< October 12	October 14 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 02:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete, the scope of this category is entirely unclear. Alienation is a dab page which provides many possible meanings for alienation. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Delete per nom. Scope insufficiently defined. Fiamh ^{(talk, contribs)} 23:26, 21 October 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 10:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gannett (company) to Category:Gannett

Nominator's rationale: Match renamed lead article Gannett. This category renaming was opposed on the Speedy page, but there are no other candidates for a category at Gannett (disambiguation). For the record, there was a previous discussion which was open to further renaming. – Fayenatic London 11:48, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Speedy discussion
Category:Gannett (company) to Category:Gannett – C2D: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Oppose at least speedy. The current name was chosed during a full discussion, which shouldn’t be speedily overturned. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] That CFD was explicitly closed without prejudice to further renames. It is common to have a full discussion when moving to a category name that could be ambiguous, but there is no other candidate for a category at Gannett (disambiguation). – Fayenatic London 12:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply] Yeah, that's correct, but that further rename should follow a full discussion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of Speedy discussion

Category:Gannett (company) to Category:Gannett – C2D: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at least speedy. The current name was chosed during a full discussion, which shouldn’t be speedily overturned. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 05:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That CFD was explicitly closed without prejudice to further renames. It is common to have a full discussion when moving to a category name that could be ambiguous, but there is no other candidate for a category at Gannett (disambiguation). – Fayenatic London 12:22, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's correct, but that further rename should follow a full discussion. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:30, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support - seems uncontroversial. Oculi (talk) 19:02, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft oppose on personal preference that, at least in terms of categories, the parenthetical qualifier is helpful. Alternative proposal would be to delete this category per WP:TRIVIALCAT and upmerge the pages to a newspaper chains category.Doug Mehus (talk) 22:49, 19 October 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 10:41, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Gaelic poets (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Category:Gaelic writers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and Category:Gaelic-language literature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Container category for poets who wrote in one or more of the Goidelic languages. We don't typically have container categories for related languages; there's no Category:Germanic-language poets, Category:Semitic-language poets or Category:Slavic-language poets. In addition, it causes unnecessary confusion because "Gaelic" by itself often refers to Scottish Gaelic. Constituent categories are already in Category:Poets by language. Zerach (talk) 08:17, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Question, then what about parent Category:Gaelic writers and grandparent Category:Gaelic-language literature? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: added to the nomination. Zerach (talk) 22:59, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that the Gaelic categories need to be disambiguated, due to confusion between Irish Gaelic and Scottish Gaelic. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 16:42, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping them as dab pages might be a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:59, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It's a distinct language within the Goidelic tribe of languages like Category:Basque-language poets. It's also has the majority of speakers / writers within Goideldom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Laurel Lodged: which language are you referring to: Irish Gaelic, Scottish Gaelic, Old Irish? Marcocapelle (talk) 03:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Changing my vote.Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - container categories per language family (in this case, sub-family) is often a bad idea. No article would be affected by this deletion, as coatrack article Gaelic literature is also in children Category:Irish-language literature, Category:Manx-language literature and Category:Scottish Gaelic literature. Place Clichy (talk) 07:25, 15 October 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 10:44, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:CIS Men's Basketball Championship to Category:U Sports Men's Basketball Championship

Nominator's rationale: The CIS Men's Basketball Championship was renamed U Sports Men's Basketball Championship when Canadian Interuniversity Sport (CIS) was renamed U Sports in 2016. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:56, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support – this is the standard convention on how these sorts of changes are handled. SportsGuy789 (talk) 15:44, 16 October 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: do not merge. MER-C 10:45, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:R.E. Mouscron players to Category:Royal Excel Mouscron players

Nominator's rationale: There have been some bankrupcties and mergers here and there, but the currently existing club, Royal Excel Mouscron, counts its history back to 1922 when R.E. Mouscron was founded (cf. the club logo), they have more or less the same name and the same initials etc. So it would be the commonplace decision to categorize historic players under the existing club. Geschichte (talk) 07:22, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Giant Snowman 08:20, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - whilst we have separate articles on the clubs (R.E. Mouscron and Royal Excel Mouscron) and therefore consider them separate clubs, we should have separate categories accordingly. Giant Snowman 08:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:16, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it is more accurate to categorise R.E. Mouscron players within Category:R.E. Mouscron players and Royal Excel Mouscron players within Category:Royal Excel Mouscron players, and to make the former a subcategory of the latter to denote the historical relationship. Exactly as has been done here. Oculi (talk) 12:36, 14 October 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: listify. MER-C 10:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Combiners (Transformers) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Pretty much every article and subcategory of this category are going to get deleted. What we'll end up with is Dinobots (who aren't a combiner group anyway) and Transformers technology (which isn't specific to combiners). Therefore this category is pretty much useless. Delete. JIP | Talk 23:28, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are several more articles in this category not currently nominated for AfD. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Several? Not counting the redirects, I count all of two: Predacon and Motormaster. JIP | Talk 07:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So that makes a total of 4 articles. Admittedly, that is quite small, I'm therefore not opposing the category's removal. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do count the redirects as well. Categorising redirects is legitimate, see WP:Categorizing redirects. However, it might well be more use to make a list within an appropriate page on Transformers (cf. Category:Lists of Transformers characters), incorporating the descriptive text currently on the category page. – Fayenatic London 09:24, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support Fayenatic's london proposal, merging information into the list. Dimadick (talk) 09:39, 17 October 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 per the alternative proposal. MER-C 17:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Specific models to Category:Conceptual models

Nominator's rationale: Propose upmerge. The name of this category is not very informative, and there seems no point in maintaining it. Category:Conceptual models is where one would expect to find specific models listed, no? SpinningSpark 23:15, 4 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, it may be useful to distinguish a topic category and a set category, but that distinction should be clarified on the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't disagree with that, but "specific models" is such a bad title; I'm expecting to find Kate Moss in there. A solution might be to have category:conceptual modelling with category:conceptual models as a sub-category. But that still requires category:specific models to be emptied into category:conceptual models. Plus, some of the existing content of conceptual models first being upmerged to the new category. SpinningSpark 06:52, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming them both for a better clarification of the content. Some content needs to be moved manually from one category to the other indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the alternative proposal is:

Propose renaming Category:Conceptual models to Category:Conceptual modelling
Propose renaming Category:Specific models to Category:Conceptual models

I have only just tagged Category:Conceptual models so this discussion should stay open for at least another week. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative double rename. Admin note: these will have to be listed for the bot to process one at a time! – Fayenatic London 09:01, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Discrete models. Current name is really bad but this was probably the intention. gidonb (talk) 10:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that as much of an improvement. The term is just as vague and ambiguous to the general reader. Further, in an engineering context it is positively misleading. It does not mean a particular model; rather, it means a model based on the finite element method. Or, in electrical engineering, the lumped element model. This could easily lead people to exclude continuous models from the category, which shouldn't be our intention here. SpinningSpark 12:17, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - If it does not work in the engineering context, I will support Marco Capelle's proposal. I would rather use different roots but maybe this all that works. I come to this problem with a background in several social sciences, i.e. another valid and important modeling perspective. It's important that we develop a categorization system that works from all major perspectives. gidonb (talk) 00:40, 22 October 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.

October 13

Category:Behavior models

Category:Behavior selection algorithms

Category:Behavior modelling

Category:Alienation

Category:Pages containing click using deprecated parameters

Category:Gannett (company)

Category:Gaelic poets

Category:CIS Men's Basketball Championship

Category:R.E. Mouscron players

Category:Combiners (Transformers)

Category:Specific models

Category:Canadian subsidiaries of foreign companies