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. bibliomaniac15 03:16, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Syndromes affecting the eyes to Category:Syndromes affecting the eye (over redirect)
• Propose merging Category:Syndromes affecting vision to Category:Syndromes affecting the eye
• Propose renaming Category: Diseases of the eye and adnexa to Category:Diseases of the eye Category:Eye diseases (over redirect)
• Propose renaming Category:Fictional characters with diseases of the eye and adnexa to Category:Fictional characters with diseases of the eye Category:Fictional characters with eye diseases

Nominator's rationale: Second attempt to harmonise these, using singular "eye" without "adnexa" as supported at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 21#Category:Syndromes affecting the eyes. – Fayenatic London 21:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, alt renaming to Category:Eye diseases (over redirect) would have been a sort of WP:C2D per Eye disease. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amendment accepted, thanks Marcocapelle. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support amended nomination per my earlier comment and otherwise per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 16 February 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 12:38, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lebanese anti-Syrian activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A strange and unparalleled category. For example, we don't see categories like Georgian/Ukrainian anti-Russian activists, or Greek anti-Turkish activists. This is called undue discrimination. Otherwise, the name can be changed to Lebanese opposed to Syrian influence. Sakiv (talk) 19:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• At least purge all politicians, politicians are not activists and are defined by the party they represent. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- All those I sampled were Christians (not Muslims), of various denominations. I suspect that most Christian politicians were anti-Syrian. All I looked at were from politically active families, though some were ambassadors or held other positions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 19 February 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:ViacomCBS to Category:Paramount Global
• Category:ViacomCBS-related lists to Category:Paramount Global-related lists
• Category:ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks to Category:Paramount Media Networks
• Category:ViacomCBS Networks International to Category:Paramount International Networks
• Category:ViacomCBS Networks franchises to Category:Paramount Media Networks franchises
• Category:ViacomCBS Streaming to Category:Paramount Streaming
• Category:ViacomCBS divisions to Category:Paramount Global divisions
• Category:ViacomCBS drafts to Category:Paramount Global drafts
• Category:ViacomCBS franchises to Category:Paramount Global franchises
• Category:ViacomCBS navigational boxes to Category:Paramount Global navigational boxes
• Category:ViacomCBS people to Category:Paramount Global people
• Category:ViacomCBS subsidiaries to Category:Paramount Global subsidiaries
• Category:Predecessors of ViacomCBS to Category:Predecessors of Paramount Global
• Per the respective article's respective move, ViacomCBS has now become Paramount Global, and the relevant categories should be updates to reflect this. — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 16:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Nathan Obral • he/him • t • c • 16:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. LooneyTraceYT comment • treats 23:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. Just execute the renaming. Ridwan97 (talk) 06:40, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note, seems some of these organisations are adopting different names. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paramount_Global#Mass_unsourced_page_moves_of_ex-ViacomCBS_subsidiaries — Berrely • ^Talk∕_Contribs 12:59, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in general. I would be cautious about moving some of the subcategories since some of the divisions are adopting separate page names. (Particularly, I'd double-check Category:Paramount Domestic Media Networks, Category:Paramount International Networks, Category:Paramount Media Networks franchises and Category:Paramount Streaming.) – Epicgenius (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the reasons above. Tali64^2, always top quality. (talk) 17:40, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Ebbedlila (talk) 02:04, 22 February 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 23:01, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Light blue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Pink (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Red (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Same logic as WP:OCASSOC: these categories are basically anything associated with the said colors. 2.55.14.62 (talk) 15:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete also per WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:48, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as overcategorization. Stifle (talk) 16:50, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I could see most of these potentially working as much narrower categories containing articles about shades of a certain color (e.g. Category:Green could contain Spring green, Forest green, Jungle green, etc.), but as they are right now it's unworkable. ansh.666 17:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh wait, never mind, Category:Shades of green and shades of other colors exist. Delete then. ansh.666 17:32, 23 February 2022 (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. bibliomaniac15 03:17, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Former Ku Klux Klan members to Category:Ku Klux Klan members

Nominator's rationale: As an encyclopedia, it doesn't make sense to sort people by current and former affiliations. Virtually all Klansmen and Klanswomen are FORMER Klan members since the Klan exists as a mere shell of its former self. User:Namiba 15:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Hope no-one votes k-k-keep on this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 15:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - on WiKKKipedia, we never have separate KKKategories for KKKurent and former. 2.55.13.95 (talk) 20:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose - opposed to Namiba's comment, while the KKK is not as big as it use to be, it still has several thousand members and is by no means a small organization. There are plenty of "Category:Former members of X" on Wikipedia. Also a potential biographical issue, as reformed individuals who no longer associate themselves with the KKK could be offended by being categorized with their former association. If this individuals are still alive, then this has the potential to be a WP:BLP issue. The puns used by the other !voters makes me doubt that editors are taking this CFD seriously. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merge, open to a potential rename The point of this category is to indicate people who both left the KKK and renounced their support of the KKK. Perhaps a rename would help with this. The reason Robert Byrd was added, for instance (and which prompted the creation of this category) was that he was listed under a KKK members category, which was grossly inaccurate given Byrd's subsequent denunciation of the Klan and strong support for civil rights. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:20, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, the point is that they have been KKK members. Readers interested in KKK members can find out further details, e.g. for how long and if and why they quit, by just reading the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge In the end they will all be former members. Rathfelder (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That's a little a presumptuous and WP:CRYSTAL. The category applies to the individuals and not the organization, so even if the KKK ceased to exist, the category regarding former members should only apply to individuals who left the organization during their lifetimes. The former category should be for individuals who are notable for leaving the KKK, the latter for the individuals who did/have not left, simple as that. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:38, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merge per Trainsandotherthings. It appears that, for some at least, their leaving the KKK was WP:DEFINING. I have added this into Category:Former members of organizations. – Fayenatic London 12:24, 21 March 2022 (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: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Law in Georgia (country) to Category:Georgia (country) law

Nominator's rationale: All other categories in Category:Law by country is named this way. WP:CONSISTENT with Category:Georgia (U.S. state) law. Thesmp (talk) 10:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• No need to change -- The target is bad grammar. It would need to be Georgian law, but I do not think that WP uses that demonym. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, the siblings are named using the country adjective rather than noun. In cases where the adjective is ambiguous or deprecated (e.g. "Northern Irish"), we use "of [country name]". – Fayenatic London 09:23, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Can be closed, I withdraw this nomination, instead I opened a general nomination Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 23#All subcategories in Category:Law by country. --Thesmp (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2022 (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. Category seems to have been emptied by its creator.[1] – Fayenatic London 11:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Documentary films with animation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not sure this is a defining characteristic. Additionally, I'm not clear on how this category is supposed to be used. If a documentary includes a ten-second excerpt from The Simpsons, does it belong here? That seems overly-broad. DonIago (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, permission granted Espngeek (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This category is IMHO legitimate as it is DEFINING a doc subsection. OTOH the nominator is right that it definitely needs a clear conditional description that only documentaries that use extra produced animations for concept purposes are meant. --Just N. (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The category is now empty. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:52, 16 February 2022 (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. I note that the nominated categories have parents Category:Stadiums and Category:Indoor arenas, and are therefore category intersections that might be of some use. – Fayenatic London 11:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Indoor arenas logos to Category:Sports venue logos
• Propose merging Category:Stadium logos to Category:Sports venue logos

Nominator's rationale: Per a discussion on Commons, I am proposing fully merging Category:Indoor arenas logos and Category:Stadium logos into Category:Sports venue logos due to over categorization. For simplicity, "Sports venue logos" should suffice in capturing the logo of venues that host sporting events. Additionally, the terms "stadium", "ballpark", "field", "arena", "center", and "fieldhouse" are all used to refer to "indoor arenas" and "stadiums". This would help to categorize all into one and avoid those terms as a whole. Astros4477 (Talk) 01:04, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment I have just tagged the second category and added it to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The exiting category is even now a very populaed one. After merge it would be huge. Next to expect would be a split CfD. --Just N. (talk) 16:29, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Replying to "Just N." above - I would say to this specific rebute that a more efficient way of breaking down the Category so it does not get so large is to distinguish between location, as opposed to type of venue, per the reasoning above.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 03:55, 16 February 2022 (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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging: Category:Governors of places in Bolivia with Category:Governors of departments of Bolivia Krisgabwoosh (talk) 01:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, seems correct. Some of the people were described as Prefect rather than Governor, but all the places they governed/prefected were Departments. Note: after closing, please also merge Wikidata https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8497394 – Fayenatic London 21:56, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:43, 21 February 2022 (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.