Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 18 November 20 >

November 19[edit]

Category:Statues of lions[edit]

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. ℯxplicit 05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only a minority of the articles contained here identify the work as a "statue". The parent Category:Animal sculptures only contains one sibling named "statues" and that is Equestrian statues, which all include a human rider except for Leonardo's horse; indeed, the article equestrian statue defines it as a statue of a rider mounted on a horse. These works depicting lions mostly do not include people and should use the more generic word "sculpture". – Fayenatic London 22:31, 19 November 2017 (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.

Category:Public sector positions[edit]

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty. Only had one entry Category:Public transport executives which I've moved to Category:People in transport Rathfelder (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2017 (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.

Category:Ophthalmologists by country[edit]

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; the objections have been sufficiently answered. – Fayenatic London 13:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All other medical specialists are sorted by specialty and nationality‎. In reality it's a meaningless distinction. Doctors are very mobile and the articles rarely specify their nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest considering renaming the subcats Category:Afghan ophthalmologists to Category:Ophthalmologists‎ in Afghanistan, etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about the sources of the articles, but the articles about physicians themselves, of which there are thousands, rarely specify nationality when they move from one country to another, as many physicians do. I'd be perfectly happy with a recategorisation along the lines of Category:Ophthalmologists‎ in Afghanistan, but it would be an immense undertaking. But whatever we do I think Ophthalmologists should be treated in line with all the other specialists. Rathfelder (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose We do not categoize professionals by their country of "nationality" but by the country of practice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2017 (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.
  • User:Fayenatic london, I don’t think the responses were sufficient at all. I think you WP:supervoted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • SmokeyJoe: I weighed all the arguments carefully before closing, and am prepared to defend my close at WP:DRV. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you perhaps summarise the objections and summarise the answers? My reading is that the proposed rename is agreed to be bad, but we'll do it because all rest are bad the same way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm not claiming to represent other discussants, but this nicely rephrases my own contribution to the discussion indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1586 animal births[edit]

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 13:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have just a few articles (three readily identified at present) on animals born in the 16th century. Categories containing one article are not useful and there is no prospect of filling in all the years from 1501 to 1600 with reasonably populated animal births categories. I have proposed a general scheme for animal births category cut offs at Category talk:Animal births by time and am seeking consensus on whether this is quite right across all time periods. However, the 16th century seems like a clear case and so I am only bringing these categories here for now.Greenshed (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Greenshed: please also tag the category pages when starting a CFD discussion, see WP:CFD. I have done this for you on these three. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, and these years of birth are just guesstimates anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge one entry categories are not all that useful. Marcocapelle's point that the years of birth are not known precisely also is a strong argument against these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2017 (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.

Category:Disney's Tarzan characters[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Tarzan characters; articles are not specifically about Disney versions. Trivialist (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom None of the mentioned characters originated in the Disney version. Dimadick (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the characters involved predate the disney adaptation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2017 (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.

Category:Disney's Winnie-the-Pooh[edit]

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. ℯxplicit 05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Winnie the Pooh (franchise). Trivialist (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom The original books use hyphens, but the Disney version does not. It is called "Winnie the Pooh", not "Winnie-the-Pooh". Dimadick (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2017 (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.

Category:Disney's Robin Hood characters[edit]

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/delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only one Disney-specific character. Trivialist (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom A category with only one article. The Disney film actually has a number of original characters, including a sidekick to Prince John, but I am not certain we could write articles on them. Dimadick (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since the one entry is already in the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2017 (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.

Category:Songs from Disney's Pocahontas[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Pocahontas (1995 film). Trivialist (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom To match the title of the main article. Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2017 (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.

Category:Disney's Alice in Wonderland characters[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category largely duplicates Category:Lewis Carroll characters; articles in the Disney category are not specifically about the Disney versions. Trivialist (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom None of them originated in the Disney version. Dimadick (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2017 (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.

Castles in the Eifel categories[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Excessive categorisation. We generally categorise by country/state and mountain region, but not both. We already have Category:Castles in the Eifel, Category:Castles in North Rhine-Westphalia, Category:Castles in Rhineland-Palatinate, Category:Castles in Belgium, Category:Castles in Germany and Category:Castles in Luxembourg, so there is no need for these categories added by a (currently banned) user. The articles should be upmerged into Category:Castles in the Eifel and (if not already) into their respective country or state categories. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (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.

"Disney's" categories[edit]

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. ℯxplicit 05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2B: correcting disambiguation style; "Disney's" is not part of the common name of these properties. Trivialist (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should not these categories be named as franchises, or after the film that started each franchise? Dimadick (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I've changed the proposed names to match the names of the articles about the individual franchises, and spliting off Sleeping Beauty into a separate nom, since it doesn't have a franchise article. Also I'm removing Category:Disney's Tarzan characters, which I duplicated here by mistake. Trivialist (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2017 (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.

Category:Disney's The Black Cauldron characters[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:The Chronicles of Prydain characters, as The Black Cauldron was an adaptation of the Chronicles of Prydain series. Trivialist (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom The category seems to include no original characters. Dimadick (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge nothing new in the way of articles with the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2017 (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.

Category:Disney's Tangled[edit]

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D: Tangled (franchise) Trivialist (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2017 (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.

Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible figures by medium[edit]

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. ℯxplicit 05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, unnecessary container category with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2017 (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.

Art depicting Hebrew Bible figures[edit]

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 and delete as nominated. ℯxplicit 05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, unnecessary container categories with each only two subcategories. Note: the categories don't need to be merged to Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible figures Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible people since the content is already in other subcats of it. And Category:Art depicting Torah figures‎‎ doesn't need to merged to Category:Torah either, because the subcats are already in a specific Torah books category (Genesis and Exodus respectively). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Excessive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No project banners were on the talk pages until today. Let's leave this to run for another week, in case project alerts now generate more comments. – Fayenatic London 13:07, 29 November 2017 (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.

Category:History of cardiovascular surgery[edit]

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:Cardiology, Category:History of surgery, and Category:Vascular surgery. ℯxplicit 05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2 articles, neither entirely appropriate for the category Rathfelder (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2017 (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.

Category:Royal Navy officers who were court-martialed[edit]

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 21:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems more appropriate to use British English spelling as this category refers to officers of the British Royal Navy. Ykraps (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objections here from the category's creator. In fact, I don't see any reason not to go ahead with it without further discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as proposed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2017 (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.

Category:Rozee.pk[edit]

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). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Of no use as entires are only two: founder and website. Delete it. Störm (talk) 06:40, 19 November 2017 (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.

Category:Megafauna[edit]

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 26#Category:Megafauna. ℯxplicit 04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Few (if any) of the articles in these categories describe the animals as megafauna. Some of the articles give no indication of the weight/dimensions of the animal. The Megafauna article lists many definitions of the word - "In terrestrial zoology, megafauna ... are large or giant animals. The most common thresholds used are weight over 40 kilograms (90 lb), over 44 kilograms (100 lb), or over a metric ton 1,000 kilograms (2,205 lb). This includes many species not popularly thought of as overly large, such as ... humans. ... the most common usage encountered in academic and popular writing describes land mammals roughly larger than a human that are not (solely) domesticated. The term is especially associated with the Pleistocene megafauna – ... It is also commonly used for the largest extant wild land animals ..... Other common uses are for giant aquatic species, especially whales, any larger wild or domesticated land animals such as larger antelope and cattle, as well as numerous dinosaurs and other extinct giant reptilians. The term is also sometimes applied to animals (usually extinct) of great size relative to a more common or surviving type of the animal, for example the 1 m (3 ft) dragonflies of the Carboniferous period."
Many of the articles that have been placed in these categories (e.g. Ocelot) would not fit most of the definitions of megafauna. Note: Animal species are well categorized by their position in the tree-of-life. A general upmerge (e.g. to Category:Fauna of Africa) is probably unnecessary as most of the articles are already in lower level categories such as Category:Mammals of Africa.Some articles (e.g. these) may need to be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 06:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Without taking sides, it would appear that because Wikipedia cannot define what a "megafauna" is - because its contributors have not done enough research as to which definition is widely accepted in expert WP:RELIABLE secondary sources - there have been inconsistencies in how editors categorize which animals as megafauna. The proposed solution is to do away with the Category. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of eliminating the category, it does not address the original problem. William Harris • (talk) • 10:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What would the inclusion criteria for that category be? See WP:OSE. For info: The category you refer to was created very recently. DexDor (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Listify with a view to the list being referenced and used to curate the categories. The nominator is correct in noting that many members probably don't belong. The parent article Megafauna is pretty good, but needs work. Megafauna#Examples should be converted to lists, with some aspiration to become complete and accurate. The links to categories Megafauna#See_also should be replaced by links to the lists produced by listifying the categories. The categories should be kept, per WP:CLS. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe can you clarify what part of CLS you think means these categories should be kept? DexDor (talk) 07:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey DexDor. What I think I mean is that ... there should be lists of megafauna, and then, per CLS ("each method complements the others"), the listed megafauna on each list should be categorised. Being a type of megafauna is defining. I'm not really saying "Keep these categories", so much as "categories like these need to exist". The set of categories you listed need major renovation, but the renovation / curation is more to do with the contents than the category titles. If you propose to listify the categories, delete the categories, curate the lists, then re-create the categories, then OK. If you propose to stop at deleting the categories, citing poorly curated memberships, then I oppose, as you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. We needthe categories, and as poor as these are, they are not worse than useless. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC) I most definitely oppose deleting Category:Megafauna, for example. Whether that category should be subcategorised by continent, or by time period, is a worthy topic. I would be happy to see upmerging and trimming. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are many cases where we have lists without a corresponding category (e.g. for award winners, animals frequently seen at a particular nature reserve) - I think you're misinterpreting CLS. Every species can be categorized as mammal, fish etc so we don't need these categories. DexDor (talk) 07:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need Category:Megafauna, the current membership needing cleaning notwithstanding. I suggest that it should be subcategorised by time period, not by the current continents. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. Note that WP:CLS just says that in some occasions lists and categories may happily exist next to each other, but it does not require lists and categories to coexist in all instances. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2017 (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.

Category:Tamil sequel films[edit]

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. Selective manual upmerge is required. ℯxplicit 04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sequels should be categorised by country, not language. There is no parent category called "Sequel films by language", only "Sequel films by country". Kailash29792 (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Most of the sequel categories are underpopulated and do not require splitting. Dimadick (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Sequelness and language do not intersect to create a WP:DEFINING trait of the films. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: While the nominator's rationale is sound and there is unanimity in the discussion thus far, I am relisting to allow consideration of three factors which were not addressed above: (1) this category was previously nominated for deletion on 2016-12-22; (2) there are two similar categories, Category:Hindi sequel films and Category:Telugu sequel films, which perhaps should be nominated as well; and (3) about 60% of the articles in this category are not in Category:Indian sequel films, so deletion without merging would remove them from the category tree. Pinging User:Kailash29792, User:Dimadick and User:Bearcat.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, and upmerge where needed. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Indian sequel films. I have added the Hindi and Telugu siblings into the nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I realise it would take a lot of work to change the whole category tree, but surely the usual term is "film sequel", not "sequel film"? Grutness...wha? 00:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what is and what is not a sequel can at times be hard to determine, and is not always defining. Is "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" a sequel to "Mr. Deeds goes to town"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_19&oldid=1127484653"