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: split. MER-C 12:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Great Depression musicals to Category:Plays about the Great Depression and Category:1930s plays tree

Nominator's rationale: User should have a reasonable idea what they're going to find when they go to a category.

(With this, and the below nominations of other periods, I'm realizing the problem is much more widespread than I had imagined. There are other Great Depression arts categories, etc.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:50, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Split some of these works have virtually no reference to the Great Depression and are just set at the time they were created. This is needed to make cateorization more logical.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:54, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 13:30, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:World War I theatre ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is just used to categorize musicals and plays at the same level, both as subcats of this (which is a subcat of Works about World War I), but it's better to categorize musicals under plays and to make that a subcat. Category's unnecessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:42, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- "Theatre" in relation to war also means an area of operations, so that the title is ptentially ambiguous. Both subcats are adequatly categorised, so that there is no need to upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Per previous, my first inclination was to think this referred to the "theaters of war" in which WWI was fought. Ambiguous and unneeded. General Ization ^Talk 22:32, 11 July 2015 (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. MER-C 13:33, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:World War II musicals to Category:Musicals about World War II

Category:World War I musicals to Category:Musicals about World War I

Category:World War I plays to Category:Plays about World War I

Category:War plays to Category:Plays about war

Category:English Civil War plays to Category:Plays about the English Civil War

Category:Soviet war in Afghanistan plays to Category:Plays about the Soviet war in Afghanistan

Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) plays to Category:Plays about the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Nominator's rationale: The names are ambiguous as to whether the musicals and plays are from this period, or about this period. Also, consistency with other "works about thing" categories. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:34, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NB the problem is much more widespread than I thought, so I'm not going to nom the full list. If consensus is reached to rename/split, the others might be able to go through speedy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Clearly ambiguous. Johnbod (talk) 17:14, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Works about" is a much better format. Purge if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nominator....William 21:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Publishing. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:16, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Publishing terms ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: These articles are nearly all about concepts, not terms, and they should be; a quick glance at this list of articles suggests that only Publish or perish is really a term in the sense that it is primarily a phrase. It's a bad idea to have separate "X terms" or "X terminology" categories, only to fill them with miscellanea that don't fit in other subcategories. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:32, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: you'd have to delete all other sub-categories in Category:Terminology, too. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:38, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fgnievinski: not all, but a lot them, yes. I've often wondered why we had these categories. In fact, I was just looking at Category:Book terminology, and I have absolutely no idea what is the criterion for inclusion in that category. Are you opposing deletion only because it would be a lot of work to do consistently? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 19:40, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly not a delete, perhaps a renaming of "terminology" to "concepts" as in Category:Concepts by field. Every field has its jargon, call it terminology or not. (BTW: related discussion about :Category:Nomenclature). Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 19:46, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Then what is the distinction between Category:Publishing and Category:Publishing concepts? That the latter should not include individual publications/people/events/named entities? QVVERTYVS (hm?) 20:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems a reasonable and defensible distinction to me. Some folks prefer to {{diffuse}} profusely. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Publishing. These are (with possibly a few exceptions) not articles about the subject of terminology (a subtopic of linguistics), but articles whose title is a term - however, categorization should be on characteristics of the subject, not on characteristics of the article title. If not deleted then add inclusion criteria and heavily purge. Note: many terms/terminology categories have been deleted in the past (e.g. here and here). See also User:DexDor/TermCat.DexDor ^(talk) 20:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Publishing general concepts so as to avoid confusion with uncategorized articles that often get temporarily dropped in the base Category:Publishing but actually are awaiting to be diffused into sub-categories. If the present deletion nomination goes through, Category:Concepts by field and its sub-categories shall go next, which already received some attention in the past (e.g., here). Fgnievinski (talk)

How can a clear distinction be drawn between "uncategorized articles ... temporarily dropped in the base Category:Publishing" and articles "awaiting to be diffused into sub-categories"? There are no "general concepts" categories currently in en wp and that looks very much like WP:OCMISC. I'd support phasing out most/all of Category:Concepts by field, but not by renaming it to "terminology" as that confuses things even further by (incorrectly) bringing the topic of linguistics into the mix (e.g. probably placing it under Category:Linguistics). DexDor ^(talk) 18:39, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I was proposing a Miscellaneous category; as there's a guideline in place which considers it over-categorization, I'll have to accept the proposed merge. As for an example of uncategorization, Alderbrink Press is currently placed at Category:Publishing, while it clearly would belong to Category:Publishers. To avoid only shifting the confusion between uncategorizated members and general members, I've started a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#"Uncategorized" (or "Undercategorized") maintenance sub-category, related to Template:Undercategorized. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:23, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not delete -- It should either be merged or renamed. At present, the content of Category:Publishing is something of a mess. It may be that some of the articlkes there need to be recategorised to the subject here. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify what you think this category should be merged to (the upmerge I've proposed?) or renamed to? DexDor ^(talk) 20:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or upmerge to Category:Publishing, no clear inclusion criteria and "miscellaneous things" belong in a parent category, Category:Publishing in this case. But if most articles are already in another child category of Category:Publishing as well, it makes sense to delete the category instead of merging it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete all three categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Salamanca AC ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category is about a Spanish football club founded as a vanished team's succesor on 2013. However, AC Salamanca hasn't got license from LFP (Spanish Football League), RFEF (Spanish Football Federation) and CSD (Spanish Sports Council) for playing. Therefore the team is not allowed to get new footballers or coaches, neither is registered in La Liga (in this case: 2nd B (Third división into Spanish Football league system)) despite "be founded", so it can't play any official match Ravave (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Adding empty Category:Salamanca AC managers and Category:Salamanca AC footballers, for the same reason. Only the article can remain. MYS77 ^✉ 20:09, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a CfD template was lacking on all three category pages, I added this now, so this discussion cannot be closed for another week. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Extinct lordships of Parliament. User:Opera hat's comment about capitalisation is correct, I believe. If the article ever moved back to List of Lordships of Parliament, then the capitalisation for the category could follow. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Extinct lordships of parliament to Category:Extinct Lordships of Parliament

Nominator's rationale: Capitalization in line with Category:Lordships of Parliament and with List of Lordships of Parliament (as distinct from Lord of Parliament). Ricky81682 (talk) 09:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• REname per nom -- Lorship of Parliament os the Scottish equivalent of an English barony. Accordingly the suggested capitalisation is correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

corrected. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you suggest removing "Extinct"? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Peterkingiron, are you suggesting renaming to Category:Extinct baronies in the Peerage of Scotland and therefore a separate rename to Category:Baronies in the Peerage of Scotland? That would be incorrect because as discussed at Lord of Parliament, "The peerage of Scotland differs from those of England, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, in that its lowest rank is not that of baron [but a Lordship of Parliament]" and the baronies were not hereditary. That's why Category:Peerage of Scotland has Category:Dukedoms in the Peerage of Scotland‎, Category:Earldoms in the Peerage of Scotland‎, Category:Marquessates in the Peerage of Scotland‎ and Category:Viscountcies in the Peerage of Scotland‎. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• • No. The term appears to be "Lordship of Parliament" (so capitalised). My previous comment was missing punctuation (now added). According to the main article, "barony" in Scotland meant what would in England be a feudal barony. I am not suggesting removing "extinct": if I implied that, it was bad drafting. Opera hat please move the list back! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to move the list back, I assume you will also move all the other lists of peerages which currently use lower case for the degree of peerage. I suggest you start a move discussion at one of those pages if you think the current standard is wrong. Opera hat (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest alternative Category:Extinct lordships of Parliament. "Lordship" as a rank in the Peerage of Scotland is not a proper noun, so should not be capitalised. Cf. Category:Extinct earldoms, Category:Extinct baronies in the Peerage of England, etc. However, "Parliament" as an institution is a proper noun (the Parliament of Scotland), so should be capitalised. See WP:MOSCAPS. I've already moved List of Lordships of Parliament to List of lordships of Parliament. Opera hat (talk) 08:19, 10 July 2015 (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: administrative close, it doesn't make sense to keep this discussion open while the category no longer exists. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Annie M. G. Schmidt ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Not exceptionally notable enough per WP:EPONCAT. I think there may be a few more in Category:Wikipedia categories named after writers that need looking at too. Rob Sinden (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment it appears to have been deleted per WP:G7. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 13:31, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indian films showing bikini ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Whether or not a film depicts bikinis is not a defining characteristic. Psychonaut (talk) 09:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Non WP:DEFINING characteristic. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non WP:DEFINING characteristic. How absurd. -- BollyJeff | talk 12:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non defining. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can explain why this category is necessary. Bollywood and such are generally less, shall we say, "racy" than Hollywood but I'm not sure it needs to be represented this way. ... discospinster _talk 02:33, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete also because it's not a genre. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is no more defining than nudity in film, but actually probably a little more clear if met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:55, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Delia Austrian medal recipients ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC#AWARD; none of these actors are known for winning this award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:55, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 12:32, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kansas City Film Critics Circle Awards ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: I have nominated all articles and the template populating this category for deletion (all in relation to a non notable award mill). Deletion of these articles would render this an empty and deprecated category, so nominating accordingly. Safiel (talk) 04:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delay and follow outcome of pending deletion of articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Conditional support, if/when the articles disappear (and it's pretty likely they will disappear) the category will become empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 17 July 2015 (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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 14:02, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 21th century BC to Category:Buildings and structures completed in the 21st century BC

Nominator's rationale: Change to standard English ordinal 21st  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:12, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, could have been a speedy nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 8 July 2015 (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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 13:59, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:21th-century disestablishments in Bhutan to Category:21st-century disestablishments in Bhutan

Nominator's rationale: Change to standard English ordinal 21st  SchreiberBike | ⌨  01:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I just changed Category:2000s disestablishments in Bhutan and moved the category myself (it would be a speedy renaming candidate) [I left the CFD notice up for what it's worth]. I hope no one minds but we can close this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't mind at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fawad Khan ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Films aren't categorized by its stars. WP:OCEPON, WP:PERFCAT. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCEPON; WP:EPONCAT; WP:PERFCAT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. MER-C 13:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Big Sean ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. With only song and album subcategories already interlinked, there is no need for an eponymous parent category. WP:OCEPON. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OCEPON; WP:EPONCAT. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:27, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per OP's rationale. General Ization ^Talk 22:30, 11 July 2015 (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.