< October 1 October 3 >

October 2

Category:Digital newspapers by region

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: The result of this discussion is to rename and move as proposed and for the reasons of the proposing editor. The only dissenting editor has not explained his reasons, and the merits of the proposal are self-evident. Debresser (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Digital newspapers by region to Category:Digital newspapers by continent
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with parent Category:Newspapers by continent, and move Middle East sub-category into Asia. – Fayenatic London 20:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging PanchoS as category creator. – Fayenatic London 20:15, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:First Spouses of the Philippines

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:First Spouses of the Philippines to Category:First Ladies and First Gentlemen of the Philippines
Nominator's rationale: The category was recently speedily renamed to "First Spouses" to match the main article; the article has since been renamed, following a discussion, to First Lady or First Gentleman of the Philippines. Speedy renaming was opposed on the grounds that the WP:C2D criteria were not fully met. – Fayenatic London 16:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:First Spouses of the Philippines to Category:First Ladies and Gentlemen of the Philippines – C2D per First Lady or First Gentleman of the Philippines. RioHondo (talk) 13:43, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Oppose The target name doesn't match the main article's name. It should be Category:First Ladies or First Gentlemen of the Philippines. Armbrust The Homunculus 14:48, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Armbrust: how about Category:First Ladies and First Gentlemen of the Philippines? The lead article, for one person, uses "or", but IMHO "and" would be natural & standard for the combined plural as a category. – Fayenatic London 22:27, 28 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Support Category:First Ladies and First Gentlemen of the Philippines. Combined plural does make more sense gramatically for the set of all First Ladies AND Gentlemen of the Philippines articles.--RioHondo (talk) 04:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Fayenatic london: Maybe, but that rename doesn't fit under the C2D criteria. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:55, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Armbrust:. IMHO if does; the name has to "match", which in this context can be understood more broadly than "be identical to". – Fayenatic London 22:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.

Children's comedy series

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarifying the kind of series being categorized. Trivialist (talk) 15:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Commerce

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) 01:33, 27 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:NONDEF. The article Commerce provides very few clues on which articles should be in this category. Besides "commerce" is hardly referred to in the articles in this category; the word "commercial" appears more often but we don't categorize by adjectives. As a result of the before-mentioned issues, the category contains a mishmash of quite unrelated articles that are already better categorized elsewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:45, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Arrowverse

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: The clear consensus was to keep the present category, without renaming or splitting. To try to lay to rest at least the second of the concerns of the nominator, I would like to bring the example of Category:Star Wars, which is also 'a kind of "universe" category' and includes both fictional and real-wold categories and articles. Debresser (talk) 21:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up on the Arrowverse multiverse nomination that was relisted yesterday, see here. This category contains articles about a TV series and its spin-offs, there is no point in having a kind of "universe" category as a parent category of the TV series. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 01:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Changed the nomination after previous comment - I agree that most content of the category is not about the Arrow TV series itself but about its spinoffs - and the change is also more consistent with the other nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • "Arrow (TV series) spin-offs" is the "Arrowverse", so there still is no reason for a name change. You are suggesting changing a correct name to an incorrect name, that would be used for the same thing. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Comment I thought production categories were trivial in nature. Fiction tends to be more important. Dimadick (talk) 05:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How is that helpful, when there are enough articles/content to populate Cat:Arrow (TV series), which in turn is a subcategory of Cat:Arrowverse. As I've stated, moving the articles in Cat:Arrowverse into Cat:Arrow (TV series) is not correct, and removing Cat:Arrow (TV series) is certainly not helpful. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think User:Peterkingiron agrees to a certain extent with the rationale of the nomination, in the sense that the content of this category is primarily about the franchise. Is that correct? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My point is that we should only have one category about one fictional universe/franchise, not multiple ones for each of its different emanations. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 14 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:20th-century American politicians

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: The result of this discussion seems to be to keep this category. Both because there are more "keep" votes than "delete" votes, and also because of the "procedural keep" votes. In reply to the argument raised by several editors that this category was deleted in the 2010 discussion, I would like to say that I see reason to differentiate between this category and the others like it which were restored on one side, and those which remain deleted on the other, in that these categories are more defining and are part of a logically built category tree, which does not hold true for the other categories. Debresser (talk) 23:52, 31 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is simply WP:NON-DEFINING. There is no factor that unites the 7,500+ articles in this category. A politician in Florida in 1999 has nothing in common with a politician from Idaho in 1901; on the other hand the 1999 Florida politician woul likely have much in common with a Florida politician from 2001, but they're in seperate categories. Consensus in March 2010 was to delete and nothing appears to have changed since then to make this category more useful. Alansohn (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Background/Question @Bearcat: That broader discussion already occurred here and the consensus, at least at that time, was to delete the whole tree. Did you recreate this category based on the sister categories you mentioned above or were there other factors? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another editor recreated Category:20th-century politicians in 2011. It is quite easy to recreate a deleted category without realising; perhaps it should be made harder. Oculi (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Consensus can change, and actual practice has some bearing on the determination of "consensus" — there have been lots of situations (e.g. having separate categories for male actors and female actresses) where consensus was once clearly against them, but then they got recreated again and the resulting CFD discussions changed the consensus rather than redeleting the categories. If a category scheme has been as extensively reimplemented as this has, to the point that many categories now exist which were never part of the original discussion at all and thus can't be simply speedied on the basis of that original discussion, then by definition the "consensus" is at best disputed rather than unequivocally clear. Under those circumstances, it's entirely appropriate to hold a new discussion to test where consensus now stands, rather than simply resting on the old one as permanently binding in and of itself with no allowance for the possibility of consensus ever changing. Bearcat (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2016 (UTC)Reply[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.
More