< October 2 October 4 >

October 3

Category:Ancient Egyptian texts

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge. MER-C 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary separation, currently in categorization cycle. Direction chosen because of existence of Category:Ancient literature and Ancient Egyptian literature. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:27, 3 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.

Category:Bangladesh lists of awards and nominations

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 member page is about a singer so I will move the category to Category:Lists of awards received by Bangladeshi musician, as there is a hierarchy of Category:Lists of awards received by musician. – Fayenatic London 07:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One entry can be moved to parent cat Category:Lists of awards received by actor, cat name is too vague to be useful. Based on parent cat, should only include actors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:30, 3 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.

Category:4th-century BC disestablishments in Mexico

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) 22:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, anachronistic category, Mexico did not exist in the 4th century BC. This is the same as in this earlier discussion, it even concerns the same article. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 3 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.

Category:Intergalactic travel

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 13:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with the main article and one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already part of the tree of Category:Spaceflight in fiction. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 3 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.

Category:TV Asia original programming

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 13:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: False Category. None of the shows listed are original programs by TV Asia. All of them are imports from India that have been syndicated in the US on said network. Acquired programming does not warrant a separate category. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:58, 3 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.

Category:Spaceflight technologies

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 13:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, this is not clearly a set category that requires plural. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the entire categorization schema of Category:Spaceflight is a large mess. It needs a lot of work to rationalize it all, and I have no idea how to get a group of interested editors to tackle such a large mess. N2e (talk) 15:30, 3 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.

Category:Ryukyuan surnames

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per consensus at Category talk:Okinawan surnames. – Fayenatic London 07:17, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per agreement with the original creator of this category at Category talk:Ryukyuan surnames#Rename: Okinawan surnames. Nanshu (talk) 13:57, 3 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.

Category:Art galleries in London

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, without prejudice to a new nomination proposing something different. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Found this via User:SDZeroBot/Category_cycles/1; as it stood the two categories were contained within each other. I broke the cycle as "art galleries" clearly form a subset of "art museums and galleries".
I believe the distinction being made here (at least in terms of how these categories are used) is that an art gallery is a private institution that sells art as well as displaying it, whereas an art museum is a usually public institution that primary displays works, and doesn't sell them. The problem is that that doesn't match with usual British English usage, in which "art museum" is rare and most organisations of the latter type are also called "art galleries" or simply "galleries". For instance, the Guildhall Art Gallery, the Dulwich Picture Gallery and indeed the National Gallery are all in the parent, so are presumably being taken not to be "art galleries" in the sense intended for this category.
I don't think my suggested title is great (many of what might be called "art museums" are private institutions) but I can't think of a better way to express the distinction. Nevertheless, "art museum" vs. "art gallery" isn't it, certainly in British English, which per MOS:ENGVAR we should probably be going with here. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion of "Commercial galleries" is the phrase I was grasping for, I think; nomination amended. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not very usual in UK, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bankside Gallery is not publicly owned in the usual sense - it's owned by a charity. Most of the time it exhibits works (usually by the members of the societies) for sale. I don't think there is a permanent collection (the societies may have stuff, but they aren't the same. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, I don't quite follow you. If there's no need to make the distinction, why do we need a separate Category:Art galleries in London from Category:Art museums and galleries in London at all? I could get behind not making the distinction, but if we're not making it we shouldn't have a subcat that attempts to do so. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 12:28, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps it would make sense draw up another proposal to merge these two. Debresser (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since that would simply be another WP:CfD discussion, it seems like unnecesary bureaucracy to create another discussion for that. I'll clarify here that my argument is that:
  • having these two as separate categories with their current names creates avoidable confusion, and I believe something should be done to change this; and
  • I'm ambivalent as to whether the solution involves renaming this subcategory to better clarify its scope, or merging it with the parent on the basis that the distinction is unnecessary.
YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 12:56, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry, but pages like Afd, Cfd and Tfd are very formal and bureaucratic. You proposed a rename. It is unlikely that the outcome of this discussion will be a merge. But I have no problem with supporting it nevertheless: Upmerge into Category:Art museums and galleries in London. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I had started a new discussion someone would have criticised me per WP:TALKFORK. If I'd waited until this one was closed and restarted it someone would have criticised me for not respecting consensus. Sometimes you can't win. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 08:55, 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.

Category:Mayors of Drummondville

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 13:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for mayors of a city not large enough to guarantee the "inherent" notability of all of its mayors; even the one mayor who actually has an article to file here at all has it because he went on to serve in the provincial legislature, rather than for having been mayor per se, and the only other article here is a list. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator of this, a decade ago when our notability standard for mayors was an automatic inclusion freebie for all mayors of any city that happened to pass an arbitrary population cutoff -- but consensus has deprecated that, so there's no longer any guarantee that this category can ever actually be expanded at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 3 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.

Category:Nuclear energy templates

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. – Fayenatic London 08:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate category, with single userbox ((User Nuclear Energy)), which actually links to Nuclear power. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:32, 3 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.

Category:Arts

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 13:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per head article the arts, which has been stable at that title since 2005 (and possibly before that).
The current title was chosen at WP:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 25#Category:The_arts_to_Category:Arts, in a disappointingly cursory discussion which did not even not that the renaming would create an inconsistency with the head article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping did not work for me either. No idea why it did not. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usually it's because it was added later - I'll re-ping the absentees (apologies if you had it before): @Peterkingiron, Dimadick, El cid, el campeador, Grutness, and Ham II Johnbod (talk) 15:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry Grutness! Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about non-ping, folks. The edit in which I tried to ping is [1], which looks fine to me ... but if anyone can identify what went wrong, I'd welcome the diagnosis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  1. "The arts" might have been a stable article title for some time, but there doesn't seem ever to have been any discussion of whether it meets WP:THE. That page lists two conditions which usually have to be met for an article title to begin with "The", and "The arts" arguably doesn't meet either. The unstated rationale for using "The arts" seems to be to ensure that it looked as distinct as possible from "Art".
  2. I don't think Category:Arts is any more inconsistent with Category:2010s in the arts et al. than Category:United States is with Category:2010s in the United States. Most of the time the construction "the arts" (or "the United States") is used, but that changes if the term is at the beginning of a category name, when "the" is cut in an extension of the principle of WP:THE. Ham II (talk) 20:53, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II, that sounds like a case to make at WP:RM, rather than at CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I'm happy to take this to RM, but should I wait for this discussion to close first? Ham II (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II, if it goes to RM now, then this discussion would be effectively on hold pending its outcome. If this discussion closes first, then there is a possibility that this CFD may be need to be re-run after the RM, if the two produce different outcomes. So no neat opion.
Personally, I would oppose the RM, since it would create avoidable ambiguity in a title which is already terse ... and if the RM resulted in a renaming, I would still support having the category at "the Arts", because ambiguity is more problematic with categories. But that is my view, and if you disagree, then you are entitled to open an RM if you want to. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose removing "the" too. There's no doubt the usage, and distinction from "art" confuses those not used to it, but various attempts to mitigate that have failed - see most recently the related Talk:Art/Archive_3#Rename_of_art from June. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I've started the RM here. Sorry to hold this discussion up, but as so much of it is riding on the article title I think that at least needs to be stress-tested. Ham II (talk) 10:35, 10 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.
More