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. For the record, PetScan shows that 5 member pages are not currently within Films about Jews and Judaism: Funny Girl (film), Golem, the Spirit of the Exile, Armageddon Time, A Woman Called Golda, & Sandy Wexler. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC) – Fayenatic London 21:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Jewish films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Recreation of a category that was moved to Category:Films about Jews and Judaism in 2012. Delete as redundant. (Note: WP:G4 deletion was declined.) - Eureka Lott 23:48, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I made this category, I didn't know about the previous decision, as it happened 9 years before I joined Wikipedia as an editor. I made this category because I saw a need for it. Here's some of my reasons:

The way Jewish films are currently categorized on Wikipedia is in a lot of different sub-categories that don't converge, when there should be a bigger category for all of the films that cover different aspects of the Jewish experience and Jewish identity. Especially as being Jewish is both a religion and an ethnicity, it is a very complex identity with a lot of different aspects. Searching for Jewish films, I have found them filed under 'films about Jews and Judaism', but also under 'films about LGBT and Judaism' and under 'Hanukkah films' and under 'films about antisemitism' and under 'Holocaust films'. There should be a category that links all of these sub-categories, so that someone looking for films about Jewish identity, history and experience can find all of them easily. For example, if an educator wants to find films they can present to a class about the experience of being Jewish, they should be able to draw from all of the sub-categories mentioned above and many other and to be able to find them easily, without hopping between categories or going on a hunt to guess and track down all the different sub-categories that make up the many diverse angles of what's tied into Jewish identity and experience. Also, if there are Jewish film festivals, it stands to reason that there are Jewish films and people will be looking for this category. There really should be a category like that on Wikipedia IMO, and there's a reason it came up again. Lastly, I'd like to really emphasize this isn't necessarily about the Jewish identity of the film makers. Also, a movie can explore something relevant to Jewish history, but focusing on non-Jewish characters, making it a Jewish film, yet not a 'film about Jews or Judaism'! Thank you in advance for your consideration. Darren.enlight (talk) 23:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, Category:Films about Jews and Judaism already has the role to contain multiple child categories about subtopics within Jews and Judaism, so the subcategories do "converge". Films that are not primarily about Jews and Judaism should not be categorized as Jewish. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle Thank you for your POV! It's appreciated. And yet, so many Jewish films don't show up in the category you pointed out! I'm guessing because 'Films about Jews and Judaism' is not an intuitive category to add when writing about Jewish films, it might explain why many editors of pages about Jewish films fail to categories that will lead there. Some sub-categories are missing from that category, too. And also, I'll point out again that Jewish experience and identity are wider than what seems to people to be implied by 'films about Jews and Judaism'. Perhaps that category and 'Jewish films' should be unified and re-named 'Jewish films,' the more intuitive category to search for (again, especially because 'Jewish film' is a widely accepted term, as indicated by the existence of many Jewish film festivals, and even a category for 'Jewish film festivals' here on Wikipedia)... Darren.enlight (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Films about Jews and Judaism is way less ambiguous than Category:Jewish films though. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Marcocapelle That's actually a part of my point! 'Desks' is a lot less ambiguous than 'tables' because it's a specific sub-category of 'tables'. In order for the category to serve the purpose of being the super-category where all the other sub-categories converge, it should be a bit more ambiguous because it is wider in nature. I personally think 'Films about Jews and Judaism' is a sub-category of 'Jewish films.' Like I said in my previous reply, I'm also okay with keeping just one of the two as the super-category, but what you said actually supports my point that it should be 'Jewish films'. Darren.enlight (talk) 22:31, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Or to give another example for what I mean, 'rabbits' is a lot less ambiguous than 'mammals', as 'mammals' must be far more ambiguous in order to contain such diverse species as rabbits, humans, horses and dolphins... Each of the latter is far less ambiguous, but that's because they're the sub-categories! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren.enlight (talk • contribs) 22:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a comparison that does not make any sense. Mammals is not ambiguous, it is well defined. Jewish films is ambiguous because it is not clear whether "Jewish" refers to the topic of the film, or the actors, or the producer. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No, you said (and I quote) "less ambiguous". I showed why less ambiguity in the context of a super-category relative to a sub-category is actually a good thing. I didn't say 'mammals' is ambiguous, I said it was more ambiguous than any of the sub-categories that fit into it. As for your last question, that's actually not the ambiguous part about 'Jewish films'. I already said it shouldn't be about the identity of the actors, I'll add producers to that if that requires clarification, and all of my examples for why 'Jewish films' is the right super-category title were about the many different subject matters that this title covers, none were about actors or producers. Or directors or any other job tied to the making of these movies. 'Jewish films' is the more intuitive super-category for all the films that deal with subjects pertaining to Jewish identity, history, experience, tradition and so on. At no point was anything other than the subject of a film brought up. Darren.enlight (talk) 08:06, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll add again that there ARE Jewish film festivals (as I mentioned, there's even a category for them on Wikipedia). There is, for example, a 'Boston Jewish Film Festival'. There is no 'Boston festival for films about Jews and Judaism'. If people manage to understand which movies to expect when a Jewish film festival is announced, then this title for the super-category isn't that confusing, and I would argue that it is definitely less confusing than 'films about Jews and Judaism'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darren.enlight (talk • contribs) 08:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add even more. I happened to watch the other day, thanks to a friend's rec, a rom com set during Hanukkah. The movie isn't about Hanukkah. The main characters are Jewish, but the movie isn't about them being Jewish, yet at the same time, the setting of Hanukkah is intrinsic to the plot as the suitor gifts the protagonist 8 gifts, one for each night of Hanukkah. Now, there happens to be a category for Hanukkah films on Wikipedia and it's already linked to the category 'films about Jews and Judaism' (though again, this is such an un-intuitive title, that I at first missed that this category even exists, and even when I found it, it didn't seem right, so I created the 'Jewish films' category to add this film to). But what if tomorrow someone makes a rom com set during Passover? (and there is such a film, I want to check whether it has a page and if not, create one for it) Do we then have to make a 'Passover films' category to add to 'films about Jews and Judaism'? And so on, there are so many things that don't exactly fit under 'films about Jews and Judaism' and that are included in 'Jewish films' intuitively. That Passover rom com, I can just tag it as a Jewish film without having to start asking myself what sub-category does it belong to, or have to create a new one if I find none of the current sub-categories fit. That's what a super-category is supposed to do. Darren.enlight (talk) 16:54, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ultimately we disagree on whether "Films about Jews and Judaism" is intuitive. I find it much more intuitive than "Jewish films" because of the ambiguity of the latter. While you say that Jewish films aren't meant to refer to Jewish actors or Jewish producers, other wp editors may easily think so. Films about Jews and Judaism does not have that disadvantage, it is perfectly clear from the title that it is about the content of the films only. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:29, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, I definitely agree that that's what we disagree on! ;) Film consumers and "suppliers" themselves seem to find that 'Jewish film' is pretty intuitive, as that is the title chosen for Jewish film festivals. No organizer seems concerned that people might find it too confusing, and those film festivals choose their featured filmed based on content, too. They have to. A lot of Jewish actors and producers work on films that can't be described as 'Jewish films' (for example, no one thinks 'Wonder Woman' is a Jewish film just because it stars Gal Gadot. In fact, probably most films have at least one Jewish cast or crew member, so that really can't be the criterion) and quite a few very famous Jewish films have non-Jews in the title roles (for example, 'The Ten Commandments', which was also directed by a non-Jew). So I really don't think anyone expects 'Jewish films' to be about the people involved in the film making. I really believe that I've addressed your concern satisfactorily. I also am pretty convinced that if 'Jewish films' is deleted now as it has been before, it's just a matter of time before someone else opens this category again and this discussion will take place once more, because this is the more intuitive term. Darren.enlight (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have another reason why 'Jewish films' is different to 'Films about Jews and Judaism.' I just finished watching a movie where the protagonist's mom makes an offhand remark about her being Jewish. This means the protagonist is half-Jewish in terms of ancestry, and fully Jewish according to Jewish law. That means technically, the movie is about a Jew and could fit the latter category, but because being Jewish is in no way actually relevant to the movie, thus it can't be categorized as a Jewish film. This shows that there is a difference between these two categories! And if someone is looking for a movie where being Jewish matters, the 'Jewish films' category will give them a better indication that this specific film I watched is not relevant to their interest. 2A00:7C40:C680:4E:D524:FDD2:10:297D (talk) 03:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, there was no category talk page yet with wikiproject tags. I now left a manual notice of the discussion at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Judaism. Please leave this discussion open for at least another week. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: an editor removed the CFD template from the category on December 29. I just reinserted it. - Eureka Lott 02:35, 12 January 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) 08:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1994 by day ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: (Note I think the category and everything in it should all be deleted)

Misuse of portal namespace as article surrogates. Unnecessary micro-forks of main year page so not worth moving to mainspace. Dronebogus (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - the rationale is not clear to me. I don't see why Portal:Current events/1994 January 1 should not be categorised. If the argument is that Portal:Current events/1994 January 1 should be deleted then cfd is the wrong venue. Oculi (talk) 22:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural close as wrong venue. The nom appears to be for deletion of Portal:Current events subpages that extend backward beyond the portal's actual creation. This should be discussed at WP:MFD. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• See Portal talk:Current events#RfC on which year should be the cut-off point. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 05:55, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete whole tree -- We either need to delete the whole tree or nothing at all. The whole tree seems to be an attempt to create a historical newspaper for each (or selected) days, containing some groups of editors selection of news stories of the day. I think we deleted daily categories a while back. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 27 December 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.

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. In case anyone wants to review the potential scope to make a useful list, the diffs are here:[1]. – Fayenatic London 17:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:State funerals in India
• Nominator's rationale This is basically an overcat by award category. People who get state funerals are notable for something else, and recieve the state funeral as a recognition of this. A category like this leads to way too many categoriesa and cateogry clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments - I had expected to find articles about funerals, as in Category:State funerals in the United Kingdom. But then Category:Deaths and Category:Burials are people categories. A difference between awards and funerals is that a person gets just the one funeral. Oculi (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If kept, this as well as the Nepal and Pakistan categories should somehow be renamed to avoid inconsistency with the other state funeral categories which contain articles about actual funerals. I'm leaning toward delete or listify, though. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the category does not contain articles about state funerals like Category:State funerals in the United Kingdom does. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:13, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- The British category is for articles about funerals, state funerals being a great rarity. This would properly be called Category:People given a state funeral in India. It is in the nature of an award category, but at a level of importance that we might allow. Even if India in somewhat profligate in making the award. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do something - are these all national state funerals? If so, they have a lot (176 in cat). The articles are all bios, and the long K. Kamaraj, the only one I looked at, does not even mention his funeral, so it appears not to be defining. Johnbod (talk) 11:44, 28 December 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.

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: list in main article, and merge.. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert Category:AFAPS Class 5
  • Category:AFAPS Class 1
  • Category:AFAPS Class 6
  • Category:AFAPS Class 7
  • Category:AFAPS Class 10
  • Category:AFAPS Class 12
  • Category:AFAPS Class 20 to article Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School#Notable alumni, and upmerge all to Category:Alumni of the Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School

Nominator's rationale: Personal and political connections among members of the graduating classes of the AFAPS have long influenced Thai politics, but splitting up the alumni category isn't the best way to present the content. This would be better as a list, with the members all categorised under a single alumni category. Paul_012 (talk) 14:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: Class sub-category helps reader understand a conflict between classes in Thai politics, espacially in 1990s.--Polyesterchips (talk) 14:29, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories mainly help readers by allowing them to browse between similar/related existing articles. They're less than ideal for presenting information that would require further context to make sense of. Cases like this are better presented as lists, which can be annotated with explanations of what exactly the conflicts were and how they played out. A list would also allow the reader to immediately see who belonged in which class in one glance, as opposed to subcategories, which are only viewable one at a time. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:40, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, alumni categories are never diffused this way. Besides even the article Armed Forces Academies Preparatory School does not properly explain what this is about, which makes it even less so a good criterion to split into subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - categories should be self-explanatory, which these are not. I am a little concerned about the fate of Category:AFAPS Class 2 and Category:AFAPS Class 19. Oculi (talk) 23:02, 20 December 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:20th-century African-American male opera singers to Category:20th-century African-American male singers, Category:20th-century American male opera singers and Category:African-American male opera singers
• Upmerge Category:21st-century African-American male opera singers to Category:21st-century African-American male singers, Category:20th-century American male opera singers and Category:African-American male opera singers
• Nominationr's rationale This is mainly a follow-up to my nomination of the by century African-American female opera singers categories a few days ago. In this case we are violating ERGS rules. Especially for ethnicity, since none of these people are currently in the by century American opera singer categories. They tend to be in the by voice type non-ethnicity categories, but I think this is still too diffused. It seems we have agreed that people do not need to be in a neutral non-gender specific opera singer category, but I have to admit that part of me wonders if we should decided to place every American opera singer in just 3 categories 1-a by voice type category, 2-a gender neutral by century category and 3-a by ethnicity category if such applies. In this specific category this has more problems than ERGS last rung non-compliance. the general rule is one should not create a by century breakout unless we can create 3 by century categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. When we are looking at discrimination dates are significant. Rathfelder (talk) 16:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not about discrimination but about opera. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some would argue the truly discriminatory thing is to exclude all these people from the relevant non-ethnicity specific categories. For example Lawrence Winterswas a regular member of the New York City Opera from 1946-1955, how does it look that he is not directly in Category:20th-century American male opera singers but is only in an ethnicity specific category, when he was in fact a regular opera singer at least on the surface treated just like his Euro-American male colleges? Bear in mind that opera nad musical theatre have a much deeper and more common aspect of doing fully color blind casting than do non-musical productions. We are still leaving these people in Category:20th-century African-American male singers, so we are not excluding than from a category that covers the intersection of time and occupation, we are only excluding them from the last rung category that splits them out overly much. Note also we have no other by genre sub-sections of 20th-century African American male singers, the only other sub-cat we have is the category for the Temptations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:OCEGRS, this applies to both ethnicity and gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:51, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that this is a notable intersection of ethnicity and gender - possibly the most notable.Rathfelder (talk) 11:33, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • This case is an intersection of ethnicity, gender, sub-sepciality and time. The proposal is leaving in place the category that intersects gender, sub-speciality and ethnicity, and just removing the added by time break out. You have to be able to justify all the points of the intersection as uniquely notable to keep this category, and then give a persuasive reason why we should in this case clearly avoid the last ring rule. One way to satify the later would be to create Category:20th-century American operative sopranos or something like that, but to the present no one has felt a need to create categories that intersect century and opera voice range, that would solve the last rung rule, but I am not sure it would be a justified creation of a useful category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support quadruple categories are almost always a bad idea. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:57, 24 December 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.

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: already deleted (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pages using infobox film with incorrectly placed links ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Obsolete category. The tracking module has been removed from the template (discussion). Nardog (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy it as G6 and G7. Gonnym (talk) 12:38, 20 December 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.

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. ✗plicit 02:02, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Alliance Boots brands to Category:Walgreens Boots Alliance

Nominator's rationale: The category should be merged cause it is unnecessary. Ridwan97 (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is unnecessary because...? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Marcocapelle: The pages that covered by the category are TOO LITTLE. Ridwan97 (talk) 10:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- This is the difficulty we get into when we merge everything on a "present" basis. Boots is a UK brand with a long heritage. Unfortunately its management chose to undertaken some takeover bids (for companies not in the category) and in doing so wrecked the business which was subsequently taken over by Alliance and then by Walgreens. The result is a category that includes brands that never have belonged to Walgreens. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:29, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron (or else, merge per nom). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge; even though Children's World (retailer) never belonged to Walgreens, it belonged to Boots. That's good enough; there are plenty of precedents for categories working this way. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 15 February 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:Fictional fortifications. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 09:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional castles and fortresses to Category:Fictional fortifications

Nominator's rationale: Category:Castles and Category:Forts are both contained in Category:Fortifications by type. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Wider scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:02, 27 December 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.

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:Books about political power. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Power (social and political) books to Category:Books about political power

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. Note: the fact that we do not have a stand alone article about political power (while we do have Power (social and political)) does not imply that political power does not exist as a concept. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also this related discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:35, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: the related discussion was relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_28#Category:Political_power. – Fayenatic London 16:51, 15 February 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. – Fayenatic London 16:47, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Academic works about power (social and political) to Category:Power (social and political)

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:26, 20 December 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.

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 to delete, therefore merge. – Fayenatic London 16:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Power (social and political) art to Category:Power (social and political)

Nominator's rationale: merge, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete as the author of the only article. Johnbod (talk) 11:46, 28 December 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 16:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Power (social and political) films to Category:Power (social and political)

Nominator's rationale: merge, currently only two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:25, 20 December 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.