< October 27	October 29 >

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians by experience (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Experience" is very broad and, therefore, not a useful high-level division for user categories. Other category trees already exist to capture the types of experience we would want to categorize—e.g. education, language, profession, skill. The two subcategories are already in other suitable categories and will not be orphaned. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:42, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. Would also support deleting all subcategories in a future nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2017 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wikipedians by military experience to Category:Wikipedian military people

Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary intermediate category layer that hinders navigation between the parent and sub-categories. The various categories for Wikipedians in a particular nation's military can be housed directly within the parent category, which would have only 6 subcats after merging. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs)
Merge per nom. Would also support deleting all subcategories in a future nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2017 (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. – Fayenatic London 09:11, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians for Black Lives Matter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category groups users by advocacy of a political position/organization. Wikipedia is not for "[a]dvocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, ... or otherwise." There is extensive precedent to delete similar advocacy categories, e.g. here and here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 23:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts (talk • contribs)
Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 10:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - would Category:Wikipedians interested in Black Lives Matter be more appropriate? Inter&anthro (talk) 00:32, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As a new category, I think that would be fine. However, I do not think we should rename this category to a new title as that would result in miscategorization. The editors in this category expressed a political viewpoint (mostly through the userbox) and we should not assume that this viewpoint equates to an encyclopedic interest in editing content related to BLM. One could, for example, be "for the Endangered Species Act" and have no interest in encyclopedia articles related to the Act or to endangered species. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 01:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an advocacy category with no collaborative benefit.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Black Lives Matter It's fair to assume some interest when supporting a cause. gidonb (talk) 10:25, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's fair to assume some interest when supporting a cause. That's not a fair assumption. For example, most people probably support the preservation of endangered species, eradication of infectious diseases, and protection of children from abuse. It's not fair to assume, however, that most people have an interest in collaborating on articles related to these topics. Unlike articles, where we can dictate how the article should be categorized, categorization of users requires the user to self-identify a certain way—only they can really know their interests, for example, and our assumptions have a high likelihood of creating miscategorization. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In my book the substantial difference is NOT between "Wikipedians for Black Lives Matter" and "Wikipedians interested in Black Lives Matter". The substantial difference IS between "Wikipedians interested in Black Lives Matter" and "Wikipedians interested in working on articles on Black Lives Matter". In other words I disagree with your response and stand by my statement. gidonb (talk) 18:46, 22 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of thoughts:

(1) Why should these users be recategorized (and possibly miscategorized) according to your, my, or anyone else's book? After all, if they have and wish to declare an interest in BLM, they can simply create a new interest category and add themselves to it.

(2) If we remove the component about collaborating on articles (or other content), then the category has nothing to do with Wikipedia and should not exist.

(3) Just as a sort of thought exercise, would you argue that "I support the preservation of endangered species, eradication of infectious diseases, and protection of children from abuse" translates to "I am interested in endangered species preservation, infectious disease eradication, and child abuse prevention"? In my case, for example, I support all three, am generally/vaguely interested in two, and would collaborate on articles related to one.

The main points, of course, are (1) and (2), but I am curious to hear your point of view on (3). Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:25, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Black Lives Matter movement is considered leftist so even if it is renamed to "interested in" it could be implying. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:06, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a category implying advocacy. Gluons12 ^☢|☕ 21:32, 28 November 2017 (UTC).[reply]

I want to add that there is Category:Wikipedians interested in the abortion debate, but that is more neutrally worded as the debate is broad on both sides of the isle. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2017 (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 no prejudice against renominating after the category has been pruned. While plenty of examples were offered of articles that do not belong in the category, there was not a compelling argument that this is not a recognized theme (see Car song) or that there are no songs about automobiles (e.g. "409", "Black Metallic", "Little Deuce Coupe"). I think the most compelling argument for deletion was that this category may be unmaintainable (potentially because it is based on a subjective inclusion criterion), but it is not clear what distinguishes automobiles from most other themes within Category:Songs by theme in that respect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:51, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Songs about automobiles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Another in the endless series of "Songs about [Subject X]" categories, that get misused to capture any song in which X gets mentioned at all without regard to whether X is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the song or not. I've already removed "Life Is a Highway", which isn't about cars but merely has the word "drive" appearing in the chorus of a song which is about the metaphorical highway of life rather than any literal highway of cars -- but there are many more songs here about which the same could be said. "Paradise by the Dashboard Light", frex, is not about cars just because Meat Loaf was trying to get his jiggy on with Ellen Foley in a car (It's about the jiggy, not the car); "I Drove All Night" is about the lover that the singer of your preferred version was driving to get to, not about the car he or she drove in; "Little Red Corvette" is not literally about a Corvette, but is using the car as a metaphor for a sleek and sexy woman Prince is turned on by; "American Pie" is not about cars just because Don McLean drove his Chevy to the levee, but is about the death of Buddy Holly and Richie Valens and the Big Bopper; and on and so forth. All of which means that as usual, this is a trivia category for "Songs that mention X in the lyrics", not a defining category that's capturing what the songs are about. Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This seems like more of an argument against Category:Songs by theme rather than deleting this specific category. The problems you state are not unique to this particular category. If you have a problem with that category then propose deleting it and everything in it there, otherwise, there is no particular reason to delete this one._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:44, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not all possible song "themes" are equally invalid points of categorization. Some are good ones, while some are not — so each individual category has to be evaluated on its own individual merits or demerits, rather than simply trashing the entire tree en masse. Bearcat (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I might also support a rename to Category:Songs featuring automobiles, which is also a defining topic in itself even if the main subject of the song isn't about it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, songs are not defined by every individual thing that happens to get mentioned in the lyrics, and are not categorized on that basis. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nomination. At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with WP:V, it is NOT defining. WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference. The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.
Songs, and song titles, use Simile, Metaphor, Analogy, Allegory, Parable, Figure of Speech and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all other songs by theme) denies lyricists and songwriters the ability to use linguistics when writing lyrics. ALl of which is systematically ignored with the addition of most of the members of the category.
Playing word association games at WP with categories is not in spirit of an encyclopedia.
Can anybody name ONE song which is "about an automobile," rather than mentioning in the title or lyrics? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be fair and acknowledge the Catherine Wheel's "Black Metallic" as being about a car. Not that most songs here are, obviously (or that the categorizer even caught "Black Metallic" in the first place.) Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:Songs with an automobile theme. Song themes should be considered defining but songs may have more than one theme. The name I propose does not create the opposite impression and follows the theme of the parent category. gidonb (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose both rename proposals (featuring and theme), since the current name is perfectly in line with the intentions of WP:DEFINING. So either there are quite a number of songs about automobiles and the category should be kept (and probably purged) or there aren't enough songs about automobiles and the category should be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nomination seems more a justification for pruning that deletion, and cars are significant. Does Life is a Highway even mention cars?45.72.224.206 (talk) 06:20, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
An IP comes to make a comment on a discussion and afterwards adds one song to the category, No Cars Go. I read the article and there is no details as to what the lyrics are about, so I pruned it! I'll let that sink in and then I will remind those that support categories like this that is an encyclopedia, not a word game. Anybody using an encycopedia is looking for information, in other words, we don't add members just because the word "Cars" is in the title (notwithstanding the title suggests it is not about automobiles), but because there is information to study. As for purging, I always purge if I see a member unreferenced for the category it is in, but do those that say 'purge,' actually bother to purge themselves, or do they rely on others to do it? --Richhoncho (talk) 10:01, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just in the title but also in the lyrics. I suppose one problem here is WP's aversion to primary sources, yet song lyrics—at least those where copyrights haven't expired—aren't available from many RS that don't want to get sued. Very well, let's prune all the members that have no secondary RS until the category has few entries, and with that delete the category. You're right: the song has absolutely nothing to do with cars. Actually there are very few songs about cars. Making Thunderbirds is an allegory for something: it has absolutely nothing to do with cars, American cars, much less Thunderbirds. Well done. Maybe if someone wants a list of songs that refer to cars might check another source—maybe Google it—and get hit with a shitload of ads. I'd search for an Includepedia but I might as well just make up my own list—sharing info just does seem to be worth the trouble for one. :-/
45.72.224.206 (talk) 03:06, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - At first glance I was like "Oh heck no.." until I took a minute or so to think it over. Some of the entries on the category are very clear such as Beep Beep (song) or Little Deuce Coupe (song), others though are in that grey area of WP:OR. I think the problem is that the category is too broad to be of ant good use as anyone can add an entry for a song with a mention of a car. The WP:OSE arguments also shouldn't hold weight here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:29, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Too broad? Something like, Category:Songs about vehicles would be too broad while Category:Songs about convertibles would be too specific. How about a hatnote saying. "These are articles about songs either about automobiles or where automobiles figure prominently. Those that are little more than in name only, given minor references, or are pure or almost pure metaphor will be removed."45.72.224.206 (talk) 22:43, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for OSE. Yeah: Category:Films about taxicabs has Taxi Driver. According to my search, "taxi" appears 77 times in the article, but 73 are "taxi driver." Ergo, as "taxi" appears only 4 times: it might not be about taxis. The story isn't about a guy driving a taxi as much as it's about some vigilante shooting up a brothel, almost shooting a politician, and taking Cybill Shepherd to see a movie. "You talking to me?" is more prominent than the taxi. Should this be removed from the category and perhaps the category be deleted?45.72.224.206 (talk) 23:03, 29 November 2017 (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. – Fayenatic London 09:33, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pokémon (anime) to Category:Pokémon anime

Nominator's rationale: This category is about all Pokémon anime shows and films, not just the original, so it doesn't need the parenthesis. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:07, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose/Wrong Venue The main article is Pokémon (anime) and that name has been stable for at least a year so the category should blindly follow. (A better approach would be to start with a RM of that article. If that succeeds with consensus, then we can speedy rename the category to match per WP:C2D.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pokémon (anime) refers to a single show, not the many films that are also encompassed under this category. It's about Pokemon anime in general, not the Pokemon anime specifically. You misinterpreted my nomination._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 19:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging User:RevelationDirect. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:52, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:VENUE. Pokémon anime is a redirect to Pokémon (anime). That may be right or wrong but should be addressed in the article space. gidonb (talk) 00:43, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this is a WP:VENUE issue, but rather a question of restricting the scope of this category to a single television series (Pokémon (anime)) versus using this category to group all Pokémon anime under a descriptive title (Pokémon anime). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:36, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, and my comment above. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:38, 23 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm and Black Falcon: I may misinterpret things but it looks as if all Pokémon anime shows and films are included in the one Pokémon (anime) article. If that is a correct observation, then it makes sense to keep the category name alike, doesn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Pokemon (anime) is a disambiguator that refers specifically to the anime television series, and doesn't include the movies. I am suggesting to rename the category so that it encompasses all anime of Pokemon, and give it the correct scope._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:02, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: I see. Honestly I think hardly anyone will notice whether or not the word "anime" is in brackets. Wouldn't it be clearer to rename it to Category:Pokémon (franchise)? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I understand. This category is specifically about anime IN the Pokemon franchise. And NOT about the anime called Pokemon, which is part of this category but not what the category is about. It should be an uncontroversial move to remove the parentheses._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:04, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pokémon serves as the main topic category for the overall media franchise. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:49, 28 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support in keeping with the recent rename of Category:Manga based on Pokémon to Category:Pokémon manga (Discussion). Both of these categories should follow the same naming scheme. It also fits in with the established naming scheme of Category:Pokémon media‎, Category:Pokémon video games‎, Category:Pokémon films, Category:Pokémon lists‎, and Category:Pokémon characters‎. I also do not believe it is beneficial for a category to include a disambiguation unless it is to resolving conflicts with another category of the same name. —Farix (t | c) 11:25, 28 November 2017 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Manga based on Pokémon to Category:Pokémon manga

Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are not merely "based" on Pokemon, they ARE officially licensed Pokemon manga. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:03, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support More concise and accurate, per nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This seems reasonable and straightforward. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:48, 22 November 2017 (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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 18#Category:Phthisiatrists. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Phthisiatrists to Category:Pulmonologists

Nominator's rationale: A rather small and obsolete medical speciality. Lacks a defining article and no obvious reason for a seperate category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:13, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; the article Édouard Rist explains that he specialized in tuberculosis research (phthisiology). This category is a sub-category of Tuberculosis and appears valid & useful for that reason. I have added an explanation on the category page. – Fayenatic London 22:24, 12 November 2017 (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: convert to article (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Coptic atheists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This started as a one item category. Perhaps it could be reverted to that, perhaps there’s an article here, I’m not sure. But this definitely is not a category and the talk page isn’t a talk page. Doug Weller talk 19:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually WP:SMALLCAT would apply here, leaving the options delete or turn into an article. Doug Weller talk 07:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articlise the text. The text names two people who are candidates to be here, though we only have one. Since conversion from Islam is forbidden by the state, in practice the religious minorities of the Middle East have become quasi-ethnicities. An intersection between this and atheism is of sufficient interest to keep, despite being a small category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - last time I checked there where only two articles in this category (although now there is only one) but it is an unnecessary and inaccurate way to categorize someone. Someone who is a former Christian or Hindu who left that religion and became an atheist wouldn't suddenly be called a Christian atheists or Hindu atheists. Perhaps a new category such as Category:Former Coptic Christians or something along that line would be more accurate. Inter&anthro (talk) 12:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete mainly because it is an article masquerading as a category. Unlike Armenians, Jews, Assyrians and Chaldeans, I am not fully convinced that the Copts are an ethnic as opposed to religious group. In the Middle East the line is often extremely fuzzy, but I think they fuzz on the side of religious. So this makes about as much sense as Category:Muslim atheists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:41, 2 November 2017 (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 (non-admin closure).. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Dogs (series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: After removing project pages and the author's article, there were only three articles left, which is too few to comply with WP:SMALLCAT. —Farix (t | c) 18:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Now/Rename if Kept Delete for now with no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. (If kept/recreated, the anem should follow the main article though: Dogs (manga). RevelationDirect (talk) 02:06, 31 October 2017 (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. This is a WP:SOFTDELETE, as the participation was weak; it does not bar re-dividing the category if a real distinction in content can be demonstrated. The old one will be redirected for now, which may be helpful if anyone wants to follow this up in the dozen or so other-language Wikipedias which have followed this duplication. The proposal to rename to Category:Topics by year goes against the parent Category:Categories by period, and a group nomination would be required to pursue that idea. – Fayenatic London 00:11, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Years by topic to Category:Categories by year

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge (both categories tagged): the subcategories of both of them have the same structure, they are all diffused by year for that particular topic. Note: insofar naming of the merged category is an issue, we can have either one of the two existing names, or a third alternative is Category:Topics by year. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:45, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – these are different: one contains subcats of form 'XXX by year', a subcat scheme for categories, and the other is a subcat scheme for Category:Years (all of form 'Years in'). Merging them would create confusion. Oculi (talk) 17:23, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is only in the name of the subcats, but the type of content is the same, namely years for a particular topic. For example, Category:Years in biotechnology‎ contains Category:1916 in biotechnology etc., while Category:Economics by year contains Category:1600 in economics etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per WP:SHAREDNAME. Grouping the same type of category by what pronoun is used ("Years in X" versus "X by year") instead of how they group articles hinders navigation. May be worth discussing standardizing the naming format at some point as well. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per WP:SHAREDNAME to Category:Topics by year. The latter option as Topics should lead and Categories is a fuzzy alternative to topics. gidonb (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2017 (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 and delete. – Fayenatic London 16:03, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1127 in Aragon‎ to Category:1127 in Europe and Category:12th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1170 in Aragon‎ to Category:1170 in Europe and Category:12th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1179 in Aragon‎ to Category:1179 in Europe and Category:12th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1244 in Aragon‎ to Category:1244 in Europe and Category:13th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1245 in Aragon‎ to Category:1245 in Europe and Category:13th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1258 in Aragon‎ to Category:1258 in Europe and Category:13th century in Aragon

more categories
Propose merging Category:1291 in Aragon‎ to Category:1291 in Europe and Category:13th century in Aragon Propose merging Category:1295 in Aragon‎ to Category:1295 in Europe and Category:13th century in Aragon Propose merging Category:1304 in Aragon‎ to Category:1304 in Europe and Category:14th century in Aragon Propose merging Category:1305 in Aragon‎ to Category:1305 in Europe and Category:14th century in Aragon Propose merging Category:1353 establishments in Aragon‎ to Category:1353 establishments in Europe and Category:14th-century establishments in Aragon Propose merging Category:1359 in Aragon‎ to Category:1359 in Europe and Category:14th century in Aragon Propose merging Category:1412 in Aragon‎ to Category:1412 in Europe and Category:15th century in Aragon Propose merging Category:1418 establishments in Aragon‎ to Category:1418 establishments in Europe and Category:15th-century establishments in Aragon Propose merging Category:1450 establishments in Aragon‎ to Category:1450 establishments in Europe and Category:15th-century establishments in Aragon Propose merging Category:1479 in Aragon‎ to Category:1479 in Europe and Category:15th century in Aragon Propose merging Category:1489 in Aragon‎ to Category:1489 in Europe and Category:15th century in Aragon Propose merging Category:1491 in Aragon‎ to Category:1491 in Europe and Category:15th century in Aragon Propose merging Category:1490s in Aragon‎ to Category:15th century in Aragon The below categories become empty after the above mergers Propose deleting Category:1120s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1170s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1240s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1250s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1290s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1300s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1350s establishments in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1350s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1353 in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1410s establishments in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1410s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1418 in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1450 in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1450s establishments in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1450s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1470s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:1480s in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:Years of the 12th century in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:Years of the 13th century in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:Years of the 14th century in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:Years of the 15th century in Aragon‎ Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Aragon by year‎ Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Aragon by decade‎ Propose deleting Category:Years in Aragon‎

more categories

Propose merging Category:1291 in Aragon‎ to Category:1291 in Europe and Category:13th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1295 in Aragon‎ to Category:1295 in Europe and Category:13th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1304 in Aragon‎ to Category:1304 in Europe and Category:14th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1305 in Aragon‎ to Category:1305 in Europe and Category:14th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1353 establishments in Aragon‎ to Category:1353 establishments in Europe and Category:14th-century establishments in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1359 in Aragon‎ to Category:1359 in Europe and Category:14th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1412 in Aragon‎ to Category:1412 in Europe and Category:15th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1418 establishments in Aragon‎ to Category:1418 establishments in Europe and Category:15th-century establishments in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1450 establishments in Aragon‎ to Category:1450 establishments in Europe and Category:15th-century establishments in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1479 in Aragon‎ to Category:1479 in Europe and Category:15th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1489 in Aragon‎ to Category:1489 in Europe and Category:15th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1491 in Aragon‎ to Category:1491 in Europe and Category:15th century in Aragon
Propose merging Category:1490s in Aragon‎ to Category:15th century in Aragon

The below categories become empty after the above mergers

Propose deleting Category:1120s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1170s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1240s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1250s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1290s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1300s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1350s establishments in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1350s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1353 in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1410s establishments in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1410s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1418 in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1450 in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1450s establishments in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1450s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1470s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:1480s in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:Years of the 12th century in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:Years of the 13th century in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:Years of the 14th century in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:Years of the 15th century in Aragon‎
Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Aragon by year‎
Propose deleting Category:Establishments in Aragon by decade‎
Propose deleting Category:Years in Aragon‎

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories contain only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- Another tree of wisps, not branches. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 29 October 2017 (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:Knights Templar in popular culture (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Knights Templar in modern culture to Category:Cultural depictions of the Knights Templar

Nominator's rationale: Rename, and move Category:Self-styled orders from being a sub-category up into Category:Knights Templar. The proposed name would fit well within Category:Cultural depictions of people. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support as there is no official KT now. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Split -- I removed an article about a historical person Ralph de Sudeley who happened appear in a novel. The rest are a mixture of mixture of Freemasony, a few novels about KT, and one or two articles for other Category:Self-styled orders, which need to be down-moved to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:59, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alt. rename to Category:Knights Templar in popular culture per the main article (Knights Templar in popular culture), or to Category:Knights Templar in fiction (and make a subcategory of Category:Organizations in fiction). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:56, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2017 (UTC) [reply]

@Fayenatic london and Black Falcon: What exactly are the pros and cons of Category:Cultural depictions of the Knights Templar, Category:Knights Templar in popular culture and Category:Knights Templar in fiction relative to each other? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: Good question. These categories were started by many editors without co-ordination, and have only been partly harmonised. Some follow distinctions along these lines:
  Topic in fiction covers novels, comics, films, TV and video games.
  
  Topic in popular culture includes the above plus songs, non-fiction books, documentary films/TV.
  
  Cultural depictions of topic includes the above plus visual arts.
These patterns are, however, not consistently used in practice. Further observations or suggestions are welcome!

As for this nomination: the category contains several pages about KT in fiction, a documentary, plus two pages that can go into Category:Self-styled orders (namely Knights Templar (Freemasonry) and Scottish Knights Templar). I therefore support the alternative put forward by Black Falcon. – Fayenatic London 09:20, 6 November 2017 (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. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Buddhist terrorism to Category:Persecution by Buddhists

Nominator's rationale: merge all the articles in the former category are found in the latter. In fact the former seems to be just and extension of the latter, with the difference between what constitutes Terrorism and Persecution seems suspiciously like WP:OR or WP:SYNTH. Inter&anthro (talk) 03:18, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

it is not an original research because it used in many resources like here and here and many other website. Also it is used in other wikies. And it is compatible with other similar categories in Category:Religious terrorism like category:Hindu terrorism, category:Sikh terrorism, category:islamic terrorism, category:Jewish religious terrorism and category:Christian terrorism. So i oppose merging because there is other categories with the same manner in Category:Persecution by perpetrator like category:Persecution by Hindus still not merged although there is a category:Hindu terrorism and there is other examples. So if merging is necessary i propose merging Category:Persecution by Buddhists to Category:Buddhist terrorism but not the vice versa because that manner is the compatible with other similar categories in wikipedia. Regards---مصعب (talk) 08:49, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

مصعب I appreciate your response but could you explain what separates the articles in Category:Buddhist terrorism from the rest of the articles in Category:Persecution by Buddhists? In fact two of the five or six of the articles in the former category have persecution either in their titles or in the introduction of the article. As for the fact that we do have terrorism-related categories for other religions is not the most convincing argument for retention per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

please tag me in order to see your message next time. I explained that there is a need for merging or at least recategorization and differentiation between the two categories. But if we choose merging i prefer using Buddhist terrorism because WP:EUPHEMISM is clear that we should not whitewash terrorism and call it anything but that and what happened in Myanmar clearly goes with definition of terrorism. Regards--مصعب (talk) 20:58, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- It is probably best to reserve "terrorism" for individual attacks. Much of the content here is about inter-communal violence. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename primarily because of the rules of common name. People are not describing the acts of violence carried out against Muslims in Myanmar as terrorism. Nor was the slaughter of Christian Armenians by the Muslim leaders of the Ottoman Empire terrorism. Nor is the execution of people who convert away from Islam by Iran or other south-west Asian states an act of terrorism. I actually think some of the thinks called terrorism are not well defined as such. Anyway, these articles are more about the broad trends in Rahkine State, not about specific events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom or rename to Category:Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar, per article Persecution of Muslims in Myanmar. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 4 November 2017 (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.

October 28

Category:Wikipedians by experience

Category:Wikipedians by military experience

Category:Wikipedians for Black Lives Matter

Category:Songs about automobiles

Category:Pokémon (anime)

Category:Manga based on Pokémon

Category:Phthisiatrists

Category:Coptic atheists

Category:Dogs (series)

Category:Years by topic

Years and decades in Aragon

Category:Knights Templar in modern culture

Category:Buddhist terrorism