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, although I think it's clear that this category being created was not "vandalic", if by that the nominator mean WP vandalism. There is nothing to suggest that its creation was a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Annette Moreno (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: For vandalic act Elindiord (talk) 23:25, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Questions @Elindiord and Eliot Benavidez: Was anything in this category before nomination? (It was empty when I clicked on it so I added Annette Moreno.) Is your concern WP:EPONCAT? RevelationDirect (talk) 23:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:EPONCAT. The articles, A Day Without a Mexican and Rojo (album), were later added to this category, but do not apply. Any association to A Day Without a Mexican is not defining to that film (and at the least, overcat by performance although Moreno is not even mentioned in the article). I moved the album, Rojo, out of Category:Annette Moreno albums to the more appropriate Category:Rojo (band) albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Oppose Elindiord has reverted 3 editors attempt to place Annette Moreno in the category. Such repeated purging make it impossible to evaluate this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've repopulated the category with the articles that were within it, including the ones I removed. Even though the articles appear inappropriate for inclusion, I too should wait until the outcome of this CfD. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:11, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • My concern was not directed at you, no objection to changes if you tell us what the changes are.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Rojo (band) albums is certainly viable but there is not enough directly relevant content for an eponymous category at this time. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. --slakr^\ talk / 03:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:2013–15 Ukrainian crisis to Category:Ukrainian crisis

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article Ukrainian crisis. The main article was recently the subject of a Requested Move discussion; there was opposition against moving from 2013–15 Ukrainian crisis to Ukrainian crisis (2013–present), but unanimous agreement on Ukrainian crisis. The category rename was opposed as a speedy nomination on the grounds that category names need to be unambiguous,[1] so a full discussion is required. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural oppose – This CfD is completely out of process, and should be closed at once. The nominating user is circumventing consensus, and placing bureaucratic walls in front of policy-mandated inevitabilities. Please close this request. Do not allow this kind of disruption on this encylopaedia. RGloucester — ☎ 21:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Support move in question, oppose the procedure and request a sanction for the initiating editor – The main article must match the category. There is no problem with ambiguity, and I oppose adding any dates whatsoever. There are no other events called "Ukrainian crisis". There is only one "Ukrainian crisis", even if there were other crises in Ukraine. RS refer to this as the "Ukrainian crisis", not to any other events. The result of the RM discussion must be respected. The users here opposing are inventing WP:OR about an ambiguity that does not exist. There is no reason to confuse readers and well-meaning editors. Match the category with the main article, and sanction the filing editor for being disruptive and a block to progress. RGloucester — ☎ 17:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Support procedure and oppose sanctioning the initiating editor. I would nearly withdraw my support for the nomination just because of this intimidating behaviour. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment: for background info on disputes behind some of the postings in this CfD, see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive878#Category:2013–15 Ukrainian crisis. RGloucester, I believed that pinging you in that discussion would automatically result in you receiving a system notification. In any case you commented at the incident before my next edit. – Fayenatic London 08:15, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support for move, as main related page was renamed to Ukrainian crisis. However, I must disagree that this CfD is out of process; speedy policies all allow for challenges, and having been challenged on speedy move for the category it is only proper to discuss the move here. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 23:32, 22 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]

  Changing to support Peterkingiron's suggestion below. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Struck so as to no longer offend RGloucester's sensibilities with my mere existence. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It was not "challenged". A "challenge" implies substance. If there is no substance, there is no challenge. There is only disruption, which must be punished. RGloucester — ☎ 02:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's fair to say that this was "challenged", even though the validity of your nomination rationale was not directly impugned. It was challenged on the grounds that the person lodging it desired a less ambiguous name for the category. Those kinds of "challenges" are typically considered valid at WP:CFDS, even though they don't challenge the validity of the original speedy rationale or the application of the criteria to the instance. Essentially, WP:CFDS process is used when there are no objections at all to the criteria being implemented. If there are objections to it being implemented—for whatever reason—generally the request simply gets moved to a full CFD. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:22, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support I don't know if I would have favored renaming the main article but, in general, such disagreements should be hashed out in the article space and the categories should blindly follow (unless the name presents some unique issue in the category space). I agree with coldacid on the procedural issue that was raised. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  I certainly would have opposed the article renaming had I been aware of the move discussion, but now that it's moved anyway (until this particular crisis ends and it all gets moved again to have the year range) it does make sense to keep the article and category names in sync. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:05, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Struck so as to no longer offend RGloucester's sensibilities with my mere existence. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Concordance between article and category titles, though desirable, is not a "policy-mandated inevitabilit[y]". In light of the fact that Ukraine has been in a state of crisis virtually since independence—rampant corruption, economic strain, regionalism and nationalism, political upheaval, that Ukrainian crisis in 2000–01, that other Ukrainian crisis in 2004–05, and so on—the proposed category title is too ambiguous. I admit the current title is optimistic in assuming the crisis will end in 2015; however, the proposed title is worse. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  None of those events are titled "Ukrainian crisis" in RS or histories of Ukraine. There have been many crises in Ukraine, but only one event called "Ukrainian crisis". There is absolutely nothing "ambiguous" about it. RGloucester — ☎ 02:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  "Ukrainian crisis" is a descriptive phrase that merely refers to a crisis that is of or related to Ukraine. Your point would apply if we were considering "Ukrainian Crisis", a proper noun, but we are not and it does not. Several previous crises have been characterized as "Ukrainian" or "Ukraine's" (see examples), from the Orange Revolution to the currency crisis of 1998 to various gas crises or disputes with Russia.

  I recognize the line of thought behind the argument that concordance between article and category names typically reduces ambiguity and confusion (see e.g., RevelationDirect, Good Ol'factory), but I do not think that general principle applies in the case of such an ambiguous title as "Ukrainian crisis". I also recognize, of course, that this point of view places me in the minority. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It is not a descriptive phrase. It is a proper noun that refers to a specific crisis in Ukraine, called the "Ukrainian crisis". If we were not on Wikipedia, we would capitalise it as "Ukrainian Crisis", but the strong aversion of users to capital letters in some quadrants of the encylopaedia prevents us from doing so. There is nothing ambiguous about "Ukrainian crisis". It only refers to this crisis, and only ever has done. No other event has ever been labelled "Ukrainian crisis". Open up a book of Ukrainian history, and one will not see a single event titled "Ukrainian crisis". "Ukrainian crisis" refers only to this event. It is a proper noun. It is no different from "Watts riots", which refers to a specific event as a proper noun despite being in the lowercase on Wikipedia, and despite other "riots in Watts" existing. RGloucester — ☎ 16:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Any "aversion ... to capital letters" plainly does not extend to proper nouns, and I doubt you would find many users who would seriously suggest renaming Cold War to Cold war. Regarding the ambiguity of "Ukrainian crisis", which is no less a descriptive phrase than "Ukrainian culture" (after all, "Ukrainian" is an adjective in this context), you are technically correct that "one will not see a single event titled 'Ukrainian crisis'"... instead, one will see multiple events characterized as crises. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite wrong, as certain editors dispute what a "proper noun" is. Regardless, there is now a single event termed "Ukrainian crisis", and that's this. There was not previously, and therefore there is no ambiguity. We have no other articles on "Ukrainian crises" or "Ukrainian crisis". When a reader types in "Ukrainian crisis", he wants to find this page. That's certain. RGloucester — ☎ 22:24, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match main article name. If the article adopts a technically ambiguous name due to it being the primary usage of that term, in most cases I have no problem with the category name following that name. The quest to have category names that are 100% unambiguous is a fools errand and if taken to an extreme leads to potential category names such as Category:Jerusalem (city) and Category:George Washington (president). In practical terms, having article names and category names out-of-sync is likely to cause far more confusion than the relatively minor risk of a user being confused by the ambiguity in the adopted name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Good Olfactory. Though I expect that at some point in the future, when the Ukrainian crisis is no longer in people's minds, both the article name and category name will be reverted in order to include the years after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ukrainian crisis 2013–, cognate with yesterday's suggestion on Afghan War. We do not know that the crisis will end this year; and there have been earlier ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:04, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Category:Ukrainian crisis 2013– as per Peterkingiron. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 11:49, 23 March 2015 (UTC) Struck so as to no longer offend RGloucester's sensibilities with my mere existence. // coldacid (talk|contrib) 21:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match article. kennethaw88 • talk 04:19, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BlackFalcon, prefer Category:Ukrainian crisis 2013– per Peterkingiron -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support despite the fact that I anticipate future name changes to both the article and the associated category. For now though, the category title should match the article even though I anticipate more precise names will be adopted in the future. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alt title per Peterkingiron to denote ongoing state and prevent confusion as Ukraine crisis relatively vague and could easily be confused for many things in Category:Political history of Ukraine. SFB 18:51, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This discussion should better not end in 'no consensus' because we all seem to agree that the current category name isn't good. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

True, but I want the main article renamed first/simultaneously. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:06, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you, or is anyone, undertaking any action on the main article? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An RM at the main article just finished on 8th Feby 2015. There is no need for further endless move requests. This is really becoming a great annoyance. RGloucester — ☎ 21:30, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The last rename of the article was pretty emphatic based on WP:COMMONNAME. Do we mostly agree on Ukrainian crisis (2015–Present)? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:12, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No. That is opposed. The present title was the result, and the present title shall remain. RGloucester — ☎ 19:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As there was clear consensus for the current article name, consensus on a proposal for yet another new name is highly unlikely. Let's just leave the article name alone at least until the crisis itself has settled down for a while. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:28, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think Ukrainian crisis (2013–present) is the most sensible name, but another move now may be difficult or contentious. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my suggestion was a typo, I agree with this name. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Not only it matches the current title of the article, but it is optimistic to state that the crisis ended in 2015. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The new name strikes as presentist bias. I am not sure the current name is really a good one, but having time parameters is the best, since this is not the only thing in the history of Ukraine that is a crisis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:COMMONNAME; the majority of journalists use the name. — Yulia Romero • Talk to me! 18:04, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per BlackFalcon, prefer Category:Ukrainian crisis 2013– per Peterkingiron. Sometimes it makes sense for a category to have a more precise title than the corresponding article. DexDor ^(talk) 05:36, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Opposed - jc37 15:50, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose downmerging Category:Protestant churches‎ to Category:Protestant church buildings

Nominator's rationale: Downmerge since the two categories have the same type of content to categorize church buildings. Downmerge instead of upmerge because church buildings is the less ambiguous term. Incidentally there is some content that is not about church buildings that can be purged since it has been rightfully classified in the tree of Category:History of Protestantism already. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• NOTE "Protestant churches" is not a subcategory of "Protestant church buildings"; indeed, the category description says it is unrelated to the target category. Instead it should be called Category: Protestant congregations per the description. (and the highly ambiguous "churches") -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 00:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• It is pretty obvious from the content of the category that editors haven't read the description. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- A church is not just a building; it is alos the congregation that meets in it. The headnote says: This category is about individual Protestant church congregations. I appreciate that very often an article has a lot to say about the building and not much about the people. There is a distinction, or at least should be. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:11, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category should be renamed, because people don't read the description, to include "congregation" in the title. The category name is clearly highly ambiguous, as the contents categorized currently indicate. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:15, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support alternative to rename this category into Category:Protestant congregations. Note that this is my second vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose As the nom says, it's obvious from the content of the category that editors haven't read the description. However, this is best remedied by judicious moving and purging. This would only leave congregations in the category which is fine. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:38, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, just restructure where necessary, and repurpose to cover both congregations and buildings, so do not remove the "church buildings" from the "churches" parent. They should not be merged, since some notable churches do not have their own buildings, e.g. Hillsong Church London, and many have met in various buildings since they were established. Although the word "church" is ambiguous, it is the primary way to describe congregations, and I do not currently think it would be helpful to use "congregations" in the primary categories, but only for date established. IMHO it is fine to categorise an article both under buildings and congregations, e.g. Category:Methodist churches in England, Category:Methodist congregations established in the 19th century and Category:20th-century Methodist church buildings. – Fayenatic London 08:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: Delete. While making into a list is also a possibility, as noted, there are separate year articles at Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards already. Combining into a single one does not require any manual work from this category. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:10, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards winners to article List of Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Delete/convert: per WP:OCAWARD. Or might be too narrow a list to make. Maybe merge into Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards? ― Padenton |☎  20:24, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: A category for winners of an award ceremony (with several categories, and that will be held for as long as no one knows) is not narrow, and can infact easily be populated as it stands. As time goes, may even need subcategories for the several categories in the award ceremony.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That goes against the consensus of WP:OCAWARD "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category when receiving the award is not a defining characteristic." Could you explain your reasoning that this award ceremony should be an exception to this guideline? ― Padenton |☎  18:56, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Because being awarded "Best Actor/Actress", "Best Film", "Best Director" et al in this award ceremony is usually a "defining characteristic" for actors, films and filmmakers.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 22:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or Listify into Africa Magic Viewers' Choice Awards. DexDor (talk) 10:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC) DexDor ^(talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @DexDor: there is no need to listify, as the three current members of the category were all 2013 award winners and are therefore already listified in 2013 Africa Magic Viewers Choice Awards, and I don't see any easy way to select the most notable awards to be listed year-by-year in the main article. – Fayenatic London 15:01, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. DexDor ^(talk) 20:49, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category per nom. No evidence this award is of the level to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you that there are some notable awards that are not significant enough to have categories but I do not think that applies in this case. Can you shed more light on the rationale of your second sentence in this particular case? For me, the only thing that makes this award "less serious" is that it is named a "viewers choice" award, ironically most of the winners are actually chosen by the jury and not public votes. Even at that there are some "viewers choice" awards with categories on Wikipedia. It meets all other yardstick in aggregating notability. This is an award ceremony that trended all over Africa during the award season. It is infact the most popular film award in Africa. A google search will yield hundreds of thousands of results from news platforms all over the world. An award ceremony with the backing of Dstv Africa Magic will obviously stay for a long while. Isakaba (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I just added more than 20 notable Wikipedia articles to the category. There seem to be a-lot of under-categorized articles for this category. The award seem to be one of the highly rated film ceremonies in Africa. Isakaba (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF. I checked a number of articles and the award wasn't prominently mentioned (regularly it was not even mentioned at all). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They were not prominently mentioned because most of the articles that needs to be categorized are poorly written stub articles by inexperienced editors. If you take a look at some start class articles like A Good Catholic Girl, Nairobi Half Life, Shirley Frimpong-Manso and A Mile from Home you'd find it being used as an anchor for establishing the notability of the articles. Isakaba (talk) 11:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• plus Tope Tedela, Two Brides and a Baby, OC Ukeje etc. I doubt that Marcocapelle in fact checked any articles.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I definitely did - and the answer of Isakaba to me confirms that I was right in my findings. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Abstract curses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Appears to simply be a category for terms that have the word 'curse' in them. The current pages (Winner's curse, Curse of dimensionality, Curse of knowledge, Thinned-array curse) have nothing in common other than the word 'curse' in the title. ― Padenton |☎  20:19, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete // coldacid (talk|contrib) 00:24, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. kennethaw88 • talk 04:18, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: deletion of Category:Church councils accepted by Lutheranism‎ and Category:Church councils accepted by Anglicanism‎ and upmerger of its contents, renaming of Category:Church councils accepted by Calvinism‎. I don't see the consensus for renaming Category:Church councils accepted by Protestantism to Trinitiarian Protestants and that page was not listed for this CFD so that's left for another day. CFD is inappropriate for any discussion regarding purging the seven items at Category:Church councils accepted by Calvinism‎; discussions regarding the scope of the category belong either at the category talk page or on the article talk pages not here. The consensus supports combining all the councils under the branch of Protestantism (or said Trinitiarian Protestants) rather than the subcategories. As to the appropriate place for other categories, that's for another CFD or their article/category talk pages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Church councils accepted by Lutheranism‎ to Category:Church councils accepted by Protestantism
• Propose upmerging Category:Church councils accepted by Anglicanism‎ to Category:Church councils accepted by Protestantism
• Propose purging Category:Church councils accepted by Calvinism‎
• Propose renaming Category:Church councils accepted by Calvinism‎ to Category:Calvinist councils and synods

Nominator's rationale: Merge and purge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, since these Protestant denominations accept the same ancient church councils. After purging the Calvinist category, to remove the ancient church councils, the only content that remains here is Calvinist councils, hence the rename is an obvious consequence. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- In practice, I think there should be little difference between the Protestant denominations on this. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:13, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Query What about J Witnesses and non Chalcedonian Proestantants? I don't think that they accept any Councils. Do they self describe as Protestant or something altogether different? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that J Witnesses and non Chalcedonians wouldn't be considered as Protestant anyway. Neither of the respective WP articles treats them as part of Protestantism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment While the contents of the first two categories are the same, it would be a very severe mistake to lump Lutheranism and Anglicanism under the umbrella term of "Protestantism" in most cases. They are two separate, historically distinct religious traditions even though a nonmember might see them as similar. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:47, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per reasons given by Liz and per question of Laurel Lodged above. The popular and/or academic definitions of Protestantism in general are rather problematic, and attempting to define a category based on a term with a problematic definition is ultimately asking for unnecessary trouble. John Carter (talk) 19:07, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't agree. There are numerous categories in WP for which the boundaries of the category are not 100% clear, take e.g. Category:Western Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support They are two different denominations, but they all three are Protestants.Liz, are you challenging that? Which of the three do you regard as not Protestant? they accept the same Ancient Councils, and since that is one the the basic differences with the Catholic church, this is very unlikely to change. If it ever should in future centuries,we can revisit it. Perhaps change "Protestantism" to Protestant Churches"? DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, as the current contents for Lutheranism and Anglicanism are identical. The effect of merging would be that these would no longer be sub-cats of Category:Lutheran theology and Category:Anglican theology and doctrine, but they would still be under the parent of those two, Category:Protestant theology. Assent to these councils is common to all Protestants who are Trinitarian, e.g. the above plus Calvinists, Anabaptists, Baptists, Congregationalists, Methodists, Evangelicals, Charismatics and most Pentecostals; we do not want a proliferation of identical categories for Councils accepted by each of these denominational families. I think only Unitarianism, Oneness Pentecostalism and Quakers do not accept these Councils, see First_seven_Ecumenical_Councils#The_Councils. Perhaps a more precise outcome would be a merge and rename to Category:Church councils accepted by Trinitiarian Protestants. – Fayenatic London 23:43, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quakers are considered Protestant, and up until the mid-20th century Unitarians were as well. Whether they are currently Protestant is a more complex question. Otherwise we would not run across claims that John F. Kennedy was the first non-Protestant president of the US, when such figures as William Howard Taft were Unitarians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:41, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • JPL: My alternative suggestion stands, then, as Quakers and Unitarians are not Trinitarian Protestants. – Fayenatic London 18:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose By its nature Protestantism is a disperate movement with a large spectrum. Focusing on more clearly defined and definable groups is more useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• This has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity. – Fayenatic London 17:23, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative (as nominator) to merge and rename to Category:Church councils accepted by Trinitiarian Protestants per Fayenatic london. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to alternative, Category:Climate change skepticism and denial. – Fayenatic London 16:54, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Climate change skepticism to Category:Opposition to scientific consensus on climate change

Nominator's rationale: There is an ongoing dispute over whether this particular POV is best labeled as "skepticism" or "denialism". Essentially, the camp that adopts the POV thinks of themselves as skeptics while the camp that opposes them disagrees strongly. It's best to stay neutral, so a neutral category name was invented that describes the POV rather than labeling it. I would recommend a change for the sub-categories too, but the wording may become a bit more unwieldy and, thus, I'm hesitant to start those discussions until this one concludes. jps (talk) 18:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jps: The title of this category is consistent with the title of Wikipedia's climate change skepticism article. Is it necessary to change either (or both) of these titles? Jarble (talk) 20:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

climate change skepticism isn't an article. climate change denial is. jps (talk) 20:03, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative Category:Climate change skepticism and denial, seeking a compromise on the POV problem without getting a too complicated and uncommon category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge/Purge To Category:Politics of climate change since that seems to reflect the actual contents and remove the 3 industry trade groups which I don't think are defined by a single issue. (We can then have this same discussion over Category:Climate change skeptics.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:21, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose upmerging to Category:Politics of climate change, in fact I wouldn't even parent the nominated category to that one. Category:Politics of climate change is really about politics, not about (quasi) scientific disputes. The nominated category has a right of its own, the only problem is that a good name is a bit hard to find. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed to Nominated Rename if Kept The nomination is too wordy and seems political. OK with current name or the Alternative above. (Note that this is my second vote.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose:Oppose/Support Alternative(suggested by Marcocapelle) This seems to me to be a politically-motivated change. Not all climate change skepticism can accurately be described as opposition to a scientific consensus, and to do so trivializes the issue. Not all aspects of the climate change debate have anywhere near a scientific consensus. Skepticism is a neutral term with both positive and negative connotations. Denialism is not even close to neutral. Denialism and skepticism are not synonyms. This name change puts a bad taste in my mouth as it doesn't seem to be in any way an attempt to better describe the category members, it's a narrowing and oversimplification of the topic of climate change, and in that I feel it is not consistent with WP:NPOV. ― Padenton |☎  23:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also support Marcocapelle's alternative of renaming to the Category:Climate change skepticism and denial category, which I feel meets WP:NPOV and remains an accurate description of the articles already in the category. ― Padenton |☎  06:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Skepticism is a fine choice that reflects the topic and its proponents. The root of skeptic thought questions the very senses and our ability to interpret the world through them. If that can happily sit at the heart of the idea, I don't see why doubt around climate change is so special to warrant a definition of denial. SFB 18:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why should we base this choice on a "root" use of the term (or more specifically Philosophical skepticism), when Scientific Skepticism is just as likely to represent the vernacular use of the term? Scientific Skepticism would be in stark contrast to the usage here. So why favor one usage over another? Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:01, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support Skepticism is using science and logic to reach the truth. This obviously does not describe the category, as they oppose science. It would also get rid of the need to argue over skepticism vs scepticism, or is this really an American issue? If you wish to say that a skeptic is a person who requires strong evidence, well we have it. There is scientific consensus. Personally denialism seems like the best label here, from WP:PSCI. Jerodlycett (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerodlycett: You are trying to refer to scientific skepticism, though still, that's not quite accurate as a definition. There are different types of skepticism, with their own definitions, which you can read about in the skepticism article. Of course, they're all ideologies, and like all ideologies, there is a fairly loose definition, as it can only exist if it describes a wide variety of different people. As I said above, claiming "there is a scientific consensus on global warming" is something non-scientists do. It's an oversimplification of the reality of climate change in an attempt to declare yourself the winner of a non-existent debate. There are countless topics on the issues of climate change, many of which have no scientific consensus, nor are there scientific consensus' on the optimal solutions. To categorize the articles in this category as pseudoscience or denialism is dishonest. ― Padenton |☎  04:06, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment But we scientists would say things like: "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities". It's more specific than a "consensus on global warming", but essentially the same thing, just in a vernacular tone (though I agree the statements are definitively different). Dkriegls (talk to me!) 04:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: This is a science topic. Hence the appropriate type of skepticism is scientific. As for the consensus, NASA's page on the consensus is a great resource to start from. Given that there is scientific consensus and WP:PSCI states

Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods. Conversely, by its very nature, scientific consensus is the majority viewpoint of scientists towards a topic.

I see no reason to not call it pseudoscience. Jerodlycett (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerodlycett: No, that's not how the different definitions of skepticism work. They're different approaches to skepticism. There isn't one 'appropriate type' for a given topic. Then there's that slight problem that you are referring to one consensus on one specific topic of the climate change debate, and attempting to change the name of a category that encapsulates people who have expressed skepticism towards any of the topics of climate change. Furthermore, "Pseudoscientific theories are presented by proponents as science, but characteristically fail to adhere to scientific standards and methods" also is not accurate for most of the articles already in this category and its subcategories, as even the cases that could be classified as denialist rarely attempt to claim that their reasoning is scientific. ― Padenton |☎  04:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Padenton: wikt:skepticism would seem to agree with you, we could be talking about the doubt or disbelief of religious doctrines. Alright, we'll go one deeper, how about the consensus as given by the IPCC? Direct Observations of Recent Climate Change which you can find on the NASA page I referred to above. It shows that the consensus covers a wide range of topics. The proponents of what they have termed "Climate Change Skepticism" present it as science, but it fails to stand up under scrutiny. Just because you don't like a term being applied to something does not make it any less accurate. I don't know of any group nor organization that opposes climate change that does so because they believe the science is right. Is there a group I'm unaware of that says they're skeptical of something other than the science of climate change? Like a group that's allied against alliteration? Jerodlycett (talk) 05:16, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@Jerodlycett: We aren't talking about the doubt or disbelief of religious doctrines. We're talking about philosophical skepticism. "It shows that the consensus covers a wide range of topics." This link you provided is a working group, not an international consensus. It doesn't claim to be a consensus either. It also doesn't cover a wide range of the debates over climate change, nor does it come to more than a few conclusions with any real certainty. This is also not the place to debate climate change, this is the place to debate what the most appropriate name for this category is. "I don't know of any group nor organization that opposes climate change that does so because they believe the science is right." That's not the same thing as opposing climate change based on reasons you claim are backed up by science, which is the definition of pseudoscience. ― Padenton |☎  05:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE In an attempt to stay WP:CALM I'm away for the next few hours from this discussion. @Padenton: before I go I just want to propose that there are two issues here. First is, is the word skepticism truly appropriate. As stated in the nomination, there is a debate about whether Deniers are not Skeptics^{Given to show part of the debate}. Changing this to a different naming will be less controversial. The second issue is, is there enough of a consensus around climate change to put those who oppose into the same group as Geo-centrists and flat-earthers. Do you agree that those are the two subjects raised so far? Jerodlycett (talk) 05:38, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)@JerodLycett:I already thoroughly explained how skepticism is appropriate, you can read it in my many comments above on the differences between skepticism and denialism. CSICOP is irrelevant to this argument. Again, you're making the claim that every article (or even most) in this category under discussion would accurately be described as a denialist to the same extent as Inhofe, which is not true. You can't take a case that best fits denialist and then assume every other article in this category also fits that term.

"The second issue is, is there enough of a consensus around climate change to put those who oppose into the same group as Geo-centrists and flat-earthers." Not even close, do you want to try again? Both the Geocentric model and flat earth model have been disproven with certainty. In your own source, which you referred to as a scientific consensus [2], found only 2 conclusions that it described as 'virtually certain'. The likelihood of future trends continuing into the 21st century (based on the model) for "Warmer and fewer cold days and nights over most land areas" and "Warmer and more frequent hot days and nights over most land areas".

---

The facts matter. And just because I support the vast majority of climate change research doesn't mean I am going to sacrifice my honesty and integrity in order to unduly label people that disagree with me on the causes, effects, and optimal solutions to the problems in the climate change debate. ― Padenton |☎  06:35, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from having a huge discussion about the topic itself, could you also have a look if the alternative rename above is a reasonable compromise? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would support the alternative rename to Category:Climate change skepticism and denial. I've updated my vote accordingly. ― Padenton |☎  06:45, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Could you also include the word "support" in your vote (i.e. Oppose/Support Alternative)? That may be easier to read. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ― Padenton |☎  06:57, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As Padenton has pointed out, there are true and respectable scientists who are scientifically skeptical about the interpretation of certain hypothesis within the broad theory of anthropomorphic climate change. This category does include links to articles that discus their nuanced positions. Specifically, the List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming and the Scientific opinion on climate change page. It would be wrong to use this category title to group them in with the people (including a few scientists) who outright deny the full theory of anthropomorphic climate change. Additionally, it would be wrong to use the term "Skeptic" (in any of its forms) to categorize pages like the Global warming conspiracy theory or Climate change denial as they are not skeptical because they do generally support a strong non-skeptical claim on the subject. That would be in direct opposition to the position that the truth claim of the subject of anthropomorphic climate change cannot be known. Asserting the truth claim is known but is the opposite of what is generally accepted is not skepticism in any of its forms as I understand them. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Support Alternative With that, I support that alternative title proposed by Marcocapelle: "Category:Climate change skepticism and denial". Which covers both groups and is consistent with the popular terms used in the press. Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:24, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose opposition to the current scientific consensus, the one last year, the one next year....scientific consensus changes regularly with new data - is anyone who quibbles or questions the data that some scientist says is consensus belong in here or does the scientist who holds out for some better data left behind from the consensus and belongs here? No one knows because it is a temporary category at best because whoever was in last year's consensus that opposes this year's, and vice versa. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose/Support Alternative I also support the alternative title from User:Marcocapelle: "Category:Climate change skepticism and denial". I think it's important to note that certain parts of the climate change debate are contested, but others are scientific consensus. I believe that this alternative appropriately achieves that happy medium.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 23:53, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Very Strongly Oppose Anyone who thinks "denialism" has any acceptability is engaged in the type of demonizing attack that should have no place in Wikipedia. Denialism is meant to try to make these people seem to be the moral equivalent of Holocaust Deniers. Well that is 100% rubbish. The Holocaust killed 11 million people. To try to make the claims of climate change, and the attempts to change policy based on these claims, somehow equivalent is just out of line. The current name is an accurate description. These people are skeptics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The attempts to rename the article are clearly and unequivocably motivated by extreme POV against those who hold this position. The current name is not in any way an endorsement of them, the suggested names tend to try to demean and ridicule them, and are clearly driven by people as seen above who do so regularly. These changes would be a clear confirmation of bias and a decision to support bias on the part of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, thanks for the personal attack on my talk page. It really demonstrates how you're totally against POV pushing. Oxford Dictionaries disagrees with you and seems to agree that the term Denialism is not a euphemism for Holocaust Deniers, but a more general term for any position that is a rejection of widespread professional consensus. Do you disagree that a majority of climate scientists accept the data demonstrating anthropomorphic climate change? If so, please enlighten us with your evidence. --Dkriegls (talk to me!) 07:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The term is pushed for political not scientific reasons. The "consensus" is a politically created one, not a scientifically created one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies and patriarchates to Category:Eastern Orthodox Church

Nominator's rationale: Rename. strangely enough, we do not have a category yet that is C2D to Eastern Orthodox Church, because at Category:Eastern Orthodox Church there is only a redirect to Category:Eastern Orthodoxy. This nomination may well close the gap. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question @Marcocapelle: are there any churches within that grouping that define themselves as Easter Orthodox churches but are not allied to the Eastern Orthodox Church? SFB 19:02, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Good question! In fact, before this nomination, I moved up child category Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies‎ because this is content that doesn't belong to the Eastern Orthodox Church. Meanwhile the move has been reverted, so now I would rather request for a split into Category:Eastern Orthodox Church and Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question @Marcocapelle: would Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies‎ be better, as the difference between Category:Eastern Orthodox Church and Category:Eastern Orthodoxy is unclear? – Fayenatic London 16:38, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It's actually fair enough to keep the nominated category to avoid this type of confusion and to make the split between Category:Eastern Orthodox Church and Category:Eastern Orthodox noncanonical church bodies‎ only at one lower level in the tree in comparison to what I proposed in March. On that basis I support the alternative rename to Category:Eastern Orthodox church bodies‎, which is actually no change at all except for removing the redundant addition "and patriarchates" from the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Christianity. – Fayenatic London 17:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Habsburg period in the history of Serbia to Category:History of Serbia during Habsburg administration

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Both categories cover the same topic. It was proposed for speedy merge in opposite direction. The target category of this nomination is C2C to parent Category:History of Serbia and just generally it is a more usual form of category name than the nominated category (first specifying the main topic, then the subdivision). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: as there are sibling categories for Croatia and Hungary with the same naming pattern in Category:History of the Habsburg Monarchy by country, it would be better to re-list this with proposal to merge/rename all three. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw in order to follow up on Fayenatic london's advice. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: split. MER-C 07:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Lutheran churches to Category:Lutheran church buildings and Category:Lutheran denominations

Nominator's rationale: Split, this category is a mix of two different things because of the ambiguity of the "church" term. The church buildings should be renamed C2C to its parent Category:Protestant church buildings while there are also a number of articles about denominations which can be merged into the existing Category:Lutheran denominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split per nom. Editor2020, Talk 17:43, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Topics in obvious need of separate coverage. SFB 19:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: administrative close: category is being discussed in still-open earlier nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:31, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Connecticut colonial people to Category:People of Colonial Connecticut

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I disagree with the rename suggestion. There are many other categories with this same format already, and I simply don't see any value in changing. TiMike (talk) 03:23, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename this is about the era of Connecticut; people may span eras. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:31, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close of this nomination. The discussion about this category is taking place here and it is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural Oppose Per Marcocapelle. Two simultaneous nominations for the same category is confusing. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:29, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Defunct sports television series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The only page is for a defunct show, not a defunct sport (if there is such a thing) Fuddle (talk) 00:44, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Editor2020, Talk 17:45, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. We do not use the category system to filter television series into separate production-status groups — virtually all television series eventually end production, so whether a television show is "currently airing" or "defunct" is not the category system's concern. Bearcat (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

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