.--Huaiwei (talk) 12:52, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:38, 10 April 2014 (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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:SpringerOpen academic journals to Category:Springer Science+Business Media academic journals

Nominator's rationale: Springers tag for journals that are completely open access. As far as I can discern, however, SpringerOpen is not an independent imprint of Springer (like BioMed Central, for example). Hence I propose to upmerge this to the parent cat. Randykitty (talk) 15:35, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as category creator. our page on Springer lists SpringerOpen as one of the imprints alongside BioMed Central, which is why I created the category in the first place. Also, the large number of journals in this category means it is probably better to keep it rather than dump it into the main category as suggested above, which already has 364 entries. I might also note that other reliable sources seem to agree with me that SpringerOpen is an imprint: [1] Jinkinson talk to me 15:46, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Yes, I added that myself, I see from the article history, but it appears that that was in error. Here is what Springer themselves say about SpringerOpen. They call it their "portfolio" of open access journals. Nowhere do they say that it is an imprint (compare that with the link to BMC on that page, which is not described as a "portfolio" but as a "publisher"). If you look at the people involved, they all have affiliations listed (from "Springer" to "Springer Singapore" to "BioMedCentral"). None of them seem to work for "SpringerOpen", which is what you would expect for a "real" imprint. SpringerOpen just seems to be a name used for marketing purposes (like "Springer Open Choice", used for OA articles in subscription journals). Yes, there are a lot of journals under the SpringerOpen label (although not all of them are notable yet), but that is in itself not a reason to create a separate cat. And yes, the cat with Springer journals has a lot of entries, but that is a bit the nature of these categories and Elsevier, Sage, and Wiley-Blackwell's cats are even larger (and if ever the latter decided to fully merge with John Wiley and Sons and abandon even the imprint status, that cat would get even larger). In short, I see no reason for a category named for a marketing tool. --Randykitty (talk) 17:16, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. On balance, I think it's better to group these together than to, as Randykitty says, categorize by what is essentially a marketing tool. They are all published by the same company. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak merge. I share Randykitty's sense that "SpringerOpen" is a branding tool through which Springer designates its "160+ peer-reviewed fully open access journals". For example, a BioMed Central journal such as Zoological Studies is branded as "a SpringerOpen journal" and "published by SpringerOpen". However, SpringerOpen is listed on par with BioMed Central and Chemistry Central, which indicates that this designation has significance for Springer. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:29, 20 April 2014 (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 as a parent category and diffuse. There isn't a Category:Captains precisely there is no singular meaning. However, the fictional world has meanings that don't have real-world counterpart. It's not a container category because for example, Captain Easy would not fit under any of those categories except military by a giant stretch but not including that creates a distinction about Captains with no rationale. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming/diffusing Category:Fictional captains to the Category:Fictional military captains‎

  optional;

  • Category:Fictional nautical captains
  • Category:Fictional aviation captains‎
  • Category:Fictional sport captains‎
  • Category:Fictional science fiction captains‎

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Fictional sergeants and Category:Fictional police captains‎ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose In fictional categories, we do not need real world precision.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support optional proposal, otherwise current category is over-categorisation by shared name, especially for sports team captains. Suggest Category:Fictional air force captains rather than "aviation" to fit in Category:Fictional air force personnel. The proposed nautical cat would fit in the current parent Category:Nautical captains. – Fayenatic London 18:34, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think its just a shared name. The captains all have some level of leadership.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • So do most of the others in Category:Fictional military personnel by rank, but the rest of them do not include sports leaders. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for making Cat:Fictional captains a container category for Fictional police captains‎ and Fictional military captains; unsure about the optionals. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Whatever happens, the present category should be retained as a contaner for the rest. I can see some point in splitting out Category:Fictional captains‎ of ships, covering both naval and merchant marine captains; similarly Category:Fictional captains‎ in armies (to include air forces) - though captain is of lower status. In both cases, the person will be known as Captain Smith. I would suggest that captains of sports teams should merely by categorised as fictional sportsmen. Howerver there will be some characters in novels called Captain Smith, where the source of that rank is not clear: they would have to remain in the parent category. Nevertheless, the category is not so heavily populated as to require splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with keeping the present category; even though not all members are military captains, most are, and this is sufficient for it to stay in the parent Category:Fictional military personnel by rank according to WP:SUBCAT which allows a few exceptions. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merging or renaming. Reducing a larger populated and maintained category to smaller categories seems flawed. Many fictional characters have indeterminate overlap in smaller categories but are still described as "Captains" by sources.__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not all captains are in the military. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  User:Elaqueate and User:Lugnuts, how about the alternative, headed "Optional" above? i.e. keep the current category but diffuse it into the suggested sub-cats? – Fayenatic London 21:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose not all "captains" are military sorts; we also don't need to define fictional characters by rank, really so Category:Fictional lieutenants ought to go, we don't categorize REAL PEOPLE this way since it's not defining and temporary (often), as it is with fictional characters (all the Enterprise folks keep getting promotions, demotions, and whatever, for example, and I think Horatio Hornblower did as well over his several books). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or diffuse. To the closer: needless to say I have no doubt you won't be closing by counting "votes", per WP:CON. And in this case, we actually have a guideline: WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, as noted above. And that trumps a local consensus, I believe : ) - Just as we wouldn't have a category of Category:Fictional Williams for all characters who happened to be named some form of the word William, so too we shouldn't have a category for all characters who happened to to be named some for of the word Captain. If it is diffused into specific job types, then that would at least seem to meet current consensus based upon "by occupation", otherwise this needs to be deleted per current guidelines. Note that the current non-fiction parent is: Category:Nautical captains, which I think is also telling. (Another possible parent might be: Category:Leadership positions in sports). But the fact that this is part of the Category:Fictional military personnel by rank hierarchy suggests that this needs fixing with a more specific name -Category:Fictional military captains (which could be further diffuse by branch if wanted), and the non-military entries diffused to separate more specific names as well. As for diffuse options, I think we could go with Category:Fictional ship captains (which aren't necessarily all military, and which, if wanted, then could be diffused by aviation, nautical, space, etc. and thus could include some sci fi), Category:Fictional sport captains (which could be diffused by sport), and Category:Fictional police captains (which apparently already exists), and purge the rest. - jc37 21:03, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  As I understand this suggestion, Captain Kirk etc would go in "fictional spaceship captains" or "fictional space captains" rather than "fictional science fiction captains"; this sounds an improvement, as the submarine Captain Nemo was sci-fi, but he should be in fictional nautical captains rather than mixed with space captains. However, I am hesitant about purging the rest who are neither military, sports, nor captained a ship, e.g. (1) Captain Scarlet (character) etc who are agents of the security organisation Spectrum, (2) Jack Harkness and Captain John Hart (Torchwood) who are time agents, or (3) Sōsuke Aizen who is a Soul Reaper captain. These all have some kind of pseudo-military/police enforcement-related role. Category:Captain Scarlet characters comprises mainly agent captains; Jc37's suggestion appears to rule out categorising them by rank, while presumably still categorising the other members by rank (a lieutenant and a colonel). I do not think this would be an appropriate result. Could these be put in Category:fictional military captains on grounds of "close enough"? I also suggest that if not kept, it would be better to make Category:Fictional captains into a category disambiguation page than to delete it. – Fayenatic London 22:20, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  As I see it, Fictional captains should be renamed to Fictional military captains. With non-applicable members diffused to ship, police, or sports.

  Capt. Jack is a ship captain. Afaik, the captain appellation predates him being in Torchwood : )

  I dunno about security team captains. (Or for that matter any other ad hoc squad or team captains.) Sounds closer to police than military. How about if we add another diffuse target of: Category:Fictional team captains? (Which the sports one can be a subcat of as well.) I didn't find Category:Fictional teams, but I did find Category:Fictional organizations in comics, and its subcats (many of which are teams).

  This would mean the top level types would be ship captains, military captains, police captains, and team captains.

  And how would you suggest grouping captains who are agents of organisations (govermental or otherwise)? I mean spies and their adversaries, for example.

  But to reiterate, things obviously cannot stay as they are per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. - jc37 23:02, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I think "fictional military captains" is close enough for agents. Captains of "Soul reapers" divisions are probably close enough too. – Fayenatic London 22:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• diffuse and delete Note that we deleted Category:Captains back in 2006 Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_4#Captains. Better to split this by the various types of captains and then parent them under the real-world equivalents when such exist. I agree that normally we have more leeway for fiction, but in this case it is shared name and little linkages between these people.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obi-Wan Kenobi, why not keep it as a disambig? People will try to use it again. OTOH, a "delete" outcome may permit this action anyway. – Fayenatic London 22:49, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

sure we could create both captains and fictional captains as dab cats. No issues with that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Ok, so I just re-read this discussion here, and I can see how this could be off-putting to a closer since it involves manual work. I'm trying to not second guess the close, but if it's something like: "Keep, but only as a parent category, diffusing to appropriate subcats" (Though I'd prefer: "Rename as nominated, and diffuse to appropriate subcats, while keeping the current name as a parent" - as this allows the bot to do some of the diffusing for me : ) - then I'll volunteer to do the cleanup. Just drop me a talk page note : ) - jc37 02:11, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: That sounds good. "Rename as nominated, and diffuse to appropriate subcats, while keeping the current name as a DAB" would also work, and is better than "delete". – Fayenatic London 08:09, 26 May 2014 (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 Category:Organized crime people. Creating a new parent for the organized-crime category can be done if desired. There is no consensus regarding Category:Astronomy people, and I will be renominating it independently. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Organized crime people to Category:People associated with organized crime
• Propose renaming Category:Astronomy people to Category:People associated with astronomy

Nominator's rationale: While the proposed rename is longer, it is more in line with other categories in the parent category Category:People by association ("People associated with Foo", not "Fooian people"). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:08, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose People associated with organized crime that makes it excessively broad. If you're shaken down in a protection racket, you are now associated with organized crime. If you were in a restaurant during a mob hit, you are now associated with organized crime. If you sang in a stageshow in a Busy Seagal casino, you are now associated with organized crime. If you were a member of the Teamsters during the mobbed up period, you are now associated with organized crime. If you son was accidentally killed by a carbomb in a drug war, you are now associated with organized crime. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 05:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep and add Keep Category:Organized crime people for the members of organized crime; add as its parent category Category:People associated with organized crime where people like writers about organized crime and victims of organized crime can be placed; they should not (as is currently true) be in the same category as the criminals Hmains (talk) 02:46, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:22, 10 April 2014 (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 to Category:Mid-engined automobiles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Automobiles powered by mid-mounted 4-cylinder engines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorzation. There are no other "Automobiles powered by mid-mounted x-cylinder engines" category, and the parent "Automobiles powered by x-cylinder engines" categories were all deleted in November 2012. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 19:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this overcategorization? It's a notable group (low-priced mid-engined sportscars) with an obviously very clear definition. The existence or not of potential parent categories is simply irrelevant.

The previous CfD for "Pointlessly broad categories that would not assist in search." was just as stupid as CfD usually is. Because 4 pot front engines are too common to count is still no reason to delete the categories (like this) that are rare and significant. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It isn't actually as rare as you think. As this is talking about automobiles, then it is a very general term, and there are a hell of a lot of racing cars that are mid-engined, and have four-cylinder engines. A lot of those don't have articles, but some do. Beyond that, there are far less 16 and 18 cylinder cars than there are mid-engined 4-cylinder cars, and that category was deleted as well. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:06, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Equally, it isn't restricted to "low priced" groups either, because there are cars like the Alfa Romeo 4C that most definitely are not low priced. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 20:08, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Racing vs. road is a good point. Restricting (or at least splitting) this to road cars would be an improvement. As to price (which is outside the scope of categorization anyway) this includes the Matra Murena through to the Lotus and the Alfa, but all of these (being 4 pots) are still way out of the Ferrari / Lambo price bracket. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Mid-engined vehicles. A mid-engine design is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a vehicle, but the number of cylinders is not. A car with a 4-cyliner engine of any given output has much more in common with a 6-cylinder vehicle of the same power than either does with a vehicle of same number of cylinders but twice the power. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, 4 cylinders is defining in a way that 6 vs 8 is much less so. There are no 4 cylinder Ferrari sportscars – They did build 6 and 8 though (and Lambo also 12s). Mid engined cars have generally been seen as sportscars, an awkward and inefficient layout chosen for its better weight distribution. There is a distinction within this based on price, such that the Fiats and Matras are at one (4 cylinder) level and the 6- or 8- cylinder high-end cars at another. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge ( to Category:Mid-engined automobiles per Hugo999) per BHG. I'd actually argue that the number of cylinders a car's engine has is very defining characteristic of a vehicle. The problem is that there are many automobiles that come with options in this regard - I can think of a few that could be ordered with either four-, six-, or eight-cylinder engines in a single model year, and when you start splitting hairs for aspiration you have a recipe for Thirty Cat Pileups at the bottoms of articles. The location of a car's engine, however, doesn't change be it front-, mid-, or rear-engined. That is a practical form of categorisation; alas, "cars by number of cylinders" is not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:11, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you name any mid-engined cars with options for 4-, 6- or 8- cylinder engines? I can think of the Porsche 914 alone, and even that had the Porsche 914/6 as much more distinct than a mere option. These mid-engined categories are very rare, compared to front engines, or even rear engines. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not familiar enough to do so, no. However I can think of lots of front-engined cars with that option, and a few rear-engined ones. It's not reasonable to have just the mid-engined cars split by number of cylinders when fornt- and rear- are not. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:40, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Merge as per BHG/TB above but to Category:Mid-engined automobiles not Category:Mid-engined vehicles (and move all automobiles to the first category?). The category includes racing cars, sports cars and some sedans, plus one-offs and prototypes; so is a broad category. But am not convinced that the four-cylinder cars are that different from six and eight cylinder cars! There are no separate overall categories for four, six and eight cylinder cars. Also (only?) one bus/coach in the category the AEC Reliance which if a category was needed for it (and any others) could be a subcategory of Category:Types of buses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 17 April 2014‎ (UTC)[reply]

  The AEC Reliance is by no means unusual. Many bus chassis were mid-engined; without even looking them up I can name the AEC Regal IV, Bedford Y-series, Bristol LH, Leyland Royal Tiger, Leyland Leopard. And that's just the single-decker buses. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:21, 18 April 2014 (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 American category as container category, disperse and delete the other. – Fayenatic London 13:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:American speculative fiction writers
• Rename/Purge Category:Hispanic_and_Latino_American_speculative_fiction_writers to Category:Hispanic and Latino American science fiction writers
• Nominators rationale The speculative fiction categories exist to hold a brad variety of genres, and these are the only categories as far as I can tell that directly categorize people as speculative fiction writers. Having seen some of the discussion in a fairly closely related category, I think the main thrust of these categories is science fiction. I am definitely not convinced that we get anything out of this being a sci fi/fantasy/horror category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think there is value in the category. But I'll point out that if we were to "disburse by genre", we would have to put Allende and Hernandez into "Hispanic and Latino American magical realism writers", Diaz into "Hispanic and Latino American fantasy writers", and Anaya into "Hispanic and Latino American science fiction writers", resulting in two categories with 1 entry and one category with 2 entries. Those categories are then too narrowly defined to have any substantial value. Your suggestion that we throw all of them into "Hispanic and Latino American science fiction writers" is inappropriate, since most of them don't write science fiction. Darrah (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't fit in the goal, then be my nomination we purge them. Since magic realism is largely a genre done by people either in Latin America or connected with Latin America, I think this may be unjustified division. Actually, since Category:Magic realism writers is not currently subdivided at all, I think based on what you have said, we should upmerge to Category:Hispanic and Latino-American writers and the specific genre (or if it works Category:Hispanic and Latino American novelists. This subdivision clearly does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:American speculative fiction writers as ((container category)) for the various sub-genres of speculative fiction, which I have just added to the category. No opinion on the hispanic category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• disperse the hispanic category, keep the other one for now, but I'm less convinced of the value of this container - speculative fiction is one grouping, but not everyone thinks of these types of fiction as all related in the way we are implying.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:26, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:05, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge the Hispanic/Latino cat; this is ghettoization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2014 (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: Split into Category:Princes of Piombino and Category:Princesses of Piombino. The combined category is the only one at Category:Italian princesses and Category:Italian princes. You can also see Lord of Piedmont to the Lords, the Princes and the Princesses are all separated (but has a template only for Princes and uses Counts instead of Lords). It seems like the whole thing is inconsistent on many things but the children are split. In contrast, the categories for Category:Heirs_to_the_throne for whatever reason is not split by gender (and it is different). The larger debate belongs on the policy pages and if done, there will be mass renaming work to do. While not relevant to this closing, Lords of Piombino should fall under Category:People from Piombino as its own independent category, not under the Princes and Princesses split. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Princes and princesses of Piombino to Category:Princes of Piombino and Category:Princesses of Piombino

Nominator's rationale: The standard in the Category:Princes and Category:Princesses tree is to split these categories fully by gender, since the title is in almost all cases gendered. This is the only combined category I could find - I think it's just better to split the contents to match the rest of the trees. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to the gender-neutral Category:Rulers of Piombino, which could also cover Category:Lords of Piombino. As I read the article, this is about sovereign princes of a small Italian state, of whome about two were female. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not split Peter? This is how the whole rest of the tree is dealt with. if we don't split, then we can't really include it in the princes/princess tree, since those trees are fully gender divided.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:11, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To make things worse, two of the people in Category:Lords of Pimobino did not have that title, they had the title Lady of Piombino, because they were also ruling females. I am not sure what to do here, but we should consider that the Lords category appears to be misnamed. I think as a first step we should rename/merge to Category:Rulers of Piombino and then consider a gender split. At an absolute minimum we need to rename the Lords category because A-it ignores the two people who held the title Lady and B-it is misspelled.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Looking at these articles, some seem to be relics of a time when Wikipedia did not stress sources as much as it does now. Someone could do good work by finding sources and reworking the wording of some of these articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just found someone who was in the category as it should have been spelled. Although it is not clear to me whether Rinaldo Orsini really belongs in the category. Was he the ruling Lord, or just holder of the title by virtue of his wife being Lady of Piombino. The difficulty of answering this question, while if Rinaldo Orsini had been the heir and his wife had been the consort we would have little doubt, is why we generally split these categories by gender. Because up until very recently the role and power of the husband of a monarchy were very different than those of the wife of a monarch.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Split as nominated, and rename Category:Lords of Pimobino to Category:Lords of Piombino. Principality of Piombino is within Category:Former principalities, and other sub-cats there e.g. Achaea, Antioch and Samos have sub-cats for Princes, and for Princesses. The Lords category fits within Category:Lords of Italy. "Rulers" would fit republics, but let's stick with Princes, Princesses and Lords here, and leave the Ladies in the Lords category. – Fayenatic London 23:17, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:02, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose splitting. This is for rulers of a principality. It doesn't involve a lot of non-ruling and subordinate "princes and princesses". As it is historical, there's no reason to think it will contain an unwieldy amount of entries, as it can only grow by six at most. It is gender neutral and non-ghettoizing as it stands. "Splitting to match" seems a completely cosmetic and non-meaningful change. There is more benefit in seeing the handful of rulers in one group. I'm surprised that a new category is being suggested when no one has offered any argument that the new categories are defining to the job. We shouldn't split articles up by gender in non-diffusing ways just because we want to "match". When finding a category of the form "Chairmen and Chairwomen of...", there are two fixes: 1: Leave it alone or 2. Change it to "Chairpersons of...". Splitting it to standalone gender-segregated categories for the same functional job is the worst of options.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

actually EQ if you vote against a split you have to make a case for inconsistency. There are literally hundreds of prince and princess categories, as well as other noble titles, and these are all gender divided as a rule (sometimes with neutral containers). By longstanding tradition, noble titles are acceptable category names. Since the whole nobility tree is split by gender in any case there is no risk of ghettoizing, a different set of rules apply (similar things obtain in the sports categories). As such I see no good reason to make an exception for this one category when we haven't for hundreds of other prince/princess cats. It will also cause a problem to not split, as you will either have princesses under Category:Italian princes or vice versa, or if you choose to not parent by "Italian princes" etc, then you have italian princes who aren't in the category of italian princes. We generally value consistency in the cat system and no-one has forwarded a strong reason to vary from that.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to merge Prince and Princesses in some of the other categories, I would consider supporting that, if you think consistency should be valued over not gender-segregating identical positions. Things like Category:Noble titles and other royalty cats are not settled and consistent as they stand. We have Category:Noblemen when there's no Category:Noblewomen; Category:Lords but no Category:Ladies; Even in your own example (where you're worried about the vice versa), there's Category:Italian princes but there isn't a Category:Italian princessses. If it was Italian princes and princesses then the Category:Princes and princesses of Piombino wouldn't cause a problem. Just because a lot of these royalty schemes had strongly sexist outcomes is no reason for us, in the modern age, to gender segregate as our default option, even for those cases where people in the nineteenth century didn't segregate, as it is here. There was sexism in most royalty set-ups, we shouldn't classify as if there's sexism in all royalty setups, just to make things "look" consistent, while risking ghettoizations. I don't see a reason to gender segregate a small sub-category, when it describes a position that wasn't formally or practically gender segregated.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Simply, the royalty cats are an incomplete mess, based on an inconsistently applied mixing of gender-segregated and non-gender-segregated royalty systems, and changing this to match them is making something currently neutral into more problematic than if it's left alone.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:04, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Elaqueate, there certainly is a Category:Italian princesses, all you have to do is spell it correctly! – Fayenatic London 22:00, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

EQ, if you are arguing for an exception to the general principle here you need to elaborate why, with sources. I see no such evidence - the title princess was only conferred on women, and while the title prince was also sometimes conferred on them that was an exception. If you're arguing we should neutralize the whole nobility tree, well that's a much broader discussion and should not be undertaken one cfr at a time, so until we have agreement to do so no reason to start here. Your fears about ghettoization are unfounded - if a tree has a full split by gender there is no risk of ghettoization, but these exceptions do cause confusion and stick women under male cats and vice versa.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (changed vote) -- The category covers rulers of a principality. I still see no reason for splitting. The scope of the category can be defined and explained in a headnote. I would not expect to have consorts here. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Split we are engaging in historical revisionism to pretend that the situation of ruling males and females in this society was the same. Their situation is different, they should be in two categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge & Split

1. First reason that was mentioned to split was consistency. I would rather argue that Wikipedia may historically have grown into a wrong type of consistency. There should first and foremost be a container category 'Rulers of ...' within each principality, while only making a gender split if it's reasonable to do so. So just as a matter of principle I would rather argue for keep.
2. Second reason that was mentioned to split is to be able to categorize female rulers together, since they were exceptional in earlier days. A gender split within each principality is more convenient for categorizing female rulers across principalities together, of course, but it is not a necessity for categorizing female rulers together. Single articles can also be categorized in a female rulers category, which is exactly what Category:Italian princesses shows. Here also, as a matter of principle, I would rather argue for keep.
3. Third, I would consider the split by gender to be more relevant than the split between princes and lords. Why not merge the lords into the princes and instead introduce a gender split. There have been no less than 6 female rulers of this principality, and although this would make a relatively small category, it's not so small that we would need to reject such a category by all means. So here, for entirely pragmatic reason, I would rather argue for a merge & split.

Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2014 (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, and add explanations to both category pages along the lines stated by Jc37. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Elements of fiction to Category:Fiction by topic

Nominator's rationale: Can't see the difference between these. What's the difference between an element and a topic? Too vague, better to just merge. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Trash this. Most of the items in this category are already in Fiction by topic, so it is largely redundant. However, the Fiction by topic category is too large. This is not my last name (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose merge I can see how "elements" might be renamed to "themes" or similar, but I see these elements within fiction (" Sentient toys in fiction‎" , " Ninja in fiction‎ ") as distinct from the overall themes or topics of fiction. That said, the two cats as they are at present, seem to be a mish-mash of both. Either sort them out or indeed just merge them, but there are two distinct category groups here in principle, should anyone wish to sort them properly. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:54, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both Category:Elements of fiction AND Category:Fiction by topic in Category:Topics in fiction . See below . Stefanomione (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose merge - There is a difference between categorising an element of fiction, and categorising fiction by an element of it. In the former we're categorising elements, in the latter we're categorising works of fiction. The two should not be conflated. - jc37 01:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

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

The result of the discussion was: merge per nomination. Cleanup will be necessary as some current sub-cats belong rather in Category:Elements of fiction. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Topics in fiction to Category:Fiction by topic

Nominator's rationale: Can't see any difference between scope of these two cats. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In this field, 8 categories have the same content:
  • Category:Themes in works of fiction
  • Category:Topics in the arts
  • Category:Elements of fiction
  • Category:Fiction by topic
  • Category:Topics in popular culture
  • Category:Topics by medium
  • Category:Literature by topic
  • and Category:Topics in fiction
• Within the field, we have the following subcategories:
  • Category:Topics in film
  • Category:Topics in literature
  • Category:Topics in science fiction
    • We could merge the above 8 categories in Category:Topics in fiction. So, for me, Reverse the proposed merge, Category:Fiction by topic in Category:Topics in fiction, and Merge all in Category:Topics in fiction . Stefanomione (talk) 08:09, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose this proposal. - There is a difference between categorising an element of fiction, and categorising fiction by an element of it. In the former we're categorising elements, in the latter we're categorising works of fiction. The two should not be conflated. - jc37 01:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  please look at the categories nominated. What is the specific difference?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Sorry, I wasn't clear, I meant I oppose User:Stefanomione's proposal directly above. I also oppose the usage of the phrase "Topics in..." as incredibly too vague for categorisation. I support OWK's (your) nom to merge Category:Topics in fiction to Category:Fiction by topic, though some purging and clean up may also be necessary. - jc37 04:18, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]