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 10:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Māori people stubs to Category:Māori biography stubs

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy, listing here for full discussion. This category was created (see initial discussion) for biographical stub articles on individual Māori people (currently 300 articles, +1 template). But it's possible others might mistake it as a category for everything about the Māori people as a whole (including their culture, history, language, subgroups, etc.), which would actually belong in the parent Category:Māori stubs. So I think it would be better to move the category on individual people to the less confusing title of Category:Māori biography stubs. See the Note below for further explanation. Cheers. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This type of stub category naming is fairly common for splitting biographical stubs by occupation (e.g., Category:New Zealand medical biography stubs), but less so for splitting by ethnicity (one of the few examples being Category:Indigenous peoples of North America biography stubs). Quite often for ethnic group stubs, biographical and non-biographical articles are lumped together: e.g., Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs, which has a total of 121 biographical and non-biographical stubs, +2 templates. However, doing this for the Māori would result in a large and unwieldy stub category of 450+ articles (or 550+ if you also include the ones in Category:Māori mythology stubs). So in this case I think the split is warranted, and that the proposed name is less confusing than the current one, and consistent with at least one other comparable stub category. Cheers again. – Liveste (talk • edits) 13:07, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I was the one that opposed the speedying, based on the fact that it is a fairly new area and it was better as a discussed test case for any future stub categories. I do however think that the proposed name is a better one, for reasons of clarity as stated above. So that's a support from me. It might be worth sorting out the other stubs by ethnicity to include both general and bio stub types, even if they're upmerged into overall categories (and maybe to clarify that the bio-stubs are for people known primarily for connection to ethnic matters, rather than just because they have a specific ancestry). Grutness...wha? 14:32, 1 September 2019 (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. Both sides raise valid concerns about both the current name and the proposed name with neither side being better supported by policy then the other. While the support side is in a numerical majority, I have weighed some of these !votes less than others because they didn't address the concerns brought up by the opposition. My suggestion on how to precede from here would be discussing the inclusion criteria for these categories and return to discussing name changes when the criteria is better defined. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 21:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1900s LGBT-related films to Category:1900s LGBT-themed films
• Propose renaming Category:1910s LGBT-related films to Category:1910s LGBT-themed films
• Propose renaming Category:1920s LGBT-related films to Category:1920s LGBT-themed films
• Propose renaming Category:1930s LGBT-related films to Category:1930s LGBT-themed films

Withdrawn:

• Propose renaming Category:LGBT-related media to Category:LGBT-themed media
• Propose renaming Category:1870s LGBT-related media to Category:1870s LGBT-themed media
• Propose renaming Category:1880s LGBT-related media to Category:1880s LGBT-themed media
• Propose renaming Category:1890s LGBT-related media to Category:1890s LGBT-themed media
• Propose renaming Category:1900s LGBT-related media to Category:1900s LGBT-themed media

Nominator's rationale: rename for the sake of more clarity of the purpose of these categories and for a better definingness of the characteristics. "Related" or "associated" is too vague, per WP:OCASSOC.

@AussieLegend, Pyxis Solitary, Escape Orbit, Bearcat, Roscelese, David J Johnson, Laurel Lodged, and GetSomeUtah: pinging contributors to the last related CfD discussion that I am aware of. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support all - "related" is pretty ambiguous. "Themed" is more defining. --AussieLegend (✉) 09:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Sure, why not? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose on the basis that "-related" is a more encompassing term. Not all films with LGBT characters are LGBT-themed, and until there's suitable real-world categorization for the former, they should be able to be sorted together. And that it's progressive to have LGBT-related films that are not about LGBT themes, so it's nice to not exclude them. Kingsif (talk) 21:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's an example: Some Like It Hot is currently categorized under "American LGBT-related films". Whether it's actually an LGBT-themed film or not is somewhat debatable. GregorB (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answered below about Some Like It Hot. Place Clichy (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well that's one example. To add to the other explanations of how 'themed' doesn't include probably a good amount of LGBT-related media (there's a technical argument that anything LGBT-themed is 'queer' and anything otherwise LGBT-related is not), I add another example with La casa de las flores - its main cast counts two bisexual characters, a gay character and a transgender lesbian. One of its primary settings is a drag bar. It doesn't contain LGBT themes beyond calling out homophobia, though. So where would it go? Category:Mexican television shows featuring LGBT characters and locations? Kingsif (talk) 03:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure.
  Comment: I've witnessed food fights over adding Gay-related and Lesbian-related categories. Is it all or mostly Gay or Lesbian? Is there only some Gay or Lesbian? How important is that some? Yada yada yada, and the beat goes on. It's why I think that "Related" and "Themed" are both not the right term to use. "Related" means associated. The definition of "themed" is dealing with a topic or subject. If a program or film, for example, contains significant and/or predominant LGBT content, then "Themed" would be suitable. But what about programs and films where an LGBT character is a lead character and the sexual orientation frames the character, but the other characters in the program or film are not LGBT? Or the character's storyline is an important element, but so are those about the heterosexuals? Tagging such a program or film as "LGBT themed" would be incorrect -- just as much as tagging it as "LGBT related".
  It's a dilemma. Maybe "LGBT relevant" or "LGBT inclusive" is the more appropriate term. Pyxis Solitary yak 04:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IMO an article shouldn't be in more than one such category. DexDor ^(talk) 20:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. A theme is probably defining, merely being related is not. Zerach (talk) 08:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. "Themed" is certainly fine in some cases; films and television series and music and novels, for example, certainly have themes. However, magazines, newspapers, television and radio stations do not have "themes", and are more properly described as "LGBT-related" rather than "LGBT-themed", and parent categories like "LGBT-related media" and the unpluralized "LGBT-related film" cut across the distinction by parenting both the set of categories that could credibly be renamed "themed" and the ones that could not (as well as things that are neither "related" nor "themed", such as the film category directly parenting the categories for LGBT people involved in film (directors, actors, etc.) So I'm not opposed in principle to the idea that some of them could justifiably be renamed to "themed" instead of "related" — but they can't all be so renamed, and any nomination needs to be more careful about figuring out which category goes in which bucket. Bearcat (talk) 15:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a fair point. I'll withdraw media, newspapers, radio and stations (still in process). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Oppose all. A work should not have to have the/a "theme" of whatever if it still treats the whatever in large part, which is what these types of categories serve. Brideshead Revisited, for example, does not have a "theme" of homosexuality per se, but it certainly occupies much of the work. And we can't cherry-pick which of these numerous categories should stay and which should go; the same principle applies to all of them. Softlavender (talk) 08:24, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if it is not defining enough to be classed as "themed" than it is not definingenough to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the renaming and the shrinking of scope. "LGBT-related" is so vague that, for instance, a movie would qualify if it had a secondary character in which some viewers would see signs of a LGBT orientation, which is hardly defining to the movie itself. However, media where the LGBT theme is central deserve being categorized as such. Some Like It Hot is a film where cross-dressing is central to the movie, and deserves being in Category:Cross-dressing in American films, itself a subcat of Category:American LGBT-related films, which would be renamed Category:American LGBT-themed films under the proposed scheme. Place Clichy (talk) 09:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - plenty of media is notable for its portrayal of LGBTQ, while not being strictly "LGBT-themed" as a whole. Being LGBT-related often does become a "defining trait" for a subject, based on how it is treated in RSs.--Alexandra IDV^talk 16:57, 20 October 2019 (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 10:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WFAN (AM) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per longstanding consensus against eponymous categories for individual radio stations. Of the 11 articles here, three are individual personalities who are or were employees of the station, clearly violating WP:PERFCAT, while another two are lists that are not station-specific but merely include this station among their entries -- so effectively half of the entries in this category do not belong in it. Which leaves just the eponym itself, a separate "history of WFAN" content fork of questionable necessity as much of it simply reduplicates the station's main article, and four programs -- which is not enough to justify a special exemption from the long-established consensus against individual-radio-station categories. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and precedent. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:04, 10 September 2019 (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 10:53, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mario Kart games to Category:Mario Kart

Nominator's rationale: "Games" disambiguation is unnecessary. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:00, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There is some inconsistency in how these types of categories are named, where there are multiple video games in a series but no other media. For example, subcats in Category:Mario video games that contain only games have the word "game" appended to it, whereas similar subcats in Category:Vehicular combat games don't have the word "game" added. For video game series that have branched out into other areas (e.g., Category:Donkey Kong has subcats on media, games and players), it's useful to have a category focused on games with a disambiguator in its title. But where a video game series contains only games (and where its title doesn't require a disambiguator to avoid confusion) then I don't see the point in having additional words in the category title, per WP:CONCISE. – Liveste (talk • edits) 00:36, 10 September 2019 (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. MER-C 17:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Tomb Raider series to Category:Tomb Raider

Nominator's rationale: A game subcategory of a video game series is redundant. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:48, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Potentially confusing title. Tomb raiding is another term for grave robbery, which has had a long real history of its own. Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Notwithstanding any potential confusion, the primary topic for "Tomb Raider" would be the video game series. The main article doesn't have a disambiguator, so I think it's fine (and more concise, if slightly) to omit one from the category title as well. – Liveste (talk • edits) 04:03, 9 September 2019 (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 17:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Video games based on SpongeBob SquarePants to Category:SpongeBob SquarePants video games

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CONSISTENCY and WP:CONCISE. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:CONCISE, and in line with other subcats in Category:Nicktoons video games. – Liveste (talk • edits) 03:55, 9 September 2019 (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: Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 02:20, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:2019 Conservative Party (UK) leadership election to Category:2019 Conservative Party leadership election

Nominator's rationale: Match title format in category. Neveselbert (talk · contribs · email) 08:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Opera hat (talk) 09:11, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - the title should match parent categories which have the suffix "UK". It may be that the article needs renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, per all the other CP leadership election categories.(per discussion below) Grutness...wha? 14:35, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I suppose there is a misunderstanding here. There is only one other such category, namely the parent Category:Conservative Party (UK) leadership elections which does contain the UK disambiguator. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whoops, you are right - I was going by the title names of all the articles within Category:Conservative Party (UK) leadership elections, none of which use the (UK) modifier. Perhaps they all need changing? Grutness...wha? 04:44, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, WP:C2C per Category:Conservative Party (UK) leadership elections. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The issue here is that the UK is not the only country in the world with a Conservative Party, which is why the party's head article is at Conservative Party (UK) and why the overall parent category for all of its leadership elections is at Category:Conservative Party (UK) leadership elections. So if there's an article-to-category mismatch here, the correct solution is to rename the article rather than the category, because the article is the one that isn't complying with the overall naming convention that this party has to follow. Also, 2019 isn't over yet, and there are still several months during which any of the world's other Conservative parties could still also have their own leadership elections. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 8 September 2019 (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.