< November 27	November 29 >

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Backup software for MacOS to Category:Backup software for macOS
Propose renaming Category:File hosting for MacOS to Category:File hosting for macOS

Nominator's rationale: Correctly capitalisation for "macOS". 109.186.211.111 (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 03:47, 29 November 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. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:30, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Need for Speed games to Category:Need for Speed

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it is a valid subcategory of Category:Racing video games by series. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, per Marcocapelle --- ʂɤɲ ✉ 23:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or reverse merge per Marcocapelle. Place Clichy (talk) 16:44, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 20:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Merge, The Need for Speed category contains NFS-related things that aren't games in the franchise, and therefore it's useful. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:08, 3 December 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 If splitting is needed that can be done through the normal/WP:BOLD editing process. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:48, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Students of the Mir Yeshiva (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category appears to have been created solely for World War II-era students of the Mir in Europe who went on to become Torah leaders. We already have Template:Mir Yeshiva for this. This category should be deleted because it is far too broad and could potentially house thousands of students of the Mir. (As a rabbinical seminary, all its graduates are considered rabbis.) Yoninah (talk) 16:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep but split I followed this back to Mir yeshiva, but it is a dab page for four of them, the original being in Belarus; with others in New York and Jerusalem. A yeshiva is a seminary, so that this is essentially an alumni category, but we cannot have one category for 4 colleges. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We cannot have 4 categories like this either. Each yeshiva has thousands of graduates. Why isn't a template enough? Yoninah (talk) 18:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all those graduates are notable though. Kalimi (talk) 04:52, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We typically categorize people by college/university though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:26, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category is essentially the equivalent of the well-developed structure we have for any university, in which there is a parent category for the university itself (which matches to Category:Mir Yeshiva) and corresponding entries for faculty and alumni (including all of the athletes who competed on the interscholastic sports teams at the Mir Yeshiva). There are many university alumni categories with thousands of entries, and that has never stopped us before, and if anything splitting the category into subcategories would be a far more sensible solution than deletion; I agree with Peterkingiron that it may be worthwhile to split this about to the different branches / incarnations of the Mir Yeshiva, which is exactly what we do for alumni of different schools within a university. Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates is clear that categories and templates are intended to work synergistically together, not to be either/or alternatives. Alansohn (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and Purge This is and the parent category is a WP:SHAREDNAME around disambiguation article. But a category for alumni from a specific school works: Category:Mir Yeshiva (Belarus) alumni. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in theory, the size of a category is not reason to scrap it. However we do have 3 distinct articles, so we should clearly link people to which Mir Yeshiva article covers the one they attended, and place them in the appropriate alumni category (or if they attended multiple ones, place them in each one). Considering how huge Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford (over 2,000 entries, over 54 subcats, some over 1000 entries) is or Category:Harvard University alumni (over 9000 entries, with many subcats as well, some of which exceed 1000 entries), getting large is not a reason to not have an alumni category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Template:Mir Yeshiva seems to be dedicated to faculty, not alumni or students. Also categories only house notable people, so there is no concern of this category being too large, as it only has 18 members now. By the same token, we shouldn't have Category:Harvard University alumni because Harvard University has had probably over a hundred thousand graduates. I don't see why a yeshiva (or multiple loosely affiliated yeshivas) should be treated differently than a secular university and not have a category for their students and former students. Kalimi (talk) 04:52, 14 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:09, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sangmu FC players, Category:Sangmu FC (Semi-professional) players and Category:Gwangju Sangmu FC players to Category:Sangju Sangmu FC players

Nominator's rationale: there is long-established consensus that we should only have one player category per football club, even when the club changes name - see this recent CFR which confirmed that. There is no need for four categories for the same club. They should all be merged into a category at the current name of the club, which would be Category:Sangju Sangmu FC players. Giant Snowman 13:17, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 13:19, 28 November 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. (non-admin closure) Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 16:32, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional swordfighters in video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Extremely common and not a defining characteristic. They aren't famous for this one aspect, they aren't covered in the media for their swordfighting ability. These are player controlled characters anyway, you just click a button to wave a sword around, most don't even have that many moves. Dream Focus 12:23, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It still describes a particular characteristic for video game characters. Many notable games, such as Super Smash Bros., explicitly lists "sword fighters" as a category. Also, there are whole genres of games, such as Hack and slash, that notably "emphasizes combat with melee based weapons (such as swords or blades)". Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 18:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Very defining, especially to characters like Link, Cloud Strife, Meta Knight, Marth, and Shulk, among others. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per the reasons mentioned by Yoshiman6464. Dimadick (talk) 01:12, 7 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:Albums by drag queens to article List of albums by drag queens

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of album by... entertainer type? or semi-professional status? This is not distinct enough or defining characteristic. Would we have Category:Albums by carpenters? Category:Albums by dancers? See WP:TRIVIA. Listify because this is not part of the ontology nor could it be. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, while the artists have something in common, their albums are unrelated to each other. To be honest I am equally skeptical about a list. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the vast majority of albums in the cat are redirects to their respective artists. Furthermore, these redirects were all created as redirects by either User:HighlandFacts, User:Another Believer, or User:Ss112, with the notable exception to Hot Skunx / Zorillos Calliente and Pleasure (Pearl album), which both failed WP:Albums back in 2015. The albums that aren't redirects or subcategories are the four Drag Race Christmas albums, the start-class Vampire Fitness, and the stub-class Drag Trap. Even taking account that the artists are drag, six albums (two non-Drag Race) aren't notable enough for a cat. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:50, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what the artist otherwise does is trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining. Dimadick (talk) 01:14, 7 December 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 to Category:macOS games. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:06, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:MacOS massively multiplayer online role-playing games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: An odd mix of genre and platform. MacOS does not stand out as a system for MMORPGs and there are no analogous categories for other platforms. IceWelder [✉] 10:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 11:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:macOS games. There is no need also to merge to MMORPGs, as all members are already directly in that parent or another of its sub-cats. – Fayenatic London 12:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Fayenatic london, as a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the nom and User:Fayenatic london. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:54, 28 November 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Participants in the Synod of Dort (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, as non-defining. While most actual participants were Dutch, most articles in this category are about foreign participants for whom the attendance in the synod was less of an issue. Admittedly there are a few people for whom the involvement in the Calvinist-Arminian debate was very defining, not the Synod of Dort per se although of course this was the climax in this debate. There is already a List of participants in the Synod of Dort. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have to say I don't really understand the rationale. The Synod is one of a handful of major international Protestant councils of the early modern period. For those who were not Dutch, it turns out that their position on Calvinism was in some cases affected subsequently. There is stuff about the international dimension at Arminianism in the Church of England. In any case I don't see much of an issue with Wikipedia:Categorization#Defining here: certainly the team sent by James I were there for a reason. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:14, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Listify Based on the two opinions above, I came into this category with an open mind and clicked through the articles. The overwhelming majority mention attendance in passing in their career or life section. Johannes Bogerman has it in the lead but he created the Canons of Dort and the creators of the Five Points of Calvinism are split on whether Dort is in the lede or the body (1, 2). The British attendees consistently mention their attendance in the intros but that appears to be an editorial decision while Lancelot Andrewes, which is a more developed English article, mentions it only in passing.

We normally think of WP:PERFCAT for actors and other performers, but this is classic WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:51, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that WP:PERFCAT really applies, however, whatever you mean by "classic". There is a precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 21#Category:Participants in the Savoy Conference. Another 17th century religious council, that is. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:27, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A very similar discussion about defining-ness vs. performance! RevelationDirect (talk) 22:53, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the avoidance of doubt, the common factor is that the councils called together were deliberative: they took decisions that affected later religious history in a major way. I think the way you invoke WP:PERFCAT is a serious stretch. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:27, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (assuming the list is complete). WP:PERFCAT applies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see this as a WP:PERFCAT as these weren't performers any more than such a designation would apply to Category:French military personnel of World War I and the like. For many this was their claim to fame and their attendance appears in the first paragraph of the article. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose WP:PERFCAT is irrelevant here. Participating in a church council and taking major decisions is a defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 01:17, 7 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian church councils to Category:Church councils
Propose renaming Category:Christian church councils by century‎ to Category:Church councils by century‎
Propose renaming Category:1st-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:1st-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:3rd-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:3rd-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:4th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:4th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:5th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:5th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:6th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:6th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:7th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:7th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:8th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:8th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:9th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:9th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:10th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:10th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:11th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:11th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:12th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:12th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:13th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:13th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:14th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:14th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:15th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:15th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:16th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:16th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:17th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:17th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:18th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:18th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:19th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:19th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:20th-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:20th-century church councils‎
Propose renaming Category:21st-century Christian church councils‎ to Category:21st-century church councils‎

Nominator's rationale: rename, adding "Christian" is redundant, all church councils are Christian church councils. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as shorter but still clear. Usually I strongly favor following the main article but Synod is perhaps to jargon-y to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per the nom. Yoshiman6464 ^♫🥚 16:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support (as I said for 7th century Catholics the other day). These are usually general gatherings: Synod may be something smaller Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Christian church as opposed to other churches? Dimadick (talk) 01:18, 7 December 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/reparent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:03, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Unregistered Wikipedia editors to Category:Unregistered Wikipedia editing

Nominator's rationale: This is currently within Category:Wikipedians, but contains essays etc rather than user pages. It should be renamed, and moved up into Category:Wikipedia user administration. – Fayenatic London 09:46, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and reparent per actual category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 29 November 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Signatories of the Uppsala Synod (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. For example, article Nicolaus Olai Bothniensis does not even mention the fact. I have listified the signatories of this category in the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:53, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just Delete as it is listified. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:51, 28 November 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Calvinist councils and synods to Category:Protestant councils and synods

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only three councils in this category. There is no need for a dual merge, the articles are already in Category:16th-century Calvinism and Category:17th-century Calvinism.Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support No scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 01:20, 7 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sports logos of Albania to Category:Albanian logos
Propose merging Category:Logos of rugby clubs in Albania to Category:Albanian logos

Nominator's rationale: Category:Sports logos does not have a hierarchy by country. The sub-cats are already in sport-related subcats of that one, so a double merge is not needed. The two rubgy club logos are also now categorised within rugby league/union logos. – Fayenatic London 08:10, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, there is currently not enough content in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 29 November 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 or merge per nom The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:57, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Christian church councils by acceptance
Propose manually merging Category:Church councils accepted by the Assyrian Church of the East to Category:Church councils and Category:Assyrian Church of the East
Propose manually merging Category:Church councils accepted by the Catholic Church‎ to Category:Church councils and Category:History of the Catholic Church
Propose manually merging Category:Church councils accepted by the Eastern Orthodox Church‎ to Category:Church councils and Category:History of Eastern Orthodoxy
Propose manually merging Category:Church Councils accepted by Oriental Orthodoxy‎ to Category:Church councils and Category:History of Oriental Orthodoxy
Propose manually merging Category:Church councils accepted by Protestantism‎ to Category:Church councils and Category:History of Protestantism

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, this tree merely leads to the first seven ecumenical councils being overcategorized as accepted by most or all denominations, while we already have Category:First seven ecumenical councils as a category by itself.

In the manual merge, only subcategories need to be merged to Category:Church councils (because articles are already in a century subcategory), and only subcategories excluding Category:First seven ecumenical councils should be merged to a Catholic, Eastern Orthodox or Protestant history category (because articles are pre-1054).

This is follow-up on this earlier discussion; @Piotrus, Laurel Lodged, Carlossuarez46, and Peterkingiron: pinging earlier discussants. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Including only Category:First seven ecumenical councils in these categories (instead of the 7 articles individually) would help with the overlap but lead to some small categories. Clearly some change is needed. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Darn it, after I just spend ages sourcing new articles for the Catholic category and re-keying them all. But the nom is annoyingly correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:10, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per my comments on the prior go-round. I also note RevelationDirect's apt comment but alas, sometimes small categories result from the hierarchical structure but WP:SMALLCAT permits this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:02, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: for the record, I have updated one target from Category:Christian church councils to Category:Church councils. – Fayenatic London 12:38, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This will not help with overcategorization. We will still have the same (or maybe 1 more) categories on the articles we had before. This will not help the perennial problem of overcategorization. It may help elimanate unneeded small categories, but this is the reverse of overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 10 December 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 The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:52, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting Category:Plays which debuted after the writer's death

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)

Some of these plays were written shortly before death while others were written much earlier in their lives and but didn't debut until long after the playwright's death. The closest this category comes to being defining is that it causes two of the plays to be unfinished, but we have Category:Unfinished plays for that. This category seems pretty trivial but I copied the contents right here so no work is lost if anyone wants to start a list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as trivial. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and organize. I am not sure. We have Category:Posthumous recognitions, Category:Posthumous Nobel laureates, Category:Posthumous marriage and Category:People who have received posthumous pardons. All of them seem equally 'trivial', but I am not sure they are in fact trivial. Works that were published after the author's death seem like an interesting and defining category; I'd rather suggest creating a category tree for posthumous events. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:46, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I just clicked on Category:Posthumous marriage out of curiosity and horror! RevelationDirect (talk) 11:45, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, thankfully we don't have Category:Posthumous honeymoon. Ick. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:03, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- "Works that were published after the author's death seem like an interesting and defining category" I agree, but we already have it. Category:Works published posthumously. It just doesn't have a subcategory for plays. Dimadick (talk) 01:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the isn't analogous to Category:Posthumous recognitions nor Category:Posthumous marriage as both have contents that are about the subject rather than individuals who have had such, unlike here. (If the category had articles about literary executors, who gets the money, who has artistic control, etc., the analogy would be more apt; but alas not so). It is more akin to Category:Posthumous Nobel laureates and Category:People who have received posthumous pardons, which seem to be fairly substantive in a biography of the person and aids in navigation. As for works published posthumously or performed posthumously, it probably isn't notable for the work, so I think this ought to go. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Piotrus, could be a defining trait. Dimadick (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not really defining to a work. Especially since the writer is at times not involved in their plays debut even when they are alive. So it is not clear how from a perspective of the play itself this is different from Category:Plays debuted in ways that the writer was not involved. Which we do not have, but would seem to be what the category should be named if that is what we are categorizing. Also what of a multi-writer play where not all the writers are dead when it debuts?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JPL and because there are many much better (e.g. more comprehensive) ways to categorize plays (by decade, country etc). DexDor^(talk) 07:47, 11 December 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting Category:International opponents of apartheid in South Africa

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OPINIONCAT)

Both within South Africa and internationally, there were activists defined by their opposition to Apartheid and we have a category for them: Category:Anti-apartheid activists. This is a separate category that has international leaders who took positions on a wide variety of issues including Apartheid like Mikhail Gorbachev, Muammar Gaddafi, Bernie Sanders, Idi Amin, Neil Kinnock, Ho Chi Minh and Kwame Nkrumah. (The only reference to South Africa in the articles for Bruce Springsteen, Melle Mel and Bonnie Raitt is that they all sang in Sun City, an anti-apartheid fundraising song, which is WP:PERFCAT.) This whole category is classic WP:OPINIONCAT.

(Alternatively, if we want a non-South African activists subcategory which was the original intent, we could rename this to Category:International anti-apartheid activists and I could heavily purge it.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:04, 1 December 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.

November 28

Category:Backup software for MacOS

Category:Need for Speed games

Category:Students of the Mir Yeshiva

Category:Sangju Sangmu FC players

Category:Fictional swordfighters in video games

Category:Albums by drag queens

Category:MacOS massively multiplayer online role-playing games

Category:Participants in the Synod of Dort

Christian church councils

Category:Unregistered Wikipedia editors

Category:Signatories of the Uppsala Synod

Category:Calvinist councils and synods

Category:Sports logos of Albania

Christian church councils by acceptance

Category:Plays which debuted after the writer's death

Category:International opponents of apartheid in South Africa