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:RenameTimrollpickering (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, correcting an earlier mistake. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 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:DeleteTimrollpickering (talk) 08:53, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It appears from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Directory/Categories that there used to be a set of categories for five-year periods, which have now all been split to single-year categories. Somehow this one is still here. Its two member pages are already in more specific sub-categories, so no merger is needed. I note that the preceding Category:1980–85 Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons was deleted last month as empty, but I have not looked into the matter further. – FayenaticLondon 15:34, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No such category tree. Dimadick (talk) 17:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both articles are in the yearly categories. Grutness...wha? 04:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably delete - we have Category:Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone seasons with annual subcategories. I can see an argument for merging annual categories into something larger, because most seem to be small categories, but an annual scheme is probably the better option. These straddle two years, because in the southern hemisphere, New Year is mid summer. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:42, 21 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.
Category:DC Comics animated short films
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:RenameTimrollpickering (talk) 08:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per reasons given for the move of its parent category. ★Trekker (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SupportDC Comics' characters have been adapted into films, but the company is not a film or animation studio in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 17:24, 15 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.
Category:DC Comics short films
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:RenameTimrollpickering (talk) 08:52, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SupportDC Comics' characters have been adapted into films, but the company is not a film or animation studio in its own right. Dimadick (talk) 17:24, 15 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.
Category:Robin (character) animated films
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.
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. There are only three films. ★Trekker (talk) 15:27, 15 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 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 Option ATimrollpickering (talk) 08:57, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming, to standardise on either "arts" or "the arts". Currently the by-century categories are named "in the arts", but the by-decade and by-year categories are named "in arts".
Option A: use "the arts"
110 by-decade categories "in arts" → "in the arts"
Upmerge -- I have only been able to sample this. For older periods "The arts" seems to have subcategories for "art" (primarily graphic and pictorial) and "works", which is wider, including literature and even buildings. The best solution may be to eliminate the "The arts" layer, so that all sub-cats are directly in the annual, decade, or century. By the early 16th century, there start being a few more subcats, but mostly ones that fail SMALLCAT. By the 20th century, there may be enough to have annual and decade container categories, but I am not sure. If it is a choice between Arts and The arts I would prefer the latter - Option A. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi, that 2006 CFD seems perverse, because the head article has been at the arts since 2005 (and possibly earlier). The 2006 discussion doesn't even mention that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:27, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My thinking exactly, together with the sweeping claim by the nom that the 'the' makes no difference. Sometimes people just fall in line with an erroneous claim made with sufficient confidence. Oculi (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A for the two reasons mentioned by nominator. Admittedly Peterkingiron has a point that the categories start too early in history, at all three levels (of century, decade and year), but we should have a separate discussion when would be a more meaningful starting point for every of the three levels. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:07, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A to match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A - because I think that is the way most people would usually say it. Plus, the well-reasoned explanations of the nominator and those above. ‡ Єl Cid of Valenciatalk 18:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A though I'd happily delete at least half of these dreadful 1/10th-filled cats. Johnbod (talk) 20:21, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A. Sounds more natural, and that's certainly how people who work in the arts describe it (myself included). Grutness...wha? 04:03, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A, as it's more idiomatic. Ham II (talk) 07:55, 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.