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. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 21:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Films directed by Tom Clegg (director) to Category:Films directed by Tom Clegg

Nominator's rationale: No need for disambiguation. The only other Tom Clegg (actor) didn't direct. Clarityfiend ( talk) 21:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• For some reason, I was sure the disambiguation is obligatory. If it isn't so, I have no objection to renaming. -- INS Pirat ( talk) 21:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Keep - this is WP:C2D, per Tom Clegg (director). As we have Tom Clegg (actor) as well, this is even more clearcut than usual. Oculi ( talk) 22:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Keep. C2D. Gonnym ( talk) 12:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep To match the main article. Dimadick ( talk) 04:17, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Support -- I do not see why it is necessary to have a disambiguator, unless some one eleives that the actor also directs. The disambiguated form should of course appear in the headnote. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 21:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Indian cuisine outside India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not needed. Entries can simply be upmerged to Category:Indian cuisine. Note: I've nominated Category:Indian restaurants outside India as well. -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, it is a distinct element of the culture of Indian diaspora. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Oppose -- it might be Category:Indian cuisine abroad, explained in a headnote as outside south Asia. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I see what you say about Bangladeshi (in the discussion below) but then I would still prefer Category:Indian cuisine outside South Asia. "Abroad" sounds very vague. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 21:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Indian restaurants outside India ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There's no need for this category; entries can simply be upmerged to Category:Indian restaurants. Most restaurant categories have subcategories for countries but not "outside [X country]". Unnecessary and inconsistent. -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Oppose, it is a distinct element of the culture of Indian diaspora. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Oppose -- it might be Category:Indian resturants abroad, explained in a headnote as outside south Asia. Most in my country (UK) are in fact operated by Bangladeshi heritage people. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • I see what you say about Bangladeshi but then I would still prefer Category:Indian restaurants outside South Asia. "Abroad" sounds very vague. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 12:52, 18 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Genealogies of individuals to Category:Family by person

Nominator's rationale: merge, in both categories many articles are "Family of" someone. Purge what does not belong. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Support Most of these articles have nothing to do with genealogy. Dimadick ( talk) 04:18, 1 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:26, 6 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Spikeart

Nominator's rationale: not a "real" category, no articles included, vanity page created by since db-u5'd account (Loulou Damman) _signed, Willondon ( talk) 14:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Speedy C1 (empty) would apply and I agree this is not a real category at present.-- Mvqr ( talk) 16:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. After nearly two months, we have minimal participation and no agreement. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: These are not defining traits of these seasons. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 18:44, 9 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Category:Big Ten Men's Basketball Tournament championship seasons
• Category:Pac-12 Conference Men's Basketball Tournament championship seasons

Comment I'm vocally neutral here. These categories are incomplete, but if we have articles on each team season and each conference championship tournament, it feels reasonable (and sufficiently defining) to have these categories. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 03:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Comment. I have populated both categories so that they are no longer incomplete. – Aidan721 ( talk) 00:17, 14 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Oppose The idea that they are not defining traits is the WP:POV of the nominator.- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 02:48, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• And that logic is circular. Your idea that they are defining is also WP:POV. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 06:16, 17 December 2021 (UTC) reply

It is a conference championship. Just like anything in Category:College football conference champion seasons. Again, how is it not defining?- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 01:20, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Head coaching record tables have long had a shaded parameter for coaches that won a conference tournament, not to mention the automatic bid to the NCAA tournament that accompanies it?- UCO2009bluejay ( talk) 01:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC) reply

To be honest I'm not super-anti-tourney championship categories, but they did strike me as unnecessary. I'd like some other editors' input on this before the administrator closes it, because this CfD discussion will be the precedent to which WP:CBBALL points if any of these kinds of categories are nominated for deleted again. SportsGuy789 ( talk) 15:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:10, 29 December 2021 (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 per Option B, using "family". – Fayenatic London 12:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

Group 1

• Option A: Rename
  • Category:Abhakara family to Category:House of Abhakara
  • Category:Benbadhana family to Category:House of Benbadhana
  • Category:Bhanubandh family to Category:House of Bhanubandh
  • Category:Chakrabongse family to Category:House of Chakrabongse
  • Category:Chatrajaya family to Category:House of Chatrajaya
  • Category:Chitrabhongse family to Category:House of Chitrabhongse
  • Category:Chudadhut family to Category:House of Chudadhut
  • Category:Chirapravati family to Category:House of Chirapravati
  • Category:Devakula family to Category:House of Devakula
  • Category:Disakul family to Category:House of Disakul
  • Category:Jayanta family to Category:House of Jayanta
  • Category:Kashemsri family to Category:House of Kashemsri
  • Category:Kitiyakara family to Category:House of Kitiyakara
  • Category:Kritakara family to Category:House of Kritakara
  • Category:Malakul family to Category:House of Malakul
  • Category:Paribatra family to Category:House of Paribatra
  • Category:Pramoj family to Category:House of Pramoj
  • Category:Rajani family to Category:House of Rajani
  • Category:Rangsit family to Category:House of Rangsit
  • Category:Svastivatana family to Category:House of Svastivatana
  • Category:Vorawan family to Category:House of Vorawan
  • Category:Vudhijaya family to Category:House of Vudhijaya
  • Category:Yukol family to Category:House of Yukol
• Option B: Rename
  • Category:House of Chumsai to Category:Chumsai family
  • Category:House of Devahastin to Category:Devahastin family
  • Category:House of Gagananga to Category:Gagananga family
  • Category:House of Isarangkun to Category:Isarangkun family
  • Category:House of Sanidwong to Category:Sanidwong family
  • Category:House of Sonakul to Category:Sonakul family
  • Category:House of Siriwong to Category:Siriwong family

Group 2

• Option B: Rename Category:House of Mahidol to Category:Mahidol family

Group 3:

• Option B: Rename Category:Houses descended from the Chakri dynasty to Category:Families descended from the Chakri dynasty

Nominator's rationale: The subcategories under this tree were previously renamed from the House of Foo format to Foo family following a previous CfD from 2017, in which I argued that the former was not used by reliable sources. Polyesterchips has challenged this, and has since created a few new categories under the House of Foo title format. I'm assisting him in opening this CfD to establish consensus either way for consistency. Polyesterchips, please provide your reasoning below. (Note that Category:House of Mahidol was not included in the previous CfD; as the reigning royal family, it might warrant separate consideration.) Paul_012 ( talk) 07:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I just saw the 2017 discussion. While family are widely used by English language, in Thai language, this word is clearly different from family. ราชสกุล means Royal houses ราชา=Royal, สกุล=Family Name.
  • The reason why it should be Group 1:Option A: Simply Category:Chearavanont family (ตระกูล Chearavanont) is not the same as Category:House of Devakula (ราชสกุล Devakula) in Thai. They should be distinguished as different meaning. Eventhough, I think using family is okay but it is misinterpretation.
  • My observation for how Thai people uses this word to mention a royal family: some people uses ตระกูล (family) for more informal meaning (quite a rude word for Thai royalists) but ราชสกุล (royal family or royal house) is more formal and respectful meaning. In my opinion, using House of ... is more suitable to Wikipedia.
  • Anyway, I observe work of writers, such as Chris Baker (writer), they use family for ราชสกุล. So it would be Group 1:Option B, Group 2:Option B, and Group 3:Option B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polyesterchips ( talk • contribs)
• Considering usage in English-language sources, and the fact that the main concerns Polyesterchips mentioned are primarily over Thai-language usage and may not apply to English, I'm leaning toward Option B for all. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 08:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:21, 29 December 2021 (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 Category:Mandopop musicians. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 21:05, 30 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Mandopop artists to Category:Mandopop musicians

Nominator's rationale: They are musicians, not artists. Rathfelder ( talk) 23:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Rename to reduce ambiguity -- Lenticel ^{( talk)} 06:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Rename to follow the established naming convention of Category:Musicians by genre. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 21:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. ✗ plicit 01:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Dyslexia support by country to Category:Management of dyslexia

Nominator's rationale: rename and populate, the current scope is too narrow as only two countries have their own dyslexia support article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:20, 19 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep! The existing is by far the best name for the contents. For most Western European countries I'm sure that dyslexia support by state and educational system are existing. But the topic has not much appeal to generate articles or even translations into English that's what I suppose. 'Management of dyslexia' is a term that's leading astray into commercial/ corporate business product offers. I'd say that most serious support resources are served by professional teachers instead of bying commercial products. -- Just N. ( talk) 21:36, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Commercial/ corporate business product offers, where does that come from? This is Wikipedia after all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I still say we should rename it (per nom). Fact of the matter is that dyslexia is targeted by a lot of commercial products and pseudoscience. And it hasn't happened to the equivalent categories for Autism, even though its targeted by a lot more nonsense than dyslexia, or even for ADHD, which is similar. However, I think we should rename it to "Treatment of dyslexia", because it's more consistent with the approach for other medical and psych conditions, and with Category:Treatment by mental disorder. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 13:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Comment: there are currently only 3 pages in the category, and no more could be added given its current name. The proposal would allow the article Management of dyslexia to be moved into it from Category:Dyslexia, perhaps along with various schools and other institutions. – Fayenatic London 13:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 02:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Another article that would fit the target well is Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom and Fayenatic London. We could certainly reconsider if a plethora of "Dyslexia support in X country" articles suddenly appears, but it seems to me that there's no danger of that. Extraordinary Writ ( talk) 01:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC) reply
• Rename per nom and my comment above. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.