Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 April 27

< April 26	April 28 >

April 27[edit]

Video gaming[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.

This a large group nomination which I think will be best handled in several different groups. However, these sets all share the same background of a large set of categories being moved out of-process in January 2020, from "video gaming" to "video games".

I spotted this when I noted the following moves:

I raised[3] this with mover Masem (talk · contribs), and in the subsequent discussion at User talk:Masem#in_video_gaming_→_in_video_games (permalink) it emerged that there had been a discussion at WT:WikiProject Video games/Archive 147#"Video_gaming"/"gaming"_vs_"Video_games", after which Masem drafted a list of over 300 article, category and template pages, and proceeded to move them all without recourse to WP:RM, WP:CFD, or any other community-wide forum.

Masem has been helpful and open about this, and agrees that at least in respect of the categories, wider discussion should have taken place. I am still surprised at the apparent assumption of WikiProject ownership of pages which drove all this, but we are were we are, and the way ahead is to have a properly-notified consensus-forming discussion about this.

Apart from the procedural issues, I have two substantive concerns about these out-of-process moves:

Many of the new titles arsing from the moves are ambiguous. For example Category:2009 in video gaming to Category:2009 in video games has created a new title which is confusingly similar to its subcategory Category:2009 video games. Ambiguously-named categories confuse both readers and editors, leading to frustrated readers and editors who in good faith miscategorise articles. Categories don't work well unless they do what it says on the tin, and these tins are now so poorly-named that we have a collision of titles in Category:Video games by decade, which contains two separate sets "YYY0s video games" and "YYY0s in video games"
the parent category for the whole topic is Category:Video gaming, with sub-categories which include Category:Video games and Category:Video game industry. These moves have deprived us of over-arching categories by nationality and by chronology for all things related to video gaming, which should include esports, gamers, events, etc.

I believe that the best solution is to rename them all back to "video gaming" (e.g. moving Category:2009 in video games back to Category:2009 in video gaming). Masem prefers to use "video game industry", which I oppose as a narrowing of scope — video gaming is now a broad cultural topic, not simply a case of an industry churning out products.

So I have presented the two alternatives as separate options. Since the previous moves were done outside of established processes, the default result of a no-consensus outcome should be to restore the status quo ante, i.e. to restore the "video gaming" titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the broad issue[edit]

In discussion with BHG, one of the issues I've observed is that the "all-encompassing" cat in is Category:Video gaming, but in mainspace, Video gaming directs appropriately to Video game, which was that way since 2003. If we compare the structure of the Category:Video gaming to other media forms like Category:Film, Category:Comics, or Category:Television as to name a few, which as BHG has pointed out do allow for close naming issues due to the common all-encompassing term, there's an obvious inconsistency that we could resolve in a simpler way by recognizing that "Video game(s)" is the more common all-encompassing term. The changes thus would be needed to resolve that would simply be:

Move all sub-pages and sub-cats of Category:Video gaming to Category:Video games (excluding Video games) as to empty it for possible deletion
Add the three parent cats of Category:Video gaming (currently Category:Video, Category:Gaming and Category:Computing ) as parent cats to Category:Video games.

At which point, I would believe all the issues in terms of naming closeness and all-encompassing term are resolved to BHG's concern.

BUT that also now exposes the same problem at the Category:Gaming category, which also can be resolved by the same manner by considering "Game(s)" as the all-encompassing term (aligning with Game) and resolving the cats with:

Move all sub-pages and sub-cats of Category:Gaming to Category:Games (excluding itself) as to empty it for possible deletion
Add the three parent cats of Category:Gaming (currently Category:Entertainment, Category:Leisure activities, and Category:Recreation ) as parent cats to Category: Games.

This is a far simpler move to achieve the same net resolution, if I am understanding the issues. here. --Masem (t) 22:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, please for the love of god, just no.

Sadly,@Masem:, that would only make the situation significantly worse.

It would leave us with the problem created by your out-of-process moves, viz. that the category system would then be trying to use the phrase "video games" for both the broad topic and the set of game software. That's an irresoluble problem, and it doesn't apply to cinema where there is a distinction between the topic "film" and the set "films".
It would replicate that linguistic problem higher up the category tree, by screwing up the "gaming" category.

The mess created by the out-of-process moves is similar to the mess that would result from renaming Category:Computing to Category:Computers. We'd wind up in knots, unable to distinguish the broad topic from the set of machines.

The comparison with "in film"/"films" is misplaced, because while that's unpleasantly close, there is at least a one-letter distinction between the topic "film" and the set of "films". That doesn't apply here.

The comparison with comics only illustrates my point about confusion. See e.g. how Category:2011 in comics is a subcat of Category:2010s comics: completely perverse, that inverts the cat hierarchy by making the topic an subcat of the subset.

This was all a botched attempt to solve a non-problem. Please let's restore the status quo ante, rather than making it worse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will disagree, in that there are recognizable two meanings in the literature to "Video games", one being the items you buy to put into your game console or computer to play, and the other "Video Games" reflecting all factors the industry and associated businesses, impacts, and the like. Yes, we don't have a singular noun like "Film" to distinguish from "Films", but the distinction is there. And "Video Games" as to refer to the whole is much more common than using "Video gaming" as that's more a slang term. "Video gaming" is used more from the player's side and ignores the people paid to make the games in the first place which is why we wanted to move from it in the first place.

The comparison is probably better to Category:Sports as I check around; the cat incorporates the collective set of individual sport activities, but the agglomeration of the sports industry, as what I'm suggesting here. But that said, drilling down they don't have categories like Category:2019 sports, they actually drill to month and have cats like Category:January 2019 sports events. Which potentially leads to yet another idea that if it is still collusion of Category:YYYY video games and Category:YYYY in video games that we could take the former to rename it to Category:Video games first released in YYYY, which is compare to the categories under Category:Games by year. (They don't have Decade cats, but I'm sure that can be figured out). I just disagree that we can't handle the situation of "Video games" serving as the all-encompassing term and as the individual unit here, as even in short titles context can be determined quickly, in the same manner as sports or film.

I'd argue that rather revert to the status quo, we verify the WP:VG's consensus that "Video games" is a better all-encompassing term for the categorization branch, which yes, may create sub-cat issues. We can find a category naming scheme for the subcat to fit the desired (assuming it stays desired) all-encompassing term, it should not be the case of having the all-encompassing term come to meet the MOS/guidance of categorization and assume all other sub-cats are immovable objects. --Masem (t) 23:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimately this is about clearly distinguishing topic categories from set categories. I agree with User:BrownHairedGirl that Category:Video games strongly suggests that it is a set category rather than a topic category. Having this as the name of the topic category will likely lead to articles being miscategorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And I disagree with that, as this follows from the same idea that "Sports" is the topic category, whereas "Sports by year" and "Sports by country" serve as set categories. (The same principle applies to the term video games and cats like "Video games by year"). Maybe this is not as clear if one is not heads-deep in the video game literature but this distinction is clear for this field. And again, the suggestion above does exactly one thing: eliminates one category - there's no way the bulk of the categories that exist already underneath it will be misused since neither (currently) the categories "video gaming" nor "video games" should be used for the bulk of articles about video games (individual games or the industry or elements thereof. --Masem (t) 05:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) @Masem: that post of 23:20 seems to me to me a verbose way of evading a very simple point: that you are trying to use the same term to describe both the broad topic and the set, and we do not need to do that.

The assertion that "video gaming" is more a slang term is unsupported by any evidence.

And when you use a phase like the agglomeration of the sports industry as a synonym for "everything to do with sports", I fear that we are slipping away from a common language. The idea that notable amateur sports such as for example the Gaelic Games or American College Football are part of a sports industry is absurd; the reality is actually the inverse, namely that professionalised commercial sport is a subset of the much wider whole. The same applies to video gaming: the industry which produces game software is a subset of the wider topic.

As to the so-called WP:VG consensus ... that was an un-notified discussion between only 6 editors on a WikiProject page, without a clearly-stated hedaline proposition for editors to accept or reject. Masem's opening contribution to that discussion included the assertion that there is no such thing as a 'video gaming industry', which is demonstrably false: the term gets 24 hits on JSTOR, and plenty of hits on google, including the likes of Forbes.com[4], Yahoo finance[5], The Times[6], The Standard (Hong Kong)[7], and even Nasdaq [8].

So what we actually have is a wholly un-notified discussion on a project page among very small set of editors, which was founded on demonstrably false assertions. That was at best a very shaky WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, and in reality I don't think it was even that. That local discussion was then used to bypass the established community-wide discussion processes at WP:RM and WP:CFD, and do a WP:RECKLESS move of over 300 pages.

I don't see any reason to suspect intentional misconduct, and Masem has readily acknowledged that the whole thing was very badly handled. It was a good-faith screw-up rather than a conspiracy ... but it's unhelpful for Masem to now double-down on that mishandled local discussion as some sort of basis for proclaiming that there is any valid consensus (even a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS) for Masem's assertion that there is any basis for claiming that there is a consensus that "video games" is better all-encompassing term for the categorization branch.

The status quo ante provided a clear terminological distinction between the broad topic and the set of individual games. We should restore that, and not be swayed by the fact that a small group of editors acted wildly out-of-process on the basis of false assertions which they made in good faith but failed to test against evidence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:37, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the Sports thing, I may have overly simplified but you're missing the point. There's definitely an "industry" that involves the monetization of sporting events, certainly, but the category of Sports includes all facets of any type of organized sport, paid, amateur, whatnot in addition to the parts that deal with the industry. While clearly "sport" described an individual type of activity and multiple such together are "sports", its clear that in other contexts like here, "Sports" is the agglomeration of those events, organizations around those events, players, coaches, teams, industries, sciences, etc. and much more around the playing of sports, and no one is questioning its use there. "Video games" is used in the same fashion, just because "video game" is a singular noun to describe the electronic game you buy and collectively as "video games", "Video games" also reflects the cumulative collection of topics of software, hardware, developers, publishers, players, events, sciences, and the like that are around the playing of video games.

While there may be 24 hits on JSTOR for "video gaming industry" there are 581 for "video game industry". Going to Google Scholar, "video games" gets 749,000 hits, "video gaming" gives 28,400, and I will point out that if you do that search, you'll notice several of those are related to video gaming relative to addiction/medical implications or the actions of playing video games rather than used as a term for a medium like "Film" or "television". I wasn't trying to say that no one used "video gaming industry" or "video gaming" but by far it is the minority expression compared to using "video games" to talk about the whole of this field.

What the situation is that maybe when all these cats were set out when WP started 10-15 years ago that "video gaming" was still considered a hobby (hence its verb/gerund form). But the last decade we have seen the field become its current form, well beyond the hobbyist nature, into an industry that by monetary value is as large if not larger than film. As a secondary effect, "video gaming" as moved to be a term that's associated with the medical and psychological studies involving video games ala Internet addiction disorder (eg it may not be there yet but it's gaining the same connotation as "gambling", not helped by the recent addition to ICD-11 as "gaming disorder").

The problem is: it is near impossible to articulate the sourcing and evidence for why we should be calling the topic area "video games" for this. Unless you've had your head in the field for this time and have seen how it has changed (as those at WT:VG and involved with the noted discussion that led to these cat moves) had, its impossible to point to any authority here - no body "defines" these terms, we just have to see how they get used, which means we have to come to rely on google searches as evidence. I hate say "trust me" on this, but its seriously the best that can be done. I can point to looking at coverage of "video games" and "video gaming" in high quality sources like BBC and NYTimes (works that normally aren't covering individual titles) and note the distinction, but which I find, on a very broad approach, using "video games" to described the individual titles as well as the overall "industry/field" and limit "video gaming" to the act of playing a video game and not related to any of the other factors behind making the game. --Masem (t) 13:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: amidst that pile of red herrings, you are still evading the two key problems:

that using the same title for topic as for the set items creates avoidable ambiguity in category titles, and in some cases an actual clash of titles.
that your strange fixation with the word industry is pointless: of course there is a game industry, but it's part of a broader topic of video gaming.

Your comparisons with other topics entirely misses the fact that they don't have the terminological cash which you created here.

For example, under sports we have e.g. sportspeople and sports competitions, so the broad topic uses a different term to those used for the individual instances. Your choice of terminology makes so such distinction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's ignore the industry factor here, I'm trying to point out that there's more that the term "video games" than just the games themselves, among that includes the industry. Let's not get hung up on some of the aspects here. However I take issue of the claim that this is going to create any additional confusion. For one, this eliminates exactly one category and changes nothing else from how it currently is (after my out-of-process moves). But lets consider where the issues were in categorization in the topic area before my moves. For example, Category:Video games is routinely populated by individual titles that novice editors mistakenly add to that, when they should be adding to subcats for video games by year, platform and genre. My moves didn't change that. Then I would ask, "Okay, what about people dropping games into the "YYYY in video games" instead of "YYYY video games" category?" which as you claim could be confusing. This is harder to do (I could have sworn there was a tool that could help track histories for cats but not having luck finding it), so best I can do is run through the YYYY in video games categories to see if any games are currently misplaced, and the only one I could find going back to 2014 is in Category:2017 in video games, Ice Man (arcade game) and that was originally in the wrong cat ("2017 in video gaming") before my renaming. While that's certainly not exhaustive, I would think if there is serious confusion here we would have seen more already. It is a completely fair concern to have two cat names that are so similar without additional context to make determining which is which, but I strongly believe that most people (including IPs) editing in the video game area can understand the difference between "2017 in video games" (to be about the field in general) and "2017 video games" (to be about the set of video games released in 2017).

And outside of the "YYYY video games" and "YYYY in video games" possible confusion, the state the categories presently I don't see any other potential issues of confusion. If there, they should be identified, because if the issue is only this above , then we can change "YYYY video games" to "Video games released in YYYY" or similar, and resolves that confusion.

And what I'm getting a bit concerned here is that while we're trying to figure how to help make the content fit the process, the process should also adapting to the content as well and not being immutable (NOTBURO and all that). I'm not rejecting the categorization issues here, I want to work within what's established, but I very concerned that the key argument that the expert editors here coming in with, that "video games" is the term used to describe the field over "video gaming" (particularly given the more recent negative connotations of the latter term), is being thrown out by editors not as familiar with the topic areas but experts in the process, because it creates problems. It might create problems but they are resolvable in manners that align with solutions used in other categorization naming systems for other type of media areas, so it is not an impossible task. But it requires cooperative work, and not outright rejection of the idea. --Masem (t) 19:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Masem: the problem is that the key argument that the expert editors here coming in with creates avoidable ambiguity is unsupported by evidence or policy.

Masem agrees that "video gaming" is widely used, although less prominently used than "video games". But by using the less common term to avoid ambiguity is explicitly endorsed by policy, at WP:NATURALDIS.

I assume that by exert editors, Masem intends to refers to Masem and X201, but X201 offered no evidence and Masem explicitly said I hate say "trust me" on this, but its seriously the best that can be done.

Now Masem is presenting another argument, viz that "video gaming" has negative connotations. That's a thoroughly POV stance: rebranding from an established title to avoid negative connotations is something done by public relations manipulators, and should have no place in a WP:NPOV encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, its really hard to prove these things out as there's no academic authority of the terms to go "here's the definitive source." All I can say is, look at the hits in a scholarly database or at a high-quality RS if you search on "video gaming" rather than "video games" (particularly in the last ten years) and look at the type of articles and works that come out between the terms (which is what we'd do in any situation to figure out what are common and natural terms, so this is not anything special here either). The bulk of scholarly papers that evoke "video gaming" are typically looking at what impact video game playing has on human development with an emphasis on addictive behavior and towards violence/aggression, and not "video gaming" as establishing the framework of the overall topic of video games. It's laid out there in the search results to take in and consider. And no, this is not a IDONTLIKE it or a rebranding situation. Again, if it was rebranding to avoid the negative connotation it wouldn't be the dominate term in scholarly searches. The area of video games have gone from a hobby pre 2000 to a major entertainment industry and media today. Calling it "video gaming" then made sense, but not today (as proven out by the scholarly sources) due to the huge numbers of people and finances involved. Its just that the evolution of term from "video gaming" to "video games" to describe the whole of the video game video is not documentable, outside of trends eg Google Trends) --Masem (t) 14:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Option C" the current, post move, status quo is a valid proposal too. See if the community is OK with where we've ended up without following the due process; the category titles have actually thrown off their immature names that they earned when Wikipedia was younger and arrived at a much better place. I disagree with the current proposed options. ~~Option B is far too rigid and (I have to be honest) looks like it's there to play it's part in Hobson's choice.~~ I think the discussion should have been allowed to progress further and other solutions discussed before the ballot paper was printed. - X201 (talk) 13:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@X201: some misunderstandings there:

There is no vote, and no "ballot paper". This is a discussion in which alternative proposals can be made at any time by any participant.
There is no need for an "Option C", because the status quo always an option at any XFD: just make a !vote to "keep" or "oppose"
Option B is there because Masem proposed it, and I wanted to make it easy for the community to adopt Masem's preference it chose to do. I put in a lot of extra work to ensure that the alternative proposal was listed at the outset, and your implication that I acted in bad faith is very unpleasant. I hope that you will promptly strike that suggestion.
I despair of comments such as their immature names that they earned when Wikipedia was younger and arrived at a much better place. That's just a verbose form of WP:ILIKEIT, which pejoratively labels the previous title as "immature", without either reason or evidence to support that label. It's just name-calling. Appeal to ridicule and proof by assertion don't have a place in consensus-building.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl:There was absolutely no indented implication of bad faith. I used the Hobson's choice comparison because that is truly how the choices struck me when I read them. Apologies for any offence caused, that was definitely not my intention, and for the purposes of clarity, I do not think you acted in bad faith. - X201 (talk) 18:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So as to throw some interesting fuel on the fire I have gone back into the history of these cats out of curiousity to see what's up because there's some interesting points here that I think reflect that all this here is actually now establishing consensus that was never set before.
- Until 2017, the top level for video games was actually Category:Video games since 2007 (original "Computer and video games" in 2004, along with "YYYY computer and video games" cats) but that was shifted in 2007). That was added just a notch over 3 years ago by @Marcocapelle: [9]. As I'm not seeing any talk page discussions among the edits that add Category:Video gaming as a top level (eg placing Cat:Video games and several other cats at that "new" top level nor in the WPVG archive [10], that appears to be their unilateral change -- THAT said, I believe I know why they made that change, definitely not in bad faith and logically following what comes from the next major point I found:
- As originally named , the "YYYY in video gaming" categories were created by now banned user User:SNAAAAKE!! around 15 May 2012 (at least up through 2012, the rest that got made were keeping that format). Snake (not going to spell it out) was banned as they were an over-zealous editor around VG characters. I do not see if they asked in the VG project for this (closest archive would be here [11]) so arguably using "in video gaming" from the start was selected by one editor without consensus. I can only speculate what the VG project would have selected then if we decided we needed per-year articles in describing the field beyond the already established "YYYY video games" ones. Because Snake created this "YYYY in video gaming" cats, and, until Jan of this year the VG project never really discussed them to determine consensus.
I will presume that Marcoapelle in category cleanup in 2017 assumed that if we had "YYYY in ZZZZ" categories, then the top level topic was "ZZZZ" and thus promoted that to that topic, without any other discussion to go on, which as I said is a reasonable logical step based solely on the categorization naming approach. But because we're dealing with a system established by a banned user that the VG project is *still* dealing with in terms of cleaning up problematic character articles they created, I would consider their original system tainted, and that we should be considering some fresh approach. Which to that end: if this is going to require a longer discussion beyond the CFD process, I do not oppose a revert to the status quo until the VG project figures that out, but with the understanding that we may want to go back to this topic structure. --Masem (t) 14:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopefully you do not mind that I no longer remember this edit, or remember why I made the edit, and I am not going to speculate about it. Presumably it does not matter, I'm perfectly fine if there is consensus in this discussion to either revert or to keep it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I'm fully assuming good faith in your edit and don't think your actions are the reasons we're at this point, as I looked around your contributions at the time (amid a huge number of other category maintenance things not just in video games), and your actions all seemed consistent with the nature of seeing "YYYY in video gaming" and presuming "video gaming" was the "topic category" per WP:CAT, as you also sorted a few other categories and some pages up into "video gaming" alongside "video games". Stuff that we're not catching until now and seeing that something was amiss before your changes. --Masem (t) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (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.

Video gaming by time[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: Option A Timrollpickering (talk) 20:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming, either:

Option A: restore "video gaming"

73 more "in video games" to "in video gaming"

Option B: Use "video game industry"

73 more "in video games" to "in the video game industry"

Nominator's rationale: rename to "gaming" per Option A to revert the out-of-process moves, and restore the pre-existing format "gaming" to clarify the scope as being inclusive of everything related to video gaming: the games, the industry, esports, players, social issues, cultural topics, etc. Note that Masem's preference of "games industry" (Option B) would exclude all those topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option A - this seems to cover say Category:1990 in video games better than Option B (or the present name). Oculi (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak preference for B, per User:Masem option A is a term that is mainly used for usage of video games, while option B focuses too much on the producer side, but I think with option B it is slightly clearer that it is all-encompassing. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, a rename to "video game industry" would be a significant narrowing of scope, because video gaming is not just about the industry. It would mean that for example:

Category:2020 in esports would no longer fit in what was Category:2020 in video gaming. Sports are a social topic, not an industrial topic.
Jacksonville Landing shooting would no longer fit in what was Category:2018 in video gaming. A shooting is a social topic, not an industrial topic.
2017 Wichita swatting would no longer fit in what was Category:2017 in video gaming. Criminal harassment is a socio-legal topic, not an industrial topic.
the huge topic of Gamergate controversy would no longer fit in what was Category:2016 in video gaming. Misogynistic harassment is a socio-legal topic, not an industrial topic.
Crash Override Network would no longer fit in what was Category:2015 in video gaming. A support group is is a social topic, not an industrial topic.

Why do that? How would it help our readers to exclude those topics from the video gaming chronology categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, my intention is certainly not to remove any content. The question for me is which category name would be recognized better as a catch-all name. As noted, I am sensitive to the likelihood that "video gaming" is mainly associated with the actual playing of video games. But I do recognize that both names are not ideal, so therefore a weak vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, if you don't want to exclude any content, then why support a title which clearly would exclude those topics? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Same question, same answer. Or let's put it differently, neither A nor B is clearly all-encompassing so I am open to a new option C, e.g. as suggested below, or something else (and meanwhile I am weakly preferring B over A). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, so you fear that Option A may not be wholly inclusive, so you choose Option B which definitely excludes a whole rage of topics. Very odd. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We appear to disagree on which is the most exclusive. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option A as more broad topic. 94.179.168.56 (talk) 15:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For consideration: name the topic category "Video games" and the set category "Individual video games". Yes I know it's not ideal either, even worse it is in contrast to what I wrote before in response to User:Masem, but we do have this structure elsewhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: any examples of that other usage? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is done in Category:Games by year (for tabletop games) presumably due to how often such games can get re-printed. eg: Category:Board games introduced in 2019. This would not hurt for video games given the extensive nature of porting and rereleases as well. --Masem (t) 13:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is Category:Horses, topic category, and Category:Individual horses, set subcat. Oculi (talk) 23:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A, it communicates that it's a broad catch-all topic the best of the options. SnowFire (talk) 17:00, 4 May 2020 (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.

Video gaming 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: Option A Timrollpickering (talk) 20:08, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming, either:

Option A: restore "video gaming"

70 more "Video games in" to "Video gaming in"

Option B: restore "video game industry"

70 more "Video games in" to "Video game industry in"

Nominator's rationale: rename to "gaming" per Option A to revert the out-of-process moves, and restore the pre-existing format "gaming" to clarify the scope as being inclusive of everything related to video gaming: the games, the industry, esports, players, social issues, cultural topics, etc. Note that Masem's preference of "games industry" (Option B) would exclude all those topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Option A - an uninvolved editor expects Category:Video games in the United Kingdom to be a set category of articles on video games, whereas it contains people, industries etc. I would interpret 'video gaming' as a suitable term for the whole topic, not merely the act of playing video games. (This must be the longest nom ever at cfd.) Oculi (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A is more broad. Category outlined in Option B could be useful too but it should be a subcategory. Gaming culture would fit in A but not B. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:33, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Option A as more broad topic. 94.179.168.56 (talk) 15:23, 28 April 2020 (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:"Part of a series on" sidebar templates[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:"Part of a series on" sidebar templates to Category:Sidebar templates by topic

Nominator's rationale: While some topic/subject sidebars says "Part of a series on" in the title, not all do. Ultimately, the choice of styling for the header perhaps shouldn't be reflected in the category name. After all, the category seems to be just that: a category for sidebars, subcategorised by topic/subject. As such, arguably comparable to equivalent template categories in Category:Wikipedia templates by topic. Furthrmore, as such, Category:Sidebar templates could then be a container category potentially just including Template:Sidebar, Template:Sidebar with collapsible lists, and Template:Helpbox (which are all by the way nominated for merges at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2020 April 20). PPEMES (talk) 11:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming per the logic laid out by the nominator. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2020 (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.

Local elections in Japan[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Elections in Kyoto‎ to Category:Kyoto
Propose merging Category:Elections in Kiso District, Nagano‎ to Category:Kiso, Nagano (town)
Propose merging Category:Elections in Minamimaki, Nagano‎ to Category:Minamimaki, Nagano
Propose merging Category:Elections in Miyota, Nagano‎ to Category:Miyota, Nagano‎
Propose merging Category:Elections in Fujimi, Saitama‎‎ to Category:Fujimi, Saitama‎
Propose merging Category:Elections in Saitama (city)‎‎ to Category:Saitama (city)‎
Propose merging Category:Elections in Warabi, Saitama‎‎ to Category:Warabi, Saitama
Propose merging Category:Elections in Inagi, Tokyo‎‎ to Category:Inagi, Tokyo‎
Propose merging Category:Elections in Komae, Tokyo‎‎ to Category:Komae, Tokyo

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in the above categories. Most of them are about mayoral elections which are already in Category:Mayoral elections in Japan (so a second merge target is not necessary) but two articles 2007 Warabi city assembly election and 2007 Komae city assembly election should be added manually to Category:Local elections in Japan. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for Now Clicked through these and they're too small to aid navigation. No objection to recreating though if they ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 28 April 2020 (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:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic[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: Move to Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic per proposal from Peterkingiron (non-admin closure) --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 16:09, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Deaths from the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic to Category:2020 deaths from coronavirus disease 2019

Nominator's rationale: More precise - people die from the disease, not the pandemic. Ditto for subcategories. Create a "2019..." category, and a parent "Category:Deaths from coronavirus disease 2019" if needed.

See previous discussion, which was put on hold pending this RM, which resulted in the equivalent page move. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:32, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - per nom. Oculi (talk) 11:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename -- but to Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic per consensus emerging on yesterday's page. We may need an annual split in due course, though I suspect that there were no notable 2019 deaths, but it is too soon for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no such consensus on that page. If you want to use COVID-19 pandemic in category names, then you should initiate a successful RM on the main article first. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: would you kindly provide a link to yesterday's discussion, for those who were not here yesterday?
Weak oppose. A lot of the deaths are from complications brought about from the disease rather than the virus itself. The one person I know personally who has died, for example, had a stroke while in an induced coma after becoming infected. See also Category:Deaths from the 1889–1890 flu pandemic‎. Grutness...wha? 04:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mild support but to Category:2020 deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019, because this is what the article discussion cited as rationale concluded. Place Clichy (talk) 19:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It's a change from clear wording to a very convoluted wording. Not opposed to an alternative proposal such as Peterkingiron's. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the nom's proposal. Support alt proposal by Peterkingiron.--Darwinek (talk) 00:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 21:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. This would turn a clear title into a convoluted one. None of the alternatives proposed so far adds any clarity, and Peterkingiron's proposal appears based on an assumption about the outcome of some other discussion which is not identified.

Note that Talk:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Requested_move_26_April_2020 is still open. I make no predictions about the outcome of that RM, and any decision about category names should await that outcome. I suggest that this discussion be closed, and a new group CFD be opened if and when a new title is chosen for the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alt rename to Category:2019–20 coronavirus pandemic deaths per main article 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic deaths. 94.179.168.56 (talk) 15:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There seems to be some confusion between the year of death and the year of COVID-19. Are we going to have 2021 deaths from coronavirus disease 2019 and 2022 deaths from coronavirus disease 2019? I see no problem with the original name. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 19:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic per consensus at the main article and cat renames underway. Elizium23 (talk) 02:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Category:Deaths from COVID-19 (dicease, not pandemic)? 92.113.82.13 (talk) 17:40, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic. Starzoner (talk) 21:35, 6 May 2020 (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.

Japanese school 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: procedural close. The nominated categories were not tagged, and no targets for merging were given. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:06, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging multiple Japanese overseas school categories by country into categories by continent

Nominator's rationale: Hi! I'd like to merge categories which each have fewer than five articles (including daughter in categories) from multiple country-based categories to continent-based ones.

The continent categories in question:

The following continent-based categories have enough schools to remain viable:

The following continent-based categories have potential to remain viable:

Category:Japanese international schools in Brazil (there are other Japanese international schools in Brazil that were once in operation but have since closed)

The other relevant country-based categories should be merged into the continent-based categories. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural comment, the categories to be merged are neither properly listed nor tagged, this way the proposal cannot be processed. See other examples on this page for listing, see instructions at WP:CFD for tagging. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The nomination is malformed: it does not list any merge targets, so it is not possible to evaluate it. And per Marcocapelle, the categories are not tagged. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:45, 28 April 2020 (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.

Ayatollahs and grand ayatollahs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 14#Ayatollahs and grand ayatollahs

Category:Opponents of compulsory hijab[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Opponents of compulsory hijab (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing people by their personal opinions is subject to WP:OPINIONCAT. Pahlevun (talk) 17:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom, possibly listify. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This is a WP:OPINIONCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support Textbook WP:OPINIONCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose the compulsory hijab is a highly sensitive political and cultural issue, and is relevant to the topic of Women in Islam. This is not simply a opinion, but an important issue, and for some members of this category, especially Homa Darabi, it is central to their notability. WP:OPINIONCAT therefore does not apply. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Take Huda Sha'arawi for example. A feminist for sure (she is categorized as a feminist) and the hijab is just one of multiple topics she had an opinion about. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 30 April 2020 (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.

Thai descent[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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:11, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:American models of Thai descent to Category:American models and Category:American people of Thai descent
Propose merging Category:American actors of Thai descent to Category:American actors and Category:American people of Thai descent
Propose merging Category:American military personnel of Thai descent to Category:American military personnel and Category:American people of Thai descent
Propose merging Category:American writers of Thai descent to Category:American writers and Category:American people of Thai descent

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. Small category (4 articles) of a non-notable triple intersection of nationality, ethnicity, and occupation. User:Namiba 17:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom as unnecessary intersections of descent and occupation. @Namiba: I took the liberty to present your nomination in a slightly more readable format, per the example given at WP:CFD#HOWTO for bundled nominations. Place Clichy (talk) 16:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete intersection and "descent" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2020 (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:Mayors of places in New Jersey[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. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Mayors of Boonton, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Mayors of Bergenfield, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Mayors of Bogota, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Mayors of Cliffside Park, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Mayors of Paramus, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Mayors of Fair Lawn, New Jersey (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: categories has ridiculously small number of articles and that's not likely to change. Rusf10 (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Mayors of places in New Jersey, there is no reason to remove the articles from this tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and suggest adding the mayoral categories for Lakewood Township, Matawan, Verona, and Ridgefield as well.--User:Namiba 20:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Marcoapelle....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:23, 27 April 2020 (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:Gentlemen Ushers of the Black Rod[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. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:24, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Gentlemen Ushers of the Black Rod to Category:Ushers of the Black Rod

Nominator's rationale: procedural nomination, two different suggestions for renaming were offered at WP:CFDS, namely Category:Ushers of the Black Rod or Category:Black Rod, in either case to make the category name gender-neutral. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

copy of CFDS discussion

Category:Gentlemen Ushers of the Black Rod to Category:Black Rod – C2D with Black Rod; also moves category to gender-neutral title now that the current holder's title is Lady Usher. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 00:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose because the category contains holders of that office which calls for the name to be plural, however, I do agree that it needs to be gender-neutral. I'd rather support renaming it to "Category:Ushers of the Black Rod". — 1857a (talk) 00:47, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would also support Category:Ushers of the Black Rod. Oculi (talk) 11:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well that's an interesting idea, but I don't think that would be speediable. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 13:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ravenpuff, 1857a, Oculi, and Armbrust: pinging contributors to CFDS discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Ushers of the Black Rod per nom. Oculi (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I support renaming to "Ushers of the Black Rod" now that the office-holder is female. This formulation aptly covers all cases. Clerkly (talk) 16:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Ushers of the Black Rod per nom. — 1857a (talk) 19:47, 3 May 2020 (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:Secular basilicas[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: keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:01, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Secular basilicas to Category:Basilicas

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, and besides "secular" is not a very defining characteristic of these articles, and besides the parent category is not very densely populated either. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Aula Palatina explains that it has a church in it and for the Roman subcategory, the word was used differently. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also says that it was originally a secular building that was later re-purposed as a church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose As the Basilica category says, "The term has three distinct meanings in the English language.". Each meaning should have its own category. Plus it fails the small test (<=3). Plus it has potential for growth (Constantinople & the eastern Empire). Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Laurel Lodged's reasoning. Dimadick (talk) 16:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Civic basilicas. A basilica was a hall (normally attached to a forum) where certain public business was done. Some later became churches, which is the common sense of basilica. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 3 May 2020 (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:Ships of Washington (state)[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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:05, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ships of Washington (state) to Category:Ships built in Washington (state)

Nominator's rationale: merge, presumably the two categories have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC) is no longer applicable[reply]

Oppose – Category:Ships of Washington (state) should refer to ships based in Washington; Category:Ships built in Washington (state) refers to ships built in Washington.

Counterproposal of Rename and sort through Category:Ships of Washington (state) to Category:Ships based in Washington (state), re-categorising member pages/subcategories to Category:Ships built in Washington (state) where appropriate. WT79 The Engineer (talk) 14:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related Category Tree We also have Category:Steamboats of the Pacific Northwest with subcategories for Alaska, Oregon and BC. We should use whatever solution we develop here as an approach for those as well. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concern I think based in a state is defining for the old steamships (most of which were also built there) and spent their whole career in one area. My concern is that this category could become a WP:PERFCAT for Navy ships based in Bremerton or other ships that had many home ports during their careers. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:18, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I share this concern. Changing vote to weak delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 10:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lean Toward Delete I guess if I keep commenting I should vote. While this is conceptually a reasonable parent category to Category:Steamboats of Washington (state), that category is already well parented and this category would likely accumulate ships that were stationed in Washington State (among other posts) and not defined by it. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2020 (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:Ambrosiana[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. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ambrosiana (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Ambrosiana collections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, too little content in these categories. Note that the main article, the manuscripts category and the paintings category have been interlinked in the header of the latter two category pages, so there is no loss of information while deleting the nominated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 10:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the sub-cat to Category:Collections of museums in Italy. Note: The sub-cat was not tagged until today. – Fayenatic London 10:51, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the better solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 30 April 2020 (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:People connected with Tavistock[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: purge and merge. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:10, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People connected with Tavistock to Category:People from Tavistock
Propose merging Category:People connected with Plymouth to Category:People from Plymouth‎

Nominator's rationale: Misguided attempt to separate people who live there from all the others who are "from" there. From is ambiguous. This causes problems, but I think we have to live with them. Rathfelder (talk) 10:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purge and merge, for example Andrew Russell, 15th Duke of Bedford isn't even from Tavistock, so that article should be purged as a matter of WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and merge per Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Purge and merge -- The Duke of Bedford before inheriting that title would have the courtesy title Marquis of Tavistock. The family have (or had) an estate in the area, but they are not "from" there. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 3 May 2020 (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:Sex horror films[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 6#Category:Sex horror films

Catholic cathedrals by city[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 except for Brasilia. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Catholic cathedrals by city
Propose deleting Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals by city
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in Beirut to Category:Cathedrals in Beirut and Category:Catholic churches in Beirut
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in Buenos Aires to Category:Cathedrals in Buenos Aires
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in Cairo to Category:Cathedrals in Cairo
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in Istanbul to Category:Cathedrals in Istanbul and Category:Catholic churches in Istanbul
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in Jerusalem to Category:Cathedrals in Jerusalem and Category:Catholic churches in Jerusalem
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in London to Category:Cathedrals in London
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in Los Angeles to Category:Cathedrals in Los Angeles
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in Montreal to Category:Cathedrals in Montreal (and add Saint Sauveur Cathedral to Category:Catholic cathedrals in Quebec)
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in Paris to Category:Cathedrals in Paris
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in São Paulo to Category:Cathedrals in São Paulo
Propose merging Category:Catholic cathedrals in Sydney to Category:Cathedrals in Sydney
Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Beijing to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Beijing and Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in China and Category:Cathedrals in Beijing
Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Brasília to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Brasília and Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Brazil and Category:Cathedrals in Brasília
Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in London to Category:Roman Catholic churches in London and Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in England and Category:Cathedrals in London
Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Shanghai to Category:Roman Catholic churches in Shanghai and Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in China and Category:Cathedrals in Shanghai

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the default is at most 1 Roman Catholic cathedral per city (although of course there are exceptions) and Eastern Catholic cathedrals are generally rare, so the number of Catholic cathedrals in one city will never be sizable. Note that the proposal for the "Catholic" categories is not a full upmerge to all parent categories, because the articles are often already in another subcategory of the potential merge targets (in particular in a Roman Catholic or in an Eastern Catholic subcategory). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support For the sake of the very few cities (Jerusalem?) in the world that would merit such a category, there would be a plethora of low-count categories. Best to remove the temptation altogether. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - although it has drawn my attention to the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Saint Vladimir the Great of Paris. This suggests 2 extra categories (in the style of Pastorwayne) for Borys Gudziak: 'Category:Eparchs of the Ukrainian Catholic Eparchy of Saint Vladimir the Great of Paris', and 'Category:Archeparchs of the Ukrainian Catholic Archeparchy of Philadelphia'. Archeparchy is a fine word, greatly underused. Oculi (talk) 10:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support No conceptual objection to any of these but the low article count with little to no room for growth means these just hinder navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The merges listed above would remove the contents from the relevant "Category:Catholic cathedrals in FooCountry". For example, the merge targets Category:Catholic cathedrals in Beirut should include Category:Catholic cathedrals in Lebanon ... and the merge targets for Category:Catholic cathedrals in Paris should include Category:Catholic cathedrals in France.

~~I haven't checked the rest of the parent categories, but that oversight gives me no confidence that the effects have been properly considered.~~

I am also unpersuaded by the WP:SMALLCAT arguments. The first three categories listed have, respectively 4, 2 and 4 articles ... which is a v difft pattern to the one article mentioned in the nomination. That's less than the usual rule of thumb as a minimum of five, but I apply a lower threshold where the upmerge requires multiple ,merge targets. In this case, there will be at least three merge targets in every case, which creates category clutter on the articles and thereby makes navigation a lot harder. Per WP:CAT, navigation is the main role of categories, so we should reject proposals such as this which impedes navigation.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:03, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to explain in the nomination (apparently not clearly enough) that the merge target Category:Catholic cathedrals in Lebanon is redundant because the articles are already in Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in Lebanon or in Category:Eastern Catholic cathedrals in Lebanon. Similar for other "Catholic" categories. For a substantial number of articles this nomination hence does not entail an increase in category links per article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: I just checked and every member of "Catholic cathedrals in (city)" is already in the relevant "Roman Catholic cathedrals in (country)", "Eastern Catholic cathedrals in (country)", or a subcategory thereof. Wikiacc (¶) 16:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiacc & Marcocapelle: thanks for the clarification. I have struck that part of my oppose rationale, but I stoill oppose on the other grounds. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support as nom, and many thanks for the clean-up work. By definition, a city would rarely have an extended number of Catholic cathedrals, and even though there may be a Latin and several Eastern Catholic cathedrals, there number would never be large. Place Clichy 16:20, 29 April 2020
Oppose many of these categories have 3 to 4 entries if not more. The nominator's rational is also faulty, there are sometimes there is more than just one cathedral in a city as multiple diocese and eparchies have Co-cathedrals which count as well. I would Merge Roman Catholic cathedrals to Catholic cathedrals though. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:56, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They contain 2 to 4 articles, the phrase "if not more" is not applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Is there any city with more than half a dozen cathedrals? Rathfelder (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support ~~with the exception of Beijing and Shanghai~~, which are effectively provinces of China, and fit into an established pattern under Category:Roman Catholic cathedrals in China. The cathedral tree is far too complex at present. Because there are so few cathedrals in any city, categorizing by denomination × city is unnecessary. Wikiacc (¶) 03:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Wikiacc: coincidentally the Catholic cathedrals by Chinese province have also been nominated, see here. So under these circumstances I guess Beijing and Shanghai need not be exempted. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the pointer. I've struck the exceptions for Beijing and Shanghai. Wikiacc (¶) 13:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Exception ~~also~~ for Brasília for the same reason. Wikiacc (¶) 03:33, 2 May 2020 (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:Cathedrals in Hampshire[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. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cathedrals in Hampshire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only three articles and generally there are too few cathedrals by county to start a tree for it. There is currently only one other such category, Category:Cathedrals in Essex, which is on yesterday's CfD page. The proposal is "delete" rather than "merge" because the articles are already in the appropriate Anglican and Roman Catholic subcategories of the potential merge targets. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - no scope for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2020 (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:Failed museum proposals in the United States[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: no consensus. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:07, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Upmerging Category:Failed museum proposals in the United States to Category:Proposed museums in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT

The Category:Proposed museums tree contains a range of proposals: vague wishes, groups actively trying to raise money, those actively under construction, and groups that have given up. This category groups the last group. The challenge here is that it often subjective when it fails: rarely a formal announcement is made about giving up but it is far more common that groups just quietly become inactive. We do have Category:Failed assassination attempts but the inclusion criteria are much clearer there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support, there is too little distinction to keep the two categories apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The members of the "failed" category really have failed. The San Franciso one spent $14 million rehabbing a building, only to get booted. These had boards, people involved, and were completely shut down. These are really different, resolved cases; it is encyclopedic/important to allow examination of these cases. These might be regarded as really bad efforts (so avoid making the same mistakes) or maybe as successful failures that tried to go big, and failed big, and are constructively resolved rather than in purgatory (so emulate how they proceeded). The nominator's own observations support Keeping this: they point out that it is challenging to classify the status of some. These are the clear ones, and it is helpful to know which they are. --Doncram (talk) 01:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 05:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commenting on the oppose vote: the San Francisco case is really exceptional, it did not even fail as a proposal (so it does not really belong in the category) but failed in the execution of the proposal. So I am not convinced by the argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 27 April 2020 (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:Coal gas-fired power stations in the United States[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: already deleted in the discussion here. For reference, both discussions were originally submitted on the same day and were eventually merged into one. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Coal gas-fired power stations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Too few entries to be worth being a category Chidgk1 (talk) 11:29, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Combine~~ With the nomination above, whether I agree with the outcome or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:24, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. True, it is WP:SMALLCAT, but for a clarity it would be better to keep. As an alternative, merge to Category:Coal-fired power stations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). Beagel (talk) 14:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double upmerge per above as proposed by RevelationDirect at the Category:Coal gas-fired power stations by country discussion. Beagel (talk) 12:43, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, dibbydib (T ･ C) 02:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, which is what nominator undoubtedly will have meant too, but actually only one merge target is required: Category:Coal gas-fired power stations in the United States because the Fossil Fuel category is that parent's parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the beforementioned merge target is subject of another CfD discussion. So if Category:Coal gas-fired power stations in the United States is merged in that other discussion then Category:Coal gas-fired power stations in the United States, which this discussion is about, should be merged to the same target(s) as in that other discussion. I hope it is still clear what I mean. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem

Keep and expand. A number more places within Category:Energy infrastructure on the National Register of Historic Places, for example, should be added to the category. Deletion is not the way forward to knowledge. --Doncram (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can name 3 articles that are coal gas-fired power stations, I'll gladly change my vote. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Double Upmerge to Category:Coal gas-fired power stations and Category:Coal-fired power stations in the United States because the low article count 1, with maybe 1 more coming from the subcategory. (My preference would be to tie this CFD with that for the subcategory located here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 8 May 2020 (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 entire "Empire Award winners" tree[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. The information is already in list form. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:08, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Empire Award winners

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Actor Empire Award winners‎
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best British Actor Empire Award winners‎
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Male Newcomer Empire Award winners‎
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Supporting Actor Empire Award winners
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Actress Empire Award winners‎

15 more subcategories

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best British Actress Empire Award winners
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Female Newcomer Empire Award winners
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Supporting Actress Empire Award winners
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Comedy Empire Award winners‎
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best British Director Empire Award winners
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Director Empire Award winners‎
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best British Film Empire Award winners
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Film Empire Award winners
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Empire Hero Award winners‎
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Horror Empire Award winners‎
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Empire Icon Award winners
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Empire Inspiration Award winners
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Newcomer Empire Award winners
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Sci-Fi/Fantasy Empire Award winners‎
Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Best Thriller Empire Award winners‎

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

Empire is a British film magazine founded in in 1989 that used to to have a readers' choice awards called the the Empire Awards. Despite being a British award, the winners skew toward Americans but has specific British sub-awards. The Tom Hanks and Uma Thurman articles both mention the BAFTA and Academy Awards right in the intro. In contrast, these awards tend to be mentioned in passing if at all in both the actor and film articles so it doesn't seem defining. The winners are already listified here in individual list articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Award categories for winners is something that is part of en.wikipedia. If an award is not notable, then it doesn't have an article. If you feel that these are not notable, then send them to AfD. Once an award is notable, yearly award pages and list of award winners pages can be made (if enough information is available). These pass that as well. As can be seen at WP:NOTDUPE, a category and a list are not mutually exclusive, and both serve different needs. One can use category trees for category intersections and use it for their own research needs, while lists provide a more clear overview of the subject (when created properly). Other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT I don't see any reason to specifically target these set of categories. --Gonnym (talk) 08:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is not the WP:NOTABILITY of the award list articles but whether the categories you created are WP:DEFINING to, say, Morgan Freeman or The Hunger Games: Catching Fire. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Besides, not every article must have its own eponymous category. If that would be the case, every article would soon contain dozens or hundreds of category links. In fact even in the current situation there are a large number of biography articles in which the number of listed categories is quite extreme, to the extent that the category clutter is hardly useful for an average reader. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym's appeal to WP:NOTDUPE inverts the actual guideline.

NOTDUPE says that the existence of a list is not a valid reason to delete a category, or vice versa.

However NOTDUPE is also very clear that the existence of a list is not a valid reason to create a category, or vice versa. See para 3 of the lead of NOTDUPE:

there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia. For instance, the guideline on overcategorization sets out a number of situations in which consensus has consistently determined that categories should not be used. A regularly occurring outcome at WP:CFD for some deleted categories is to listify, because there are cases where lists are appropriate while categories may not be

.

It's a pity to see that old chestnut hauled out yet again

... especially when this inversion of the guideline cited is accompanied by an attempt to dismiss the actual policy-based rationale as ILIKEIT.

I assume that Gonnym's error was make in good faith, and therefore hope that as a courtesy to other editors Gonnym will demonstrate their good faith by striking the errors in their !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:06, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- Yet more NN OCAWARD category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 3 May 2020 (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:Symposium Book Award winners[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. bibliomaniac 1 5 07:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Symposium Book Award winners

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

The Symposium: Canadian Journal of Continental Philosophy is a Canadian journal published twice a year that covers continental philosophy. They issue this award to a book in that specialty and this category contains the authors of those works. 4 of the 5 articles don't mention the award at all while 1 mentions it in the lede so it doesn't typically seem defining. All of these biography articles are already well categorized under the Category:Philosophers tree and I listified the contents right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support List exists for this OCAWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2020 (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.