Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 December 13

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< December 12 December 14 >

December 13

Category:Fictional American law enforcement agents

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming the following:
Nominator's rationale: C2C - bringing categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. --Onifpaz (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2016 (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:Fictional Special Operations Forces of the United States

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. Cerebellum (talk) 02:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming the following:
Nominator's rationale: C2C - bringing categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. Note that "Green Beret" and "Delta Force" are unofficial nicknames used by the media. --Onifpaz (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. For the Green Berets category, I support Category:Fictional United States Army Special Forces personnel rather than "Green Berets personnel" (which just reads a bit weird). Neutralitytalk 18:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly Support/Alt Rename for Green Berets This makes sense. The one exception is for Green Berets where I support Neutrality's suggestion since the parent category is Category:Members of the United States Army Special Forces. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 15 December 2016 (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:Fictional United States government agents

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 all except for Category:Fictional United States Marshals, which already matches the parent category. Cerebellum (talk) 14:10, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming the following:
Nominator's rationale: C2C - bringing categories into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. --Onifpaz (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Except these are not at all consistent. Why are some "characters" and some "personnel" and some "officials" and some "agents"? Deli nk (talk) 13:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator has standardized the naming.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support this new proposal - consistency is good. Deli nk (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with dropping "United States" if the rest of the category tree does.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:10, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
These should match or come close to matching the real life agency, so use "Central Intelligence Agency" not "CIA". I'm less concerned with consistency in Category:Fictional United States government agents. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: I think I see what you mean. I thought you were implying on 29 Dec that one hierarchy does use "United States", & therefore those nominated here should only omit "United States" if the rest will also get renamed to remove those words. However, I now think you meant to express support for Good Olfactory's proposal as the rest of the tree does not use "United States"... right? – Fayenatic London 20:49, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct. Clarified my vote above for the closer. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:32, 9 January 2017 (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:Estates in Powys

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Country houses in Powys (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 entry. small category Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, both for this county and across Wales and the UK. This is a category with much scope. The fact that is has not been populated so far is neither here nor there. The large estates form a significant part of Welsh history, particularly during the phase of early industrialisation and up to the Great War. We should be working to expand this, not for bored editors to find reasons for things to do. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:28, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge, I'd also suggest it is upmerged to Category:History of Powys and Category:Real estate in the United Kingdom. There is currently no category tree to support this overly specific sub-category (Category:Historic estates in Wales suffers from similar problems of being over-specific). Sionk (talk) 06:30, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as this is the wrong target. What is important here is not an estate (a farm etc), but the house. The question is how the one article should be categorised, as neither of the present categorisies is a useful one. Merge to Category:Country houses in Powys and if it is listed, Category:Listed buildings in Powys. Since Powys covers three pre-1974 counties, there would be merit in splitting Powys categories between the earlier counties. The one article needs some purging of NN Lloyd ancestors, but should also be making use of H. Lloyd, The Quaker Lloyds in the industrial revolution (1975) which has a couple of chapters on the family (who founded Lloyds Bank) while they were at Dolobran. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - +1 on merging to Country houses - it may not be an exact match but the difference isn't worth the duplication. The current "Estates" is confusing as it could equally refer to council estates in Cardiff as country estates (and "historic estates" is little better), but I would oppose some of the more extreme upmerging as it's true that many of the country estates will have enough WP:RS to support an article on each. At the same time splitting a current county into three non-existent ones also seems an over-reaction, Powys seems the natural home for these.Le Deluge (talk) 23:06, 18 December 2016 (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:Rachel Platten

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) 07:02, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:16, 13 December 2016 (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:Technological problems

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:Technological failures, until a better idea comes along; it does at least correspond to both the parent categories. – Fayenatic London 15:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: downmerge as all content of this category is about failures (disruptions, defects, blackouts). Suggesting downmerge instead of upmerge because 'failure' is more clearly defined than 'problem'. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Technological failures. I do not think all the classes of failure covered are necessarily branches of engineering: some are more in the realm of metallurgy and materials, so that it is useful to have a broader parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Problem" implies something gradual and potentially minor - some air in a radiator means one room is colder than the rest. "Failure" implies a one-off disaster - a pipe bursts, flooding the house. Whether that's what's intended I'm not sure. I'm not sure I particularly like "technological" in this context though.Le Deluge (talk) 01:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The glory of the English language means that they are all subtle variations of timescale and impact. A defect has already happened and is absolute but minor - a bad pixel on your TV. A disruption is ongoing but again not that serious - the trains running 20 minutes late. A blackout is sudden and catastrophic - a whole town losing electricity. So defects and blackouts are both abrupt failures, probably only one is notable, whereas a disruption won't generally be a failure (the trains not running at all).Le Deluge (talk) 00:38, 23 December 2016 (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:Krampus

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, but ensure clear navigation links between the main article and the other category. – Fayenatic London 14:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This WP:EPONYMOUS category is being repeatedly removed from categorisation of the main Krampus article. That would be inappropriate according to our regular practice for eponymous categories. Either the category should exist, and be included, or else abandon the category altogether. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:32, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that it has members of the main article, Krampus, and one sub-category with 9 members: Category:Krampus in popular culture. At least one of these categories seem adequate to pass WP:SMALLCAT.
I would favor this to having two, redundant categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:11, 29 December 2016 (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:Independent Ireland in World War II

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. I have suggested at WT:IE that WP Ireland discuss creating year categories for Independent Ireland. – Fayenatic London 15:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Independent Ireland"? As opposed to what, Northern Ireland? Because this is the normal way we indicate that... BDD (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Indeed, as opposed to Northern Ireland. In World War 2 there was no such place as the "Republic of Ireland". The Republic of Ireland Act 1948 came into force in 1949. I am open to any renaming that does not contradict history. jnestorius(talk) 16:08, 13 December 2016 (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 associated with Pink Floyd

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of these people, not to mention that "associated" is a horribly vague word. DonIago (talk) 14:21, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"People known for their association with Pink Floyd"? It's more clear, though implies they wouldn't be known otherwise... I am very open to other suggestions. DonIago (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But his career hasn't been defined by his collaboration with Pink Floyd. Roy Harper (who had a substantial notable career separately) has been. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:42, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Once you create this category, it's equally applicable to both Roy Harper and Carlossuarez45. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 17 December 2016 (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:Separation of investment and commercial banking

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: purge and rename. – Fayenatic London 15:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF as well as WP:OR masquerading as a category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:31, 13 December 2016 (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:Entrenchments in Malta

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. The opinions in favour of "keep" would be more convincing if there was actually more existing content rather than just potential for content. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:37, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles. Not obvious that Entrenchments need a separate category. Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: @Rathfelder: There are many other entrenchments in Malta which do not yet have a Wikipedia article (Bengħisa Entrenchment, Birżebbuġa Entrenchment, Louvier Entrenchment, Spinola Entrenchment, etc), and this category is intended to include these articles once they are created. Xwejnusgozo (talk) 12:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging Malta has a large number of entrenchments and the only reason there are no articles about them is because we lack volunteers to the wikiproject Malta. There are at least 30 entrenchments of notability. Most of them are a National monument, historic importance, etc. In any case they are more easily (wiki - fast) found under their own category than mix them with the main list of the rest of the world.Continentaleurope (talk) 14:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So what? WP is incomplete. Presence or absence of other content is no proof of anything. Malta is also unusual in having been both heavily fortified, yet little worked by agriculture. It's not unusual for having had extensive earthworks of this type, it's unusual for them still surviving. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:09, 13 December 2016 (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 pornographers

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. There are many other small categories subdividing British people by occupation; perhaps an RfC would be a useful way ahead. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category - 1 article. Rathfelder (talk) 08:11, 13 December 2016 (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:English politicians of South Asian descent

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) 19:51, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty and superfluous Rathfelder (talk) 08:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, after all there's nothing to merge. Sionk (talk) 06:55, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Per WP:C1, unless it was emptied out of process. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Even if emptied out of process, it should be deleted: the potential content will all be in appropriate British politicians by descent categories. Furthermore, South Asian is a portmanteau, we usually use specific nationalities here. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Count me in for deleting all these various English/Welsh WP:SMALLCATs. But to be honest I'm OK with South Asian, given the specific circumstances of large numbers of immigrants coming from the former British India within living memory. There's plenty of people still alive who were born before Partition, and many more whose parents/grandparents did so. Plus there's the migration issue - if Muslim grandparents and their forefathers lived in modern India, but the parents moved to Pakistan after Partition and then the children moved to the UK - what is their "descent", Indian or Pakistani? My experience is that they are more likely to claim the pre-colonial identity of Punjabi, which adds another level of complication. So I can live with a non-country descent in the particular case of South Asia.Le Deluge (talk) 02:05, 20 December 2016 (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:English people taken hostage

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge as WP:SMALLCAT; also to Category:English terrorism victims. – Fayenatic London 12:30, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. Only 1 article. No reason to distinguish English hostages from British. Rathfelder (talk) 08:05, 13 December 2016 (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:English people of Taiwanese descent

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 without creating a precedent; noting that the single member article Tim Chow currently plays for a Scottish team, and remains in the English hierarchy as he is also categorised in Category:English people of Chinese descent. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous - and meaningless. English is an ethnicity. British is a nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 08:03, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a great deal of confusion about English categories. English has not been a nationality since 1707. So Englishness cannot easily be acquired. Most non-white people in England identify as British rather than English.Rathfelder (talk) 10:30, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • No confusion whatsoever, other than the confusion you're creating. And do you have any evidence whatsoever for your last assertion? You know as well as I do that if you started mucking around with Scottish categories there would be an outcry, so why do it with English categories? To be honest, most English editors weren't that bothered until some Scottish and Welsh editors started obsessively describing and categorising people as Scottish or Welsh rather than British; but as soon as that starts it has to be carried through for all the Home Nations and done consistently throughout category trees that use it, as the "by descent" trees do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:05, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ I consulted the article on English people.Rathfelder (talk) 22:27, 13 December 2016 (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:English people of Tajik descent

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous - empty Rathfelder (talk) 08:01, 13 December 2016 (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:English people of Uzbekistani descent

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. (Though it's empty after the close of the discussion immediately below, so there's nothing to actually merge.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:33, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous Rathfelder (talk) 08:00, 13 December 2016 (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:Uzbekistani emigrants to England

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; merge contents to Category:Uzbekistani emigrants to the United Kingdom. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty. and if populated it is part of a heirarchy by nationality, not ethnicity Rathfelder (talk) 07:58, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. No longer empty (it was emptied by another editor and has now been restored). We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. English is not an ethnicity when used in this sense. Although not a sovereign state, England is a country and people do settle in one of the Home Nations as opposed to the other three. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (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:English religion journalists

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. Merge contents (single article) to Category:Religion journalists and Category:English journalists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:33, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Part of a heirarchy by nationality, not ethnicity Rathfelder (talk) 07:56, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. English is not an ethnicity when used in this sense. Although not a sovereign state, England is a country. Need to create the British cat as well, though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (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:English savateurs

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; merge contents (single article) to Category:English martial artists and Category:Savateurs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:30, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Part of a heirarchy by nationality, not ethnicity Rathfelder (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We do divide British categories into their four separate parts. English is not an ethnicity when used in this sense. Although not a sovereign state, England is a country. Need to create the British cat as well, though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:16, 13 December 2016 (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:English scholars of Pakistan studies

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small category - 1 article. No obvious reason to separate English scholars from British. Rathfelder (talk) 00:00, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Only where there is enough content to merit it. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:54, 19 December 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:27, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This would be more in line with the way all the other categories in Category:Cultural depictions of people by occupation are phrased: Cultural depictions of politicians, Cultural depictions of painters, Cultural depictions of scientists,... User:Kjell Knudde 14:09, 13 December 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_December_13&oldid=1138409648"