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. The contents have been listified, which should satisfy the need to preserve the information. bibliomaniac15 03:15, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Animals that can change color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Animals change colour for many reasons (e.g. for camouflage, to signal e.g. re breeding or just because their food affects their colour), in many ways (e.g. bioluminescence) and over a wide range of timescales (from seconds to generations - e.g. see Peppered moth evolution). If a polar bear hides its black nose behind a white paw is that changing colour?  Many insects have a larval stage that's a different colour - does that count? What about butterflies that look very different depending on whether the upper of lower surface of the wing is displayed?  There is so much diversity that this doesn't group similar topics and is probably very incomplete. DexDor ^(talk) 20:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and narrow to something that reflects the more limited set of animals that can intentionally and fairly rapidly change their skin color. BD2412 T 01:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restricting this to animals that change skin color (not fur) would be a step in the right direction. Intention and rapidity might be more difficult to use in a category name/definition. DexDor ^(talk) 20:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Indeed, this is a valuable and irreplaceable category that should not be lost, no matter what its name is changed to. Jidanni (talk) 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and delete as it is also a barely defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Well then have a master category, of all the ways animals can change color, and then for each way, list all the animals. Jidanni (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have you any idea how big a job it would be to list all animals that can change color? Note: We have articles about several hundred thousand animal species. DexDor ^(talk) 20:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: I've created Animals that can change color (probably should be moved to a better title) largely based on the category and material from some of the linked articles. DexDor ^(talk) 11:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete humans often change color following exposure to sun and cold, not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:16, 23 July 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/rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bethlehem Steel FC players to Category:Philadelphia Union II players

Nominator's rationale: The club has been rebranded to Philadelphia Union II. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – as per nom. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 17:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 11:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and CFDS C2D, match parent article name. GiantSnowman 11:32, 22 July 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) 04:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dragonlance events (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Effectively empty, since it only contains two non-notable redirects. Might even be a candidate for speedy deletion. But I'm still learning the processes around categories, and figured a discussion can't hurt. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 19 July 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 18:50, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose either

• renaming Category:Bennet family to Category:Family of Douglas J. Bennet
  or
• deleting Category:Bennet family

Nominator's rationale: the current title is ambiguous. The article Bennet family is about a fictional family in the works of Jane Austen ... but this category is about the real family of the American Douglas J. Bennet.

If kept, it should be renamed to something like the title I suggest ... but since the category contains only 3 articles, it would be better to delete it per WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per lack of an article about the family and per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 19 July 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. bibliomaniac15 02:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Catholic churches by country to Category:Catholic church buildings by country

Nominator's rationale Per format of the parent category Category:Catholic church buildings and children Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings by country, Category:Catholic church buildings in Belarus, Category:Catholic church buildings in the Czech Republic etc. The current title implies that there are multiple Catholic churches, not multiple buildings. Any articles not about buildings should be pruned and placed into parish articles like Category:Parishes of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat belatedly, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism has been notified.Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - In 2015_May_1#Churches/Church_buildings, we settled on 'churches'. In that discussion there is criticism of Laurel Lodged's unilateral creation of 'church building' categories, criticism which I repeat here. It is also a subcat of Category:Churches by country, renamed in 2015 per the cfd. Oculi (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per @Oculi. I support Oculi's criticism of LL's sustained effort to subvert that consensus. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, consensus may change and "church" is very ambiguous, especially in organizations that call themselves a church, like the Anglican Church, most Lutheran Churches and the Catholic Church. Note that I do not mind the use of "church" in independent churches. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If consensus has changed then there should be another mass cfd, from Category:Churches downwards, rather than renames contrary to WP:C2C and WP:C2B. (Sometimes cfd comes up with ridiculous outcomes: eg 2017_October_25#Category:Churches, leaving a whole tree without a root.) Oculi (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with @Oculi. If consensus has changed, then there should be a mass nomination to propose a consistent renaming of categories. This cherrypicking of parts of the category tree contrary to the 2015 consensus is a form of WP:FORUMSHOPPING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply As BHG has been free enough to comment in other discussions, I lack the skills for mass nominations. Happily, BHG has these skills in abundance, as witnessed by her current project on Australian suburbs. Once every one-horse-town in New South Wales has been thoroughly purged, perhaps she might consider this as a new project for the summer. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Apart from procedural discussions, I just do not get it why there is so much substantive opposition. Avoiding ambiguity is always a big thing in the naming of categories, why are "churches" exempt from that? I notice that the counter-argument is that the articles may also discuss the parish, but that happens mainly with independent churches (for which I gladly want to make an exception), hardly ever with Anglican, Lutheran, Catholic etc parishes, simply because news about these local parishes is very seldom notable or verifiable. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle, I just do not get why a few editors are making such a big thing about ambiguity which is very rare ... and why those pursuing the "buildings" path are so determined to ignore the fact that a local church is not just a building. As an example of an Anglican church, I looked at St John's Blackheath, which is about both the building and the congregation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • (1) The information about the congregation in this article is not covered by third party sources, which exactly confirms what I mentioned earlier about seldom being notable or verifiable. (2) Renaming to church buildings would not prohibit information about the congregation to be included in the article. It would just confirm the actual situation that the articles are primarily about the church buildings. (3) Churches categories are parented in the buildings and structures tree, not in the Christian behaviour and experience category, so they are in effect used as buildings categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• What he said. Couldn't have put it better myself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose -- While most articles on churches are about the building where the church meets, "church" has a wider context than the building. If anything, I would prefer a reverse merge, but we need a wider discussion for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I agree that "church" has a wider context than the building. Hence the need to separate the two streams into a building stream and a congregation stream. As Marcocapelle wrote above, "news about these local parishes is very seldom notable or verifiable", so they will be unlikely to merit articles by themselves. Even mention of the congregation within an article that is predominately about the building ought not to be an excuse to blur categorical definitions. Precision is preferable to ambiguity. Also, in the Catholic Church, it is their position that there is only one true church; ambiguous categorical names that implied a plurality of churches, as opposed to a plurality of buildings, would not sit well with that Church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is only one true Church (capital) is in a different context. St Vincent's Church, Sheffield - "St Vincent’s Church is a disused (since 1998) Roman Catholic church" is standard English, not 'church building'. Oculi (talk) 11:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's unclear precisely what @Laurel Lodged means by the need to separate the two streams into a building stream and a congregation stream. Is that a) split the articles into a building page and a congregation page? or b) have parallel sets of categories.
        Either way, such a broad change should be implemented only on the basis of a broad consensus. LL should clarify their proposal and open an RFC on it, rather than trying to implement this piecemeal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for now, largely per the past consensus as mentioned by Oculi. Inter&anthro (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment on gaming the system. Apart from cherrypicking categories contrary to the consensus of CFD 2015 May 1#Churches/Church_buildings and WP:FORUMSHOPPING by chipping away at that broad consensus without ever mentioning it, Laurel Lodged has also been engaged in a widespread exercise of simply creating new categories and depopulating the old ones.

See for example:

• WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 13#Category:Presbyterian_churches_in_Northern_Ireland, where LL depopulated a bunch of existing categories and created new one
• 1 January 2020, where in this set of edits LL depopulated Category:Christian buildings, and populated Category:Christian buildings and structures, which they had just created.

There are many many more such examples. Laurel Lodged's default modus operandi is to create a WP:FAITACCOMPLI by bypassing CFD ... and then come to CFD with misleading nominations to ratify one part of jigsaw they have created, without mentioning all their stealth out-of-process moves and merges, or the previous broader CFDs on the same issue.

This has been going for years, and has been raised at many previous CFDs. When challenged about this, LL's modus operandi is either to attack those who ask for restraint ... or, as in his discussion, to demand that those who don't support LL's objectives do the heavy lifting of implementing LL's goals.

It's time to put a stop to this. Please, LL, will you give a clear assurance that you will:

1. stop renaming or depopulating categories categories other than as approved at WP:CFD/WP:CFDS
2. stop WP:FORUMSHOPPING. If you disagree with a broad consensus on a whole set of categories, open a discussion to propose renaming the whole set, or propose renaming part of he set only if you a) also mention the broad consensus, and b) explain why this set should be an exception.

I hope that you will give that undertaking. If not, then I will escalate this to seek some sort of topic ban. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Whoa there BHG Firstly, I am not gender fluid and do not require the use of "them/their" pronouns; "he/his" will do nicely ma'am. Secondly, where have I done anything to subvert the Northern Ireland situation since the decision date cited above? Thirdly, "Category:Foo buildings and structures" is the standard naming convention, not "Category:Foo buildings"; how is a move from Category:Christian buildings to Category:Christian buildings and structures a stab at the heart of Wiki? Fourthly, is this anything more that the usual BHG-has-another-kick-at-LL which has every other editor bored to tears by now? Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • LL has created many categories using 'church buildings', most of them after May 2015. Oculi (talk) 14:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mean the Minor Basilicas? All of these are explicitly about a type of church building or honorific as opposed to an architectural style. It was the result of a long AFR discussion. At no point was it even considered that a Minor Basilica needed to be distinguished from a congregation; the question simply does not arise. Got any more dirt you'd like to throw at the fan? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I meant (as stated) creations such as Category:Lutheran church buildings in the State of Palestine on Jan 12 2020 which is a clear deviation from the convention in the parents Category:Churches in the State of Palestine and Category:Lutheran churches by country. Oculi (talk) 21:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I thought that your initial contribution was supposed to be a demonstration that I had created lots of categories "most of them after May 2015". This was not relevant for the Minor Basilicas and not true for Lutheran church buildings which, as cited, dated from on Jan 12 2020. So what was the purpose of the intervention then? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laurel Lodged, I routinely use gender-neutral pronouns to avoid causing offence by error. It is common practice, and I will not change that.

As to the Northern Ireland categories, the problem is that you had tried to create a WP:Fait accompli though out-of-process actions, and then at CFD 2020 April 13 you tried to build on that with a set of proposals where you sneakily failed to disclose your unilateral actions.

I took those two examples to make here. If you want me to escalate this, then I can draw from many dozens of similar disruption by you over many years. But right now I am asking you to resolve this in the most simple and least conflictual way, by simply asking you to agree to stop these anti-consensual practices. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since my gender is published and known to you from long past, the risk of making an error in using he/his pronouns is close to zero, so your scruples in that regard may be discounted. Since I have given you permission, nay invited, you to use he/his pronouns, then a refusal to do so is in itself a cause of offence. Common practice only goes as far as ignorance of the facts goes. A decision to continue with other pronouns in defiance of your personal knowledge and my expressed preferences could only be interpreted as an attempt to cause offence. Regarding Northern Ireland, can I be accused of crimes that can only have become crimes after they have been enacted by the April 2020 decision? Is this retroactive punishment that you're advocating? Lastly, please resist the temptation to publish your prurient litany of my many wiki sins that you have on speed dial. You've been kind enough to launder them before in public many times (see CFDs passim, ad nauseum); will a generic mea maxima culpa suffice to spare the community? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:28, 20 July 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. bibliomaniac15 01:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Catholic churches by city to Category:Catholic church buildings by city

Nominator's rationale Per format of the parent category Category:Catholic church buildings and siblings Category:Catholic church buildings by continent, Category:Catholic church buildings by type, Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings, Category:Roman Catholic church buildings, Category:Independent Catholic church buildings. The current title implies that there are multiple Catholic churches, not multiple buildings. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The articles are not just about the buildings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Any articles not about buildings should be pruned and placed into parish articles like Category:Parishes of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Laurel Lodged's crusade to split church buildings from all the other aspects of a local church is a part of their forum-shopping attempt to subvert the consensus at CFD 2015 May 1#Churches/Church_buildings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - In 2015_May_1#Churches/Church_buildings, we settled on 'churches'. In that discussion there is criticism of Laurel Lodged's unilateral creation of 'church building' categories, criticism which I repeat here. (It is also a subcat of Category:Churches by city.) Oculi (talk) 09:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• No need to continue the discussion here. The same arguments apply as in the discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I cannot believe this is still being litigated. Church in general English refers both to a congregation and to a building. If we have an article because a building is notable, but no information in that article about how such a notable structure came to be (i.e. the congregation or its members), then it is a deficient article that needs improvement with the addition of such information, rather than a call to upturn longstanding categorization conventions. -- choster (talk) 18:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply I disagree. It is true that the English language has a useful ambiguity in the word "church". It is not universally the case, however, that it always encompasses both meanings. There are geographical differences and even cultural differences within the same geographies. It would be more accurate to say that the application of both senses takes place in England in particular rather than among English language users in general. In Ireland, for example, it would be more usual to use the word "church" for the building but "parish" for the congregation. Similarly, in the Catholic Church in most countries, it would be more usual to speak of "the Church" as meaning the entire institution, "the church" as meaning a particular building and "parish" or "people" as meaning the people of God. For this reason, it is unlikely that Catholics in England, in reference to the Catholic institution itself, would speak of "the Church of England"; rather it would be styled "the Church in England". Similarly in speaking of "Catholic churches in England", they would mean a collection of buildings in England, not a collection of congregations nor would they mean a multiplicity of institutions; for Catholics there is only one Church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:43, 23 July 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. MER-C 18:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sky (company) to Category:Sky Group

Nominator's rationale: To reflect with its current article name. Ridwan97 (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to match parent article name- this could have been proposed as a speedy move. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:49, 22 July 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: option A. Pinging DexDor, if you have a nomination waiting in the wings following the consensus from this one. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose creating either

(A) Category:Endemic biota of Wales

(B) Category:Biota endemic to Wales

(C) Something else e.g. Category:Organisms native only to Wales

Option A is the most common format currently in en wp (e.g. Category:Endemic fauna of Wales), but the option B format is also used (e.g. Category:Biota endemic to England) and is probably clearer.  "endemic" has at least 2 meanings and there have been many cases of editors being confused. Option C is more clear. Whatever option is chosen should be the standard for new categories created and possibly a rename of existing categories. DexDor ^(talk) 05:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A: Category:Endemic biota of Wales simply on the grounds of being the most widely used.
  There may be a case for renaming all similar categories, but that should be proposed either as a group CFD or at an RFC. This discussion of one currently non-existent category simply cannot establish a broad consensus about renaming a whole category tree. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Data: I used Petscan with a regex filter on the output to examine the prevalance of the various formats, in the subcats of Category:Endemism:

1. "Endemic (flora|fauna|biota|birds)": 520 categories
2. "endemic to": 4 categories

So Option A "Endemic Foo of Bar" is clearly the overwhelmingly dominant format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the data - I hadn't realised there are so few in the "endemic to" format. The obvious thing to do is to rename the 4 anomalies, but that would mean renaming Category:Plant families endemic to Australia to something like Category:Endemic plant families of Australia which is pretty horrible. Note: There are also some in another format - e.g. Category:Higher-level bird taxa restricted to New Guinea. DexDor ^(talk) 16:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yw, @DexDor. My searches initially returned zero "endemic to" categories until I added[1] Category:Biota endemic to the United Kingdom to Category:Endemic biota of Europe. There may be more such glitches: I ran a check across my list of all categories, and produced the list at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 19#Categories_whose_title_contains_the_bare_word_"endemic". Total 598 pages, of which 4 are redirects. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Endemic biota of Great Britain might be a useful parent, becasue GB is an island. I doubt there are many species endemic only to England or only Wales or only Scotland, though there are a few. This is a case where splitting my home nation is not particularly useful. Note that I exclude Northern Ireland, since this is a case where and all-Ireland category will be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are at least 80 (assuming the articles are correctly categorized) endemic to just one of E/W/S. DexDor ^(talk) 20:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Option A - and rename the anomalies - there are names much worse than Category:Endemic plant families of Australia. Oculi (talk) 10:33, 20 July 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 to Category:Conan the Barbarian location redirects. bibliomaniac15 02:12, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Conan the Barbarian locations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category now contains only redirects and one image. Is it really necessary anymore? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, no actual articles in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Conan the Barbarian location redirects, and tag each redirect with ((R from fictional location|Conan the Barbarian)).

There is an extensive set of maintenance categories for such redirects from fictional locations under Category:Fictional location redirects, and no reason why this set of redirects should not be similarly categorised. The images should of course be purged from the redirects-only category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete They're the same article. In all seriousness, they all redirect to the same target, so this category is heavily redundant with the article itself. Even for maintenance purposes, we are better off minimizing our administrative and maintenance workload with the article itself. Either way, this is a WP:SMALLCAT that will never have a non-trivial number of articles, and the current number is zero. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete with no objection to creating a redirect category of the type described by BHG. DexDor ^(talk) 16:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Conan the Barbarian location redirects, and tag each redirect as proposed by BrownHairedGirl. - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 08:20, 20 July 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. bibliomaniac15 02:04, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Golf in Edinburgh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Golf clubs and courses in Edinburgh and narrower cats. Fuddle (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I made Category:Golf clubs and courses in Edinburgh a subcat, and per WP:SUBCAT I removed from Category:Golf in Edinburgh any articles which were already in the subcategory.

That leaves Category:Golf in Edinburgh with 3 articles plus one subcat. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not clear to me why the three articles do not belong in the subcategory (but I am not a golf player). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I haven't examined them for suitability. I just removed the duplication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as parent of the courses category. I've added in tournaments which have been hosted in Edinburgh, and it looks like it's definitely keepable. Grutness...wha? 03:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Grutness: Those golf tournaments are played in Gullane/East Lothian not Edinburgh. Please note there are separate categories for golf courses in Edinburgh and East Lothian and Muirfield is East Lothian. There are other separate categories for things in Edinburgh and East Lothian....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah - I was going by the fact that Muirfield was (and still is) in Category:Golf in Edinburgh - sorry! Grutness...wha? 05:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's now also a golfers subcategory. Grutness...wha? 14:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both -- Of the three articles, one Golfers Land relates to the history of golf. This seems also to apply to Bruntsfield Links. Muirfield probably belongs in the sub-cat. The rest of the content could be moved to a new sub-cat, something like Category:Golf competitions held in Edinbugh; I am not wedded to the precise wording. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Peterkingiron: Except Category:Golf competitions held in Edinbugh would be improper for any of the golf tournaments that were wrongly added to Golf in Edinburgh. Muirfield, the site of those tournaments is in East Lothian. Category:Edinburgh and Category:East Lothian both have their own category plus subcategories for all manner of things....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:46, 21 July 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) 04:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Restaurant reviews (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Restaurant guides. Fuddle (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Category:Restaurant guides is enough. Neel.arunabh (talk) 17:44, 24 July 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 to Category:Television episodes written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. bibliomaniac15 02:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Films with screenplays by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss to Category:Works written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss

Nominator's rationale: Or Category:Television episodes written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. But the current title doesn't work because there are TV episodes and not films. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 23:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If all are episodes (which I have not checked) then Category:Television episodes written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss would be best. Otherwise split between Category:Works by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss and Category:Television episodes written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Television episodes written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. All entries are Game of Throne episodes. --Gonnym (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Television episodes written by David Benioff and D.B. Weiss per Gonnym. This Petscan search shows that all entries are in the subcats of Category:Game of Thrones episodes, which verifies Gonnym's assertion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 19 July 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.