Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 March 24

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 23 March 25 >

March 24

Category:Sertanejo artists

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) 03:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Musician/music group seem to be the more appropriate terms based on the respective parents, Category:Latin musicians by genre and Category:Latin music groups by genre. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support change: More inclusive and more precise. werldwayd (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Erick (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:14, 1 April 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.

Template:ValdezCordovaAK-geo-stub and category

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: speedy delete WP:G6. I found this via WP:CFDWM. For the record, 50 pages link to the Chugach stub template, and 34 pages to CopperRiver, so they are populating Category:Alaska geography stubs rather than the two separate categories that were approved here. – Fayenatic London 13:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This area has been split in two and articles have been re-sorted with new templates. Her Pegship (?) 23:13, 24 March 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.

Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder

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) 03:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clear case of WP:NONDEF. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:55, 24 March 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.

Category:Cousins

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:Cousinship (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Cousin" is the main article and it is not in plural. Same with the similar "Category:Sibling". ★Trekker (talk) 19:54, 24 March 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.

Category:Cousin couples

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; no consensus to delete. It's likely that the category will have to be monitored somewhat to ensure that biographies are not added to it. This is not an ideal situation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article Cousin marriage is the main topic and the category should share its name. "Coupled cousins" makes it seem like it's a category for articles on individual coupled duos like "Category:Couples" is. ★Trekker (talk) 19:52, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Significant or not there are five articles on the topic (enough for its own category). Categorizing those articles by their subject isn't wrong. Many things that a lot of people would not consider "noteworthy or remarkable" still have categories because it's helpful to disfuse their parent categories for example.★Trekker (talk) 20:03, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Five articles with some overlap" is not always automatic grounds for a category in and of itself. See the category immediately below this, where there are twelve articles but the characteristic being categorized for isn't defining of any of them. See as well Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 30#Category:People in a first-cousin relationship and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 15#Category:People who married their cousins, proving that there's an even longer history of cousin-marriage categories getting deleted and no compelling new reason to overturn any of the prior discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That reasoning makes no sense since clearly all of these articles are defined by "cousin marriage". It's literally in four out of fives titles.★Trekker (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Which has what, exactly, to do with what I said? Bearcat (talk) 20:20, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Your claim that something isn't defining and that I should look below on some other unrelated random other category for deletion.
"See the category immediately below this, where there are twelve articles but the characteristic being categorized for isn't defining of any of them" This is not "five articles with some overlap".★Trekker (talk) 20:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The takeaway point was that the number of articles that happen to be present in a category is not in and of itself an exemption from other considerations as to whether a category should exist or not. Of which "defining" is one, and "this category has been deleted several times in the past, and no new reason has been given why it's suddenly more appropriate now than it was two and five and ten years ago" is another. Happening to have five articles that can be filed in it is not, in and of itself, automatic grounds for a category per se, that would allow you to ignore any of the other considerations that govern when a category should or shouldn't exist. Bearcat (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I don't find "this was deleted like a decade ago" to be a very good argument, Wikipedia was a different (much worse) place several years ago. I don't find any of the reasonings presented there to be very compeling. If cousin marriage is such a "insignificant" thing then why are there several articles on the topic, why is it regulated in law in several jurisdictions? Someone coming out and saying "this is no big deal" doesn't change that clearly someone else has made a big deal about it and Wikipedia and now Wikipedia has a bunch of articles on it.★Trekker (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And also I'm not ignoring "other considerations that govern when a category should or shouldn't exist", I simply disagree that your reasoning corectly judges this category as falls under any of those.★Trekker (talk) 20:47, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said NONDEF did apply. Bearcat (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Why bring it up then?★Trekker (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You said that "five articles exist" was grounds for a category in and of itself, and that any category that hits five plausible entries is automatically exempted from any of the other rules that apply to whether a category is justifiable or not. So I raised an example of a category, under discussion on this very page, where the presence of 12 articles in the category still isn't a reason why the category would automatically be acceptable, and the actual problem with it would be irrelevant, in and of itself. If the message you took from what I said is that I was applying "defining characteristic" as the crux of my reasoning against this category, then your reading comprehension skills are where the actual problem is. Bearcat (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you misinterpreted my comment to mean that I thought every sinle thing ever could be a category just because it had five articles in it, because that was clearly not what I was implying. And I'd say your stonewalling and bringing up of irrelevant stuff is a bigger issue here. Clearly most people here so don't agree with your reasonings that this should be deleted so maybe stop BLUDGEONING already? You're starting to sound pretty uncivil.★Trekker (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you say things that warrant responses, such as misrepresenting the things I even said in the first place or asking me questions that need answers, then my responding is not "bludgeoning" anything. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Have you considered that maybe someone would be confused by your very poor reasoning?★Trekker (talk) 21:23, 29 March 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.

Category:Films edited by Robert Wise

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) 03:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category grouping films on a characteristic that isn't clearly WP:DEFINING. We do not have a comprehensive scheme of always categorizing films for the matter of who their editors were -- this is literally the only "Films edited by X" category that exists for any film editor in the entire history of cinema, but there's no obvious reason why Robert Wise's editing credits would occupy some special pinnacle of ubernotability over and above everybody else's. If we don't comprehensively categorize all films for who their editors were -- and no, I'm not suggesting that we should start -- then films edited by Robert Wise don't need special treatment. Bearcat (talk) 19:52, 24 March 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.

Category:Croatian people of Bosnia and Herzegovina 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete As much as I think that descent categories are not appropriate, this is among the least justified. The vast majority of the folks here are Croatian people who were born in or whose "descent" comes from Bosnia and Herzegovina when the two belonged to the same country. Similar to what would be Category:Texan people of Massachusetts descent as applied to those folks who lived in Texas when it wasn't part of the USA (pre 1845 and 1861-65). Regardless of what people think about descent categories in general, people moving around within the same country isn't something we ought categorize on. Moreover, many of these people are also claimed to be of Croatian ethnicity, so that we are left with people whose "descent" from one constituent republic of Yugoslavia is different to their claimed ethnicity; much like claiming that John McCain's children are of Panamanian descent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Indeed "descent" of people who moved within the same federal country is pretty irrelevant. Among this category, there are probably very few people, actually not from Bosnia themselves, but whose parents had the time to live in Bosnia and Herzegovina long enough to be associated with the independent country after 1991, move to Croatia, and produce offspring which in turn had the time to grow up and do something notable enough to merit a Wikipedia article. Note that there is a strong Croat minority in BiH. If this is what we want to trace here (i.e. Croats from Bosnia who moved to Croatia proper), a double inclusion e.g. in Category:Croats of Bosnia and Herzegovina (or a subcategory) and Category:Croatian people (or a subcategory) is probably a better way to trace that. Out of a sample of articles (Gordan Kožulj, Zvonimir Boban, Josip Šimić, Dario Šimić), many do not actually mention any link to Bosnia or descent from Bosnia, so this category may have been filled based on last name or copied from another Wikipedia language. Place Clichy (talk) 07:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:47, 1 April 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.

Category:15th-century Protestant martyrs

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) 03:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with article Proto-Protestantism. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming that as well. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:17, 27 March 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.

Category:Iyer people

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, containing only two articles, which are already interlinked. The category page header implies that it is for biographies, but if there were any, they have either been deleted or removed. (The other parent categories are already on the member pages where appropriate.) – Fayenatic London 11:08, 24 March 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.

Category:Deaths by dismemberment

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. I have changed the parent category from Category:Deaths by cause to Category:Amputations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While according to the dismemberment article, the action may be a form of killing, most articles under the category actually are about cases where the body was dismembered after the victim was killed. This should either be renamed, or split into Category:Deaths by dismemberment and a parent Category:Dismemberments if retaining membership under Category:deaths by cause is desired. I don't think the category is large enough to warrant having both, though, so prefer renaming. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:48, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's unclear from the few entries I looked at whether the dismemberment was pre- or post-death. Although our article dismemberment says "Dismemberment refers, in general terms, to the act of cutting, tearing, pulling, wrenching or otherwise relieving the limbs from a living thing" (emphasis added), it goes on to discuss dismemberment after death for making an example of the dismembered person or by criminals to make identification of the victim difficult, etc., which seems to assume that post-death removal of limbs is also "dismemberment". Given that, it would be impossible many years later to ascertain whether the dismemberment was the cause of death or just peri-mortal. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:52, 1 April 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.

Category: Voodoo deities

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. It may be useful to split the categories to new sub-cats for Haitian Vodou, so that it would be more clear which deities are not solely Haitian. (Deities in Haitian and another form of vodou would belong in both.) – Fayenatic London 21:42, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The spelling of Vodou as Voodoo is incorrect and racist. There is no need to separate male and female deities/lwa. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nytoussaint (talk • contribs) 05:49, 24 March 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.

Latter Day Saint denominations by belief

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. Although I was WP:INVOLVED, the consensus is unmistakable, and I assume no-one will object to me closing this CFD (against my own suggestion). – Fayenatic London 19:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to this discussion and is the first in what may become a series of nominations to clean up Category:Latter Day Saint denominations. We don't need to categorize denominations by belief, so I think these can be upmerged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In my view, the type of splinter group (eg, Prairie Saint, Josephite, Rocky Mountain Saint, Rigdonite, etc.) is more defining than the trinitarian/monotheistic division. The former are discussed frequently in sources; the latter, not so much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- There appear only to be four items between the two categories, of which two appear to be in both, making each an under-sized category, the usual minimum being five. I suspect that the divisions among LDS churches are of little interest to anyone beyond the LDS movement. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron: I think you mean three, of which two are in both – rightly, as Trinitarian is Monotheistic. But those three "items" are categories not pages, and each contain a different further sub-cat plus 6 to 10 other pages. If those sub-cats get merged to parents, then these nominated categories would become more visibly useful. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think these terms are trickier to define than some people think, and so this whole category system is unwise. In fact that all comes off as a POV pushing exercise by editors who are determined to define the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in just incorrect ways. The heading basically is a ploy by extremely bigoted and hateful and vengeful enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to falsely claim that members of the Church do not believe in the oneness of God, which they explicitly do believe in. This set of categories strikes me as similar to other ugly things enemies of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints do such as their false claim that members of the Church believe in a different Jesus who is Satan's brother, which is theologically false, in Latter-day Saint belief Lucifer lost his divine sonship, and clearly meant to use rhetoric in ways to create hate and animosity towards members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. The wording of the explanation for these categories comes off as engaging in this same type of hate filled rhetoric.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:39, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:00, 1 April 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.

Category:Kentucky women in religion

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:34, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear what "in religion" means nor that what is defining about it. This is the only one of its kind. User:Namiba 02:33, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, hodgepodge of completely unrelated articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Grutness...wha? 00:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a very bad category. The majority of at least Christian and especially Protestant church members in the US are women. While on the historical scale women being ministers/pastors are the minority, this is broad enough to include religious writers, where possibly a majority have been women, Christian missionaries, who in the 19th-century were so often married couples among protestants, that there is no reason to think men will ever be significantly more numerous than women. This type of category might work in a Catholic context (although that ignores the huge number of nuns), but it does not work in Protestantism, especially low church post-Great Awakening and especially post-Second Great Awakening low church Protestantism. Even in primarily Catholic countries I am not sure if this is a good category, the limiting factors are much less clear than with in politics categories, but for a place with the actual history of Kentucky such a category grouping religious devotional writers, women who headed various church committees and other things makes no sense. If you tried to do this for Utah I would point out that even though in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints missionaries are historically primarily male (not so much since 2013, but there may still be more males, different time served makes it a hard to answer question), and top leadership is all male, and those with worldwide leadership are majority male, I can show that the vast majority of participatory members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have held positions in the Church that make their Church membership defining to them and such a category a coherent one to put them in, which would make it non-defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category with no defined scope and no parent category relating to religion. Dimadick (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:01, 1 April 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.

Category:Children's animated adventure television series

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. – Fayenatic London 21:33, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly detailed category and subject to interpretation. ... discospinster talk 00:44, 24 March 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.

Category:American adult animated space adventure television series

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 all parents, i.e. Category:American adult animated adventure television series, Category:American adult animated science fiction television series, Category:Animated space adventure television series. – Fayenatic London 21:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily detailed category and subject to interpretation. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Upmerge to parents. This is too many intersections to be useful. Do we even have the category? Well, we do, but I am not sure how The Jetsons got placed there. We may have to look at if it is being applied in a consistent way. Also, is the term widely used enough to be useful? Category:Science fantasy films?John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 25 March 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.

Category:American adult animated science fantasy television series

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 all parents, i.e. Category:American adult animated fantasy television series, Category:American adult animated science fiction television series, Category:American animated science fantasy television series. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization, and subject to interpretation (who is to say that these shows are "science fantasy"?). ... discospinster talk 00:34, 24 March 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.

Category:American adult animated comic science fiction television series

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 all parents, i.e. Category:American adult animated comedy television series, Category:American adult animated science fiction television series and Category:American comic science fiction television series. – Fayenatic London 21:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, no need to specify (or interpret) that one type of animated science fiction series is comical while others are not. ... discospinster talk 00:33, 24 March 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.

Category:American children's animated comic science fiction television series

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 for now. There may be scope for renaming using "science fiction comedy" for clarification. – Fayenatic London 21:19, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization, there really doesn't need to be a category for a "comic" version of a children's animated series, and is also subject to interpretation (what would be a "non-comic" children's animated science fiction television series?). ... discospinster talk 00:31, 24 March 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.

Category:Animated science fantasy television series

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 for now. If re-nominated, all the sub-cats should also be listed, each with specific multiple merge targets. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization, and subject to interpretation (who is to say that these shows are "science fantasy"?). All the subcategories should be deleted as well for the same reasons. ... discospinster talk 00:26, 24 March 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.

Category:Recipients of the House Order of the Wendish Crown

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) 03:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:OCAWARD)
The Grand Duchy of Mecklenburg-Schwerin issued the House Order of the Wendish Crown to three groups:
There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 24 March 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.

Category:Recipients of the Bronze Cross of Zimbabwe

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. Clear consensus in favour of category deletion at this time. TheSandDoctor Talk 00:30, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD, WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT)
There is only 1 article in this category for winning the Bronze Cross of Zimbabwe: Government Minister Giles Mutsekwa, who is already well categorized under Category:Government ministers of Zimbabwe. I can't really say the category contents are "listified" but I linked that 1 biography right here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 24 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_March_24&oldid=1073193114"