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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Intel people to Category:People associated with Intel

Nominator's rationale: Needs a rename of some sort, as "Intel people" could also reference to people who work in intelligence. Perhaps "People associated with Intel", though not sure if that is better or not. Natg 19 (talk) 16:19, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• If renamed rather to Category:People of Intel. I am not sure though if anyone would misunderstand this as people work in intelligence. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per pattern in Category:People by company in the United States as the suggested ambiguity is more theoretical than real. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Queen of Hearts (talk) 03:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:01, 28 August 2024 (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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Video games by type to Category:Video games

Nominator's rationale: This is a bit of though one, however I am being clear. Even though I am the one who refined this category (by adding/removing categories from this category, and also renaming the category from Video game types) I am nominating it for merging with Category:Video games. I will also nominate "Games by type" for merging too.

Firstly, "Video games with commentaries" or "Video games with custom soundtrack support" are not truly types of video games, they're just categories for video games containing a certain feature that does affect the overall structure of a game (similarly as Category:Censored video games and are better off being located in Category:Video games

Secondly, we already have Category:Video gaming, a category with the purpose of separating classifications of video games and video-game-related topic categories, no need to make a new category.

Thirdly, what's a "type" of video game anyway? Some get it confused a "video game genre" or the "genres" not defined by the gameplay such as Otome game. This category was never available on Korean, French, or Russian Wikipedia, and for reason.

Category:Video games will contain exactly 40 subcategories if this merge is successful, and that's okay, just look the size of Category:Video games by company, it contains over 2,000 subcategories, does that help? QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:49, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Lean to support, this contains quite a hodgepodge of subcategories, not clearly of any sort of "type". Marcocapelle (talk) 03:41, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Support – Although it is a subcategory of Category:Games by type, the type of contents in that category don't apply as much to video games. Mclay1 (talk) 04:09, 31 August 2024 (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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rage games ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:DEFINING: "rage-inducing" is vague, and doesn't seem to be a defining characteristic of the articles placed in this categories. Twotwice^talk 20:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, it obvious what this category is going for, but a category for rage-inducing (very difficult) video games unfortunately wouldn't exist since it is subjective. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:56, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That's fair, I just wanted a definitive list somewhere. Gaming gamer 9001 (talk) 01:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not sure whether or not you were trying to make legitimate category, however, if you really insist on making list of super-hardcore games then go make blog post or YouTube video about it, not a subjective Wikipedia Category. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 05:58, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - OR masquerading as a category. --PresN 22:19, 28 August 2024 (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. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 16:58, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Education scandals and controversies ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: In the spirit of WP:XY, I do not see how this is a helpful redirect (which currently targets two categories). Delete it; I do not see how this would be a helpful {{category disambiguation}} page, per the aforementioned WP:XY. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:25, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  11:42, 31 August 2024 (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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:15, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1811 establishments in Oklahoma ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Anachronistic category for a state that didn't exist yet in 1811, newly created just to overcategorize one thing. As always, we structure "establishments in X" categories by the name the place had at the time, not the name it has now, and Oklahoma did not exist under that name in 1811. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:47, 29 August 2024 (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. After thorough discussion, no consensus was reached. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:22, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Domesticated foxes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm not very familiar with categorization, but from the policies I managed to find domestication is only a defining characteristic of 2 (maybe 3 if you consider the "semi-domestication" of the Island fox to be a defining characteristic and the same as normal domestication) of the foxes, and not a defining characteristic of most foxes. The Fennec only has 1 small, 3 sentence, section on domestication so its most definitely not a defining characteristic for it. Overall I'd say domestication is WP:NONDEF for most foxes. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 00:16, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (as category creator). Domestication is absolutely a defining characteristic of the Domesticated silver fox and the Fuegian dog at the very least. Just because it isn't defining for "most foxes" doesn't mean it isn't defining for pages that actually belong in the category. Di (they-them) (talk) 00:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I agree its a defining characteristic for those 2 foxes, but that would only be 2 articles in the category and I'm not aware of any other fox articles that have domestication as a defining characteristic. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 00:22, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep I think, looking at Cat:Domesticated canids, it makes sense to split off the foxes, even if there were only two. And the category is also nicely placed in Cat:Foxes in human culture. Certainly domestication is non defining for most fox species, but it is makes sense that it should be for those species that are domesticated. Then again, little harm would come from upmerging them to both supercats. — HTGS (talk) 01:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• If only two articles are going to stay here, upmerging to the parent categories is the best course of action. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would agree. I see no reason for a category to exist if there are only 2 articles in it. ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{blaze__wolf} 15:07, 29 August 2024 (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.