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 19:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Maschler family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only two entries with no scope for expansion, so WP:SMALLCAT applies. GiantSnowman 21:20, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:54, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, category name implies a family dynasty like Category:Staal family where being related to each other is a defining, significant trait. Even if expanded it would be silly to have this category since no one really cares about "the Maschler family". Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:34, 19 October 2020

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 19:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs that are over 6 minutes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Appears to fail WP:ARBITRARYCAT – why songs over 6 minutes, why not 3 minutes or 5 minutes? Also, there aren't any secondary sources defining this category – entries are included solely on the basis of the running times of the songs themselves, found in the infobox or a streaming platform. Is this a defining characteristic of the song? Furthermore, there is a problem defining "song"... are we keeping it to the standard version of the song found on the single, or including album versions and 12" versions? The 12" version of "Ghost Town" has been included in this category – including 12" versions would mean including pretty much every single released since the mid-1970s. Richard3120 (talk) 16:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for a myriad of reasons. Oculi (talk) 18:30, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:41, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Okay, fine. Delete it. Enjoyer of World^💬 21:54, 17 October 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Enjoyer of World (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this CfD. [reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Vague and arbitrary. ResPM ^{come to my window} 00:12, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I fail to see the purpose of dividing songs by their length. Dimadick (talk) 15:40, 22 October 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:The Scorpion King (film series) and Category:Video games based on films. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:The Scorpion King video games to Category:The Scorpion King (film series)

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, shouldn't it also be merged to Category:Video games based on films? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure.★Trekker (talk) 21:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Then dual merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:56, 18 October 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 19:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Blockchain people to Category:People associated with cryptocurrency

Nominator's rationale: All of these people are associated with cryptocurrency, so it makes no sense to have a separate category. Ysangkok (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge for Now I was ready to argue about how Blockchain has other uses but, then I made the mistake of going through the actual articles. The nominator is correct and the current cat does not serve a purpose but no objection to recreating later if biography articles emerge on other uses. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:14, 1 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. MER-C 19:15, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose discussing Category:Books by color (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Discussion requested on whether this category is permitted to exist in useful form.

I created the category, but an other editor (properly citing guideline) mostly depopulated it, so it's kind of worse than useless. So what to do?

Formerly, the category contained the pages Black Book, White Book, Beige Book, Red Book, Green Book, Grey Book, Yellow Book, Yellow Pages (disambiguation), and Pink Book, as well as Coloured Book protocols and Category:Rainbow Books. User:Bkonrad removed most of these per WP:DBC since most (not all) of these are categories, so that all the remains now is the latter two, plus Blue Book and Beige Book. Well this is at best unsatisfactory and at worst misleading (there are many colors of books, not just two, so why imply otherwise).

WP:DBC does say that disambiguation pages can't have categories. Doesn't say why, and who knows. My take on that is that we have an awful lot of rules here don't we, this one is one of the silly ones, it's detrimental to what we (or at least I) am trying to do here, its unhelpful to the reader to apply it in this case, it's just a guideline anyway, and who cares what somebody wrote in 2007 or whatever and what they were thinking.

(It would be possible to keep the category and instead categorize each of the various articles that are about colored books (The Green Book (BBC), The Green Book (IRA) and so forth), but that's not at all optimal for various reasons IMO. That just makes a soggy mess and doesn't fill the readers' needs as well, and I wouldn't have created the category if it was going to be like that.)

So to me the choices are:

1. Keep and repopulate
2. Keep as is but in its present crippled state, lurching into a dark and uncertain future as a pathetic relic of its youthful form, but also with the dim possibility that someone will eventually come along and, for some reason, populate the category with individual articles about each colored book, even though that's maybe more confusing than helpful and will probably be done only partially and thus be possibly a net negative, but whatever.
3. Delete and put it out of its misery. Clean headshot and we're done here. Herostratus (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and repopulate as nominator. If not repopulated, then clean delete. Herostratus (talk) 15:42, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME, these books share an aspect of their name, but substantively they have nothing in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - WP:TRIVIALCAT, WP:NONDEF. Grutness...wha? 02:42, 18 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a category based solely on naming patters, rather than content or function. What would be the purpose of grouping these articles together? Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 22 October 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 about deletion, but with permission to create new sub-category Category:German companies that used forced labor during World War II, after which a re-nomination would be desirable. – Fayenatic London 14:34, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Companies involved in the Holocaust to Category:German companies that used forced labor during World War II and Category:Corporate Holocaust perpetrators

Nominator's rationale: Although this is a defining attribute, I think that this is too vague given that putting an article in this category depends on how you define "involved" and "Holocaust". My proposed solution is to purge and move to "German companies which used forced labor during World War II", which seems to apply to most of these companies. (Before World War II, companies were not involved in forced labor, which mostly concerned people from German-occupied Europe). (t · c) buidhe 08:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. In principle, I welcome the quest for greater precision, but going about it this way means that we would be without a grouping for companies which were notably involved in the Holocaust, but didn't use slave labour. So I recommend creating Category:German companies which used forced labor during World War II as a a news subcat, and then examining what remains. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This response assumes that forced labor is part of the Holocaust. However, that is not the case, because most scholars define "Holocaust" as the mass murder of Jews (and sometimes others murdered because of their race/ethnicity). In contrast, most forced laborers were not Jews and there was no systematic effort to murder them. Some of the companies in the category did use Jewish concentration camp prisoners, others perhaps not. (So there is probably a WP:OR isue as well). The proposed category, Category:German companies which used forced labor during World War II , should not be in any subcategories of Category:The Holocaust. (t · c) buidhe 10:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point about the parenting, @Buidhe. But the effect of Category:German companies which used forced labor during World War II not being in any subcategories of Category:The Holocaust appears to be that the likes of IG Farben (manufacturers of Zyklon B) wouldn't be in any Holocaust category. That's not helpful, and it would unintentionally be a form of whitewashing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps it would make more sense to do a split, with the other one Category:Corporate Holocaust perpetrators (for those responsible for genocide), which would include IG Farben, Ostbahn (General Government), Deutsche Reichsbahn, Nederlandse Spoorwegen, Degesch, Topf and Sons and a few others. (t · c) buidhe 11:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's more like it, although perpetrators isn't quite the right word. Farben & the Reichsbahn were essential parts of the infrastructure of the industrialised killing system, but they didn't actually do the killing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't think that's how reliable sources define the term "perpetrator".[1][2][3] According to that logic Alois Brunner would not be a Holocaust perpetrator, as it's not known if he physically killed anyone. (t · c) buidhe 12:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Grammar comment: Category:German companies that used forced labor during World War II Fuddle (talk) 12:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Corrected. (t · c) buidhe 12:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not wholly against the split but somewhat doubtful about it. Because of the wide variety in ways that companies cooperated with the Nazi regime we might rather have a split in five categories or so, but that is in turn rather pointless. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • IMO, the current scheme is discouraged by WP:OCASSOC and it's better to be specific about exactly what role the companies played than to have vaguely defined categories. There is also OR going on. Several of the articles, such as Stoewer, Deutsche Bergwerks- und Hüttenbau, and Flugmotorenwerke Ostmark, do not mention "Holocaust" anywhere in the article, so there is no indication that the crimes that these companies may have committed are considered by RS to be part of the Holocaust. (t · c) buidhe 18:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do not quite agree with referring to WP:OCASSOC for this case because "involved in" is clearly a stronger statement than "associated with". Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as totally non-defining for companies such as AEG, Bayer and Siemens. DexDor ^(talk) 20:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree that "involved in the Holocaust" is far too ambiguous. I should think most companies in Germany of any size could be said to be involved in some way. Forced labour seems more verifiable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep as is This name and content is the same idea as the main article, which is List of companies involved in the Holocaust. There is no good reason to change it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs)
  • I have similar objections to the list. However, it at least in theory has sources and notes explaining the company's relationship, which a category can't do. (t · c) buidhe 02:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. How "involved" does a company need to have been to be categorized here? All German and most European companies were "involved" in one way or another. That doesn't mean that a now global corporation is defined by it. I would support deletion of the list as well.--User:Namiba 11:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per nom; "involved" is subjective and could be attributed to opponents. Use of slave labor during WW2 is defining to those companies that engaged in it (like Bhopal disaster is notable for Union Carbide India Limited which is rightly included in the Category:Bhopal disaster). Various court rulings seem to indicate that a corporation can be a criminal perpetrator, the Holocaust being a crime, ergo the second category to split is appropriate as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- In a totalitarian state almost every one with significant authority is complicit in its evil acts. In some cases they had limited choice about it. I would certainly support a more nuanced approach, preferably limited to those complicit in murder. The use by the state of its railways does not make the railways complicit any more than the roads would be if victims were marched along them. This is a question of constructing a limited category(ies) that are not ATTACK categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 25 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:States of Frankish and Latin Greece. There was consensus that "Duchies" needed to go. There wasn't a strong consensus for what to rename it to so I chose the one that seemed to have the most support.. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:30, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Duchies of the Crusader states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, these duchies were not part of the Crusader states in the Levant, at best they were subdivisions of the Latin Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - Would Category:Medieval Latin duchies in Greece fit? These are duchies resulting from the conquest of Byzantium by Fourth Crusade to pay the Venetians for transporting them to the East. I was expecting this to be about Crusader states in Outremer, but they variously had Dukes, Princes, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:05, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Renaming in itself is a good idea, but then Category:Frankokratia duchies or Category:Duchies of Frankokratia would be a lot shorter, per Category:Frankokratia and Frankokratia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Duchies of Frankish and Latin Greece, after Category:People of Frankish and Latin Greece. Constructions based on Frankokratia are a bit barbaric. Other options are to use states or principalities as some of these Duchies were counties, lordships etc. A simpler option could be something like Frankish states in Greece. Place Clichy (talk) 00:03, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Not sure why Frankokratia would be barbaric, but I also would not mind Category:Frankish states in Greece serving the same purpose and more inclusive than duchies alone. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: Well it is my gut feeling that the Frankokratia term is only ever used to describe the historical period, in Greek or in English, and would not be used for people, states or other topics (e.g. art or buildings) relative to the period. Greeks would probably just use the adjective Frankish in this context, when a more specific term is not preferable, such as a specific state or ruling family. An example in context is the Frankish Tower which was visible on the Acropolis of Athens until 1874, which nobody in their right mind would have ever called the Frankokratia Tower, although Frankish in its name definitely refers to the period of Duchy of Athens, whose rulers where considered Franks. Place Clichy (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Prefer Category:Frankish states in Greece target per discussion. Place Clichy (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - "states" is certainly better than duchies. Though it is the local term, "Frankish" is not strictly accurate as most of the rulers seem to have been Italian. Category:States of Frankish and Latin Greece might resolve the dilemma. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok with that too. The issue of the nomination was currently having "Crusader states" in the title, and that is being resolved in either alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As said below, the term "Franks" here refers to people from all Catholic Western Europe which took part in the Crusades and their overshoot in Greece. The term is still used today in Greece with a similar meaning, albeit a bit pejorative. Besides knights from Italy or the Kingdom of France, there were e.g. a number of Catalans who also held principalities during the period. Place Clichy (talk) 14:49, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to one of the alternatives - Italians were "Franks" too, I think, so Frankish states in Greece is ok. Johnbod (talk) 02:41, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename In Some Fashion Lean toward Category:States of Frankish and Latin Greece but literally any of the proposals here are better than the current cat name. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:07, 1 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, dispersing contents to Category:Indologists and Category:Writers about Pakistan. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:02, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Analysts of India-Pakistan conflict to Category:Writers about Indo-Pakistani wars

Nominator's rationale: The category stated that its main article was India–Pakistan relations, in which case perhaps it should be renamed Category:Writers about India–Pakistan relations; but there were other parent categories related specifically to wars, so I changed the main article to Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts and propose that the category be renamed accordingly. "Writers" will probably be more useful than "analysts", fitting within Category:Political writers. – Fayenatic London 07:41, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Query If you've changed the main article to Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts and are proposing that the category be renamed accordingly, then why is the proposal not Category:Writers about Indo-Pakistani wars and conflicts ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:16, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The parent category is Category:Indo-Pakistani wars, this may be why. Place Clichy (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that was the reason, thanks. – Fayenatic London 06:33, 21 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Writers about India–Pakistan relations. "Wars" is too narrow a topic for the category. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:49, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disperse between Category:Indologists and Category:Writers about Pakistan. Indo-Pakistani wars and relations both are too narrow a topic for the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Disperse between Category:Indologists and Category:Writers about Pakistan per Marcocapelle. Note that Category:International relations scholars (or child Category:International relations historians) has no other category for people who study a specific bilateral relationship, and that while Category:Military historians by war has a number of categories for historians of specific conflicts this does not seem to be the topic here. An alt renaming to Category:Historians of the Indo-Pakistani conflict could be an option, but content should be checked and purged that these writers can indeed be defined as historians. Place Clichy (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Disperse per above.GreyShark (dibra) 09:41, 22 October 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:International versions of I Can See Your Voice

• Propose merging Category:Asian and Oceanian versions of I Can See Your Voice to Category:I Can See Your Voice
• Propose merging Category:European versions of I Can See Your Voice to Category:I Can See Your Voice
• Propose merging Category:North and South American versions of I Can See Your Voice to Category:I Can See Your Voice

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. (see Category:Dancing with the Stars...) Kanghuitari (talk) 07:44, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanghuitari, UnitedStatesian, and PohranicniStraze: I officially oppose merging these categories, because "if these three subcategories were merged into one, these would confuse every ICSYV franchise of what continent is originated at." I've also quoted you that "the international versions category dividing into three pan-continental subcategories is well-organized."

Kindly please proceed to ICSYV's main talk page, Unitedstatesian's, and PohranicniStraze's statements.

• Support, redundant category layer; there aren't any continental versions, just country versions. But I would not object against an alternative merge target Category:International versions of I Can See Your Voice. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt merge to Category:International versions of I Can See Your Voice as suggested by Marcocapelle. I am not convinced by the SMALLCAT argument, but categorization by continent does seem rather overdetailed. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 16 September 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 Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates to Category:Navigational medicine meta-templates. MER-C 19:32, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates to Category:Medicine navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: All navigational boxes are "footer templates". —⁠andrybak (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Oppose. It is clear the nominator hasn't actually viewed the templates. Medicine navigation templates are used widely throughout article space. Medicine navigational box footer templates were once included as "footers" providing links between templates, until consensus determined these should no longer be included (Template_talk:Medicine_navs). It is useful to retain the footer templates however, because for template editors and wikignomes such as myself they provide a helpful way of reviewing and accessing the templates that are used. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:45, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ahh, so all the "navs" templates in this category are not about articles, but link only to templates. Then, I withdraw my merge proposal, and instead propose renaming Category:Medicine navigational box footer templates to Category:Navigational medicine meta-templates, for consistency with Category:Navigational meta-templates. Tom (LT), thanks for clarification. —⁠andrybak (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Good idea - support this. Apologies Andrybak for my gruffness. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:47, 25 October 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:Films using motion capture. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:13, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Motion capture in film to Category:Motion capture films

Nominator's rationale: "in film" would seem to imply that the motion capture is being depicted, as opposed to being a technology used. I also think this category should be kept to films which uses motion capture primarily, such as The Polar Express where it is defining. ★Trekker (talk) 14:14, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would suggest the name of the new category to be "Films using motion capture". I agree with the problem concerning the former, but the new name has another: that the films in question are about motion capture or were made primarily or entirely through that process, a bit like Category:Stop-motion animated films, whose page actually has a hatnote explaining that films not entirely made via stop motion should be placed in Category:Films using stop-motion animation instead. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 17:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I take issue with Category:Films using stop-motion animation, it seems non-defining.★Trekker (talk) 21:10, 17 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Films using motion capture. Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 15:47, 22 October 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: manually merge to Category:Wollongong as WP:SOFTDELETE. Actually, the members to be merged are all buildings and structures, so they can go to Category:Buildings and structures in Wollongong. – Fayenatic London 10:55, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually deleting:

2-page categories

1. Category:Cordeaux, New South Wales
2. Category:Keiraville, New South Wales
3. Category:Otford, New South Wales
4. Category:Scarborough, New South Wales
5. Category:Thirroul, New South Wales
6. Category:Woronora Dam, New South Wales

3-page categories

1. Category:Bulli, New South Wales
2. Category:Dapto, New South Wales
3. Category:Stanwell Park, New South Wales

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 9 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Wollongong, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Wollongong (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Wollongong (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many other New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge to Category:Wollongong (excluding the eponymous articles) per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually Merge Per Marcocapelle. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:04, 1 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: manual merge to Category:Suburbs of Singleton Council / Category:Singleton Council as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 11:59, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually deleting:

1-page categories

1. Category:Bulga, New South Wales

2-page categories

1. Category:Glendon Brook, New South Wales
2. Category:Liddell, New South Wales
3. Category:Middle Falbrook, New South Wales
4. Category:Milbrodale, New South Wales
5. Category:Warkworth, New South Wales
6. Category:Whittingham, New South Wales

3-page categories

1. Category:Branxton, New South Wales

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 9 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Singleton Council, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus zero, one or two other pages.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Singleton Council (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Singleton Council (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many other New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge to Category:Singleton Council (excluding the eponymous articles) per WP:SMALLCAT.

• I had added the previous vote/comment on July 18 without signature. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 9 October 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: manual merge as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 12:26, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually deleting:

2-page categories

1. Category:Merriwa, New South Wales
2. Category:Wingen, New South Wales

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Both of these subcats of Category:Suburbs of Upper Hunter Shire, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one other page.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Upper Hunter Shire (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Upper Hunter Shire (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many other New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge to Category:Upper Hunter Shire (excluding the eponymous articles) per WP:SMALLCAT.

• I had added the previous vote/comment on July 18 without signature. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 9 October 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: manual merge as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 12:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually deleting:

2-page categories

1. Category:Fingal Bay, New South Wales
2. Category:Seaham, New South Wales

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these two subcats of Category:Suburbs of Port Stephens Council, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one other page.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Port Stephens Council (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Port Stephens Council (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many other New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Manually merge to Category:Port Stephens Council (excluding the eponymous articles) per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 18 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: no consensus. MER-C 19:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rulers of Moscow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: convert to disambiguation page, this refers to three different meanings of Moscow (the grand duchy, the governorate and the city), so redirect to Grand Princes, Governors-General and Mayors (including Chairpersons) respectively. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- This is harmless container category, which should be tagged as a container. By all means create a list page. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - can't see any problem with this. Oculi (talk) 11:25, 17 October 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, no purpose for this category has been explained. – Fayenatic London 23:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:New England ancestry Wikipedians to Category:United States ancestry Wikipedians

Nominator's rationale: I am not sure what purpose state-level ancestry categories serve in the first place, but placing that aside... This intermediate (regional) level between the country-level and state-level categories is unnecessary and hinders navigation. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Rather than merging, it would be far better to leave this category a subcategory of Category:United States ancestry Wikipedians. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Why? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:09, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. It would have been different when many editors would have identified as New England ancestry Wikipedians instead of state ancestry Wikipedians, but in the current situation we just have a container category by state, so it has the same functionality as Category:United States ancestry Wikipedians. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  New England is the only invariable region of the United States. Please see Category:Wikipedians in New England and Portal:New England. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 00:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  PS – I live in the very variable Mountain States.  Buaidh  talk contribs 00:48, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Variable or not has nothing to do with it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fixed a wrong level heading. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:30, 17 October 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:Violence in the Palestinian territories. – Fayenatic London 14:44, 28 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Violence in Palestine to Category:Violence in the Palestinian National Authority

Nominator's rationale: The category is parent of category:Riots and civil disorder in the Palestinian National Authority and daughter of category:Palestinian National Authority. Also to match Palestinian National Authority as Palestine is disambiguation page.GreyShark (dibra) 06:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The title is a logical derivation of the category structure, but unfortunately is plain English meaning is members of the PNA fighting each other. That is not its intended scope. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not see a problem with what you say - there was plenty of violence between PNA citizens - see Battle of Gaza (2007). PNA was an autonomy - geopolitical structure with territory, population and limited self-rule.GreyShark (dibra) 16:29, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Greyshark09: You miss my point, which is that the intended scope is citizens, but the title means "govt officials".
These categories use NameOfAuthority as a synonym for TerritoryGovernedByThatAuthority. That means while the intended scope is "Violence in the area governed by the Palestinian National Authority", the plain English meaning is "Violence with in the political structures of the Palestinian National Authority", i.e. members of the PNA fighting each other.
This problem is caused by the misuse of the name of the government as a synonym for the territory. Consider as a parallel the titles "Violence in the United States" and "Violence in the Government of the United States". "Violence in the United States" covers everything within the USA's territory ... but "Violence in the Government of the United States" means something like personnel from the US Treasury engaged in violence against the Dept of Justice. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:08, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, alternatively this may be extended in scope to Category:Violence in Palestine (region). Renaming as nominated is also possible, but currently the navigational benefit of that is limited as it has just a single subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violence is classified by country - category:violence by country, i don't think we have any other example of category:violence by region.GreyShark (dibra) 06:03, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment does something like Category:Violence in the Palestinian National Authority area work? Same for the subcategory. There are also several categories for "Palestinian territories". --mfb (talk) 20:02, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why not just merge to Category:Violence in the State of Palestine? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:09, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it would be anachronistic. Palestinian Authority (1994-2012) predates the state (2013-present).GreyShark (dibra) 12:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This illustrates one of the problems of renaming historical categories to match every change of regime. The territorial area of the West Bank and Gaza has been well-defined since 1948. Using that terminology as the basis for chronology category names would:

1. Assist readers and editors by providing consistent category names
2. Avoid absurdities like this proposed renaming.

GreyShark09's quest for over-precision brings no benefit to these topics, and creates avoidable complexity. Per WP:CAT, the primary purpose of categories is navigation ... and GreyShark is undermining that purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of West Bank and Gaza Strip (defined by temporal borders of Jordanian and Egyptian occupations) greatly differ from Palestinian Authority areas (30% of West Bank and most Gaza Strip) and Palestinian State areas (just 30% of the West Bank).GreyShark (dibra) 19:40, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support The proposed name is not perfect, but the current name implies a much larges scope, both geographically and chronologically. The Palestine region has a long history of massacres of civilians.Dimadick (talk) 15:36, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as is. Palestinian National Authority is not the name of any country. Alternative targets could be merging to Category:Violence in the State of Palestine, as timeless designation for the geographical area of the modern state, or Category:Violence in Palestinian territories (similar to extant Category:Political violence in the Palestinian territories), after the most common designation for the area, and official UN designation prior to State of Palestine becoming the more common term. Place Clichy (talk) 14:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Violence in the Palestinian territories could be a reasonable compromise - Pt is generally identified as areas of the PNA.GreyShark (dibra) 14:14, 5 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.