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: reverse merge per GiantSnowman. – Fayenatic London 05:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:FC Tsarsko Selo Sofia players to Category:FC Tsarsko Selo players

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Could also be merged the other way around, as the article name is FC Tsarsko Selo Sofia. Sørhaug (talk) 23:24, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 15:38, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:FC Tsarsko Selo Sofia players because that was the 2021 duplicate, and move Category:FC Tsarsko Selo players (the 2017 original category) to Category:FC Tsarsko Selo Sofia players to match parent article name per CFDS C2D. GiantSnowman 15:41, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Final name should be "FC Tsarsko Selo Sofia players", no opinion on the technicalities of which was older and if a deletion should be done too.--Mvqr (talk) 12:34, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Musician video games to Category:Video games based on musicians

Nominator's rationale: The title is confusing, as it could refer to games where the player is a musician (i.e. Gitaroo Man) rather than based on them as it clearly implies. Also, a musician simply appearing in a game is not defining, so the proposed title runs less afoul of WP:NONDEF. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:34, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Much clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 11:29, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. and merge Category:Band-centric video games to it as well. - jc37 03:46, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films shot in 16mm ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We recently had a discussion about sorting films by their presented aspect ratios. I believe that discussion applies to mm formats as well. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are low-budget, independent films, intentionally avoiding digital lensing. This category was deleted in 2007, film esthetics have changed. 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as non-defining. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:56, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• More info needed: Need a link to the discussion or at least a description of the discussion and what the outcome was. Kire1975 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Kire1975: #Films shot in 1.85:1 aspect ratio (from January 2022; reason: WP:CATDEF and "Non-defining.") and #Films shot in... (from April 2014; reason: "Not a basic defining characteristic of the films."). Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 01:17, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose: Per: WP:DEFINING: a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having." Here are twenty-two reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently defining, in prose, films and television shows as having been shot in 16mm. Kire1975 (talk) 02:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will you be

• Oppose Defining aspect of the films, covered in the sources. Dimadick (talk) 04:12, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm looking at some of the articles in the category, and am struggling to see how being filmed in 16mm is defining to the film. For example, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre makes no mention of this in the lead, and it's buried mid-way down the article (in the filming section). No-one who's asked have you seen The Texas Chain Saw Massacre replies with the answer - "That film shot in 16mm? Yeah!" Some other articles mention it somewhere, some do not. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:19, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: It still possesses that characteristic if some sources don't mention it. Kire1975 (talk) 11:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: "Have you seen Citizen Kane or It's a Wonderful Life?" No one is gonna say "the black and white film?" If the precedent continues with this deletion proposal, will Category:Black-and-white films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) be next in the firing squad? Kire1975 (talk) 11:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, those movies are well-known for being in black-and-white since it's obvious to the person watching the film. However, it is not obvious if a film was shot in 16mm unless there's a reliable source/interview that says so. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Even if you could prove that, there's nothing about obviousness on WP:DEFINING. Kire1975 (talk) 13:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I believe that all existing categories are somewhat obvious. Country of origin, who made the film, when it was released, where the film's story is set and what's it about, and who released the film can be found quite easily. The way the film was shot, like its aspect ratio or the type of cameras and stock film (mm) that were used are not. They require a source to verify. Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Some films are shot in 16mm as an art form. For example: https://filmmakermagazine.com/96921-the-grain-of-super-16-gives-the-film-another-layer-dp-edward-lachman-on-carol/ : "we felt by shooting in Super 16 we could reference the way stills film looked back then" (i.e. the 1940s/50s), "The grain of Super 16 gives the film another layer that almost feels like something breathing or pulsing, like there’s something beneath the surface of the character, and that felt right emotionally for the film." Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 10:17, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Oppose.' Defining aspect of the films. --Just N. (talk) 11:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Ibn Saud. – Fayenatic London 22:07, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Abdulaziz of Saudi Arabia ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCEPON, very thinly populated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the deletion, it is redundant. In addition, the article for the subject is Ibn Saud. So there would be confusion for the readers.--Egeymi (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose as there are a number of articles that could fit under the category, e.g. battles leading to the formation of his kingdom, his advisors, family members, etc. See as examples Category:Cleopatra and Category:Edward I of England. Векочел (talk) 13:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• That would result in a WP:OCASSOC category. These articles are not about Abdulaziz. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternatively, if kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Ibn Saud per main article title Ibn Saud. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ibn Saud. This category should be about the royal family. Articles on his kingdom will be better in a category on the country. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as Ibn Saud. I think it is the most widely used name for the king. Векочел (talk) 00:16, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Ibn Saud. --Just N. (talk) 11:50, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Modal jazz flautists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too small a category with little chance of expansion. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Jazz vibraphonists. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 12:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jazz vibraphonists by genre ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose merging Category:Acid jazz vibraphonists to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category:Avant-garde jazz vibraphonists to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category:Big band vibraphonists‎ to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category:Chamber jazz vibraphonists to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category:Cool jazz vibraphonists‎ to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category:Free jazz vibraphonists‎ to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category:Hard bop vibraphonists to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category: Jazz-rock vibraphonists to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category:Mainstream jazz vibraphonists‎ to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category:Post-bop vibraphonists to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category:Swing vibraphonists to Category:Jazz vibraphonists
• Propose merging Category:Third stream vibraphonists to Category:Jazz vibraphonists

Nominator's rationale: I do not know how to nominate several subcategories for deletion, but one thing that is clear is that all of the subcategories for "Category:Jazz vibraphonists by genre" need to absolutely be deleted. A simple "Category:Jazz vibraphonists" would be all that's needed. Why? I Ask (talk) 05:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• @Why? I Ask: you need to add the subcategories to the list above and you need to tag the pages of the subcategories. I have done the first one as an example. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:SMALLCAT - and many of the musicians are in several of these categories, so they dont seem very defining. Rathfelder (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The entire category tree contains less than 50 articles. I am typically in favor for small categories, but not when we split a small category to dozens of smaller ones. Dimadick (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: One category has one member. Milt Jackson is in eight of them. No legitimate purpose. Kire1975 (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for several above subcategories that hold a population 5 or more! --Just N. (talk) 11:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Six is the maximum here and that applies to one subcategory only. With currently only 16 articles in this tree in total this split is really not helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: These sit under the Category:Musicians by instrument and genre tree so "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", which would suggest their retention. That said, the problems mentioned above (small numbers, duplicated appearance across multiple categories) are a consequence of excessive genre-chopping; using Petscan shows interection between Jazz vibraphonists and <subgenre> musicians which could give some extension (as well as omissions such as Bebop vibrophonists), but some of the current subgenres just make it a struggle to find anyone (e.g. Gary Burton). AllyD (talk) 08:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Research institutes in Washington, D.C.. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Research institutes in the District of Columbia to Category:Research institutes in Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: Nangaf (talk) 04:15, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abstain - There's a three character difference and the nominator didn't bother to post a rationale. What's the point? Kire1975 (talk) 14:45, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy -- We normally refer to it that way. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename would be justified. --Just N. (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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