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. MER-C 02:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of fictional cities to Category:Lists of fictional populated places
• Propose renaming Category:Thomas & Friends locations to Category:Thomas & Friends populated places
• Propose renaming Category:DC Thomson Comics towns and cities to Category:DC Thomson Comics populated places
• Propose renaming Category:The Railway Series locations to Category:The Railway Series populated places
• Propose renaming Category:Mythological cities and towns to Category:Mythological populated places
• Propose renaming Category:Middle-earth cities and towns to Category:Middle-earth populated places
• Propose renaming Category:Dungeons & Dragons cities and towns to Category:Dungeons & Dragons populated places
• Propose renaming Category:Forgotten Realms cities to Category:Forgotten Realms populated places

Nominator's rationale: Per all categories of Category:Populated places, including Category:Fictional populated places. Note that the "Thomas & Friends" and "The Railway Series" are a complete overlap and could be merged if a single title could be found (and both should be purged of their two real locations). I have not touched the "lost cities and towns" categories because the root category is Category:Lost cities and towns.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge the two D&D ones to Category:Dungeons & Dragons locations. No particular reason they should even exist at this point. TTN (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - not all the Thomas and Friends/Railway Series ones are populated places. Some of them are - as it says on the can - simply locations (e.g., Gordon's Hill, which is currently a fairly meaningless redirect anyway). Grutness...wha? 23:59, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:C2C and purge Gordon's Hill. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 09:35, 28 December 2019 (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. MER-C 02:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Middle-earth astronomy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No longer necessary, as 7 of the 8 articles included in this category are now redirects. Hog Farm (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 28 December 2019 (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. MER-C 02:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging & renaming Category:Sacred trees to Category:Trees in religion
• Propose merging & renaming Category:Hindu plant worship to Category:Plants in Hinduism
• Propose merging Category:Plants in Buddhism to Category:Buddhism and nature
• Propose merging Category:Plants in Christianity to Category:Christianity and nature
• Propose merging Category:Plants in Islam to Category:Islam and nature
• Propose merging Category:Plants in Shinto to Category:Shinto and nature

Nominator's rationale: Most of these are recently created and not needed for navigation. Trees in religion is an unnecessary layer as it contains only Sacred trees. However, it has a better name than the latter, as not all trees in religions are sacred, e.g. Zaqqum the "cursed tree" in Islam. Most of the "Plants in X" contain only "Trees in X" and therefore add nothing useful for navigation. There is no need for a dual merge to their other parent Plants in religion because that will still contain all the Trees categories via Trees in religion.

• Note: I have proposed "merge and rename" (i.e. overwrite) for the first two because the nominated categories are older, and their history should be moved to the new page name. – Fayenatic London 21:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support These all seem sensible, though I could be talked out of some. Johnbod (talk) 00:21, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, in every of these instances a nearly-empty category layer is being removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 30 December 2019 (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: speedy delete per G7. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:24, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Early Germanic philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a variation on an outdated Hegelian category. Eissink (talk) 20:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and the topic isn't even clear; note that Early Germanic philosophy redirects to Early_Germanic_culture#Code_of_ethics. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and last. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category and its corresponding section is not based upon any Hegelian theories, but upon modern works such as Ideals and Patterns of Thought (pp. 153-166) from the book The Germanic People (1960) by Francis Owen. Early Germanic culture did have its own distinct and notable way of thought, as exemplified in Hávamál and Sigrdrífumál. This is covered at Early Germanic culture#Patterns of thought. Having a category which helps users find information on this subject is useful for Wikipedia. The title is consistent with titles of similar subjects. The category is currently small because it was recently created. Size issues should be fixed through adding more articles to the category rather than deleting it. Krakkos (talk) 17:24, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Every culture has, almost by definition even, a distinct way of thought, but that doesn't mean that every culture has developed it's own philosophy, be it by a native philosopher or by a conscious recognition of culture typical mental conduct in any other outspoken form. In fact, the expression "Early Germanic philosophy" has no references via Google, except for some Wikipedia pages, so the subject is not even slightly established. Wikipedia is not meant to introduce own research or neologisms. 'Patterns of thought' do not equal Philosophy. Eissink (talk) 17:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]
• (edit conflict) Hávamál is a poem and as such already in Category:Eddic poetry. While poems may reflect some "way of thought", it goes too far to regard them as works of philosophy. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Almost everything we know about early Germanic ways of thought is derived from Old Norse literature. For this reason, the subject of early Germanic philosophy is generally discussed within the scope of "Old Norse philosophy" or "Viking philosophy". As outlined by Sveinbjorn Johnson in Ethics, Hávamál is our most important source of Old Norse philosophy.[1][2] Krakkos (talk) 19:28, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If the link is correct then Sveinbjorn Johnson was a lawyer, not a philosopher. Which philosophers embrace the view that we can reliably derive philosophy from just poems? (Besides, if I understand correctly the very least that should happen is to rename the category to Category:Old Norse philosophy.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2019 (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: speedy delete per G7 Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:48, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Germanic philosophy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: 'Germanic philosophy' is an outdated distinction by Hegel, meant to distinguish Ancient Philosophy from later Western Philosophy – it is obsolete. Eissink (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, combining Danish and German philosophy in a container category is not helpful at all. The fact that Danish and German are both Germanic languages is unrelated to philosophy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2019 (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. MER-C 02:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Middle-earth rivers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Every entry is a redirect. (Is there an echo in here?) Clarityfiend (talk) 20:08, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it seems like they all redirect to the same Middle-earth#Geography section which makes the category merely a nuisance. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, no need for a category in this case. Hog Farm (talk) 22:29, 27 December 2019 (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. MER-C 02:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Middle-earth inns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Every entry is a redirect. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it seems like they all redirect to the same Middle-earth#Geography section which makes the category merely a nuisance. By the way the section does not even mention the inns. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per arguments above. Hog Farm (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, but I changed some of the redirects to more appropriate targets. Goustien (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2019 (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. MER-C 02:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Middle-earth towers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Every entry is a redirect. Part of the general purging of Tolkiencruft. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:07, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. No point in having this category anymore. Hog Farm (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2019 (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. MER-C 02:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:U.S. Highways by State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Same reasoning as the nomination for deletion of Category:Interstate Highways by State . The category U.S. Highways by state (lowercase "state" versus uppercase "State") already exists and serves as a container category for the various Category:U.S. Highways in <state> pages. There is no need for this new category which would eventually contain every one of the entries in the Category:U.S. Highways in <state> pages in one huge multi-paged category. Indyguy (talk) 19:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the same reason as Category:Interstate Highways by State. Redundant to and not as useful as the existing Category:U.S. Highways by state. All this category does is sort by highway number ascendingly and then by state alphabetically (not even geographically), so it is not particularly useful for navigation. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:32, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—the category unneeded and would not be useful for navigation. Imzadi 1979 → 20:10, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete redundant, I'm reverting now. Cards84664 (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; please just delete this category now, I'm sorry for making it. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighwayTyper (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant and unneeded. Dough4872 23:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why did this category get created anyway? It's redundant. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:05, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:01, 28 December 2019 (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. MER-C 02:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Interstate Highways by State (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The category Interstate Highways by state (lowercase "state" versus uppercase "State") already exists and serves as a container category for the various Category:Interstate Highways in <state> pages. There is no need for this new category which would eventually contain every one of the entries in the Category:Interstate Highways in <state> pages in one huge multi-paged category. Indyguy (talk) 18:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to and not as useful as the existing Category:Interstate Highways by state. All this category does is sort by highway number ascendingly and then by state alphabetically (not even geographically), so it is not particularly useful for navigation. See also the similar Category:U.S. Highways by State, which I ran across due to this request; my rationale for deletion would also apply to that category, if nominated. (As I have declined the addition of the given article to said category, I will defer the nomination to another editor, so as not to appear involved.) --Kinu ^t/_c 19:23, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—the category unneeded and would not be useful for navigation. Imzadi 1979 → 20:11, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete similar to "U.S. Highways by State" above. Cards84664 (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; please just delete this category now, I'm sorry for making it. :( — Preceding unsigned comment added by HighwayTyper (talk • contribs) 20:40, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Redundant and unneeded. Dough4872 23:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Why did this category get created anyway? It's redundant. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 01:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:00, 28 December 2019 (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 the articles only. MER-C 02:58, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Stargate races to Category:Stargate

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. The redirects being in article space isn't particularly helpful for navigation. They should be in a "redirects to list" category. TTN (talk) 17:48, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the two articles per nom (excluding the redirects). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 29 December 2019 (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. MER-C 03:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People from Bălți County (Romania) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As far as I know, the practice is to categorize people by origin from a currently existing county/district, not by the entity that existed at the time of the subject’s birth. The user has created origin categories for the counties of Bessarabia that existed during the period of Greater Romania. As these have been defunct for 75 years, the action seems futile. Biruitorul ^Talk 15:29, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This is an area where anachronism is difficult to avoid. We generally categorise by current boundaries. Bălți is now part of Moldova. A Bălți County (Moldova) existed for a few years, but the county now has 32 districts instead of 10 counties. The outcome of this ought to be that the people articles are distributed to the relevant district subcat of Category:Moldovan people, but that may be asling a lot of closing admin. Can the nom add the appropriate subcat to each bio article and then tell us that he had done that. Otherwise, we may lose valuable data on the people. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, and - in response of Peterkingiron's comment - all five articles already are in Category:People from Bălți or in a district category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- per nom. If consistently applied, this innovation would put the same article in tens of new redundant categories. Past administrative divisions are irrelevant as places of birth, whichever the country. Dahn (talk) 13:01, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose, because the nominator's rationale for deleting the category is based on an erroneous supposition, namely that it would somehow not be the practice to categorize subjects by the entity that existed at the time of the subject’s birth (in addition to the currently existing county/district, of course; these two do not cancel each other out). In actual fact, there exists a well-established and very large scheme for characterizing subjects according to former countries/provinces/etc. Moreover, this scheme is certainly not an innovation, but has already been in existence for many years. Example: Category:People from the Province of Brandenburg, which includes 679 subjects and is a subcategory of Category:People from Prussia, which is a subcategory of Category:People from former German states, which is a subcategory of Category:People by former country, which has existed since 2007 and has 209 direct subcategories and a huge number of indirect subcategories. Quod erat demonstrandum. Pamrel (talk) 01:46, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This tree primarily exists for the sake of categorizing rulers, government officials and military personnel of former countries. It would be very odd to e.g. classify a 9th-century Iranian writer as "of the Abbasid Caliphate" in case he has never worked at the court in Bagdad, while for generals it makes perfect sense to be "of the Abbasid Caliphate". Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 1 January 2020 (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. MER-C 02:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy technology to Category:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy

Nominator's rationale: Only two articles. The redirects go to the list, so they're unneeded even should it survive AfD. TTN (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge back to main category per nom. We do not need multiple categories for a single franchise. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - while in this case I agree, that's a pretty sweeping statement. The Star Wars and Star Trek categories would be pretty full if we didn't have multiple categories for them. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I count 22 in Category:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, so I don't know why you say that there are only two. If you are talking about the technology category then there are 8. What category are you saying has only two entries? I vote for not merging. Val42 (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There are only two articles in the category because the 6 redirects all redirect to the article that is already in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom, and purge the redirects. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 28 December 2019 (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. MER-C 02:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Men in Black (franchise) weapons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only two files. TTN (talk) 15:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are only two images! Clarityfiend (talk) 20:12, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 27 December 2019 (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, also to Category:Fictional technology. MER-C 02:55, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Stargate technology to Category:Stargate

Nominator's rationale: Only one article TTN (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Dual merge also to Category:Fictional technology. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 27 December 2019 (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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 02:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Regal Entertainment Group to Category:Regal Cinemas

Nominator's rationale: Corporate renaming. See article Regal Cinemas for history and references. Senator2029 “Talk” 07:47, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, according to the article, Regal Cinemas is just one of the three brands of Regal Entertainment Group. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 28 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Senator2029: please reply. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, as best I can tell, that part of the article hasn’t been updated yet. But in looking at their website, they refer to themselves and their corporate structure with both “new” and “old” names. If the company can’t clearly state their identity, then that’s their fault. Therefore—unless another editor has more information—I withdraw my request. Senator2029 “Talk” 09:13, 2 January 2020 (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. MER-C 02:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Catholic nuns to Category:Catholic religious sisters and nuns

Nominator's rationale In Catholicism, there is a distinction between a Religious sister (Catholic) and a nun, hence the wider category name. This is present in the category tree structures of both the Roman Catholic and Eastern Catholic traditions. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Either follow nomination, or implement a full split between nuns and sisters. Keeping as is, with a very underpopulated nuns category, certainly does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection -- It should not be necessary repeatedly to relist something like this. Several of us patrol CFD and would object if appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 27 December 2019 (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. MER-C 02:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:School shields (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category is a misnomer and its description says "This category is for logos relating to academic institutions" which is redundant to its parent category, Category:Academic institution logos. I have emptied the category and there was 40 files and a subcategory — for some it was just simply removing the category whereas for others it was changing ((Non-free logo)) to the dedicated ((Non-free school logo)) which automatically populates the Academic institution logos category. I've also uploaded new logo replacements for most of them, and two have been tagged for deletion straight away as the articles have been redirected to their locality. Also following this discussion. Steven (Editor) (talk) 00:07, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – with thanks to @Steven (Editor): for identifying this redundancy and making the changes. Senator2029 “Talk” 07:58, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:15, 28 December 2019 (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. MER-C 02:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Carey Elmore Morgan, Jr. to Category:Songs written by Carey Morgan

Nominator's rationale: The composer and lyricist Carey Morgan is mostly widely known as such (see e.g. VIAF and WorldCat), not by his full name. The category should thus be renamed, per WP:COMMONNAME and to harmonize category with the parent article. I'm not terribly familiar with category naming conventions for songwriters: Morgan appears to be known as a songwriter, composer and lyricst, so I'm not opposed to this category being named "Category:Songs by Carey Morgan" or "Category:Carey Morgan songs" if either more conventional, but I feel it's better to start with a single, all-inclusive category until the sheer number of elements warrants talk of any additional categories. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support in the spirit of WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per the last line of WP:C2D. Oculi (talk) 10:51, 27 December 2019 (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. I have put the article currently called Examples of yellowface into the parent categories. – Fayenatic London 09:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Yellowface in Film to Category:Yellowface in film

Nominator's rationale: Obviously the rename could be handled by a speedy, I just thought that it was worth bringing this newly-created category to wider attention, not least because I have a feeling that it or something similar has already been created in the past. It's not a subject I know much about other than recognising the sensitivity involved, I will note that we already have Category:Blackface minstrel shows and films with 60+ members but Yellowface is a redirect to Portrayal of East Asians in American film and theater.

How do other people feel about it, is it WP:DEFINING and is this the right name? Le Deluge (talk) 16:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. Not sure. The blackface category does weigh in its favour though, so I'm leaning towards a rename rather than a deletion. If it stays it should be restricted to films where it is a major character or characters who appear that way (e.g., Marlon Brando in Teahouse of the August Moon) and not just minor instances (like Mickey Rooney's awful portrayal in Breakfast at Tiffany's). Grutness...wha? 02:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:NONDEF and also nominate the Blackface category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - @Marcocapelle: I'd definitely keep the blackface category. I can't speak for other countries but it's definitely a "thing" (historically) in the UK even if it's something we'd rather forget about now - we even had primetime TV shows like The Black and White Minstrel Show where blackface was WP:DEFINING. And on a more technical Wikipedia note, it has its own article with over 300 references on it, so a category is justified, whereas Yellowface is a redirect. Whether it should redirect to an American article is another question - yellowface is far less of a thing here as we have a much smaller East Asian community, but there are examples on this side of the pond such as the Fu Manchu derivatives, notably with Peter Sellers. Arguably, @Grutness:, that Rooney performance has become notable through being so iconically awful - it has had articles and documentaries about it. Le Deluge (talk) 16:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining for the 4 articles currently in it. All are in many much more appropriate categories - e.g. Dragon Seed (film) in Category:1940s war drama films. WP:DNWAUC applies. DexDor ^(talk) 10:52, 27 December 2019 (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. MER-C 03:07, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historical simulation games to Category:Video games with historical settings

Nominator's rationale: Not my area so I'm open to persuasion, but this looks like a near-enough duplicate of Category:Video games with historical settings? Le Deluge (talk) 19:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Historical simulation games is properly a subcat. A game can have an historical setting without being a simulation (viz. Assassin's Creed)

• Support, building an entire empire or achieving a rapid social class climb are no realistic simulations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A historical simulation is not the same as a game set in the past. TheAwesomeHwyh 17:33, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Historical simulation video games, and make it a subcategory of Historical simulation games, along with Category:World War II board wargames, Category:American Civil War wargames, and Category:Napoleonic Wars board wargames, etc. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2020 (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. MER-C 02:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Classification to Category:Classification systems

Nominator's rationale: Apart from the eponymous article all the articles are about classification systems Rathfelder (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the category might be populated by the articles mentioned at Classification (disambiguation). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 18 December 2019 (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.