[Portal] Categories for discussion/All current discussions

Speedy renaming and merging

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.) If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use:

*REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 11:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC). Currently, there are 317 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

  • @Ymblanter: usually at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks someone is willing to help in about 24 hours. For alternatives, do you have any specific bot in mind? I haven't tried that before. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    I thought BrownHairedGirl had such a bot, but I might be wrong. In any case, we have to wait for 48h after the cats have been tagged.--Ymblanter (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Ymblanter & Marcocapelle: I have no bot task for that, but I do have an AWB module which I can use can do it. I'll do it in a few mins. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
     Done. All the above tagged in these edits[1]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
    Thank you very much! I'll move the nomination back to the top of the page. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
We do not have categories for subnational divisions like railway stations in California opened in 2019 or railway stations in Hong Kong opened in 2020. And the categories by country should be restricted to those countries with a number of new railway stations in all or most years e.g at present only China, Canada, Russia and the United States. Hugo999 (talk) 21:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose – We create separate categories for Hong Kong to overcome complications related to its status as a semi-autonomous territory and history as a British overseas territory. This is a long-established convention for the ~16,000 Hong Kong-related articles on Wikipedia. The comparison to California is not apt because Hong Kong is not a Chinese province. Chinese laws do not apply in Hong Kong. The bulk of Hong Kong's railway stations opened before Hong Kong became part of China in 1997. Should those fall under the category for UK or China? Neither – Hong Kong categories should remain, as is the norm for all other category trees. Thank you. Citobun (talk) 00:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
Comment: While Hong Kong (and Macau) are not provinces but "special administrative areas" of China they are part of China; and apart from Category:2020 establishments in Hong Kong which you created, the earlier categories e.g. Category:2019 establishments in Hong Kong are subcategories of Category:2019 establishments in China, back to 1998. The categories for Railway stations in China will not extend further back than Category:Railway stations in China opened in 2000 as the wholesale building of new lines and stations (like the 19c "railway mania in Britain"?) seems to have started in the 2000s. Earlier categories for Chinese and Hong Kong railway stations will remain in Category:Railway stations opened in 1999 etc. Thank you. Hugo999 (talk) 05:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable, but let's then move this to full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Citobun. We keep separate subcats for everything in Hong Kong, and creating random exceptions to that principle will make the category tree a nightmare to maintain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Category:Members of the 1st Parliament of La Rioja to Category:Members of the 1st Parliament of La Rioja (Spain) – C2B: To match the remainder of the categories relating to La Rioja to add add a disambiguator to the end of the name, considering that the parent category for topics relating to the subject at La Rioja is Category:La Rioja (Spain). (In other words, "C2D" should not apply to do opposite moves per the following line: "unambiguous (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator)", considering that Category:La Rioja is currently a category disambiguation page itself.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per WP:C2C. (At the same time I wonder for the whole tree if the Parliament of La Rioja needs disambiguation since it seems to be the proper name of this parliament.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Opposed requests

That would simply be a formality. Nobody has focused intensely on editing articles on Columbus, Ohio since a small burst of editing during the 2018 Wikiconference North America. I alone have been almost rewriting, reformatting, and rephotographing the entire city, even though I've reached out to other Wikipedians for help. The naming brings the articles and categories in line with the similar Columbus, Georgia articles and in line with the Commons category. There is no naming standard for neighborhoods in Ohio on Wikipedia, with Toledo and Youngstown largely following this standard, Dayton being inconsistent, and Cincinnati and Cleveland following something similar to the old standard, but they both benefit by not needing ", Ohio" in the name. ɱ (talk) 16:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
USPlaces does make no note on how to name neighborhoods (except for New York City). Yet by far, the standard is to include the city name in the article title as well. ɱ (talk) 16:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose per per C2C. Beagel (talk) 17:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Greek-Catholics" sounds like a wiki neologism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I assure you it is not (have you Googled, or searched Wikipedia for this?) It is a very traditional way of referring to Byzantine Rite Churches. Elizium23 (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
I have compared Google search terms. The results are here. Greek-Catholics is vanishingly small. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Since it is apparently the dash that you object to, I have modified my request. Elizium23 (talk) 03:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Kitschies Red Tentacle-winning works

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD) and, for the parent category, WP:C2F
The "Red Tentacle" is an award for the top novel of the Kitschies, a British fantasy/sci fi award. Of the 3 articles in this category, 2 mention it in passing with other awards and 1 mentions it in the intro so it doesn't seem defining. (In contrast, BSFA Award seems to be much more prominent for such novels.) The contents are already listified here in the main article. The parent category only contains the main article and this subcategory. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Oregon Book Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
It looks like about 15 Oregon Book Awards are given out every year in different categories to specific books. This category contains the authors of those books who typically live or are from the State of Oregon. Those articles mention this award in passing in a list with other awards, if it's mentioned at all, so it doesn't seem defining. All of the winners, many of whom don't have a Wikipedia article, are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

April 21

Category:Men whistleblowers

Nominator's rationale: These are grammatically incorrect, and both categories are small enough that there's no real reason the articles can't just be in Category:Whistleblowers. Natureium (talk) 20:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Victorian-era submarines of the United States

Nominator's rationale: merge, "Victorian era" is not applicable to countries like the United States or Germany. These are overlooked categories that should have been included in this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge A different country's period is not defining to Germany. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Vetus Latina

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in every of these category layers. On the other hand obviously keep the subCategory:Old Latin New Testament manuscripts. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
For the second nomination: there already is a Category for Category:Septuagint manuscripts and Category:Vulgate manuscripts. Veverve (talk) 19:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
For both nominations: they are not WP:SMALLCAT, as there is potential for them to grow. For the first one, I have added two pages to it, so it can definetly be expanded, I simply cannot explore the whole WP, but WP is a community project so I believe others will add this category to the pages which need it. For the second one, see here to see that there is still many manuscripts of the VL which are not on WP. Veverve (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support No conceptual objection to these categories but there aren't article to justify them so they don't aid navigation.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Aydın Central District

Nominator's rationale: Aydın Central District, which seems to have somehow had two different categories before, has been renamed Efeler District. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Cultural depictions of dinosaurs

Nominator's rationale: The distinction between these categories is unclear. Popular culture is the parent and seems to be the standard naming, see Category:Topics in popular culture. Place Clichy (talk) 16:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support, the only (other) cultural depictions category I could find is Category:Cultural depictions of people. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment Pure speciesism. If it's good enough for you shaved apes, it's good enough for us dinos. -- T-RexxS (rawr) 23:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
      • It is not a matter of "good enough", rather a matter of sheer quantity. We have many more articles about humans than about dinosaurs (or any other type of animals) which allows us to build a more detailed category tree for humans. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom and per the wording of the existing dinosaur category Category:Birds in popular culture. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per the president set forth in previous discussion, as mentioned above. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Films with screenplays by Dinesh D'Souza

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. There are three subcategories of Category:Works by Dinesh D'Souza, and there are four articles, all of which are in two or more of those categories. They are virtually unviewed as the four articles (plus the article on D'Souza) all cross-link anyway. If these categories are useful at all, there should only be one of them. Guy (help!) 14:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Oppose These would remove them from the category trees on Films by scriptwriter and films by director. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all - nothing unusual here. Oculi (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep all Established category schemes, per WP:CAT. They are useful as categories so that someone can find them by browsing the category structure. ―Justin (koavf)T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Nurses from London

Nominator's rationale: Subcategory of Category:English nurses. However not all nurses from London are English. Does this require a rename, or re-catrgoisation, or renaming the parent? Applies to sister categories, also. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • This is not a special issue for nurses. As far as I can see the way categorisation is used is that location is nothing to do with nationality or identity. "From" is ambiguous. It might mean they originated there, or that they practised there. But the issues that arise with nurses are not really different from other professions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Category:People from London arent all English either. And English has not been a nationality since 1707. Rathfelder (talk) 14:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I disagree. My nationality has always been English, and I have many friends whose nationality is Welsh or Scottish or Irish. You seem to have confused the concept of a "nation" with that of a "citizen". --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • "Nationality is a legal relationship between an individual person and a state." England is not a state. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
        • Nationality is "the status of belonging to a particular nation". A nation is "is a stable community of people formed on the basis of a common language, territory, history, ethnicity, or psychological make-up manifested in a common culture". England is a nation; Wales is a nation; Scotland is a nation; Ireland is a nation. A state (polity) is a very ill-defined entity, and it makes no sense to claim that "England is not a state" unless you qualify what you mean by "state". --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
          • I agree that the notion of "state" is not straightforward, but I am taking the definition from the Wikipedia article. I dont think that we can identify an English state since 1707, even though we might call Scotland and even Wales a state now. Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
            • Even the Wikipedia article opens with "There is no undisputed definition of a state." One could argue that the EVEL legislation is a rather clear manifestation of an English state. --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment people can be "from" someplace that isn't their nationality. It could be an ex pat situation, a refugee, an immigrant, a temporary assignment, whatever. From London isn't strictly a subset of "English" anything, but we have that problem all over Wikipedia where people "from XXX, Foo" are subcategories of Fooish people (although not used here: nurses from London < people from London < English people by city, etc. is a normal progression; not sure why Nurses from London isn't in "people from London" but I digress). We could fix this two ways in my view (perhaps there are others I haven't thought of, though): 1) have wholly separate category trees for the "people from" (and professions from) and "Fooish people" (based on citizenship) and dump lots of biographies in several largely overlapping people - probably most people from some not so cosmopolitan place as London, say Des Moines, Iowa will be "American people" - or 2) accept the imprecise overlap that comes with what we do now leading to oddities like John McCain, a featured article, being in categories that roll up to Panamanian people because he was born on a US base in the Canal Zone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Categorisation of people by time and place is not an exact science. We cant categorise people by nationality with any precision because nationality law is very complex and varies between countries and over time. Very few articles say anything explicit about nationality. I generally dont put people into categories of "People from" somewhere they happened to be born but left when they were a small child, unless it has some significance - as I guess it does for American Presidential candidates. Rathfelder (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • If "Nurses from London" is a categorisation by location, then surely its parent should be "Nurses from England"? --RexxS (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe. But we only have Category:English people by occupation. English is ambiguous. Before 1707 it was a nationality, and of course some people still think it is. Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
    • 'English' (nationality, citizenship, birthplace, residence, language) is indeed far more ambiguous than 'from England', which is why we use the formula "<group> from <location>" as the category under debate does. Why do we leave its parent categories ambiguous when we know how to formulate a much less ambiguous category name when categorising by location? --RexxS (talk) 18:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
      • If we want to explore these issues I dont think this is the right place to do it. Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
        • If we don't want to explore these issues here, then we ought not to be debating the original question, Does this require a rename, or re-catrgoisation, or renaming the parent? (my emphasis). --RexxS (talk) 21:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:2016 Nice attack

Nominator's rationale: To match the category name with that of the main page. Love of Corey (talk) 06:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. I think it was that old name when I created it maybe over four years ago. I think this would fall under speedy C2D criteria anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Anniversary compilation albums

Nominator's rationale: Seems trivial. Thoughts? ―Justin (koavf)T☮C☺M☯ 06:21, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete Not every anniversary albums have the word "anniversary" on them SpinnerLaserz (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)


Nominator's rationale: Two-item WP:SMALLCAT for a linguistic dialect, at an ambiguous name. "Alsatian" can mean many different things, including the language, the people of Alsace, the culture of Alsace or a breed of dogs, so it isn't an appropriate name for a category in and of itself. If a category were warranted here, it would have to be either Category:Alsatian language or Category:Alsatian dialect, without a categoryredirect from this -- but with just two articles here, I'm not seeing the need for it. That said, I can be convinced to withdraw this if people more knowledgeable about this topic than I am can find other articles to populate a renamed category with -- but even if that can happen, the category has to be renamed for clarity. Bearcat (talk) 03:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Ambiguity asking for trouble. Rathfelder (talk) 18:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Illustrators who write novels

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for a non-defining intersection of two only tangentially related occupations. It is entirely possible for a person to be both an illustrator and a writer, either performing both roles on their own books or performing one role on some books and the other role on others, but art and writing are not intrinsically related skills. It also brings up the question of whether the person is primarily an illustrator and then wrote novels on the side, or primarily a novelist and then did some illustration on the side, and in fact the four entries here split right down the middle on that: two, including Len Deighton, are far more notable for their writing than their illustration per se, while the other two appear to be more notable as illustrators than as writers. This simply isn't a defining intersection in its own right — and even if there were a case for categorizing people for the artist-writer combo in principle, it would still be far from clear that we would need separate categories for illustrators who also wrote novels, illustrators who also wrote poetry, illustrators who also wrote non-fiction and illustrators who also wrote short stories. Bearcat (talk) 02:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Historic electorates of New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: The correct usage here is "historical" (of or concerning history or past events) not "historic" (famous in history). Paora (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support too right; should be changed. Schwede66 02:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Sweet as. Grutness...wha? 05:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Historic Māori electorates

Nominator's rationale: The correct usage here is "historical" (of or concerning history or past events) not "historic" (famous in history). Paora (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support too right; should be changed. Schwede66 02:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Ka pai. Grutness...wha? 05:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Named alloys

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
This category groups alloy together by whether they have a common name versus a chemical name. Birmabright, Hydronalium, 5086 aluminium alloy and 5154 aluminium alloy are all under Category:Aluminium–magnesium alloys, all used in shipbuilding but only the first two are in this category. How people name compounds does not seem defining to these chemical articles. No merge is needed because the articles are all under other alloy subcats and the contents of this category are listified here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Background We recently deleted a similar category on named phosphines here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

April 20


  • Propose deleting Template:Rapti-geo-stub
Nominator's rationale: Unused. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Rapti no longer exists, due to reorganisation n 2015. Actually much of the Nepal geo-stub tree needs an overhaul as a result. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the person who emptied the category in favor of now-current province stub types. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)


  • Propose deleting Template:Bheri-geo-stub
Nominator's rationale: Unused. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete. Bheri no longer exists, due to reorganisation n 2015. Actually much of the Nepal geo-stub tree needs an overhaul as a result. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete, as the person who emptied the category in favor of now-current province stub types. Her Pegship (I'm listening) 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Muay Thai film categories

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT. The parent category is sparsely populated. It is unnecessary to break it down even further. With the sole exception of Category:Thai muay Thai films it is difficult to foresee these categories ever having more than a handful of entries. Betty Logan (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Regardless of whether the Thai (and American) subcategories are kept, it should at least be a dual merge, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    Nationality categories for films are non-diffusing so in theory it shouldn't be necessary. Betty Logan (talk) 13:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Eurovision Song Contest entrants of country

Nominator's rationale: Stemming from previous conversations about the issues with this existing naming convention, I am seeking to rename these so that the entrants aren't assigned a nationality. Each country in the contest can choose whoever they want to represent them. The point of these categories is simply to group entrants who have represented a specific country, not to group people of a specific national background. The category name is thus misleading. About 10 years ago, other categories that faced this issue were renamed in this same fashion. This appears to be the only one on my radar that was missed. Please see here for the discussion that lead to fixing the "song" category and also the larger discussion here that originally got us thinking. Grk1011 (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Especially true for countries whose demonym is a sensitive issue or not necessarily a synonym for the nationality, such as British and Irish. dummelaksen (talk) 14:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Suppert with one change: "Eurovision Song Contest entrants of Macedonia" should be "Eurovision Song Contest entrants of North Macedonia" to reflect the country's name as of February 2019. IceWelder [] 15:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Fixed. I wrote that on the category page itself, but apparently didn't carry it over onto this page. Grk1011 (talk) 15:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 08:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
Support per nom. Celine Dion, Canadian, won this for Switzerland in the 80s. Oculi (talk) 10:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
Support per Oculi. There are some who are Americans (not just Canadians nor other nationals). SpinnerLaserz (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Question, inspired by Oculi's comment: shouldn't the category names contain "for" instead of "of"? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete all per WP:OC#PERF. If kept, it should be "for" (country represented) not "of" nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
The proposal is "of" (country represented). The existing wording I want to change assigns the nationality. Why do you prefer "for" instead? Grk1011 (talk) 14:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pleas address Marcocapelle's question and Peterkingiron's suggestion to delete instead.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — JJMC89(T·C) 06:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • WP:PERFCAT is probably not applicable in this particular case, since many Eurovision Song Contest entrants are primarily notable because of the Eurovision Song Contest. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment re nationality. We actually use from in the few cases where 'Fooian' won't do, eg Category:People from Northern Ireland. 'representing' would be the correct word, albeit long. Oculi (talk) 11:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • "representing" is clearly better than "from" since it is more accurate and the word is often used in the articles. Also, from may suggest that they are physically from a certain country, which is not always the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I suggested "for" as referring to country represented. "of" might imply nationality, as would "from". I accept the argument re PERFCAT, though some are established performers for whom it would technically apply. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
    • I agree that "for" is about equivalent and therefore just as good as "representing" (or maybe it is even better simply because it is shorter). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
      • Celine Dion was the entrant for Switzerland sounds right, so I will back for. Oculi (talk) 21:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Anything that is not a demonym My current preference is "representing". Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support anything that is not a demonym. I would have a slight preference towards for which sounds a bit more elegant. Place Clichy (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
As nominator, I would support the change to "for" as suggested since they are ultimately doing something for a country. Grk1011 (talk) 20:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Digital Media Company

Nominator's rationale: Fix capitalisation, and use plural per convention for set categories. Alternatively, delete as vague. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Agree Fix capitalization and use the plural. إيان (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Liberty Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
English Wikipedia doesn't have a main article on this journalism award but German Wikipedia does here and it doesn't have a category. (Liberty Award is a redirect to a different Dutch award.) There's only one article (Andreas Landwehr) so there's nothing to listify. I can't definitively say that this award is non-defining but there is nothing in English Wikipedia that even hints it might be. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:ICT Awards

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
This category is for the actual award articles (not recipients) given for the Information and communications technology approach to computing. The problem is that only 1 of the 3 articles (Beacon of ICT Awards) is actually an ICT award and there's limited growth potential. Alternatively, if kept, rename to Category: Information and communications technology awards. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

April 18

Category:Record label compilation albums

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 per comments by Koavf. All subcategories have either been removed from the nominated category or recategorised to the other category as an alternative. (non-admin closure) Jalen Folf (talk) 00:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Two separate categories for the same purpose makes no sense. Other category seems to follow standard naming conventions. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

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:Members of the United States Congress of Vietnamese descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 18:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Anti-European and anti-white slurs

Nominator's rationale: Looking through the pages in this category, the idea that most are "anti-European" or "anti-white" seems dubious and POV. Terms such as Goombah, Kraut, and Wop target a specific nationality, not European heritage in general, and are most often directed at whites by other whites. Others such as Becky, Eurotrash, Japie, and White trash are more rooted in socio-economic issues than purely racial ones. Broadly speaking, the history of racism and European colonialism means there is no perfect parity between, say, an anti-black slur which has historically been used to derogate a subjugated class of people based on skin color, and an epithet like Honky, Peckerwood, or Whitey. Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Alternative: merge Goombah, Honky, Kraut, Japie, Wop, etc. into Category:Ethnic and religious slurs, and rename the present category to Category:Anti-white slurs for terms such as Peckerwood and Whitey. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
"Becky" and "white trash" are certainly racial and pejorative, and the first is used almost entirely by non-whites ("cracker" might be similar). That there are also associations with class or socioeconomic status or that they lack the historical power dynamics of similar terms against blacks doesn't de-racialize the term any more than "nigga", "hood rat" or "porch monkey" could be considered deracialized refererences to geographic location, lifestyle and subculture. We should call a slur a slur, as it were. (talk) 07:09, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Our own articles suggest the opposite:
  • "In 2019 the dictionary publisher Merriam-Webster wrote that: 'Becky is increasingly functioning as an epithet, and being used especially to refer to a white woman who is ignorant of both her privilege and her prejudice' ... Whitehead was not convinced that the term is a racial slur" (link)
  • "The label [White trash] signifies a social class inside the white population and especially a degraded standard of living ... the term is mostly used pejoritavely by urban and middle-class whites as a class signifier" (link)
Both terms are equally if not more rooted in class-based issues. That they have a racial element doesn't mean they derogate whiteness specifically, which the name of this category implies. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:21, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Our white trash article says right at the top it's a "derogatory ... slur" and applies only to whites. The parallel to "nigga", which WP includes in the anti-black slurs category, is precise: the term indicates social class when applied within-race, and within-race usage is more common, but it is considered specifically and primarily a racial remark when uttered by people outside the race. The choice to say "white trash" instead of nonracial equivalents like "trailer trash" or "hillbilly trash" is, likewise, parallel to calling a black person an "black idiot" or "negro genius" rather than an idiot or (sarcastically) a genius. The deliberate underlining of the race membership by people who are not members themselves compounds the insult and takes precedence over the embedded class reference. That the term can also be used within-race to solely describe social class, as blacks use "nigga", does not remove it from the racial slur category.
I don't know if "Becky" is best described as a slur, epithet or something else, but it's unquestionably racial, and Professor Whitehead agrees it's racial (she says it refers to a white woman of a certain kind). She disputes whether it is equivalent to a stereotypical black name like "Deshawn", but does not provide any reason to consider them different. It sounds like the only reason is IDONTLIKEIT; she personally disdains the idea of "reverse racism", or the idea that slurs against whites can be a real thing. (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Note: Several users suggested renaming this category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 August 30#Category:Anti-European and anti-white slurs, but without proposing a specific name. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Split to Category:Anti-European slurs and anti-white slurs. White people and Europeans are not synonymous. Dimadick (talk) 19:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Certainly split, the category very clearly contains slurs referring to all white/western people, which can be kept in a category of its own, plus a hodgepodge of unrelated slurs (referring to foreigners, or to a specific nationality or ethnicity) for which I think the best solution is to upmerge per nominator's alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Split but don't rename to "Epithets"; the whole tree is "slurs" - and what makes these notable is that they are pejorative. (note: Caucasian race is not included nor should it be as it is not pejorative). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
    Good to bring up the "epithets" part of the nomination, I also do not quite understand why a change from "slurs" to "epithets" would be needed but forgot to mention that in my previous comment. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
    @Carlossuarez46 and Marcocapelle: Then how about Category:Pejorative terms for white people as another alternative? "Pejorative" has milder connotations than "slur", and is more broadly applicable to the pages in the category. I'm not so worried about the tree structure being disrupted, since categories are based on verified article contents, not whether they fit neatly into existing schemas. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 04:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename to "slurs against white or European ethnicities". This would address the point by OP that they are not used against whites-as-such or Europeans-as-such, but for specific subgroups in the white or European category. (talk) 07:01, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom The only page in this category with "slur" in the title, Twinkie (slur), doesn't even mention white people and is predominantly about its use against Asian Americans. Only a few more actually describe the subject as a "slur", preferring "pejorative", "epithet", or "slang" to characterize how the term is used. Renaming to "Epithets" or "Racial epithets" would be a better description of what the category contains since that is the phrasing that most of the pages in the category actually use. Wug·a·po·des 22:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
    If I were nominating the page now, I might suggest Category:Pejorative terms for white people instead. You're right that most of the articles don't use "slur" to describe their subjects. But my originally proposed name is seeming vague and clunky to me now. Maybe it's the fact that an "epithet" is not always pejorative. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:American women of Laotian descent in politics

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American women of Asian descent in politics. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 18:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete nationality + sex + descent + job intersection; really? And yet another problematic descent category; how much, how far back, and why does it matter? Do American women politicians of Laotian descent do things differently is someone trying to ascribe to them some nefarious or ulterior motives? is there even a non-list article that could be written on this subject? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to Category:American people of Laotian descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:American politicians of Thai descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American politicians of Asian descent. This is a small category. Moreover, per WP:EGRS, Politicians of Thai descent in the United States do not "constitute a distinct and identifiable group with a specific cultural and political context." User:Namiba 18:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Support consensus to remove Asian descent categories.--User:Namiba 13:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:American women of Thai descent

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only one sub-category which is also up for deletion. User:Namiba 17:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:American women of Thai descent in politics

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American women of Asian descent in politics. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:57, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete nationality + sex + descent + job intersection; really? And yet another problematic descent category; how much, how far back, and why does it matter? Do American women politicians of Thai descent do things differently is someone trying to ascribe to them some nefarious or ulterior motives? is there even a non-list article that could be written on this subject? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Upmerge to Category:American people of Thai descent only, strong oppose merge as nom to the Asian parent because continent-level descent categories should be container categories per this and this discussion, otherwise Asian would be used as a proxy for race. Ineligible intersection per WP:OCEGRS Place Clichy (talk) 01:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Members of the United States Congress of Thai descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Members of the United States Congress of Taiwanese descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Members of the United States Congress of Korean descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Members of the United States Congress of Bangladeshi descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American politicians of Asian descent and Category:Members of the United States Congress of Asian descent. Small category unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:American politicians of Bangladeshi descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American politicians of Asian descent and Category:Politicians of Bangladeshi descent. Small category that is unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:American politicians of Cambodian descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:American people of Cambodian descent. Per WP:SMALLCAT, this is a small category that is unlikely to grow. User:Namiba 17:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Foreign-born Confederates

Nominator's rationale: Dual umperge to Category:Confederate States Army personnel. Non-notable catch-all of citizenship and location. TM 19:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename to Category:Foreign Confederate States Army personnel and purge, many articles in this category are about people who had immigrated in the United States before the war started, they are not really relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename and purge per Marcocapelle. Picking a random example, I wonder what in Charles F. Buck's biography would qualify for being considered either "foreign" or "Confederate": he was born in 1841 in Germany, settled in Louisiana in 1852 with his parents, graduated high school in New Orleans in 1861, attended college there during the Civil War (the biography is silent about military or political engagement), was admitted to the bar in 1867, was a U.S. Congressman in 1895-1897. Place Clichy (talk) 09:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename and purge Category:Foreign-born Confederate military personnel. I found a naval officer in the category. I gather that in US they are "military", but not "army". The involvement of immigrants in the civil war is potentially interesting, but being a first generation immigrant is mundane. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 15:56, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
What is defining about the "foreign born" Confederates? None of the soldiers were born in the Confederacy, since the country only existed for 4 years.--User:Namiba 20:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:People of East German descent

Nominator's rationale: Misguided. Only content is Category:East German emigrants. People who emigrate from Foo are not people of Fooish descent.. They are Fooish people. Rathfelder (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic by country and territory

Nominator's rationale: Per convention for by-country categories, which use a loose definition of country. Also "by foo and bar" in a category name is conventionally usually used to describe an intersection of attributes, such as "by country and year" ... whereas this is not an intersection. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:38, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:St. John Ambulance

Nominator's rationale: Officially, and everywhere else on Wikipedia, St John Ambulance does not have a full stop after its name and this is grammatically incorrect. — Yours, Berrely • Talk∕Contribs 14:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy Per WP:C2D since the main article had the period removed in an RM in 2017. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy rename uncontroversial ―Justin (koavf)T☮C☺M☯ 01:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Gender in computing

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with just one subcategory and two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Water transport of heads of state

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory and one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Layer is not adding to navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:28, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support but would not merging both to Category:Transport for heads of state be a better target? It will probably be owned by the state rather than its head, so far as that is a meaningful distinction. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Fair enough, but that would require a separate nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Former coal gas-fired power stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: not enough entries Chidgk1 (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Parent Category Tagged: Category:Coal gas-fired power stations by country is also tagged as part of this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

  • Alternative Proposal:
Delete Category:Coal gas-fired power stations by country (Contains only the US subcat below)
Double Upmerge Category:Coal gas-fired power stations in the United States to Category:Coal gas-fired power stations and Category:Coal-fired power stations in the United States
Double Upmerge Category:Former coal gas-fired power stations in the United States to Category:Former coal gas-fired power stations and Category:Former coal-fired power stations in the United States
Completely agree with the nom's WP:SMALLCAT rationale but lets move thee handful of articles up to more populated parent categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Coal gas-fired power stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Too few entries to be worth being a category Chidgk1 (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Proposed coal-fired power stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: There are none as far as I know Chidgk1 (talk) 11:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
There seem to be multiple editors who read "proposed" to include only active proposals but not cancelled proposals, and we only have the latter with these 4 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Protests over responses to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic

Nominator's rationale: This category has two articles including the titular article. It's either WP:TOOSOON or WP:SMALLCAT. Guy (help!) 11:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge for Now With no objection to recreating later if it gets up to 5 articles on this topic. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename both Category:COVID-19 protests and Category:Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on politics per emerging consensus (above on this page). It may be too soon, but with an emerging topic, there is little point in merging a category that may be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Fictional character redirects to lists

Nominator's rationale: While this category is named "Fictional character redirects to lists" the actual template is named {{R from fictional character}} since 2014 after this and this discussions, and the template text itself mentions that it can be for non-list entries as well. This means that not all redirects tagged with this template are "to lists".
This naming would match the one used for fictional location redirects: Category:Fictional location redirects and Category:All fictional location redirects which was recently renamed. If this passes, then followup speedy nominations can be done for the sub-categories. Gonnym (talk) 10:45, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
This would mean all the redirects that actually go to lists (a lot) should be tagged with the rcat for redirects to lists after renaming. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
They already should as the {{R from fictional character}} template is not a catch-all redirect template, it's meant only for character redirects. As an aside, the only R to lists redirect template is {{R to list entry}} which is not a general "to lists" redirect category either and is different form {{R to anchor}} and {{R to section}}. --Gonnym (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
I remember myself untagging R to list entry due to “overcategorisation”. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Media by location

Nominator's rationale: rename, WP:C2C per Category:Mass media and Category:Mass media by location. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy rename per nom. I counted 2751 categories in this batch. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support Clear naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nominator, since "media" is unclear but "mass media" is crystal clear. Debresser (talk) 11:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

*Procedural Keep and Close: per WP:BUNDLE. 2,751 different categories in one bundle? Maybe whittle them down by continent or even country...something! 2,751 categories are far too many to go through before one suffers from the dreaded TL;DR. - NeutralhomerTalk • 13:54 on April 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome *Note: Just a note, I have no issue with the renaming nomination, it's the amount of categories that are being renamed at once is what I have an issue with. - NeutralhomerTalk • 13:55 on April 19, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Question We routinely have people say it's part of an existing scheme and should be removed in isolation in CFD so this may better match the consensus for how to frame noms. Is there a sub-section that's distinct that you want to pull out for separate consideration? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Answer: RevelationDirect: Sorry for the slow answer, real life happened (repeatedly). Anyway, I would split them by "continent or even country". I'll leave that determination up to you. But 2K+ at once, it's a little crazy. - NeutralhomerTalk • 17:56 on April 20, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
Why is it crazy? The same word is added to all of the categories in the same place. Do you really have something special to say on Category:Mass media in Algeria by city that can't be said for Category:Mass media in Africa or Category:Mass media in Prince Rupert, British Columbia? --Gonnym (talk) 20:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
It's SOP per WP:BUNDLE that we just don't lump that many articles, categories, whatever into one discussion at a time. This was very recently done here for the very same reason. - NeutralhomerTalk • 20:46 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
Thank you for the reply clarifying your view on the broad scope. I thought maybe there was a particular branch of the tree you were concerned with specifically. We'll have to respectfully disagree on this one. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
rename per nom Breaking up the nomination in any way is not necessary as all are the same. And congratulations to the nominator for finding all them. Hmains (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
support to "mass media". Same renaming/re-categorizing is probably waiting in Wikimedia Commons. There is also category:Media--Estopedist1 (talk) 10:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support: After speaking with an admin, it appears I was incorrect about BUNDLE. It is apparently only used on AfDs and CfDs don't fall under BUNDLE. I apologize for the misinformation on my part and the miscommunication. I have struck my above posts and I am supporting the CfD. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:40 on April 21, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
@Neutralhomer: Thanks for looking at new information and then changing your position. That is rare in Wikipedia, and in life! RevelationDirect (talk) 19:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)
@RevelationDirect: You're welcome and thanks! :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:00 on April 22, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome

Category:M ?

  • Propose renaming Category:M ? to Category:Articles using unknown earthquake magnitude scales
Nominator's rationale: Meaningless name. Actually, all the tracking categories in Category:Articles using templated earthquake magnitude scale have similarly meaningless names. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Out of the two options given, one would leave me clueless and the other would give me the entire information I needed to know. Would be great if editors would remember that other people don't read minds. --Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • It may be the work of a single editor. Unfortunately the author has been blocked for 3 months, so they can't give an clarification right now. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Attempting to understand this set, I see that Category:M la includes 1812 San Juan Capistrano earthquake where the infobox includes Magnitude = 6.9 Mla which links to an explanation at Seismic_magnitude_scales#Mla. – Fayenatic London 15:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support. Current name would be utterly meaningless to most editors and readers. Grutness...wha? 04:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per Grutness. The name is confusing. SpinnerLaserz (talk) 05:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Nintendo Switch Online games

Nominator's rationale: This is a non-"defining" category for its included items. We don't maintain lists of this sort and Wikipedia is not meant to be a catalog of a digital service's library, like a list or category of titles streamable on Netflix. This said, we're already maintaining a list within the parent article and there is no need to add categories to each individual game if its appearance on the service has no defining connection to the game itself. czar 04:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. There is no need to merge this somewhere, because the articles are already in a more defining Nintendo subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Communes of Lam Dong Province

Nominator's rationale: To match Lâm Đồng Province and Category:Lâm Đồng Province. Fuddle (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • You could do this as a speedy nomination. Rathfelder (talk) 10:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy Per WP:C2C, as Rathfelder pointed out. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Speedy but leave cat-redirect as it is hard to type the diacriticals. This is what we do with Eastern European sportsmen articles, whose names are commonly (mis)spelt without diacriticals. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Norfolk County treasurers

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. This is not an WP:NPOL-passing political office, so it isn't the core of anybody's notability claim -- five of the people here are notable for holding office at the state level at other times in their careers, not for this per se, and the other two are up for deletion as they have no strong notability claim at all. There's simply no need to categorize people for a political office that isn't central to their notability. Bearcat (talk) 05:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - if kept it will need renaming. This is about Norfolk County, Massachusetts, one of numerous counties called Norfolk (including Norfolk). Grutness...wha? 05:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename Category:County treasurers of Norfolk, Mass -- The present category name should refer to Treasurers of Norfolk County Council in England. As 7 of them have attained higher office, it is probably legitimate to retain a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
    • With the full state name, rather than the abbreviation, preferably :) Grutness...wha? 02:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom, we should not create categories by non-notable occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Merge to parent Category:County treasurers in Massachusetts, as we should not depopulate a corresponding parent by removing members of a diffusing sub-category. That parent is now part of a hierarchy, Category:American treasurers. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Since there is apparently an entire tree by this occupation, merging is the best outcome for now. The whole tree should be nominated for deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 29 March 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 16:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


Nominator's rationale: The category text says it's for articles relating to ITV (TV network), which would mean naming it as Category:ITV (TV network), but discussion during the speedy request suggested that perhaps Category:ITV plc, after ITV plc would be more correct. I have no preference but the current one isn't good, as this network or company isn't the primary topic of ITV as ITV leads to a disambiguation page with other ITVs. Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
copy of CFDS discussion
  • Category:ITV to Category:ITV (TV network) – C2D: Article is at ITV (TV network). Gonnym (talk) 10:59, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    Oppose I think Category:ITV plc would be a better target, given the article ITV plc. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:01, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    Given your name, might you perhaps be based outside the UK, and less than fully informed on this one? Check the articles; ITV plc only has 13 of the 15 regional ITV licences, even after the merger of Granada & Carlton and subsequent takeovers. History of ITV is about the network, not just what is now the main company. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
    I know the company very well. There are subcats in the category that are not limited to the networks, such as Category:ITV people; given an admittedly close call such as this one, I think the preference is for the top-level category to match the ultimate corporate parent. UnitedStatesian (talk) 21:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Question, is splitting between Category:ITV (TV network) and Category:ITV plc perhaps an option? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I doubt there is a need to split. ITV plc is a UK public company, but I do not think it does much except run its RV channels and produce programmes for it. Some of this may be done by subsidiaries, but I doubt that matters. Historically there were perhaps a dozen ITV franchises that belonged to different companies, which sold advertising individually, but mostly broadcast the same programmes. Ultimately, they all merged into Granada, which demerged its non-TV assets into Compass Group (in a complicated transaction) - not mentioned in the article - and changed its name to ITV. There might be merit in having a separate category for Category:ITV companies before 2004, but I do not see articles in the present category which would belong in that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping. I believe Category:ITV plc would be better as a top category (with Category:ITV (TV network) underneath it, of course), since there are pages like ITV Studios that fit better under the former rather than the latter, and Category:ITV plc could be categorized under Category:Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange and similar categories for publicly traded companies. UnitedStatesian (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I still favour Category:ITV (TV network) as the more general topic, over areas and times. If we also have Category:ITV plc, it seems to me that that should be a sub-cat; @UnitedStatesian: why would you make that one the top cat? – Fayenatic London 14:06, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I think it is more consistent with how we have done other company categories (Category:Google is under the newer Category:Alphabet Inc., Category:CBS is under the newer Category:ViacomCBS). But I see no reason both cats can't be within the other, making them both topcats. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Google is part of Alphabet, and ITV plc is part of the ITV network. As for circular category structures, we try to avoid them (although some loops are hard to avoid). "See also" links are a better way to provide or highlight navigation both ways. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
ITV plc is not part of ITV (TV network). ITV plc owns most (not all) of the stations that are part of the ITV TV network, as well as other assets that are not part of the ITV TV network. UnitedStatesian (talk) 01:42, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • If we split, I agree that a "see also" link would be best. The company is not part of the network or vice versa. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 16:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename to TV Network Lean toward Category:ITV (TV network) without objection to the plc option. Most articles are about the network, not the company per se. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Rename somehow -- I accept that some rename is necessary. If anything I would prefer Category:ITV (TV network), though I would not rule out the other, if ITV plc has non-TV related activities (which I am not sure). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
  • I think that Category:ITV (TV network) should no matter what be created and if there is need for Category:ITV plc then fine tuning what categories go there should be done by those that know the difference. --Gonnym (talk) 10:37, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Older discussions

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

This page was last updated at 2020-10-02 06:01, update this pageView original page

All information on this site, including but not limited to text, pictures, etc., are reproduced on Wikipedia (wikipedia.org), following the . Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License