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. MER-C 09:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Keto acids (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT: This category seems to be for any compound that has both a keto group and a carboxyl group, even if they're on opposite sides of the molecule, like Moronic acid and Celastrol. Keto and carboxyl groups that far away from each other are unlikely to influence each other's chemical properties. Compounds with their keto groups a set distance away from the carboxyl groups can merit categories—I have already created Category:Alpha-keto acids and Category:Beta-keto acids and would be willing to create Category:Gamma-keto acids—but anything beyond that seems to me like a compound that just happens to have two particular common functional groups in organic chemistry and could be upmerged to Category:Ketones and Category:Carboxylic acids Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 19:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe that we should get rid of Category:Hydroxy acids for the same reason. Should I make a separate discussion for it or put it in the same discussion as Category:Keto acids? Care to differ or discuss with me? The N^th User 21:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. My question is, to which category would article "Keto acid" belong? --kupirijo (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is a useful category for chemical compounds (and subcategories) where the ketone group and acid group are near enough to each other to have a noteworthy interaction. For other chemical compunds where the two groups are too far apart, just remove them from the category. ChemNerd (talk) 01:37, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural question, shouldn't the two subcategories be nominated as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment, subCategory:Beta-keto acids will become orphaned if Category:Keto acids is deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Category:Alpha-keto acids and Category:Beta-keto acids should remain in this category, it makes sense to remain a super cat even if there are few individual pages to go in it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:59, 2 July 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of food to Category:History of food and drink

Nominator's rationale: The subcategory is quite small and the proposed parent has room for growth. Moreover, the main article Food history is in fact located in Category:History of food and drink. Pichpich (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and we do not have a separate Category:Food either (it is a redirect to Category:Foods). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 07:12, 5 June 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American federal health officials to Category:American health officials

Nominator's rationale: Only content is Category:United States Department of Health and Human Services officials. This seems to be an unnecessary intermediate category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:42, 4 June 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. I suggest that the next step should be a ((subst:Cfd|type=Restructure)) CFD discussion on the structure, proposing (i) definitions of scope for each of the three categories, and (ii) which should be the parent of which others. – Fayenatic London 06:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment nominated for merge as it's a clear POV fork of Category:Islamophobia. // Liftarn (talk) 09:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, User:Santasa99 apparently opposes, see this edit. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt merge to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, these terms are synonymous, while Islamophobia is more specific. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would make less sense since Anti-Islam sentiment is about the religion, but Islamophobia is about the people. // Liftarn (talk) 08:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment, I tagged the category page with the right template. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, I strongly oppose. Here's clue: in Yugoslavia Muslim was and in Serbia, Montenegro and Bulgaria still is national and ethnic designation. These two categories indicate different things: "Islamophobia" is more specific identity-wise (on Wikipedia Islamophobia apparently doesn't infer racism and/or ethnic chauvinism and discrimination, only "Religious discrimination", which is its top category), while "Anti-Muslim sentiment" should indicate animosity toward individual and group Muslim(s) identity in most comprehensive sense (religion, culture, tradition, names), and should, along with "Islamophobia" category and "Anti-Islam sentiment" category, cover articles concerning, also violence against Muslims, sentiment expressed broadly and/or more vaguely in works, academia, media etc. In many cases usage of "Islamophobia" category was rejected or removed from articles. Editors obviously still refuse to regard Islamophobia as variety of racism, that's why top category "Racism" doesn't include Islamophobia, it includes "Anti-xy sentiments" of all varieties except those concerning Muslim. I suggest leave all three separate, at least for now.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 19:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But do you agree that Anti-Muslim sentiment and Anti-Islam sentiment are synonymous, in line with the alternative merge proposal? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, they are even further apart. Anti-Islam can be just that, anti-religious rhetoric veiled as genuine Islam criticism, without openly going after people's feelings. For example, Anti-Islam sentiment is expressed in case when Switzerland banned construction of minarets on mosques - they never said we don't want Muslims or Islam in our midst, just one particularly visible expression of "alien" religion. Islamophobia cat is closer to Anti-Muslim cat, and ideally one of those should be enough, but it isn't, because have problem even defining Islamophobia as racism here on Wikipedia - I'm telling you, it's not even included under Racism category, and it's really hard to use it at all, same with Anti-Islam cat, editors constantly removing it; that's a symptom of general attitude toward Muslims, their religion on one side and everything else that is part of communal and individual life and identity of Muslim on other - their identity, their names, their culture, their culinary habits, fashion style,... We tend to lump all aspect of their identity together. If ban on construction of minarets in Switzerland falls under Anti-Islam cat, than ban on burka is Islamophobia, but than Trump's rhetoric of denying entrance to US for all Muslims, no matter if they are secular or even atheists, yes, atheist Muslims like ones in Bosnia, Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria, who identify as Muslims in ethnic and national sense only and exclusively, is Anti-Muslim sentiment. Anti-Muslim sentiment should comprise of all these aspects, Anti-Islam, Islamophobia, violence, academia, media, and as such (having all these as sub-cats) should fall under Racism top cat.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 21:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I had not heard of any people identifying themselves as Atheist Muslims before, but anyway that is not what most people have in mind in the context of anti-Muslim or anti-Islam. Anti-Islam or anti-Muslim is related to religious beliefs of religious people. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, that's unfortunate than, because that's quite prejudiced stance for people to hold. Link (By the way Google it for "atheist Muslims" and see what happens.)--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:10, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Rizvi that Islam is a religion; it’s a set of beliefs, a bunch of ideas in a book. It's not human. Muslims are real, living, breathing people, and to me, there's a big difference between criticizing ideas and demonizing human beings but that is just a personal opinion. In common language, anti-Muslim is anti-people with Islamic beliefs because Muslim in common language is someone with Islamic beliefs. The content of the category is also not clearly distinct, except for the fact that it is mostly about violence against Muslims. So I would not object to renaming this category to Category:Anti-Muslim violence and move everything that is not about violence to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Islamophobia is to Islam and Muslim and antisemtism is to Judaism and Jew. Islamophobia is racism against Muslims (as a cultural group). Islamophobes happily attack ateist Muslims just as well as devout. // Liftarn (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• If they do, so if it is unrelated to Islam as a religion, then it is presumably a case of Anti-Arabism. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No, as not all Arabs are Muslims and vice versa (even if there may be an overlap). Islamophobia is against Muslims as a cultural group (just as not all antisemites are OK with converted Jews). For instance the eurabia conspiracy theory openly says that being Muslim is a genetic trait they pass on to their children. // Liftarn (talk) 08:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• We should not use a conspiracy theory to define what a Muslim is. In normal and scientific language a Muslim is an adherent of Islam, and Islam is a religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When describing and categorising something we should use what the term is, not a strinct semantic interpretation so yes, islamophobia is a type of racism directed against Muslims as a racified group. // Liftarn (talk) 07:21, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge both Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Islamophobia to this category. "phobia" means fear, so that this category is wider than Islamophobia, and would cover passive hostility to Islam. And Purge all of articles on individuals, as being ATTACK categorisation. At a quick glance, the two individuals appear to be journalists, who may write about all sorts of things. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge both categories to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. Note that a 2012 CfD decided for a merge to Anti-Islam, that Islamophobia was recreated in 2016, and that a 2016 CfD ended in no consensus. Note also that the new Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment is currently both a child and a parent of both Category:Anti-Islam sentiment and Category:Islamophobia, resulting in several category cycles that the discussion should also address. Place Clichy (talk) 00:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• At second thought I am equally fine with this second alternative of merging both Category:Anti-Muslim sentiment and Category:Islamophobia to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment. Category:Islamophobia distinguishes itself mainly by having collected articles with "Islamophobia" in the article title, but the content is not very distinct either. Note that User:Place Clichy just tagged the other two categories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:02, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, @Marcocapelle: I can't speak of "common language" because I can't measure it. However, we can agree on some so-called "common sense", and I can try to persuade community about apparent existence of "Islamophobia"-related edits on Wikipedia in vacuum - for instance, it's not included under "Racism"; one can't easily use it to categorize articles (strangely there are no "Islamophobes" on Wikipedia, dead or alive - what kind of phenomenon is that, than), and so on. So, in light of all previous comments, and under the circumstances, where, for instance, "Islamophobia" is regarded as "Phobia", not "Racism" (as per vote by User:Peterkingiron above), I'd say there should be some way to appreciate importance to designate racialisation of Muslims, objectivization of experiences, defining all the aspects as it's monolithic, and animosity that arise from it. Islamophobia and Anti-Islam sentiment are different aspects of Anti-Muslim prejudice. It seems to me same attitude prevails at the project as well.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 07:15, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no case for racism in any of the three categories under discussion. There are also white Muslims and neither anti-Islam nor anti-Muslim nor Islamophobia specifically excludes sentiment against white Muslims. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ouh, that's how things are. I can't say I'm surprised. Surely, we are all entitled to our opinion.... unless we are using them to shield set of beliefs ought be abandoned long time ago.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 03:17, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Semitism is included into Category:Racism, you are aware of that, are you?--౪ Santa ౪^99° 13:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I am, but Semitic people is not based on religion, so it is incomparable with the three above religion-based categories. Anti-Judaism is more similar. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• So, all shenanigans aside, you have little if any understanding of what Antisemitism is, along with vague, if not outright problematic, understanding of Racism itself, yet you would like to influence issue in this thread. That's one of the reason why we will never be able to rise Wikipedia project to a level of quality of recommended reference source.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:38, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Though I do know what Islam is, namely a religion, and that is what we are discussing here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Religion" part of it is relatively easy to guess as it's well known to majority of planet inhabitants, problem is that everything else about Islam escapes you. This could be because you are either uninformed or really lacking neutrality, either way you are not correct, we are actually debating, albeit in insufficiently competent manner, few tiny bits of various aspects making Islam as a whole. That much is clear from entire exchange in this thread. I respect that everyone is entitled to opinion, but I doubt that your own is neutral enough, let alone sufficiently informed for even superficial debate such as this one.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 20:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• This is borderline WP:PERSONAL, please stick to the topic of the discussion. Is Islam a religion or not? Please read the article Islam and note that the article is abundantly sourced. There is nothing about race in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about you stick to assuming good faith before lashing out with accusations, or maybe reading WP:PERSONAL before using it as basis for such accusations - I know my limits, granted by project's guidelines. All this time I assumed good faith on your part, and never disregarded its spirit even with your attempts to dilute the focus, and divert and confuse discussion by creating false analogies - by the way, we are discussing Islamophobia, which is racism, its aspects and instances as such, with a mentioning of Antisemitism and Racism, not Islam - all of which are legitimate reasons for legitimate questioning of levels of your informedness, and at this point adherence to good faith. I read WP:PERSONAL and WP:COI, now maybe it's your turn. This being said, maybe it's better if avoid directing any further comments at each other.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 17:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• As this discussion merely leads to accusations I stop. We obviously disagree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• My 0.02 - I think the word is "discrimination" or "prejudice" or "bigotry" or something like that, not "racism". Islam is not a race, and Muslim is not a race, not in any country. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Black is a colour, not arace yet hate and discrimination of people with dark skin is still called racism. In other news, people who are not athletes may get athlete's foot. // Liftarn (talk) 07:29, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Racism is based on how someone looks. What does a Muslim look like? It varies so much that it's fair to say you can't describe someone as a Muslim based on how they look. A non-Muslim woman may even wear a headscarf as a fashion statement. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 21:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are wrong, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. // Liftarn (talk) 11:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Even though I'm right, this is all a side issue anyway. -- Doctorx0079 (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Islamophobia, which is the only established and scholarly term. --Tataral (talk) 08:08, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse Merge into Category:Anti-Islam sentiment which should cover it all. Jason from nyc (talk) 01:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: It doesn't even begin to cover it all. Not all groups who are identified as "Muslim(s)" adhere to Islam in sense that not all of them are believers, which is in particular the case with Balkan Muslims and Turks who are and will always be perceived as Muslims regardless. Victims of Bosnian Genocide were both Muslim believers and non-believers, slaughtered on perception of their identity as ethnic and national.

However, bottom line should be a question - why should we merge these categories anyway, especially when voters have no consistent view on what are distinct features of three, and consequently which should be merged with which - no two propositions are the same here. Each of these categories fit into its own respective top (parent) category perfectly as it should, with these parents being significantly populated and important; each is populated by more than enough of its own sub-categories. Not every overlapping is baseless, and if some are they should be removed and/or re-categorized.--౪ Santa ౪^99° 11:40, 21 July 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: moot (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Powers of Two (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem appropriate. Not needed for navigation, as the article has a list, and there are, I believe, no other categories of numbers which include articles on the individual numbers. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I don't see how this category is helpful in any way - and all the less in light of the very comprehensive article, Powers of two. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - Already deleted per authors request, CSD G7. I'll admit, if you wanted to talk about it, you could have left a message on my talk page before you CfD'ed so we could talk beforehand. If you would have communicated to the author your concerns, that would have been the far more ideal outcome. I would have listened, and agreed to blank it for CSD G7. Given that the category was less than a day old, and was created WP:AGF, you could have given a notice prior to putting up the CfD. There's nothing that can be done anymore though, because it has already been created.UtopianPoyzin (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • But, if the CfD still exists, then that means that there is still room for discussion, even if the category was speedily deleted. You noted that there were no categories of numbers. I too noticed this, which is why I was hesitant to continue adding categories, such as Powers of Three and Prime Numbers. Instead, I chose to be WP:BOLD and create it, because while you can put numbers into a list, categories have unique properties that lists do not, such as being targetable by various modules and scripts, as well as XTools analysis. Now, I agree that a list serves the purpose just fine, and I don't know any clear reason to target Powers of Two, but I also wanted to test the waters to classify integers based on a recurring property they share, allowing those interested to view as a whole. Prime numbers are a category of numbers, even if they aren't suitable to be a category on Wikipedia. I do agree that the category should have been deleted... but why can't categories of numbers exist? I tested the waters on this first category, which was wrong on my part, but what's to stop these categories from existing? UtopianPoyzin (talk) 15:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers would be appropriate. I'll see if I can find a previous discussion in the archives. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:39, 4 June 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 (including the Portugal categories, which are not merged to Category:Medieval Portugal). MER-C 09:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:3rd century BC in Spain‎ to Category:3rd century BC in Hispania‎
• Propose renaming Category:2nd century BC in Spain‎ to Category:2nd century BC in Hispania‎
• Propose renaming Category:1st century BC in Spain to Category:1st century BC in Hispania‎
• Propose renaming Category:3rd century in Spain‎ to Category:3rd century in Hispania‎
• Propose renaming Category:4th century in Spain‎ to Category:4th century in Hispania‎
• Propose renaming Category:5th century in Spain‎ to Category:5th century in Hispania‎
• Propose renaming Category:6th century in Spain‎ to Category:6th century in Hispania‎
• Propose merge Category:5th century in Portugal‎ to Category:5th century in Hispania‎ and Category:Medieval Portugal
• Propose merge Category:6th century in Portugal‎ to Category:6th century in Hispania‎ and Category:Medieval Portugal

Nominator's rationale: rename/merge, consistent with article Hispania and Category:Hispania for up to the 6th century. Note: after the proposed rename Category:Hispania can be added as an additional parent, and the above categories can be populated further by adding articles that are now directly in Category:Hispania. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support except two Portugal items, which should not be merged to Category:Medieval Portugal as there was no such polity at the time. From 711, most of Iberia was subject to the Umayyad Caliphate (or Kingdom of Cordoba), so that categories for it should be used from that date. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as it breaks the category structure when there's no issue. It is quite clear that "Hispania" and "Spain" have a lot in commons. There's no doubt when looking at a category for this period that we're not talking about the country of Spain in its current moder form. Also, most of the content (for instance anything related to archaeology) can just as well use the words "Spain" and "Portugal". Place Clichy (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It does not break it, it just makes a later start, namely in the 8th century CE rather than the 3rd century BC. Note that there is an issue: by keeping Category:Hispania and these categories apart we just have an unnecessary fork. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support except two Portugal items per Peter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:48, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• @Peterkingiron and Laurel Lodged: So, for the latter two, if I understand correctly you are supporting merging Category:5th century in Portugal‎ to Category:5th century in Hispania‎ and Category:6th century in Portugal‎ to Category:6th century in Hispania‎, right? I can live with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:39, 15 June 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/delete. MER-C 11:17, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:7th century in Spain‎ to Category:7th century in the Visigothic Kingdom‎
• Propose delete Category:7th century in Portugal‎

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, in the 7th century Spain and Portugal were nearly coterminous with the Visigothic Kingdom. Add existing parent categories of Category:7th century in Spain‎ as additional parent categories to Category:7th century in the Visigothic Kingdom‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support We should not have Portugal categories before perhaps 1070, when Portugal was separated from the kingdom of Leon or Galicia. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose same as above: breaks the consistency of chronology categories when there's no need for it. Place Clichy (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:49, 15 June 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 to delete all, so merge but purging members where this is not defining for the character. This will include the new categories linked at the end of this discussion. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Option A

• Propose merging Category:Time travelers in film to Category:Time travelers

Nominator's rationale: Not a necessary sub of time travelers. bd2412 created this category because he felt that restrictions for entries for Category:Time travelers were too strong, (but understood that loosening the restrictions on it would cause an overload of comic book characters in it). I respectfully disagree with that, and feel the restrictions are the right strength and should be applied to all media. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The restrictions are ambiguous. What constitutes "frequent" time travel? Is it somehow relative to the total media featuring the character? There are characters whom the nominator himself added to this category who have made less significant "trips" in time than those excluded (e.g. Hermione Granger of Harry Potter media, who only engaged in the practice in one book/film of a lengthy series; Kyle Reese of The Terminator, who only made a single one-way trip through time in his life). The name of the category isn't Category:Frequent time travelers, so by its title it invites a very broad range of additions, irrespective of its internal description. bd2412 T 02:38, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Given these issues, should we categorize time travelers at all? A list may be a better solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, a previous Category:Fictional time travelers was deleted in a discussion in this forum over almost exactly the same issues a decade ago. A category restricted to those who time-traveled in film would be much narrower, and thus much less susceptible to problems. bd2412 T 11:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Option B added June 6th

• Propose deleting Category:Time travelers
• Propose deleting Category:Time travelers in film
• Propose deleting Category:Time travelers in comics

• It has also been deleted in this discussion two years earlier than the previously mentioned discussion. Delete again as a recreation of earlier deleted page and because of issues mentioned in this and earlier discussions. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:33, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Marcocapelle and prior consensus. Note that there is no difference between Category:Time travelers and Category:Fictional time travelers as no-one has successfully travelled in time in real life. --woodensuperman 08:11, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Why the distinction by medium here? Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dimadick: Wikipedia has thousands of articles on individual film characters, and thousands more on individual comic book characters. However, due to the nature of comic books and their stories, the number of independently notable comic book characters who engage in some form of time travel over the course of the run of their comic books is vastly greater than the number of independently notable film characters. Separate characters by genre would enable a more complete reporting of characters who have engaged in time travel, without generating a single excessively large category, or swamping representatives of one genre with those of another. Having separate categories also allows different restrictions to be placed on inclusion in each category, so that we can more broadly capture the specific set of time travelers in film. bd2412 T 14:54, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dimadick: I'm confused by what you're supporting. Do you want to delete all the categories, or just the sub categories? JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment No, I simply support merging them into a single category. I don't see the point of subdividing an underpopulated category into categories by medium. Dimadick (talk) 08:04, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep parent category I was unaware of the deletion of the previous category when I created the time travels category, but even knowing that, I think that it should be kept, provided that it's limited to characters that it's a defining characteristic for. While I 100% agree that the category becomes useless when characters who only time travel once are added to the category, if someone is researching time travel in fiction, it will be extremely useful to have an inventory of characters that time traveling is a defining aspect of. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 20:08, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Below is a list of the current contents. I am leaning delete on this issue, since the inclusion criteria, and possibly the contents, are no improvement over the previously deleted versions. I doubt, for instance, the inclusion of Link (The Legend of Zelda) and Stewie Griffin in the main category. Hermione Granger was singled out in at least one of the previous nominations. That said, there may be enough characters where this is a defining trait, but who decides the cutoff? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @LaundryPizza03: I would suggest that this is exactly the reason why it makes sense to have a Category:Time travelers in film. We have a Category:Films about time travel, which has 318 entries (which is somewhat more than the ~200 films at List of time travel works of fiction#Time travel in films, because of differing standards for inclusion). The vast majority of these films are basically one-shot premises (e.g. Somewhere in Time, Click, My Science Project, Time Under Fire, I'll Follow You Down), for which , there are not, and never will be, articles on individual characters in the films. Of course, most of the characters in these films do not engage in time travel at all, usually with only one or a handful doing so. Therefore, the universe of notable film characters who engage in time travel is set and reasonably small, even if we open the category up (as we should) to every single character of this type having an article. This benefits the reader. If they want to know what notable film characters have engaged in time travel in a film, that concise set of information is provided. bd2412 T 15:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Category:Time travelers, delete the "Time travelers in" subcategories - Inclusion in this category should be limited to those characters where time travel is a primary occupation. We wouldn't categorize someone in Category:Fictional baseball players just because they had one scene showing them tossing a baseball. Likewise, a character is only a time traveler if such time travel would be noted in the lead of their article or in some other very significant way. -- Netoholic @ 02:34, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Just pointing out that Category:Time travelers in television and Category:Time travelers in video games have also been created. --Gonnym (talk) 04:45, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, Category:Time travelers in anime and manga. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Omanyd: as you created those new categories during this discussion, they may be covered by the decision here, so you may wish to comment. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 6 August 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.