Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 13

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) 07:01, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Colonial History of Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category created for POV-pushing, compare this edit. I removed the category from some battle articles that didn't say anything about "colonial history" [1][2][3] and undid the edits to Prithvi Narayan Shah; the sole remaining article currently so categorized is nominated for deletion and also has POV-pushing issues. Huon (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Per nom. I have been cleaning up after this user's mess all day and this is just the tip of the iceberg. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Nepal was not a colony. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2019 (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) 07:03, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Colonial History (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:History of colonialism. Huon (talk) 20:22, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per nom. Plus, it is a part of the POV pushing rampage by the creator. The POV being that Nepal has an unacknowledged colonial history. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 21:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: per both. Johnbod (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2019 (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. MER-C 09:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT heroes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant single-entry parent for Category:LGBT superheroes. The parent category Category:Heroes specifically states that it is for "types of heroes and cultural and literary theories surrounding the hero, not for specific heroes", but the "LGBT superheroes" subcategory is listing specific superheroes -- so this is not an appropriate categorization genealogy on that side, and when it comes to the Category:Fictional LGBT characters by occupation category, there's no reason why the superheroes category can't just be directly filed there instead of needing this as an intermediate step. Bearcat (talk) 18:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Move contents and delete. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. The subcategory is already in Category:Superheroes by type so there is no need to merge it anywhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2019 (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 Category:Years in African football to Category:Seasons in African football. MER-C 10:29, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Seasons in African football to Category:Years in African football

Nominator's rationale: Basically there is no need to have this category (and its subcategories) since we already have Category:Years in African football, which is the main category about African football's seasons. Moving the articles from this category to the other shouldn't be hard since there aren't many articles linked to it; so I believe merging it is the right thing to do (or just deleting it). Ben5218 (talk) 17:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I've noticed that a category called Category:Seasons in European football do exist but there isn't one called Category:Years in European football, so doing a reverse merge is an option too. Ben5218 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 08:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge 'Years' into 'Seasons' to match the European precedent. GiantSnowman 08:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The reason we have seasons for European football is that it is a winter sport, with a season running from August to May. The right solution for Africa will depend on when the game is played. Where this is the southern winter, the season will fit with the year, so that we could have either. In principle we should not have multiple parallel trees. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peterkingiron: - not everywhere in Europe, for example many Scandinavian and Baltic countries which run a calendar year season... GiantSnowman 12:54, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge or reverse merge, it does not make sense to keep them separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 21 July 2019 (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 to Category:Proposed states of Nepal. MER-C 09:43, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Identity based provinces of Nepal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Real category of conceptual entities. Political POV pushing. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:57, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Proposed states of Nepal which is a better place for the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Marcocapelle; that said, that category also seems to be incorrectly named and needs renaming as well, since Nepal's first-order subdivisions are actually called provinces and not states — but they should still be grouped together pending the fix. The fact that a proposed but unrealized province or state might happen to correspond to the traditional territory of an ethnic group does not make that proposal an "identity-based province" — if reliable sources haven't already grouped them that way and discussed them in that context for us, then it's not our place to label them that way in our editorial voice. "Identity politics" is a loaded term with political baggage, not a neutral or objective descriptor. Bearcat (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2019 (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. MER-C 09:38, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nepa valley (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Not a valid category. Has one article, I'm getting that deleted too. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 14:55, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:36, 21 July 2019 (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) 07:13, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:PKF to Category:Accounting firms of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 eponymous article Rathfelder (talk) 12:26, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2019 (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) 07:15, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Moore Stephens to Category:Accounting firms of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 eponymous article. Rathfelder (talk) 12:24, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 15 July 2019 (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 to "by state or territory". Timrollpickering (Talk) 10:03, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Categories by state of the United States to Category:Categories by location of the United States
• Propose renaming Category:Elections in the United States by state to Category:Elections in the United States by location
• Propose renaming Category:Elections in the United States by state and year to Category:Elections in the United States by location and year
• Propose renaming Category:Elections in the United States by year and state to Category:Elections in the United States by year and location
• Propose renaming Category:Political events in the United States by state to Category:Political events in the United States by location
• Propose renaming Category:Politics of the United States by state to Category:Politics of the United States by location
• Propose renaming Category:Political scandals in the United States by state to Category:Political scandals in the United States by location
• Propose renaming Category:Protests in the United States by state to Category:Protests in the United States by location
• Propose renaming Category:Events in the United States by state to Category:Events in the United States by location
• Propose renaming Category:American culture by state to Category:American culture by location

Note There are perhaps hundreds of categories that would fit here. I suspect I ought to put a CFR2 note on all of them for the sake of notice and discussion, right? —GoldRingChip 18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: "Non-state" locations, such as Washington, DC and Guam, and obsolete territories don't currently fit in these categories so they sometimes get left out or other times get put in a territorial or "insular area" pot. While technically accurate, it's WP:OCLOCATION (over-categorization) and "location" is sufficient to include them all. —GoldRingChip 18:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The nomination appears to propose merging categories into redlink categories. Did you mean rename rather than merge? DexDor ^(talk) 19:00, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoa… yes. I've fixed it. —GoldRingChip 19:23, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I would suggest "by state or territory" as "by location" is quite vague and you might end up with categories for small towns in the same one as states. Number 57 11:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but I don't think over-describing it solves much. Locations can be subsumed inside others, for example Boston would end up in Massachusetts. —GoldRingChip 13:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming, as it replaces a well-defined category structure with a vague one. No objection to creating by location categories as parent categories (e.g. Category:History of the United States by location), when desired. - Eureka Lott 15:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as nom, but there is merit in having non-state territories as siblings to states, including Puerto Rico, DC, Guam, Guantanamo Bay, etc. This would be done by renaming by state cats to "state or territory". This would also resolve the difficulty of how to handle categories for states at periods before they became states. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support alternative "by state or territory" per discussion above. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - 'by state' is the obvious way to subcat US categories, much as 'by country' is the obvious way to subcat global categories. There will always be historical and geographical anomalies. Oculi (talk) 15:39, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi:They are more than mere anomalies, but even so… how to handle them? —GoldRingChip 17:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @GoldRingChip: In many cases I have seen non-state locations sorted with a + sortkey within a by-state category, and this seems pretty convenient. See for instance how this works out in Category:Protestantism in the United States by state. Unfortunately, such subcategories are sometimes moved back to the unsorted mother category. If we make a guideline that this should be the way to treat this issue, this removes the need for a "by location" category. Place Clichy (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to "...state or territory... per above discussion. "State/Territory" is very nicely and neatly defined, dividing the US into 50+ discrete areas. "Location" is not. Note also that "Category:Categories by location of the United States" is a very peculiar proposed name, and suggests that the US moves from place to place. Grutness...wha? 04:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Preferred option: keep "by state" categories" and place a guideline that such categories should include non-state areas such as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico and insular areas of the United Stated with a + sortkey. Second preferred option: rename to use "...by state or territory". Place Clichy (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose "state" is a well-defined, well-established descriptor, and "location" is confusingly vague. I'm accepting of "state or territory", but I still prefer just "state", as there are so few exceptions that it's hardly worth the rename. Googol30 (talk) 08:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further discussion – @EurekaLott, Peterkingiron, Marcocapelle, and Grutness: Can you elaborate a little, please, on what the "by territory" variants would look like? —GoldRingChip 17:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• For what it's worth, I prefer the current by state convention to the proposed by state or territory option. The proposal doesn't help with the most common situation, which is where to place Washington, D.C. categories. Still no objection to using by location categories as parent categories where there's a need. - Eureka Lott 18:44, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Guam and Puerto Rico would belong to it as well. By the way, I'm not against having Category:Categories by location of the United States by all means, but I am against renaming Category:Categories by state of the United States to Category:Categories by location of the United States. Having a location parent category of a states category would be a very acceptable solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In case I wasn't clear, I was trying to say that Washington D.C. categories wouldn't fit in by state or territory categories, because it's a federal district and not a state or territory. I'm glad we agree about the rest. - Eureka Lott 22:40, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• DC categories quite often subcats of "by state" categories (incorrectly but effectively). As for territories, as well as the likes of Guam, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and the USVI, it's possible that events in historic territories (e.g., Indian Territory, Dakota Territory) could be included under their contemporary locations. I'm still opposed to the idea of "...by location" categories, as it leaves the door open to a lot of non-standard subcategories (random possibilities - "...west of the Mississippi", "...on the northwestern frontier", "...in the Bible Belt"). Grutness...wha? 01:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "by location" could easily just be a parent category of "by state".★Trekker (talk) 19:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose this would not be helpful to readers. The US legally, culturally, politically, socially, etc. consists of 50 states plus other entities. Changing this here would make WP look silly. If and when needed, create 'by location' parent categories for states, insular territories, cities, counties and so on. Hmains (talk) 04:52, 18 August 2019 (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 manually, to consider whether subcategories may be more appropriate. Category:Films based on real people seems to have been mostly ignored in this discussion, so it has been relisted on today's CFD. MER-C 10:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Films about individual people to Category:Biographical films

Nominator's rationale: And the difference is what exactly? Absolutely no need for two separate categories. If this is just for films that feature an individual as a character as opposed to films that actually tell their story, I'd question the need for such categories anyway. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:28, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The difference is that films in this tree need not be biographical, for example if a historical figure makes a significant appearance in a time travel film. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:40, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't make the film about the historical figure. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. "About" is not the same thing as "featuring cameos by", so the comment above isn't a compelling rationale for this — nominator is entirely correct that there's no actual distinction between this and the category that we already have. Bearcat (talk) 16:45, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, there is also Category:Films based on real people, wouldn't this be an appropriate merge target? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That should also be a merge into Category:Biographical films. It's not even named in good English. What does "based on real people" mean? -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think the reason for all the confusion here is because the category is poorly named. Judging by the contents, it looks like the purpose of the category is to serve as the umbrella for subcats about individual people. I'll elaborate further later - sorry, gotta run. Can somebody please notify the creator? Anomalous+0 (talk) 01:00, 26 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I have taken care of notifying the creator. Should have been done by the nominator, who is also an admin. Very sad. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:53, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no obligation to notify the creator. If they're that interested they'll see it on their watchlist. Please keep your snide remarks to yourself. Thank you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Wow, such arrogance. Can't believe you lost it over such a mild (and entirely justified) comment. So I will say it again: It's very sad and quite appalling that an admin such as yourself would willfully thumb his nose at the very idea of notifying an editor whose category they have nominated for deletion. I really do expect better from admins. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  There is no consensus about notifying the creator of a page. I've also seen that someone thought it is inappropriate to notify the creator, per WP:OWN. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:48, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  It's common courtesy to contact a creator. You don't have to do it, but it's appreciated. It's also not somehow an "OWN thing" as you claim, a person who made something is likely going to have an opinion and be able to explain why the page was made in the first place.★Trekker (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Biographical films by person/individual (choose one) , or perhaps even Category:Biographical film categories by person/individual. This category gathers in one place sub-categories for films about specific individuals. There are quite a few such categories, but they're scattered among a variety of film categories by genre, topic, etc. Feel free to suggest another name - these were the best I could come up with. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:43, 27 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That would not do at all: "by" would be liable to indicate authorship - scriptwriter, producer etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, I suppose most importantly we need to keep the distinction between Category:Biographical drama films and Category:Biographical documentary films, and either the nominated category or Category:Films based on real people or Category:Biographical films could potentially be the parent of the former two. Currently Category:Biographical films is the parent, so let us then merge the other two into it. I have tagged Category:Films based on real people as well, for that purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A film can easily be about a human being while not actually showing events of that persons life. Just look at someone like Jesus, there are films about Jesus that don't feature any of the actual events of his life.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• While that occasionally happens, for most films it will be very difficult if not impossible to make a clear cut distinction because there is always some amount of interpretation involved in biographical films. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The difference between the two is not defined. The Lincoln film made in about 2013 was not "biographical", it was a government procedural. It only covered the last month of his life, but it fits as biographical. The about v based on issue also comes up when you get into loosely based life film or what about Green Book, where the more notable character is less covered in the film (although the main character of the film would later have a notable role on the Sopranos, don't get us into the fact that the historically most important figure in that film may have made up his Russian studies out of fear of not being accepted with just American training).John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:03, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Biographical films by person and place as a subcategory of Category:Biographical films. Many participants don't seem to be aware that this is a container category for Category:Films about person which is understandable since it's confusingly named. Regarding the name ambiguity; I don't think it's a big problem since it's a container category and makes perfect sense when listed alongside with Category:Biographical films by country and Category:Biographical films by decade. While a merger certainly is possible but putting Category:Films about Fred Rogers‎ as a subcategory of Category:Biographical films seems a bit silly. --Trialpears (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also supporting Merge and diffuse. While renaming and putting all Category:Films about person categories in there as a non-diffusing cat would be my prefered outcome, I consider merging and diffusing almost as good an outcome. --Trialpears (talk) 09:21, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The entire Films about... structure needs to be rethought as there are a lot of trivial entries in it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per the nom. These two categories are redundant and the biographical cat is the more encompassing one, so it's the much better choice to use going forward. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just so I'm not misunderstanding this: Do you mean that Category:Films about Billy the Kid‎, Category:Films about Fred Rogers‎,Category:Films about Julius Caesar‎ and Category:Films about Muhammad‎ should be placed in Category:Biographical films? --Trialpears (talk) 00:06, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Should have pinged Newshunter12. --Trialpears (talk) 00:26, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Trialpears I should have mentioned that I believe many entries should be stripped out of the combined category. This isn't IMDB and we don't need categories listing every production on these people, which seems like fancruft to me. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:34, 23 September 2019 (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: reverse merge. MER-C 09:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Twin people from the United States to Category:American twins

Nominator's rationale: merge or reverse merge, the two categories have an overlapping scope. I have tagged both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes it makes sense to merge them although I think a Category redirect would be appropriate (both here and for Category:Polish twins [which was deleted 11 June by User: Liz]). -- -- -- 20:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge for consistency within Category:Twin people by nationality, and redirect as this may be helpful. – Fayenatic London 10:13, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree with Fayenatic London that a reverse merge would be more consistent within this tree. Probably the whole tree needs to be nominated at some point to be renamed to fooian twins, but that will be for another time. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 15 July 2019 (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: keep. I don't see enough support to call this "no consensus", but this close is without prejudice to speedy renomination, given how stale this is now. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 06:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:European disability organizations to Category:International disability organizations based in Europe
• Propose renaming Category:European medical and health organizations to Category:International medical and health organizations based in Europe
• Propose renaming Category:International medical associations of Europe to Category:International medical associations based in Europe

Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation from Category:Disability organizations based in Europe (recently created by Oculi), and from Category:Medical and health organizations based in Europe respectively. The other nominated category Category:International medical associations of Europe is clearly distinguished from its parent Category:Medical associations based in Europe, but should be updated to "based in". – Fayenatic London 11:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to @Rathfelder and Tim!: Back in 2016, the first category was speedily renamed back and forth between "European…" and "…in Europe", see [4] and [5]. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - there is Pan-European as well; eg Category:Pan-European trade and professional organizations. Oculi (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment - as we have Category:International organizations based in Europe and Category:Disability organizations based in Europe, is there any need to intersect them? Oculi (talk) 14:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• There is a difference between the organisations concerned with policy in Europe and those based in Europe (some just the EU, some wider) with a wider perspective. Maybe Pan-European is the best word for the former, if we can establish it across all the relevent categories. Rathfelder (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another alternative is "cross-European", which was preferred over "Pan" at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_15#Category:Pan-European_advocacy_groups. – Fayenatic London 08:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    I would personally stick with 'international' - "involving more than one country" - rather than trying to categorise organisations by more specific criteria. Oculi (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support "cross-European" or "pan-European", oppose "based in Europe" because this is about the purpose of the organizations, not about where they are based. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact Rathfelder created this along with many of the form 'Fooian disability organizations' such as Category:Russian disability organisations, which were all renamed to 'based in Foo' except the European one at this cfd in 2017. I see no particular evidence that any of these were intended to capture the purpose rather than the base of the organization. (Indeed Rathfleder put it in Category:Organizations based in Europe: diff.) Oculi (talk) 20:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of the organisations in these categories are named "European", it is more than just based in. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I couldnt find a more appropriate place to put them. I'd be perfectly happy with "cross-European" rather than Pan-European. There are some categories for Pan-American organisations. But I think "International organizations" is a bit vague, and misses a defining characteristic of the organizations I am thinking about. Rathfelder (talk) 20:01, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as nom -- These appear all to be Europe-wide organisations; and in Europe the British English spelling should be used

If others wish, I would support renames to "Pan-European". I am not clear what the distinction between the second and third items is (the 3rd being a subcat of the 2nd) and might support merging these to (say Category:Pan-European medical and health organisations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I dont think the European Union has much influence over spelling. I don't see why Wikipedia should follow its style guide, especially as it may shortly change. Rathfelder (talk) 12:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Cross-European disability organizations. Pan-European has a distinct meaning and shouldn't be used to avoid ambiguity, international organizations imply a slightly different scope than intended leaving cross-European as the best alternative. --Trialpears (talk) 14:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The present categories are clear in their meaning and there is no benefit in renaming any of these. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:42, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "European X organisations" is accepted as a term for an organisation with a focus on X in the scope of Europe. "based in" refers to headquarters location not scope; some organisations based in Europe have a global scope (e.g. IAEA), some have a non-European scope (e.g. OPEC), some have a specifically European scope (e.g. EU, Council of Europe). Only organisations with a European scope are specifically European; IAEA and OPEC are not specifically European organisations despite being headquartered in Europe. "Pan-European" or "Cross-European" suggestions, I don't agree with those, since while those terms exist they are rarely used, the "Pan-" and "Cross-" prefix is not necessary to make the meaning clear. Given opposition to "based in Europe", I oppose "International medical associations based in Europe" too; I would support renaming "International medical associations" to "European medical associations", but I don't think it is essential. I think the status quo here is adequate. SJK (talk) 21:47, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Addendum: I do however agree with changing "organization" to "organisation". The EU officially prefers British spelling to American, as do all countries in Europe which have English as an official language. Maybe in some European countries where English is not the official language, American English is more popular, but there is nothing official about that, so what is officially enshrined must take precedence over what is merely an informal practice. @Rathfelder: why should we expect the EU style guide for English to "shortly change"? Even with Brexit, Ireland remains a member, and Ireland spells most words the same as the British do. Maybe if Ireland were leaving too, it would be a different story, but there are no signs Ireland plans to do that. Plus, Engish is an official language in Malta too, and Malta uses British spelling as well. So long as all EU members states which have English as an official language prefer British spelling, the EU will prefer British spelling, and the withdrawal of one of those states makes no difference to that when the other two remain. SJK (talk) 21:52, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Organization is perfectly proper English spelling. Rathfelder (talk) 21:56, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• In British English, while both "organization" and "organisation" are acceptable, "organisation" is preferred. I'm pretty sure the same is true for Irish English and Maltese English as well. The EU's English style is based on the language preferences of its officially-English-speaking member states (Ireland, Malta, and for the time being UK), and so it also prefers "organisation" to "organization". SJK (talk) 22:01, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the more important part here is consistency and as currently all subcats of Category:International organizations based in Europe use organization a move wouldn't be beneficial. My experience living in Sweden is that none of the spellings really are preffered with American media being more prevallent than British and an education system that doesn't prescribe either. I think the same is the case for the rest of mainland europe as well. Since the z version is acceptable in all engvars while the s version is not the z version should be used. I don't however think this question should be discussed in this prolonged CfD and let the focus be on the based in/cross/pan dispute. No problem with another CfD on the matter though. --Trialpears (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have filed an WP:ANRFC. While there's been some discussion in the last week I doubt keeping this open for any longer would be beneficial. --Trialpears (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2019 (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 as nominated, without prejudice against creating Category:American non-binary writers when that appears likely to be useful. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 18 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American genderqueer novelists to Category:Non-binary writers

Nominator's rationale: Only 4 articles in the category. It's too specific of a category. We currently don't even don't subcategorize non-binary people by nationality, let alone by nationality, occupation and specific gender identification. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category: American non-binary novelists. This category was created back when “genderqueer” was the umbrella term used for all non-binary people on Wikipedia, and I strongly support renaming to match the updated norms. (The renamed category could also include Carole LaFavor and possibly others.) However, I’m opposed to outright deletion given that “American male novelists” and “American female novelists” are valid existing categories—small size alone is not grounds for deletion of a category with potential to grow, see WP:SMALLCAT. Absternr (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carole LaFavor is (according to her article) a woman (e.g. in Category:American women activists). Surely the article belongs (just) in Category:American women novelists. DexDor ^(talk) 09:48, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How many entries would it even have under that though? Non-binary writers only has 30 something articles. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:56, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per Absternr's suggestion. To match the main article non-binary gender. A category with a poorly defined scope is naturally underpopulated. Dimadick (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom, or perhaps rename to Category:Non-binary novelists or to Category:American non-binary writers. However, oppose Category: American non-binary novelists since intersecting novelists with nationality, within non-binary, would make it an extremely narrow category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge the novelist category is too specific. We might be able to justify having Category:American non-binary writers, but subdividing down below that level is really going against ERGS issues. This is especially so since we would have to justify there being a unique intersection of being a novelist and being non-binary. Plus with the whole Category:Non-binary writers only having 55 entries, sub-dividing by nationality is hard to justify, subdividing additionally by genre at the nationality level is impossible to justify.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:American non-binary writers and diffuse from Category:Non-binary writers. About half of Category:Non-binary writers seems to be Americans based on my 10 article sample making it large enough to warrant a category while making navigation slightly easier. --Trialpears (talk) 12:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • At this point Category:Non-binary writers is sufficient. There is no good reason to divide a category with well under 100 contents by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:09, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't see any problems with either and would support both options. --Trialpears (talk) 22:06, 14 September 2019 (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. – Fayenatic London 08:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American photographers by subject (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No need for this intermediate category as there is only a single subcat, which should be upmerged to Category:American photographers. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:33, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:American photographers per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 25 June 2019 (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: do not merge. MER-C 09:42, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Children of Charlemagne to Category:Carolingian dynasty
• Propose merging Category:Wives of Charlemagne to Category:Carolingian dynasty

Nominator's rationale: merge, we usually categorize nobility by family or dynasty, and it is not clear why we do not do that in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Standard categories in Category:Wives by person and Category:Children by person category trees. Dimadick (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Which leads to the question, should we have those trees at all or should we merge all of them to families/dynasties? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of them are not about dynasties, royal or otherwise. Dimadick (talk) 10:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• While not a dynasty, Category:Smith family (Latter Day Saints) is also fine as a target. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per keepers Johnbod (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2019 (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: keep but prune. Renaming should take place in a new nomination. MER-C 10:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Funeral homes in fiction (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, in the large amount of these articles, the funeral home only plays a minor role in the plot. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but prune. I'd say that it is defining for some, (e.g., Six Feet Under, Fun at the Funeral Parlour). Pruning out the more egregious examples of tangential reference to funeral homes (e.g., Four Weddings and a Funeral) would make for a useful category. Grutness...wha? 04:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but prune, and rename to avoid the US-only "funeral home". Probably to "deathcare industry". It is typical of this Yankee Doodle category that it does not include Loot (play) and Loot (1970 film), which probably give bigger parts to the corpse than anything else here. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If kept (i.e. not deleted), let us rename to Category:Fiction about funeral homes or Category:Fiction about the deathcare industry in order to provide sufficient basis for pruning. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC) / Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2019 (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.