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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Were clearly created without knowledge of how categories should be named. Merge as categories are small and unlikely to grow in near future. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 22:54, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Baseball leagues in North America by country
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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary by country category. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 20:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You're right. It is unnecessary because there is no multinational leagues for example. I was thinking of harmonizing it with the larger sports category tree when I created this cat but I forgot to check for this. Merge
Danielsltt (
talk) 05:48, 5 June 2023 (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.
Category:Video games set in forests
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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a
WP:CATDEF whatsoever, so many games are (partially) set in forests. Unnecessary.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm the one who made this category page last year, and I suggest we should still keep it and not deleting it.
Ali17082001 (
talk) 22:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Criteria should be games that are mostly or entirely set in a forest (like, for example, I assume,
Firewatch), not just featuring it as one of numerous settings (i.e. a JRPG with a single forest area). If it's reduced to games that the setting is defining for, it works perfectly fine.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 09:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Otherstuff, hypothetical category: "video games set in villages", "video games set on beaches", "video games set in deserts", "video games set on plains", "video games set in meadows", or any other geographical location or landscape. How's that a catdef?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If a desert is the main setting, like Journey, it can totally be defining for a game. Just not "random desert level #15". I think the problem is with overcategorizing articles that don't have it as their defining trait.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 07:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems to vague to be defining. Open to specific forests (real or fictional) if they can be populated. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 22:15, 10 June 2023 (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.
Category:De Francisco family
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT of unclear utility. The only two articles filed here are one biography of a person in this family and an overview article about the concept of Colombian comedy as a whole -- but the family is a subtopic of Colombian comedy, not a parent topic, so that article doesn't belong here at all, and there would still have to be at least four other notable De Franciscos with Wikipedia articles before a category for them was warranted anyway.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This grouping does not aid navigation. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 22:16, 10 June 2023 (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.
Category:Israeli expatriate football managers in Cyprus
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NARROWCAT; should be upmerged to parent categories. Unnecessary intersection of nationality, occupation and location. No other similar categories exist, as such subdivision is excessive.
S.A. Julio (
talk) 18:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
S.A. Julio (
talk) 18:14, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:SVG stubs
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.
Nominator's rationale: Unpopulated stub category with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim -- there have to be 60 articles to file in a stub category before its creation is warranted, and for that very reason stub categories have to be approved by the WikiProject before they're allowed to be created. But the only content here is the stub template itself, which has not actually been added to even one article. Further,
Category:Scalable Vector Graphics has just 14 articles in it, of which only one is a stub and is already appropriately stub-tagged as graphics software -- so even the SVG-stub template is not clearly needed at all, because there isn't even one article that needs it let alone 60 articles that need it.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:04, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Films set in Inyo County, California
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. Category is now populated.
✗plicit 04:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just one film. As always, every county does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one film to file in it -- there would need to be at least five or six films to file here before a dedicated category for this was warranted, and it does not aid navigation at all to obsessively funnel everything down into an exhaustive smorgasbord of one-article microcategories.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Lone Pine, Big Pine, and Manzanar are not in Death Valley, yet they are in Inyo County. Several of the films in this category are in it because they are set in Lone Pine, Big Pine, or Manzanar, not specifically in Death Valley. If anything,
Category:Films set in Death Valley would have to be a subcategory of
Category:Films set in Inyo County, California, which just goes to show you how necessary this category was in the first place.
Nicholas0 (
talk) 13:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Ok, dependent on how many films are set in Lone Pine, Big Pine, or Manzanar, the county category may be kept after all.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd certainly be willing to withdraw this now that you've populated the category properly, but since there's been a "rename" option placed on the table I can't withdraw it without a wider consensus. But for future reference, Nicholas0, it's not okay to create a category and add just one film to it, and then sweep back and start populating it only after you've been notified the next day that it was put up for a deletion discussion as a
WP:SMALLCAT — if there were 23 films to file in it, then all 23 of them should have already been filed in it the moment I saw it in the first place (which was well over 24 hours after you created it). That is, if you want to create the category, then you need to add it to all of the articles that belong in it right away, rather than only doing it days after the fact.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:39, 8 June 2023 (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.
Category:Indian Paintbrush (production company) films
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, already done through speedy renaming.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Matches the new article name, which had "production" removed for
WP:CONCISE reasons as there is no other company on Wikipedia with the same name. ~
Dissident93(
talk) 16:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename, following the article move, unless objections are raised to the latter.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:23, 8 June 2023 (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.
Replicas of specific things
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 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no consistency in the naming of subcategories of
Category:Replicas. This CfD attempts to harmonize the scheme under "Replicas of X" or "Replicas and derivatives of X", with the exception of categories where replica is used as an adjective. In particular,
Category:Replica constructions in China cannot be placed in the proposed format without a
misplaced modifier. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 13:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Brings consistency and, more importantly, handles objects inspired by
Solomon's Temple and the like, that may not technically be replicas. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:18, 11 June 2023 (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.
Category:Australian Leaders of the Opposition
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 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:Muslim princely states of India
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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (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.
Category:People eucated at St John's College, Morpeth
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 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 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 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories were given their current names, using the style "Paintings in the collection of [Foo]", in
this CfD of 15 May 2021. However, when I set up
another CfD on 24 July that year to apply that naming convention to categories with the style "Paintings in [Foo]", it was unsuccessful as the new style was considered too verbose. An
RfC on 24 October '21, although poorly attended, showed a preference for "Paintings in [Foo]" out of the available options.
Please see that last RfC for the main arguments for "Paintings in [Foo]" over "Paintings in the collection of [Foo]". I would also add that collections with the word "Collection" in their names have already used the proposed style since
this CfD of 25 June 2021.
Ham II (
talk) 06:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename, "in the collection of" is entirely obvious, hence unneeded.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nom. Thanks for bringing this back for discussion. -
Eureka Lott 14:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If renamed, should we change the categories of the articles when a painting is on loan to another museum?
Christian75 (
talk) 11:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
No, temporarily being on loan somewhere else is not a defining characteristic of a painting.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:41, 11 June 2023 (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.
Category:Princes of Peresopnitsa
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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree in principle per
WP:SMALLCAT, but just delete instead of merge because the articles are already in century subcategories of the proposed target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:41, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Fundamental theology
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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, redundant category layer with one article and one subcategory. I have added a link to the article in the header of the subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:48, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Welsh YouTubers
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.
@
Nederlandse Leeuw: the article was restored on 11 June and I have since expanded it.
Sahaib (
talk) 20:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Upmerge for Now to both parents, with no objection to recreationg if it ever gets to 5+ articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:25, 11 June 2023 (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.
Rename per nom. Downmerging would be less appropriate because we would then miss one from a complete series.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 02:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
It's the last member of a series, so that wouldn't be much of a miss, but yes, that's why renaming is my first choice.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Definitely favor keeping the set by century. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Downmerge as alt nom. We are never going to get any other content for 32nd century rulers. There is thus no reason why 32nd-century Pharoahs should not be directly under rulers by century.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 20:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Unresolved dispute over the applicability of
WP:SMALLCAT. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 01:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Further comment: both the rename proposal and the alt merge proposal are to be preferred over the status quo.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Does my nomination as nominator count as a 'vote'? A while back I made these 'Balance so far' comments to make it easier for people to close nominations that may look complicated, but have a clear majority in favour of a particular option. In those cases I counted myself, but I'm not sure if it works that way? In this case my preference is Rename, so that would be 3 Rename v. 1 Downmerge, but I don't know if my nomination itself counts as a vote?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 06:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Of course the opinion of the nominator matters, but don't bother too much about the exact numbers. Better entirely stop with the "balance so far" comments as they may come across as too patronizing.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Alright, thanks. I've seen in several cases such as the
Category:Biblical rulers by century that closers seem to have difficulty understanding what the balance is, and so these discussions just never get closed. In one such case I was asked to provide that balance, and the closer appreciated it, so that's how it started. But as an involved party I may not be the most neutral person to summarise the balance.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:38, 4 June 2023 (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.
Years in Massachusetts
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, merge, split as nominated.
✗plicit 04:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom (Yes, I know this puts my comments in the incorrect order, but this is how the reply tool works on CfD).
Gonnym (
talk) 07:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support generally but Dominion of New England was a short-lived affair and I would suggest that the categories for 1686-9 should be left according to preceding boundaries. I assume that the provincial boundaries reverted to those of the time of Charles II at the Glorious Revolution, because James II's amalgamation of provinces was opposed locallky.
Category:1687 in the Dominion of New England might be created as a parent but it should be
Category:1687 in New England, its status as a dominion being left for a headnote. Why do I see no nominations relating to
Plymouth colony?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now with no objection to recreation if any ever grown to 5+ articles. (Support whichever merge targets make sense, per the above conversation.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:WP:SMALLCAT concerns have been raised, which complicates the discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 00:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
RevelationDirect: in principle I agree with smallcat, but the nomination does not contain merge targets, so a merge will be impossible to process by anyone who closes this discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A valid point. (I obviously did not read the nom closely enough.) Rename for now. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 05:43, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Catholic doctrines
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.
✗plicit 06:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Having both categories is redundant.
Veverve (
talk) 00:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, in theory we could make a split between a set category and a topic category, but in practice that seems too confusing here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:42, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Celebrities who have won professional wrestling championships
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.
✗plicit 06:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I think the intent here is celebrities knowns for something other than wrestling who then wrestled. But that sounds like either
WP:PERFCAT or
WP:TRIVIALCAT for the intersection. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:27, 11 June 2023 (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.
Category:TNA Gut Check contestants
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 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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Were clearly created without knowledge of how categories should be named. Merge as categories are small and unlikely to grow in near future. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 22:54, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Baseball leagues in North America by country
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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary by country category. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 20:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You're right. It is unnecessary because there is no multinational leagues for example. I was thinking of harmonizing it with the larger sports category tree when I created this cat but I forgot to check for this. Merge
Danielsltt (
talk) 05:48, 5 June 2023 (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.
Category:Video games set in forests
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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a
WP:CATDEF whatsoever, so many games are (partially) set in forests. Unnecessary.
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'm the one who made this category page last year, and I suggest we should still keep it and not deleting it.
Ali17082001 (
talk) 22:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep Criteria should be games that are mostly or entirely set in a forest (like, for example, I assume,
Firewatch), not just featuring it as one of numerous settings (i.e. a JRPG with a single forest area). If it's reduced to games that the setting is defining for, it works perfectly fine.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 09:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Otherstuff, hypothetical category: "video games set in villages", "video games set on beaches", "video games set in deserts", "video games set on plains", "video games set in meadows", or any other geographical location or landscape. How's that a catdef?
soetermans.
↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If a desert is the main setting, like Journey, it can totally be defining for a game. Just not "random desert level #15". I think the problem is with overcategorizing articles that don't have it as their defining trait.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 07:11, 14 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete Seems to vague to be defining. Open to specific forests (real or fictional) if they can be populated. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 22:15, 10 June 2023 (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.
Category:De Francisco family
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT of unclear utility. The only two articles filed here are one biography of a person in this family and an overview article about the concept of Colombian comedy as a whole -- but the family is a subtopic of Colombian comedy, not a parent topic, so that article doesn't belong here at all, and there would still have to be at least four other notable De Franciscos with Wikipedia articles before a category for them was warranted anyway.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete This grouping does not aid navigation. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 22:16, 10 June 2023 (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.
Category:Israeli expatriate football managers in Cyprus
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NARROWCAT; should be upmerged to parent categories. Unnecessary intersection of nationality, occupation and location. No other similar categories exist, as such subdivision is excessive.
S.A. Julio (
talk) 18:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
S.A. Julio (
talk) 18:14, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:SVG stubs
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.
Nominator's rationale: Unpopulated stub category with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim -- there have to be 60 articles to file in a stub category before its creation is warranted, and for that very reason stub categories have to be approved by the WikiProject before they're allowed to be created. But the only content here is the stub template itself, which has not actually been added to even one article. Further,
Category:Scalable Vector Graphics has just 14 articles in it, of which only one is a stub and is already appropriately stub-tagged as graphics software -- so even the SVG-stub template is not clearly needed at all, because there isn't even one article that needs it let alone 60 articles that need it.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:04, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Films set in Inyo County, California
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. Category is now populated.
✗plicit 04:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just one film. As always, every county does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one film to file in it -- there would need to be at least five or six films to file here before a dedicated category for this was warranted, and it does not aid navigation at all to obsessively funnel everything down into an exhaustive smorgasbord of one-article microcategories.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Lone Pine, Big Pine, and Manzanar are not in Death Valley, yet they are in Inyo County. Several of the films in this category are in it because they are set in Lone Pine, Big Pine, or Manzanar, not specifically in Death Valley. If anything,
Category:Films set in Death Valley would have to be a subcategory of
Category:Films set in Inyo County, California, which just goes to show you how necessary this category was in the first place.
Nicholas0 (
talk) 13:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Ok, dependent on how many films are set in Lone Pine, Big Pine, or Manzanar, the county category may be kept after all.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I'd certainly be willing to withdraw this now that you've populated the category properly, but since there's been a "rename" option placed on the table I can't withdraw it without a wider consensus. But for future reference, Nicholas0, it's not okay to create a category and add just one film to it, and then sweep back and start populating it only after you've been notified the next day that it was put up for a deletion discussion as a
WP:SMALLCAT — if there were 23 films to file in it, then all 23 of them should have already been filed in it the moment I saw it in the first place (which was well over 24 hours after you created it). That is, if you want to create the category, then you need to add it to all of the articles that belong in it right away, rather than only doing it days after the fact.
Bearcat (
talk) 18:39, 8 June 2023 (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.
Category:Indian Paintbrush (production company) films
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, already done through speedy renaming.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Matches the new article name, which had "production" removed for
WP:CONCISE reasons as there is no other company on Wikipedia with the same name. ~
Dissident93(
talk) 16:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename, following the article move, unless objections are raised to the latter.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:23, 8 June 2023 (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.
Replicas of specific things
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 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no consistency in the naming of subcategories of
Category:Replicas. This CfD attempts to harmonize the scheme under "Replicas of X" or "Replicas and derivatives of X", with the exception of categories where replica is used as an adjective. In particular,
Category:Replica constructions in China cannot be placed in the proposed format without a
misplaced modifier. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 13:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support Brings consistency and, more importantly, handles objects inspired by
Solomon's Temple and the like, that may not technically be replicas. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:18, 11 June 2023 (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.
Category:Australian Leaders of the Opposition
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 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:Muslim princely states of India
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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (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.
Category:People eucated at St John's College, Morpeth
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 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 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 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories were given their current names, using the style "Paintings in the collection of [Foo]", in
this CfD of 15 May 2021. However, when I set up
another CfD on 24 July that year to apply that naming convention to categories with the style "Paintings in [Foo]", it was unsuccessful as the new style was considered too verbose. An
RfC on 24 October '21, although poorly attended, showed a preference for "Paintings in [Foo]" out of the available options.
Please see that last RfC for the main arguments for "Paintings in [Foo]" over "Paintings in the collection of [Foo]". I would also add that collections with the word "Collection" in their names have already used the proposed style since
this CfD of 25 June 2021.
Ham II (
talk) 06:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename, "in the collection of" is entirely obvious, hence unneeded.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename all per nom. Thanks for bringing this back for discussion. -
Eureka Lott 14:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If renamed, should we change the categories of the articles when a painting is on loan to another museum?
Christian75 (
talk) 11:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)reply
No, temporarily being on loan somewhere else is not a defining characteristic of a painting.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:41, 11 June 2023 (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.
Category:Princes of Peresopnitsa
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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Agree in principle per
WP:SMALLCAT, but just delete instead of merge because the articles are already in century subcategories of the proposed target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:41, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Fundamental theology
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.
✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete, redundant category layer with one article and one subcategory. I have added a link to the article in the header of the subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:48, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Welsh YouTubers
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.
@
Nederlandse Leeuw: the article was restored on 11 June and I have since expanded it.
Sahaib (
talk) 20:25, 16 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Upmerge for Now to both parents, with no objection to recreationg if it ever gets to 5+ articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:25, 11 June 2023 (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.
Rename per nom. Downmerging would be less appropriate because we would then miss one from a complete series.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 02:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
It's the last member of a series, so that wouldn't be much of a miss, but yes, that's why renaming is my first choice.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Definitely favor keeping the set by century. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Downmerge as alt nom. We are never going to get any other content for 32nd century rulers. There is thus no reason why 32nd-century Pharoahs should not be directly under rulers by century.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 20:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Unresolved dispute over the applicability of
WP:SMALLCAT. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 01:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Further comment: both the rename proposal and the alt merge proposal are to be preferred over the status quo.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Does my nomination as nominator count as a 'vote'? A while back I made these 'Balance so far' comments to make it easier for people to close nominations that may look complicated, but have a clear majority in favour of a particular option. In those cases I counted myself, but I'm not sure if it works that way? In this case my preference is Rename, so that would be 3 Rename v. 1 Downmerge, but I don't know if my nomination itself counts as a vote?
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 06:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Of course the opinion of the nominator matters, but don't bother too much about the exact numbers. Better entirely stop with the "balance so far" comments as they may come across as too patronizing.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle Alright, thanks. I've seen in several cases such as the
Category:Biblical rulers by century that closers seem to have difficulty understanding what the balance is, and so these discussions just never get closed. In one such case I was asked to provide that balance, and the closer appreciated it, so that's how it started. But as an involved party I may not be the most neutral person to summarise the balance.
Nederlandse Leeuw (
talk) 07:38, 4 June 2023 (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.
Years in Massachusetts
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, merge, split as nominated.
✗plicit 04:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom (Yes, I know this puts my comments in the incorrect order, but this is how the reply tool works on CfD).
Gonnym (
talk) 07:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support generally but Dominion of New England was a short-lived affair and I would suggest that the categories for 1686-9 should be left according to preceding boundaries. I assume that the provincial boundaries reverted to those of the time of Charles II at the Glorious Revolution, because James II's amalgamation of provinces was opposed locallky.
Category:1687 in the Dominion of New England might be created as a parent but it should be
Category:1687 in New England, its status as a dominion being left for a headnote. Why do I see no nominations relating to
Plymouth colony?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Merge for Now with no objection to recreation if any ever grown to 5+ articles. (Support whichever merge targets make sense, per the above conversation.) -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment:WP:SMALLCAT concerns have been raised, which complicates the discussion. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 00:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
RevelationDirect: in principle I agree with smallcat, but the nomination does not contain merge targets, so a merge will be impossible to process by anyone who closes this discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
A valid point. (I obviously did not read the nom closely enough.) Rename for now. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 05:43, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Catholic doctrines
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.
✗plicit 06:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Having both categories is redundant.
Veverve (
talk) 00:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support, in theory we could make a split between a set category and a topic category, but in practice that seems too confusing here.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:42, 4 June 2023 (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.
Category:Celebrities who have won professional wrestling championships
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.
✗plicit 06:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete I think the intent here is celebrities knowns for something other than wrestling who then wrestled. But that sounds like either
WP:PERFCAT or
WP:TRIVIALCAT for the intersection. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:27, 11 June 2023 (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.
Category:TNA Gut Check contestants
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 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.