< October 3 October 5 >

October 4

Category:Animal monuments in Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 18:57, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as in similar subcats of parent Category:Animal sculptures by country. fgnievinski (talk) 23:14, 4 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:Animal rights memorials

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 as WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 17:49, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: monuments and memorials are merged in parent category fgnievinski (talk) 23:12, 4 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:3rd-century BC establishments 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. MER-C 18:32, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, there is no need to have a modern country in parallel to an ancient civilization tree. In an earlier discussion the Guatemala tree for this period was merged to Maya civilization as well. The articles are still kept together in Category:Maya sites in Campeche within the Mexican tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 4 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:Cineflix 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: rename. MER-C 18:58, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misnamed category, using the format of the "Television series by network" tree for what's actually a "Television series by production studio" category. We use "[Company] original programming" to cover the television networks that broadcast the shows, and "Television series by [Company]" to cover the production studios that made them, not vice versa. And, in fact, this has itself long been miscategorized in the "Television series by network" tree instead of the "Television series by studio" tree, until I corrected it just now. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 4 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:Japanese cooking tools

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Category:Japanese cooking tools

Category:Mega Man (Original Series)

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Category:Mega Man (Original Series)

Category:V (TV network) 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: merge. The nominated pages should be moved to overwrite the current pages at the target names, which were all created by me following discussions on the Speedy page, e.g. [1]. – Fayenatic London 16:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: When a television network rebrands but otherwise continues to operate, we don't need to keep separate categories for each individual brand identity -- for one thing, some of the programs in these categories are still airing, meaning they would technically have to be filed as both "old network original programming" and "new network original programming" simultaneously and thus creating unnecessary category bloat. For comparison, Category:CTV 2 original programming does not have separate subcategories for its days as "NewNet", "A-Channel" or "A", but just keeps all of its past and present programming together under the CTV 2 name -- and Category:Much (TV channel) original programming doesn't have a separate subcategory for programs that aired when it was called "MuchMusic", Category:Yes TV original programming doesn't have a separate subcategory for programs that aired when it was called "CTS", Category:UniMás original programming doesn't have a separate subcategory for programs that aired when it was called "TeleFutura", Category:Ion Television original programming doesn't have a separate subcategory for programs that aired when it was called "Pax", Category:Ici Radio-Canada Télé original programming doesn't have a separate subcategory for programs that aired when it was called "Télévision de Radio-Canada", and on and so forth. These were previously proposed for speedy and opposed on "but the new name isn't what the network was called at the time" grounds, but categorizing shows by broadcaster does not work the same way as categorizing television series by their actual production company — if a production company becomes a division of another one via merger or acquistion, then we leave the production category at the name that the production shingle had at the time rather than collapsing everything into one giant catchall for the new parent corporation, but if a television network or production company simply rebrands itself but remains the same entity otherwise, then we keep its programming together in one category rather than chunking it out into subcategories for each individual rebrand. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is a consensus in the film and TV categories that we do not merge production studio categories on the basis of mergers or acquisitions that post-dated the show's active production — but there is not, and never has been a consensus that we do not merge or rename television network categories on the basis of a mere rebranding. The two situations are not analogous, and do not necessarily have to both be handled the same way — if there was a genuinely meaningful distinction of format between the "old" and "new" networks, such as if a "women's channel" rebranded itself and retooled its programming as a "men's channel", then there might be legitimate reasons to keep separate categories on the grounds that the relationship between the old programming and the new category name was misleading, but not if the name changes but the overall programming focus stays the same. And category bloat (as well as duplicate categorization rules) does apply if a program such as Space/CTV Sci-Fi's Killjoys or Bravo/CTV Drama's Carter or V/Noovo's Occupation Double ends up having to be filed in both categories simultaneously with each other because its production and airing crossed the rebranding.
And by the same token, if a mere rebranding forces us to keep separate programming categories, then it should also force us to keep separate affiliate station categories for the exact same reasons. Do we need to keep CFJP-DT catted as both a V affiliate and a Noovo affiliate now, even though it stayed affiliated with the same service and that service just changed its name? No, we really don't. And if we don't need to do it for the stations, then why do we need to do it for their programming? Bearcat (talk) 17:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
but there is not, and never has been a consensus that we do not merge or rename television network categories on the basis of a mere rebranding. that's true, if you ignore the example I gave, and I'm sure there are others. Also, And by the same token, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. And just to emphasis what I wrote above, instead of hiding this discussion and forcing changes without really checking what the community thinks, it would be much more beneficial to bring this to WP:NCTV and actually see. That will give us a much more clearer result. --Gonnym (talk) 21:17, 9 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I ignore the one example you gave, when I provided numerous examples where we acted exactly as I describe? I must have missed whatever math class taught you that "one" is larger than "many". Bearcat (talk) 00:52, 15 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:Luigi games

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. MER-C 18:59, 12 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Mario video games. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:04, 4 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:Mario platform games

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) 22:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Mario series is at its core a platforming series, making these mainline games of the series. They don't require a subcategory and can be classified simply as "Mario video games". ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:55, 4 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:Artificial scripts in literature, film and games

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 real consensus on what to do, apart from agreement that the current category should not stand. Defaulting to a rename as nominated, but this is without prejudice to a future nomination of Category:Constructed scripts in fiction. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:17, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Artificial scripts in literature, film and games to Category:Constructed scripts in fiction
Nominator's rationale: The change from "Artificial scripts" to "Constructed scripts" is C2D per Constructed script which Artificial script redirects to. The second part is the actual issue. The category currently has 4 pages and a Middle Earth category. All related to fictional content. Both Star Trek and Middle Earth (with the upcoming TV series) can also apply to television. Instead of listing all media types this category applies to, it can simply use "in fiction". Gonnym (talk) 14:30, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Woah, I forgot I created it :)
I edited it a bit, and now most entries are actually about games. Some of them are redirects, according to WP:INCOMPATIBLE. But I don't actually mind changing it to just "fiction". Whether it's OK to include games under fiction is a philosophical question, and I don't have a strong opinion about the answer to it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:51, 4 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:Foreign character warning boxes

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:Language maintenance templates. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Foreign character warning boxes to Category:Non-English character warning boxes
Nominator's rationale: This extraordinarily US-centric name must be replaced. Taken at face value, surely I should attach it to the dollar sign article because that is a foreign character where I live? Characters (glyphs) have no nationality. "Non-English" is a possibility but suggestions towards a consensus alternative are welcome. John Maynard Friedman (talk) 13:27, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: the category contains just two templates and one sub-cat, so it is also questionable under wp:SMALLCAT. Would a merge up into Category:Language maintenance templates be a better solution? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 14:18, 4 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:Ahl al-Kisa

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 29#Category:Ahl al-Kisa

Category:National Health Insurance schemes

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:National health insurance schemes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be an instance of categorising articles together just because the subjects share the same name, which should not be done. "National Health Insurance" isn't a specific thing shared across these countries, it's just a name which happens to be used by quite a few. Suggest upmerging to the parent cat. Otherwise, even if "national health insurance" was shown to be a specific concept distinct from universal healthcare, it should be decapitalised. Paul_012 (talk) 10:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • SupportUniversal health care is a more useful grouping. It's not helpful to split it in this way. Rathfelder (talk) 21:44, 4 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:Loriculus

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: reverse merge. MER-C 14:48, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Loriculus is a duplicate category about the same species as Category:Hanging parrots, only named by its Latin name. The Latin name Loriculus is a redirect to the eponymous article Hanging parrot. —⁠andrybak (talk) 10:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other categories in the parent category Category:Psittaculini are all genus names, so the merged category should be Category:Loriculus. —  Jts1882 | talk  12:36, 4 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:Catalyst support

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:Catalysis. MER-C 18:33, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only 2 pages: the eponymous Catalyst support and Monolith (catalyst support). I checked the head article for other pages which could be added to the category, but found none. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 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:People with anxiety disorders

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) 22:39, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPDEF, this is practically never a defining characteristic of anyone. While famous people sometimes talk about it (along with just about every aspect of their lives), no one is famous for having an anxiety disorder. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give an example of someone with a wp article for whom this is a defining characteristic (for wp categorization)? The articles typically begin something like "Nicole Mary Kidman ... is an Australian actress and producer." (not "... is a person with an anxiety disorder."). DexDor (talk) 10:50, 24 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:Middle English language

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) 22:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Much better and concise name. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:34, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 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:Boonie Bears

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 18:37, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category whose primary contents are the eponymous article and a series of films, which are already categorized within an appropriate films scheme. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:19, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One is a subpage of your user space, one is a userbox, and all that's left is a template (which do not belong in content categories per WP:CAT#T). This doesn't warrant an eponymous parent per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:20, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the subpage. That's a show-related template which I have on my subpage. That template contains this category. How can we apply WP:OCEPON here. It's not a person but a television programme/show. It is a parent category for Category:Boonie Bears films. Empire AS Talk! 12:53, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need for a parent for one subcategory. It adds an unnecessary level for too little content. Look at Category:Kim Possible – it has articles on episodes, characters, video games, a lot more than just films, so it's warranted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, where should Template:Boonie Bears (navbox) and a userbox should go? Because, it's the only category for them. Empire AS Talk! 01:21, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 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:Former CBC Television affiliates

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) 22:42, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_2#American television stations by former network affiliation and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_2#Category:Former CBC Television stations Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This isn't the same as American network affiliates. CBC affiliates were compelled to be part of the network and only became independent gradually and with permission of what is now the CRTC, usually when the CBC was able to replace them with an owned-and-operated station. There are no longer any affiliates, all the stations at present are owned and operated by the CBC but the former status of these stations as affiliates is an important aspect of Canadian broadcasting history. Sowny (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Sowny has been blocked as a sockpuppet of a previously banned user. Bearcat (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 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:Starship Troopers navigational boxes

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 parents. – Fayenatic London 11:47, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT ★Trekker (talk) 05:08, 18 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:37, 4 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:European history by nation navigational boxes

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: split as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Almost all of the templates in the category are sidebar templates. The exceptions are Template:Galicia and Lodomeria timeline and Template:Czechoslovakia timeline. The new name for the navbox category is per convention in Category:History and events templates by continent, like the parent category Category:Europe history templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:54, 4 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:Sammarinese political party shortname 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Sammarinese political party shortname templates to Category:San Marino political party shortname templates
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Direction of the merge chosen for consistency with other categories in Category:Political party shortname templates (e.g. Category:Armenia political party shortname templates and Category:Zimbabwe political party shortname templates). —⁠andrybak (talk) 04:10, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Despite the size of the country, there are still quite a few political parties that each seem to require a template. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 4 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.

Neologisms, words and phases introduced in time periods

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge/rename all into an appropriate Category:DATE neologisms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:52, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 12th century to Category:Phrases introduced in the 12th century (rest collapsed)
"Words and phrases introduced in the <century>" to "Phrases introduced in the <century>"
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 13th century to Category:Phrases introduced in the 13th century
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 14th century to Category:Phrases introduced in the 14th century
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 15th century to Category:Phrases introduced in the 15th century
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 16th century to Category:Phrases introduced in the 16th century
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 17th century to Category:Phrases introduced in the 17th century
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 18th century to Category:Phrases introduced in the 18th century
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 19th century to Category:Phrases introduced in the 19th century
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 20th century to Category:Phrases introduced in the 20th century
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 21st century to Category:Phrases introduced in the 21st century
"Words coined in the <decade>" to "<decade> neologisms"
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1900s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 1900s (rest collapsed)
"Words and phrases introduced in the <decade>" to "Phrases introduced in the <decade>"
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1910s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 1910s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1920s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 1920s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1930s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 1930s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1940s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 1940s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1950s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 1950s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1960s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 1960s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1970s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 1970s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1980s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 1980s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 1990s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 1990s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 2000s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 2000s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 2010s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 2010s
  • Propose renaming Category:Words and phrases introduced in the 2020s to Category:Phrases introduced in the 2020s
"Words and phrases introduced in <year>" to "<year> neologisms"
Nominator's rationale: quote from Neologism: A neologism [...] is a relatively recent or isolated term, word, or phrase (emphasis mine).
I've been going through the "words and phrases introduced in" and "words coined in" categories to make sure that the "Words" category is included in the "Words and phrases" category, until I noticed that a) some of the articles in the "Words" categories are actually phrases and b) there was previous discussion which ended in a rename for century level categories from "Words coined in <century>" to "<century> neologisms". I've reverted my edits to these categories to make this a cleaner CFD.
Per century and per decade, there is enough articles in most categories, that a separate "Phrases" subcategory makes sense. Per year, a single "neologisms" category should be enough.
In the end, every "Phrases introduced in <century>" category shall be a subcategory of a corresponding "<century> neologisms" category. Please note, that at the moment "Words and phases per year" categories are subcats of corresponding "Words coined per decade" categories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

footnotes

  1. ^ Note, that the "words" tree will become the "neologisms" tree after renaming
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