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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:20, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Izbica concentration camp to Category:Izbica Ghetto

Nominator's rationale: Per corresponding Wikipedia page, Izbica Ghetto. It was a ghetto, not a concentration camp. Also, Category:People who died in Izbica concentration camp should be renamed Category:People who died in the Izbica Ghetto. Catrìona (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support. And I hope this gets done soon, because google shows the top three searches for "Izbica Concentration Camp" to WP pages, based on this incorrect naming. A really paranoid android (talk) 16:55, 21 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:53, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mill Creek Entertainment (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for any of the entries. They are a licensee, not a creator of the material, and did not contribute in the production. --woodensuperman 15:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Companies that license and rerelease theatrical films in home video formats are not a defining characteristic of the films. Bearcat (talk) 04:05, 23 December 2018 (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. ℯxplicit 04:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Television writer templates to Category:Television creator templates
• Propose merging Category:Television producer templates to Category:Television creator templates

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFNAVWP:FILMNAV, we only allow navboxes for primary creators of TV series. Therefore Category:Television writer templates and Category:Television producer templates are redundant, as TV writers and TV producers don't have navboxes, unless they are the creators. As an example, ((Jonathan Nolan)) is in all three categories although it's only the TV series he created that are placed in the navbox. --woodensuperman 14:59, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, maybe, or not, this makes sense, although I've spent a couple minutes looking for loopholes. As long as all the templates in the two categories are either in now or moved to the creator category, and "merge" actually means "merge" to include them all. Or they can just be kept and become subcategory members of the creators category (which (I'll add now, I see they aren't in it already). Randy Kryn (talk) 16:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding them as a subcategory doesn't really work, as then the templates appear multiple times in the same category tree. Let's wait for the outcome before deciding whether or not to do that. --woodensuperman 16:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am not a big categories guy, but these categories are more explanatory than they would be merged.-17:49, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose for now - if the templates fail WP:PERFNAV, they should be first fixed and then we can delete the categories. A few comments though. Template:Ben Aaronovitch is only listed in the writers categories and not in the creator one and it seems he indeed only wrote episodes so adding him to the creator one will be incorrect. Additionally, while WP:PERFNAV says not to add writers, Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Film#Navigation allows for directors. While in film, a director is the primary author of the work, in television, the writer is. Which makes sense for Ben Aaronovitch to have the episode's his written listed. Producer credits for Television though are very unnecessary and it suffers from the same problem of terminology of film vs TV. In film, the producer is the most important person behind the scenes and the one receiving the award for Best Film, yet in TV (at least in the US), the producer is a secondary position, while the Executive Producers are the people who run the show. However, even that isn't specific enough, as a specific person or team of E.P. known as "Showrunners" are the equivalent of film-producers for television. So at least for US templates, it should really only have two versions - Category:Television writer templates and Category:Television showrunner templates. --Gonnym (talk) 10:13, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that the templates themselves necessarily fail WP:FILMNAV, it's that those that comply are ending up being placed in three categories for their role as creator. I hadn't considered that the Doctor Who writers are getting entries in navboxes for specific episodes. This isn't usually encouraged, same with directors of individual episodes, as the overall creative control is with the creator/showrunner, and not the staff writer or hired director. I think it's clear we can do away with the producer one at least. --woodensuperman 12:32, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, apologies, but I got WP:FILMNAV and WP:PERFNAV muddled. --woodensuperman 12:34, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I am really in two minds about this and can see both the points of view, which other users have articulated well. What does give me pause for thought is with a long running series like Doctor Who, there are many prolific writers and producers who have had more influence on the series that the original creator (which in the case of Doctor Who itself is difficult to pin point) and so that work would be expected to be in their template, but is not their because they are a creator of the series. Equally there could be cases where dramatists wrote a number of one off plays for Television, including for anthology series like The Wednesday Play, but rarely if ever created actual series. Another interesting one is Ben Elton who wrote most of Blackadder from the second series onwards (which took a different and much more critically acclaimed form than the original series, yet cannot be said to be the creator. Equally Elton wrote the award-winning first episode of Mr. Bean, but not any of the later ones. His work clearly had an influence on the series, but he is not credited as creator of it. Thus, I do see benefits to the category, but there are also drawbacks, not least the amount of overlap between these categories. Dunarc (talk) 16:16, 28 December 2018 (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 08:17, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Users with shared IP addresses to Category:Wikipedians with shared IP addresses

Nominator's rationale: To conform with a more standard naming convention of beginning user categories with "Wikipedians" rather than "Users". I would also be interested in hearing people's thoughts on the usefulness of grouping users with this shared characteristic, i.e. what encyclopedic benefit we actually receive from this category. I can't really think of any at the moment, and as such could be easily persuaded to support deletion as opposed to a rename, but I am open to listening to what people may have in mind for it being useful. Note that I'm not proposing that it's not useful to know if a particular user may be using a shared IP address, but rather questioning a grouping of such users in a category, the implication being that there would be a good reason to go looking for these users for a particular purpose. VegaDark (talk) 10:02, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep The nominator should have done their due diligence before nominating this for deletion (if?). This is a tracking and maintainence category for 2 reasons: 1. keep track if an account is already related to another. 2. to prevent sockmasters from using the family/same residence argument (match undeclared accounts to category accounts). This makes SPI work much easier and prevents sockmasters from giving the undeclared excuse. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 15:14, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @User:QEDK It's not entirely clear if you read the nomination based on your response. You realize this was nominated for renaming, correct? I offered the possibility of deletion if people could not come up with a reason to group such users in a category, but !voting keep suggests you want to retain the current name. Are you opposed to a rename? Also, I don't follow how this category can be used to "Keep track if an account is already related to another." Can you detail this? To me, this category simply lists users who have placed a userbox on their page saying they share an IP. I don't see any way of connecting an account to an IP address via this category. It is also unclear to me how this category is used "to prevent sockmasters from using the family/same residence argument (match undeclared accounts to category accounts)." Is there some sort of requirement for users to place themselves in this category if they share an IP address that I'm unaware of? Perhaps I'm just not familiar with how that works but would you mind detailing how this is used in that process so I can better understand? Thanks, VegaDark (talk) 06:19, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I did say (if?) because you suggested a deletion and the keep was in that favour. I don't mind a rename tbh, I just don't see why. SPI is not for connecting IPs to accounts in the first place, this is simply a tracking category for people who might have matching IPs due to being in the same residence/LAN interface. Again, I am not willing to give details simply because I gave you the basis and any more would be WP:BEANS in any public forum imo. It was done with a clear mindset, it's sometimes made compulsory to declare accounts in this manner after an unblock to make sure linked accounts are apparent. I hope that's enough reason. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 08:30, 21 December 2018 (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 08:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lists of supercentenarians by continent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge the only entry to both parent categories — JFG ^talk 08:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support with the article merges complete we will only ever have one page in this cartegory, duplicating the cat name. Legacypac (talk) 09:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If the intention is to merge, then the nomination should be listed as such: "Propose merging Category:X to Cat:y and Cat:Z".

The nominator :JFG used WP:TWINKLE, which offers merge as one of the options.

Please could the nominator amend this nom to list the proposed merge targets, so that editors reviewing this nom don't have to burrow around to find out exactly what is proposed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:25, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, didn't realize that a "delete+upmerge" operation should go through a merge request rather than a delete request. My intent is to remove this category that has only one main article, and place that article in both parent categories Category:Lists of supercentenarians and Category:Lists by continent. I could have done this by hand first, and then requested the deletion of an empty category, but given the recent controversy about proposals (not mine) to delete supercentenarian categories, I thought I'd better file a formal request first. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 22 December 2018 (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 all except Category:Buddhism and Islam. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:European-American people by religion
• Propose deleting Category:Native American Judaism
• Propose deleting Category:Hispanic and Latino Islam
• Propose deleting Category:Buddhism and Islam
• Propose deleting Category:African-American Buddhism
• Propose deleting Category:Asian-American people by religion

Additions:

• Propose deleting Category:African-American Buddhists
• Propose deleting Category:Asian-American Muslims
• Propose deleting Category:Hispanic and Latino Muslims
• Propose deleting Category:Native American Jews

Editor RainbowSilver2ndBackup is on a category creating spree for the past month. These are a few of the remaining categories with an intersection of race, religion, ethnicity and nationality. I advised the editor about categorization policy, including WP:EGRS, and asked that she/he slow down but he/she has moved on to other category areas that are probably due for some investigation from experienced editors (look at some creative film genres--Category:Legal horror films and Category:Religious horror comedy films?). There are no corresponding articles for these combinations of race and religion and some categories (like Category:European-American Christians and Category:Asian-American Buddhists) might involve tagging every biography with a category regarding religion. And there is not even an ethnicity called "European-American" which to me is just a code term for "white".

Also I also advocating deleting the redirects Category:White American Muslims, Category:Hispanic and Latino Christians, Category:African-American Orthodox Christians, Category:African-American Orthodox Christianity.

Just so you can see what a problem this has become, here are some categories that have already been tagged as empty categories and are on their way to being deleted. Since some have already been deleted and recreated, I think we need to get this editor involved in discussion at CfD so that they can understand how categorization and deletion works at Wikipedia: Category:European-American Roman Catholics Category:European-American Christians, Category:European American Christianity, Category:European-American Eastern Orthodox Christians, Category:European-American Eastern Orthodoxy, Category:European Americans and religion Category:European-American Muslims, Category:White American Islam, Category:African-American Eastern Orthodox Christians, Category:African-American Eastern Orthodoxy, Category:Native American Islam, Category:Native American Muslims, Category:Hispanic and Latino American Roman Catholics, Category:Hispanic and Latino Amercian Roman Catholicism, Category:Hispanic and Latino American Christians, Category:Hispanic and Latino American Christianity, Category:Hispanic and Latino Roman Catholics, Category:Hispanic and Latino Roman Catholicism, Category:Hispanic and Latino American Muslims, Category:Asian-American Buddhism, Category:Asian-American Buddhists and Category:Asian-American Catholics.

To be honest, I don't know if I have listed every category combining race and religion but it's late and I got tired chasing down all of their category contributions. There are quite a lot of them. Personally, I wouldn't mind if some of the CfD regulars vote to keep some of these categories, I'm more concerned with slowing RainbowSilver2ndBackup down. We've had other prolific category creators in the 5 years I've been here who have ended up requiring a lot of clean-up. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Question @Liz: do you also consider the following subcategories to be part of this nomination? Category:Native American Jews, which you tagged, Category:African-American Buddhists, Category:Asian-American Muslims and Category:Hispanic and Latino Muslims, which I tagged? Place Clichy (talk) 06:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on a phone right now which makes editing a challenge so I will check this out when I get back to my computer. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:55, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Place Clichy, for tagging those other categories. I've added them to the list. I also really appreciate you fixing the tag links to this discussion. Apparently my laptop clock logged them in on Dec. 19, not the 20th. I had terrible problems with Twinkle and this nomination, all kinds of error messages. Thanks for the help. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom except Category:Buddhism and Islam per Marcocapelle below. These are intersections of ethnicity and religion, for which the guideline at WP:OCEGRS is clear: these subcategories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. Unless proven otherwise, I don't see any category listed here that passes the test. I am also concerned about Category:Asian-American Christianity, which may be nominated as well. A reverse example of an eligible category is for instance African-American Islam, which is clearly recognized as a field of study in its own right. Place Clichy (talk) 05:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Buddhism and Islam as part of an established series, delete the others per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Buddhism and Islam, as part of an established series on relationships between religions. I am far from certain if the other categories have enough articles to be populated. Dimadick (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Statement @Liz: I created these categories for a good reason. In my personal experience, I wanted to show respect to their race and their religions. I'm not trying to offend anyone, I just trying to respect them. There are organizations that are dedicated to their race. I also check their biography for who they are and what religion they worshiped. In off topic, these genres such as religious horror comedy exist from what the films can describe themselves. As for the term "European Americans", that term is still used in some occasions. Once again, I created this articles just for the sake of respect. RainbowSilver2ndBackup (talk) 23:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RainbowSilver2ndBackup: please may I urge you to read WP:Categorization. As you will see there, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics."

Or, condensed: Categories are for navigation. Defining characteristics only (see WP:DEFINING).

Notions of "respect" are admirable, but are nothing to do with categorisation. This is an NPOV encyclopedia, so we write article and build categories for all our readers, whether they love a topic, hate it, or whatever.

There are several other principles of categorisation which have been developed and tested over many years, so it's important to read those guidelines too, e.g. WP:Overcategorization.

In this case, we are looking at a series of categories for the intersection of ethnicity and religion. The relevant section of WP:Overcategorization is WP:OCEGRS, which says "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category may be created, but that it must at least be reasonable to create one.".

So in this case, the questions we have to ask about for example Category:African-American Buddhism or Category:Native American Judaism is whether that is actually a "distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". I agree with the nominator and other editors that these do not appear to be the case. If you have some evidence that they really are encyclopedic topics, then please present it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:45, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Some of these are really stretching the bounds of utility. For example, "Native American Judaism" is not a thing — while there do happen to be a number of people who happen to have both Native American and Jewish ancestry through different genealogical lines, "Native American Jews" aren't a defined group in the sense that's relevant to the category system. We do not create categories for every possible "people who happen to be both X and Y" combination of attributes that happens to fit two or more people, we create categories for defining characteristics that get studied and analyzed as things. We also have a practice of not categorizing people by religion unless religion is central to their notability in some way — frex, people would be categorized by religion if they were notable specifically as clergy or for writing religious texts, but not if they were notable as politicians or businesspeople who kept their religious beliefs private and personal. Similarly, many CFDs have kiboshed the idea of categorizing American people for whiteness, because EGRS categorization isn't well-served by categorizing for the majoritarian grouping, but categorizing American people for the Europeanness of their heritage is just a whiteness proxy and not a useful new point of categorization. Further, the creator has also engaged in other violations of categorization policy not covered here, such as arbitrarily depopulating Category:Télé-Québec network shows out of process by creating a new category for Category:Télé-Québec shows and moving all the articles to it without seeking any actual consensus that the category needed to be renamed at all. This is crossing the line into disruption. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleted all except Category:Buddhism and Islam, per Marcocapelle. The rest are non-notable intersections. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:47, 25 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:57, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Air Defense Artillery Brigades of the United States Army to Category:Air defense artillery brigades of the United States Army

Nominator's rationale: Capitalization consistency with subcategories of Category:Air defense artillery units of the United States Army Senator2029 “Talk” 00:50, 20 December 2018 (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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:56, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Discographies of Monstercat artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Is there a particular reason this category is necessary? We don't have similar categories for Owsla or Atlantic Records, so why should this record label be the exclusive case here? However, while I am initially proposing deletion, I am also unopposed to the creation of other similar categories as well as a parent category. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 00:34, 20 December 2018 (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.