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:Ukrainian declarations of independence. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ukrainian Declaration of Independence to Category:Declarations of Ukrainian independence

Nominator's rationale: This category is not a topic category grouping articles about "the" Ukrainian Declaration of Independence, it is a set category grouping articles about declarations of Ukrainian independence through time. Other renaming options could be Category:Ukrainian declarations of independence and Category:Declarations of independence of Ukraine. I have no preference. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus, with openness towards a fresh nomination for purging and renaming. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gilbert and Sullivan performers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT. Performers aren't supposed to be categorized by performance. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:50, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are a considerable number of people whose entire notable career — i.e., probably the only reason they are in the encyclopedia — was in Gilbert and Sullivan. It is a grouping of considerable interest. Unfortunately, the category has become crufty, with artists being added to it if they performed G&S just once or twice, in a career mainly known for other things. If confined to the narrower purpose of grouping "Savoyards", then it has good reasons to exist. Marc Shepherd (talk) 10:29, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the reasoning of User:Marc Shepherd above. I'll also remove the category from the articles of performers who are/were not known especially for Gilbert and Sullivan. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:30, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a performer by performance category, which we do not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- If this were a category for members of the original Doylycarte company, which had a significant endurance and may well have employed actors for substantial periods, it might have had some merit. However, it is for those who have performed G&S works, perhaps well, even notably well, but essentially it is an PERFORMANCE by PERFORMER category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If this cat is deleted, I suggest that it be converted into a cat for performers from the D'Oyly Carte Opera Company. If someone lets me know, I could easily move the people into that category who performed with D'Oyly Carte. But I still see usefulness in the current category. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Our usual avoidance of categorising performers by their repertoire is sensible in most circumstances, but there is a good case for flexibility here, allowing this unusually homogenous and recognisable group to remain. One wouldn't need or want a group of, say, "Verdi performers" or "Shakespeare performers", as there are in reality practically no performers who appear only in Verdi or Shakespeare, but with Gilbert and Sullivan such a category has real meaning (especially if given a spring-clean as suggested above) and I have found it helpful in the past, and would miss it if it were blitzed. Tim riley talk 22:11, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Question—are there performers outside the D'Oyly Carte who are solely notable for being G&S performers? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Beeswaxcandle: You could name J. C. Williamson, and a few early members of his company. Later people whose careers were mostly notable for G&S include Simon Gallaher and Raymond Allen, but since D'Oyly Carte was the only full-time professional G&S company (other than Williamson's company in the early days, and the off-Broadway Light Opera of Manhattan in the 20th century), performers outside the D'Oyly Carte had to have mostly other work to make a living. Other people whose careers are strongly associated with G&S, however, include Lillian Russell, Howard Vernon (Australian actor), DeWolf Hopper, Nellie Stewart, Charles Mackerras, Lottie Venne, George W. Byng, George Baker (baritone), Anne Collins (contralto), Robert Cuccioli, Peter Dawson (bass-baritone), Helen Donaldson, Jon English, Anthony Warlow, Derek Hammond-Stroud, Maggie Moore, James Paul, Robert Radford, John Ralston (baritone), Dave Ross and others. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:59, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative suggested by User:Ssilvers to purge and rename to Category:D'Oyly Carte Opera Company, this will solve the PERFCAT issue and will better make sure that only people are included in the category for whom the characteristic is defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename, with openness towards further work. – Fayenatic London 23:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ethnoreligious groups by region to Category:Ethnoreligious groups by continent

Nominator's rationale: Per consistency with our overall categorization scheme. Also, all subcategories are continents, so this basically already is a "by continent" container category.
While additional grouping by sub- or sometimes trans-continental regions is often appropriate, "by continent" categories should always be the first thing to have, whenever we categorize by location, as only these continuously cover our planet, thereby greatly improving our overall categorization scheme. PanchoS (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Split -- I am not happy with the way this tree is working. It is mixing up the diasporas of ethno-religious groups, with the groups themselves, and with ethnic groups that are overwhelmingly of one religion. These are different things. Apart from the Jews, this classification is largely related to the millet system of the Ottoman Empire, where the population was classified according to their religion. Maronites in America is a diaspora of a Middle Eastern (Lebanese) ethno-religious group; similarly Jews almost anywhere. Possibly rename to Category:Ethnoreligious diasporas by continent and then purge: the fact that most Malays are Muslim does not make them an ethno-religious group, any more than the English (as historically all Christian) are one. However we need a higher level ethno-religious groups to house Maronites, Assyrian Christians, Yazidis, Jews, and the like. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Peterkingiron. Just to summarize:

1. Option 1 is splitting between Category:Ethnoreligious diaspora by continent and Category:Ethnoreligious groups by continent of origin (mind the last two extra words).
2. Option 2 is narrowing scope and renaming to Category:Ethnoreligious diaspora by continent, and purge.

Note that all of this applies not only to the nominated category but also to the continent child categories so it will require a new nomination. For now, I support the proposed nomination as a most obvious improvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Option 3 is splitting between Category:Ethnoreligious groups by continent of dispersion and Category:Ethnoreligious groups by continent of origin. Both would then become children of Category:Ethnoreligious groups by continent. This gets my vote. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that all of this applies not only to the nominated category but also to the continent child categories so it will require a new nomination. For now, I'm assuming that User:Laurel Lodged also supports the original nomination to change "by region" into "by continent". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:55, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Theatres where Gilbert or Sullivan works premiered (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: It seems to me that WP:OCVENUE covers this. We don't categorize venues by what event they once hosted. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support If these were purpose build G&S theaters, I might find this defining but this is just one of many performances. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support—Only the Savoy is defined by being built specifically to host G&S works. The rest just happened to be available at the time and are not defined by premiering G&S—or any other opera/operetta/musical theatre work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As noted above, there's really only one theatre particularly known for its association with Gilbert & Sullivan. Marc Shepherd (talk) 10:24, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is overcategorization for the theatres involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:17, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- OCVENUE is a variety of performance category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:52, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename, in the second case to Category:House (TV series) user templates. – Fayenatic London 23:45, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Twin Peaks templates to Category:Twin Peaks user templates
• Propose renaming Category:House templates to Category:House user templates

Nominator's rationale: These appear to be categories specifically for user templates (userboxes) so should be renamed for consistency with other categories at Category:Television series fan user templates. DexDor ^(talk) 06:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the "House" category is not about house it is about House (TV series), so should add "(TV series)" as well. Category:House (TV series) user templates, since this category is not about housing -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:58, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be happy with that. DexDor ^(talk) 07:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Category:House (TV series) user templates and its equivalent. Then problem is that both TV series have been allowed to spawn a whole tree of categories. The rule that I apply is one franchise, one category. Both TV series should be merged to provide a single category, covering categories, series, episodes, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We do not mix encyclopedic content with project stuff, so there will never be a single category for this if we are to categorize these by show. Rather, we should merge all the user templates together into two, one for fans, and one for the taskforce/wikiproject membership for each TV show, so we do not need a category for UBXes -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2016 Brussels bombings (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only two of these articles are actually about the bombings. We shouldn't create event categories for every event for the purpose of categorizing locales. --Another Believer _(Talk) 04:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Purge and upmerge remaining articles. DexDor ^(talk) 06:42, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Classic case of WP:RECENTISM. In a year from now, it will be easier to know if a category will be needed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Five articles are about the bombings now ... And there is the link with Category:November 2015 Paris attacks : Ibrahim and Khalid El Bakraoui + Salah Abdeslam + Najim Laachraoui - These men are linked to the same terrorist cell that plotted the November 2015 Paris attacks (and should have there own article). Stefanomione (talk) 09:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That you placed Template:November 2015 Paris attacks in the category shows a serious lack of understanding of Wikipedia categorization. DexDor ^(talk) 17:51, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The surviving perpetrators of the Paris attack were responsible for the Brussels attack - we should rewrite and rename the template and place is (back) on both articles. Najim Laachraoui fabricated the bombs for both attacks and blew himself up at Brussels Airport. Stefanomione (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article (let alone a template) about an event in 2015 should not be in categories for articles about events in 2016 - even if the events are connected (many events in one year are connected with events in other years, but the connections between events can be covered by normal links between articles). DexDor ^(talk) 07:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, though I don't think the locations should be included as they're not defined by the terror attack. The remaining articles however still are enough to keep that category. I know WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is no striking argument, but as long as we have thousands of categories for TV series, video game characters, or music albums, I'm not particularly convinced this one is less "needed." It is correct and unproblematic, doesn't violate any policy and helps quite a bit organizing the content around this attack, so there's no important reason why it shouldn't be there. --PanchoS (talk) 16:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Per WP:RECENTISM. We'll see if this category deserves to be recreated once everything dies down. Parsley Man (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I have decided to change my position to keep. The category is slowly but surely expanding, and it would benefit further from a merge with Category:Perpetrators of the 2016 Brussels bombings. Parsley Man (talk) 02:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These articles are now (sadly) defined by the event in question. The recentism essay doesn't really apply. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Purge and upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, nominator is right that there are effectively only two articles that belong in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC) Meanwhile the category has grown. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for Now There are only two articles that belong in this category, the rest are not defining. No objection to recreating later if the true article count grows. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per WP:RECENTISM. We should however define perhaps category:ISIL insurgency in Europe to cover those.GreyShark (dibra) 10:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- This is a very new topic, but we can expect it to expand as the surviving perpetrators and co-conspirators come to trial. If we delete it, we will almost certainly have to re-create it. We should leave it to develop. If necessary we can upmerge in 6-12 months time. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Peterkingiron. -- The Anome (talk) 11:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, per Peterkingiron. Note that the category has been expanded. Erlbaeko (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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

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

The result of the discussion was: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Online companies by country

This category should be merged with Category:Internet companies by country.--Sanya3 (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- The majority of the tree is on-line retail companies. A few may be providing other services on-line. We need to distinguish those operating on-line from ISPs and the like which are providing the mechanism. BTW, has this CFD been correctly set up? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for raising the question. I have fixed the category page so that it now links to this discussion. Note to closer: please allow at least a week from now. – Fayenatic London 00:32, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is No reason for this change was provided by the nominator. The parent categories involved now show the clear distinctions involved--the categories are not at all the same. Category:Internet companies "This category is for companies concerned with the process or delivery of the internet (its infrastructure)." Category:Online companies "This category is for companies whose main businesses is to use the internet for purposes other than to make sales to the public. For companies that make sales to the public, see the Online retailers subcategory." Hmains (talk) 01:21, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

---

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