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 11:24, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Films with screenplays by Sadie Jones to Category:Works by Sadie Jones

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 members, of which one is a TV series –xeno^talk 19:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree: The change sounds absolutely fine to me. JezGrove (talk) 19:51, 10 August 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 17:26, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Films with screenplays by Douglas Adams to Category:Works by Douglas Adams

Nominator's rationale: only 1 member –xeno^talk 19:12, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom --DannyS712 (talk) 20:32, 18 August 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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Thank you Marcocapelle for pointing me towards WP:OCEPON, which I did not realized existed. (non-admin closure) Steel1943 (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Rebecca Black songs to Category:Rebecca Black

Nominator's rationale: For the simple fact this nominated category exists when its default parent category doesn't. However, unless this move occurs, I'm not certain a "Rebecca Black" category would be able to exist per WP:SMALLCAT, considering the nominated category seems to be the only existent "Rebecca Black" category. Steel1943 (talk) 18:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, this is a perfectly valid subcategory of Category:Songs by artist, and Category:Rebecca Black is not a default parent category, per WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 10 August 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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional villains to Category:Villains

Nominator's rationale: Unlike Category:Fictional heroes, which itself is currently at CfD, this category does not have a mythology counterpart, so it is just an unnecessary extra layer. And calling a real person a villain is not a good idea. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:52, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Johnbod (talk) 00:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Just because it is a bad idea to call a real person a villain, doesn't mean that it will not attract such content. And I also contend that calling Adolf Hitler a villain is not an an ATTACK either. If there is to be only one category, it should be called "Fictional villains" to address the issues you brought up with real life villainy. -- 65.94.169.16 (talk) 02:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, if I understand nominator well, the proposal is actually to convert Category:Villains to a category about fictional villains. That may work, but unlike a normal merge it also requires moving the content of the category page (header and parent categories) to the target. Also, leaving a redirect would be recommendable. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 14 August 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: keep. MER-C 18:44, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Burials at Arskoe Cemetery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF//WP:CATVER. None of the 5 articles in the category mentions "Arskoe". There is no article Arskoe or Arskoe Cemetery. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - The cemetery has an article in Russian (and many other languages) that should be translated to english. Unfortunatly all the articles in the category are very incomplete (like most articles about Russian subjects on enwiki), so of course they don't mention the subjects being buried in it (unlike corresponding Russian Wikipedia article versions that are longer). The cemetery is one of the most significant cemeteries in Kazan, and the corresponding Russian wikipedia category of people buried in it has dozens of entries, many of which should be given English articles one day. You will never get far looking up information about Russian history using only the English language.--PlanespotterA320 (talk) 14:46, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - seems to be a major cemetery - I've found a few more notables buried there. I've created a stub for it from the Ru-Wikipedia text. My Russian is pretty poor, so any corrections are welcome. Grutness...wha? 05:08, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - notable cemetery (now with article, thanks to Grutness) with potential for expansion, as per Planespotter A320. Ingratis (talk) 15:38, 12 August 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: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Witchcraft in video games to Category:Video games about witchcraft

Nominator's rationale: To avoid WP:NONDEF by making the criteria more specific. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 11 August 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: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ninja video games to Category:Video games about ninja

Nominator's rationale: To avoid WP:NONDEF by making the criteria more specific. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 11 August 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: delete. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Barack Obama in video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category violates WP:NONDEF in that none of the articles in it are actually defined by their inclusion of Obama. And as far as I know, there are no games specifically *about* Obama that are of note. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 11:24, 11 August 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: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Skeleton video games to Category:Video games about skeletons

Nominator's rationale: To avoid WP:NONDEF by making the criteria more specific. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. We may also consider deletion per WP:NONDEF.Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 11 August 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: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:42, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Samurai video games to Category:Video games about samurai

Nominator's rationale: Per consistency with other similar category names and to avoid WP:NONDEF situation. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 11 August 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: delete. MER-C 18:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Television Channel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: It's unclear what the intent of this category was upon creation, but if taken at face value it's a topic that is adequately covered by the Category:Television stations tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. However, I'll just open this can of worms. Category:Television channels redirects to Category:Television stations which lists categories such as Category:Lists of television channels and Category:Television channels and stations by year of establishment which means the name isn't good. Also, it would seem that not having a category as Category:Television channels is because "channels" is not a US thing as they use stations and networks (see WP:NCBC, but in other countries do use it. So tl/dr: the current category should be deleted, but the real issue is that the correct category isn't named correctly. --Gonnym (talk) 07:23, 10 August 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: delete. MER-C 18:15, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Disney depictions of women (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Objective POV. Espngeek (talk) 12:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, these are films with a leading role by a women character, this is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Any disney film with at least one female character would fit this category. --Kbdank71 19:13, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per above. Bondegezou (talk) 11:21, 11 August 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: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:E1 Music albums to Category:Entertainment One albums

Nominator's rationale: The target page for the record label E1 Music was moved to Entertainment One Music a long time ago. E1 and Koch Music are former names of the company. The remaining subcategories also need to be moved over. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Entertainment One and Entertainment One Music are different entities. In my view a better way of representing the change of name is to make Category:E1 Music albums a subcat of Category:Entertainment One Music albums, which I have done. An album released on the E1 Music label was not released on the Entertainment One Music label, and its article will not mention the latter name. Oculi (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I would directly oppose, but as these sort of changes have gone through before and created a whole mess at 'records by label' it would be churlish to oppose this particular change. However, the label a record is first issued on does not change because the record company has changed it's name, been sold or otherwise. 'Record label' has a distinct meaning not related to 'record company.' Nor, while I am ranting on the subject, should the record label be shown as the record company because the label does not have an article. Such assumptions fail WP:CATDEF and WP:CATV. The whole scheme needs review, not just this one nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:19, 10 August 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: delete. MER-C 11:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Virginia Tech Radio Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic of member articles. No other college sports radio network in the US has a devoted category. If kept, C2D to "Virginia Tech Sports Network". Raymie (t • c) 03:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; clearly WP:NOTDEFINING. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:30, 21 August 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: not renamed as proposed no prejudice against a nomination to align the years and decades. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:26, 24 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

• Category:Economic history by period to Category:Economy by period
• Category:Economics by year to Category:Economy by decade
• Category:1475 in economics to Category:1475 economy

• Category:Economic history by decade to Category:Economy by decade
• Category:1420s economic history to Category:1420s economy

• Category:Economic history by century to Category:Economy by century
• Category:6th-century economic history to Category:6th-century economy

:Nominator's rationale: to more accurately describe the scope of these categories, and to remove the inconsistency between the years and the decades/century. The word "history" is superfluous, because the use of a date is sufficient to indicate whether it's history.

Until 2016, the year, and century categories were named "[period] in economics". Then per CFD 2016 June 5, the century categories were renamed to "nth-century economic history". So far as I can see, the decade categories have always used the format "YYY0s economic history".

The CFD 2016 June 5 nomination correctly identified the problem, but adopted the wrong solution. The rationale by PanchoS is sound:

Economics is just the science about the economy, including various economic theories, economic terminology, and scholarly professions.
Everything these categories however contain isn't about economics (the science) but about the object of science: the economy, which also includes industries, businesses, the national economies, trade and various institutions

. I entirely agree with that, and summarise it as:

• Economy: the stuff that's actually happening, e.g. products, company formations, trade, business mergers, construction, banking, trade deals, workers rights, trade, labour disputes.
• Economics: the study of the economy, e.g. economic theory, statistics research, publications, academic institutions, etc

Unfortunately, the 2016 CFD missed the logic of its own analysis. The flaw is that economic history is also the study of the economy: economic history is the study of economies in the past.

So in 2016, we renamed from one form of study to another.

The solution is to just call it "economy", as we do with all other topics, e.g.

• Category:19th-century crimes (the object), not Category:19th-century criminology (the study of 19th-cent crime) or Category:19th-century criminal history
• Category:1840s earthquakes (the object), not Category:1840s seismology or Category:1840s seismological history
• Category:16th-century epidemics, not Category:16th-century epidemiology or Category:16th-century epidemiological history

I can see that meaning intended by the 2016 CFD was that e.g. Category:19th-century economic history would mean "history of the economy of the 19th century" ... but the adjectival form actually refers to the work of economic historians in the 19th century, such as David Ricardo or Karl Marx. That's not what the grouping we want.

The word "history" is superfluous, because the date denotes it as history. We have:

• Category:16th century, not Category:16th-century history
• Category:1930s in sports, not Category:1930s sports history
• Category:1960s fashion, not Category:1960s fashion history

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tagging. The categories have all been tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of economy by period[edit]

comments and !votes here please

• Certainly align the format of years and decades. I am less certain that "economic history" is wrong though. Economic history studies the stuff that was actually happening (in contrast to the history of economic thought), and besides economic history is a common term in contrast to e.g. criminal history. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: history is indeed the study of the stuff ... but we want the stuff itself, rather than the study thereof.
    Calling these categories "economic history" is like renaming Category:19th-century people to Category:19th-century biography. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You phrased it well but came to a different conclusion. We want to have (history of) the stuff itself (i.e. economic history) rather than (history of) the study thereof (i.e. history of economic thought). I do agree there is a tautological effect, the question is whether that outweighs the fact that economic history is the common name. Happy to hear what others think of it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- Economic history is rather broader than economics. I am an economic historian, but am not an economist. Economic history is not only the history of economics but also the economics of history. The scope is liable to cover a good deal that is about the history of commerce without being explicitly "economics". Peterkingiron (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: the latter would be an argument to support either the nomination or the alternative rename to economic history, wouldn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:48, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We do have some inconsistency in category naming, but I don't think this proposal's attempts to resolve it makes sense. The biggest problem is that in standard English the word "economy" is almost never used without an article, usually the definite article "the", so the categories proposed here look like grammatical errors. I am comfortable that many category trees use the word that means "the study of a thing," where the word for the "actual thing" would be technically more accurate: so we have, for example Category:2020 in medicine, not Category:2020 in disease; Category:2020 in biology not Category:2020 in life. So Category:2020 in economics is not significantly worse than Category:2020 in the economy by enough to warrant this change. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:28, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @UnitedStatesian: what is your opinion about the alternative "in economic history"? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I also oppose; again, while technically correct (anything that happens in a period of time is part of "history"), it is less WP:CONCISE and not consistent with how we treat other subjects (there exists no Category:2020 in the history of science, Category:2020 in political history, Category:2020 in television history, Category:2020 in fashion history) UnitedStatesian (talk) 12:25, 21 August 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: delete. MER-C 18:16, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fictional shield fighters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a very narrow category consisting of three versions of Captain America and a mixed bag of five other characters often (but not always) depicted as carrying a shield as part of their armament. However, I don't think this is a defining characteristic for any characters other than Cap. BD2412 T 00:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC) BD2412 T 00:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Besides Captain America, the others seem to have weapons other than a shield so it does not seem to be a defining characteristic for any others. Aza24 (talk) 01:37, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There is also Shield Knight who only uses a shield, but that would still make it fail WP:SMALLCAT. So, they'd still simply qualify for the parent category until there are sufficient characters for a full category._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 14:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Subjective, heterogeneous, and small. Bondegezou (talk) 11:22, 11 August 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.