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 and disambiguate. – Fayenatic London 15:56, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Free University of Brussels faculty to Category:Vrije Universiteit Brussel faculty
• Propose renaming Category:Free University of Brussels alumni to Category:Vrije Universiteit Brussel alumni

Nominator's rationale: This would match the article - Vrije Universiteit Brussel and I think be clearer. But there are three universities located in Brussels, Belgium:

• The Dutch-speaking Vrije Universiteit Brussel
• The French-speaking Université libre de Bruxelles
• The defunct Free University of Brussels (1834–1969) - which doesnt have subcategories for faculty or alumni, and I propose to create them.

Rathfelder (talk) 20:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)))[reply]

• Comment. I fully agree that there is a benefit in splitting the category into three listed, but what is the rationale for this approach? There is no rationale for assuming VUB is intended; "Free University of Brussels faculty/alumni" should refer, if anything, to the pre-1969 institution. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Split -- Both the Flemish and Francophone universities have names that translate to the present cat-name. The nom needs to provide wach article with a new category relating to the three institutions listed. When someone can assure us that this has been done, the presnrt categories can be deleted. It is not fair to ask a closing admin to undertake a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• There are already alumni and faculty subcategories for Université libre de Bruxelles and Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Rathfelder (talk) 23:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• I've now sorted the articles between the three universities as best I can. Clearly many editors have found this confusing so they may not all be right. The articles in the Free University of Brussels categories belong to the Vrije Universiteit after 1969. Those before 1969 are in the Free University of Brussels (1834–1969) categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Split. There is clearly a relation between these universities, and confusion between the names. The structure should be:
  • Category:Free University of Brussels alumni (or faculty), a container or dab category of:
    • Category:Free University of Brussels (1834–1969) alumni
    • Category:Université libre de Bruxelles alumni
    • Category:Vrije Universiteit Brussel alumni

As Rathfelder already split articles that should belong to the various universities, creating this structure should be easy. Place Clichy (talk) 16:33, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• I've discovered that the history of many universities in France is as complicated as this - sometimes more so. Category:University of Paris faculty is the most complicated. Do people think we should leave articles about people from universities which have split up in the parent categories - as seems commonest in France - or should we make new categories for the child universities, which might be quite small as these splits are often quite recent? And just to add to the confusion, some of them have recombined. Rathfelder (talk) 16:54, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per actual content. I am presuming that advocates of split support renaming as well but would like to have e.g. Category:Free University of Brussels faculty recreated as a parent category, which is fine too. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 29 January 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 and disambiguate. – Fayenatic London 13:04, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support adding disambiguation, for consistency with the subcategory and for greater clarity. Regarding the spelling, "modelling" appears in both the Merriam-Webster and Lexico (US English) online dictionaries, with no indication that its usage is restricted to British English, whereas "modeling" is noted in the Lexico UK English dictionary as "US verb modeling". Does this mean that the spelling with two Ls is an area of MOS:COMMONALITY between American and British English? Ham II (talk) 11:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to avoid confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:39, 28 January 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 12:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify (if necessary) then delete -- Whatever the merits (or demerits) of this category, it offends against WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron, possibly listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People and things are not defined by winning anti-awards. This is a very clear case of over categorization by "award".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. It's absolutely legitimate to have negative awards! No serious reasons at all to delete it! CfD should not be just about private tastes. --Just N. (talk) 13:45, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What he said Espngeek (talk) 12:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:OCAWARD discourages both positive and negative awards. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment no listifying is necessary. These are listed by both year and category as seen here: -2pou (talk) 18:23, 31 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• List of people who have accepted Golden Raspberry Awards Espngeek (talk) 12:29, 8 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) 07:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. When a US place needs a county disambiguator it is almost always a sign it is not a significant enough place to justify categorizing people being from that specific place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 13:47, 28 January 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:52, 22 January 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 12:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already part of the parent categories' trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:41, 22 January 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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:51, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to address all three of these nominations concerning categories of crystals. I discussed this with Kent G. Budge back in October (see User talk:Kent G. Budge#Categories of minerals). I wrote there,

Actually, I think it's better to have both a category "Cubic crystal system" and a category "Cubic crystals". At Wikipedia:Categorization#Category tree organization they say there are two kinds of categories, "topic categories" and "set categories". "Cubic crystal system" is a topic category, whereas "Cubic crystals" is a set category.

and Kent said "Okay, that makes sense". This of course applies to the above mentioned categories, not just to "Cubic crystals" and "Cubic crystal system". Eric Kvaalen (talk) 06:43, 22 January 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. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose straight deletion - if the category is not kept the content should be dispersed to Category:Asian-American history and Category:Asian-American culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, maybe after manually dispersing articles in the (unlikely) event that they are not already in a better-named subcategories of Category:Asian-American society, such as Category:Asian-American-related controversies or Category:Anti-Asian sentiment in the United States. Some of the content may not need to be kept in any Asian-American-related category, such as Category:United States–Asian relations which has content about individual bilateral relationships between the U.S. and countries in Asia, including e.g. Category:Israel–United States relations or Category:Armenia–United States relations. Place Clichy (talk) 17:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose straight deletion. Not really substantiated proposal. --Just N. (talk) 13:55, 28 January 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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. In any case, the category is wrongly titled. "Asian" refers to the continent, not "Asian-Americans" as an ethnic group. —Brigade Piron (talk) 18:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Duplicate of Category:African-American–Asian-American relations, which already has a sub-category about the 1992 Los Angeles riots. Place Clichy (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. The detected existing duplicate - BTW thank you to Place Clichy indeed! - will be more than enough. --Just N. (talk) 13:59, 28 January 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.