Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 24 June 26 >

June 25[edit]

Category:Christianity in Macedonia[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. I have converted[1] the page to a category disambiguation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: redirect from an ambiguous title. This is a category redirect to Category:Christianity in North Macedonia, but Christianity in Macedonia is a disambiguation page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:57, 25 June 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:Multiple citizenship[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. bibliomaniac15 02:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesnt merit a separate category. It inappropriately attracts articles about individuals with dual citizenship. I think only 4 of the articles belong and the biographies should be purged. Rathfelder (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Multiple citizenship is a significant topic in nationality law, and the category is well capable of expansion. No objection to purgeing it of individual biographies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the concept is notable and distinct, but having multiple citizenship is not defining to those who have them (many people do, and those with means can buy one from numerous countries, and we don't categorize people by how much money they have, much less how they spend it). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge biographies since they do not belong in this category. Possibly rename to Category:Multiple citizenship (law) in order to clarify the purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having purged the biographies there are 2 articles about Australian constitutional law and one, apart from the eponymous article, about multiple citizenship. I dont think there is much potential for growth because any new articles will actually be about the constitutional law of a particular state, not about the wider topic. Rathfelder (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Rathfelder, what exactly is the problem you see with this category category containing articles about the status of multiple citizenship in individual countries? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I dont think they are usefully categorised there. Law of nationality is different in each country. I would move the Australian articles to Category:Australian nationality law. Legally speaking I think Nationality is preferable as a topic category. But I'm more worried about this filling up with biographies. If we really think it's worth keeping separately from Category:Citizenship, with only 4 articles can we take up Marcocapelle's suggestion and rename it? Rathfelder (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course law of nationality is different in each country. But we don't exclude other topics from a relevant category just because it's done differently in different countries. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • What sort of articles would there be which would be better characterised in Category:Multiple citizenship rather than in Fooish Nationality Law. The case law is all about whether a person is a citizen of Foo. Rathfelder (talk) 17:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge Four articles is certainly enough to support a cat, even in the (unlikely) event there is never any further growth in the cat. UnitedStatesian (talk) 19:17, 29 June 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:Cha-cha-cha[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. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The bare title Cha-cha-cha is ambiguous, but this category is clearly for the Cha-cha-cha (dance) and its associated music. We have separate articles Cha-cha-cha (dance) and Cha-cha-chá (music), which I'm not sure is appropriate; but since the two two overlap so much, separate categories would be WP:OVERLAPCAT ... and since the music derives from the dance, it seems to me to be better to name the category after the dance. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose First of all, the category is about the music, its musicians, compositions, albums, etc. No article tagged with this category is about the dance/choreographic aspects of the genre (except for Dancing baby which should probably be removed). Therefore, the category should either stay as is or, if anything, be renamed Category:Cha-cha-cha (music). However, it makes no sense to separate the dance and music articles into different categories. Cha-cha-cha just happens to be one of those music genres that has its own homonymous dance, like mambo and rumba. Music and dance go hand in hand, so splitting or renaming this category seems like a very bad idea, especially when there are no other articles related to the cha-cha-cha dance. I definitely agree that WP:OVERLAPCAT applies in this case (and I also agree that the dance and music articles should probably be merged; this has been suggested several times after a user boldly split them in 2005). As for its ambiguity, all articles in the dab page are named after the music genre, so I don't think the current category title is problematic. After all, the dab page exists to disambiguate the music and the dance; if there was a single music/dance article, it would be the primary topic for sure! Thus, WP:OVERLAPCAT abolishes any possible ambiguity, unless you think that a combined music/dance article wouldn't be primary topic (they both account for well over 90% of the views). Finally, a small detail: the dance was derived from the music, not the other way around (source). Neodop (talk) 23:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Neodop. bibliomaniac15 02:49, 8 July 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:Central Germany[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. bibliomaniac15 02:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SHAREDNAME. This category groups a planning (but not administrative) region Central German Metropolitan Region with two informal areas which have some geographical overlap: Central Germany (cultural area) and Middle German Chemical Triangle.
The fuzziness of the concept makes a poor category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge the two main articles. I can entirely see why this was nominated, however on investigation the problems lie elsewhere. Firstly, the category was never properly populated - I have now rectified that. Secondly, there should only be one main article entitled "Central Germany", not the present two. Basically Central Germany (geography) and Central Germany (cultural area) should be merged as they are on de.wiki. As the former is little more than a stub, I am happy to do this. Thank you for flagging this up. HTH. Bermicourt (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment does or did the German government give "Central Germany" status, like the US does the Category:Midwestern United States. Or does academia agree what the definition of a distinct Central Germany? If so, keeping it makes sense, if not, it becomes subjective what belongs and what doesn't and thus categorizing on that subjective basis would be improper. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Central German Metropolitan Region and purge in order to have an unambiguous scope for the category. Four of the five articles are about the metropolitan area, Central Germany (cultural area) is the outlier. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The current category structure is a right mess e.g. with this category forming a category loop with Category:Saxony. It's much better to categorize by actual German states (clearly defined). The pages in this category will still be well categorized if this category is deleted. DexDor (talk) 06:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I've sorted that out - it's now under regions of Germany where it should be. Bermicourt (talk) 08:00, 29 June 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:Molluscs of Nicaragua[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) 18:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Which specific countries a mollusc/spider is found in is often non-defining (e.g. see Larger Pacific striped octopus or Cardisoma crassum).
Example previous similar CFDs. DexDor (talk) 20:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, we usually do not categorize species by country (unless endemic). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:27, 26 June 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:Equus 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: Merge Timrollpickering (talk) 18:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No article, notability not demonstrated. – Fayenatic London 20:07, 25 June 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:Pakistani music albums[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. MER-C 15:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are various types of Pakistani music when looking through Category:Pakistani styles of music, so the initial scope of this category seems to be redundant to Category:Albums by Pakistani artists. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to not be part of a general classification thus we avoid determining whether albums have nationalities. At some point, we should discuss the children of Category:Albums by artist nationality which seem very under utilized and whether those should all be limited to subcategories only or whether it has usefulness. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 26 June 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:Armaan Malik[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. MER-C 15:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Only contains one directly related article for a list of songs he recorded. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:55, 25 June 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:Jubin Nautiyal[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. MER-C 15:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, category only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 26 June 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:Musical groups from Tierra Caliente[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 6#Category:Musical groups from Tierra Caliente

Category:Campeonato de Portugal[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. bibliomaniac15 02:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation. Campeonato de Portugal is a dab page, but even tho this category clearly applie sto the 1922-38 period, Campeonato de Portugal (1922–1938) is a redirect to a section of another page ... and I am not sure if WP:C2D applies to a "head redirect". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:55, 28 June 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:Campeonato Brasileiro[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. MER-C 15:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Campeonato Brasileiro is a disambiguation page, which includes competitions in other sports ... but this category is used only for football. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 09:18, 27 June 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:Wives of Vice Presidents of 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: merge/delete. bibliomaniac15 03:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a duplicate of the already existing Category:Second Ladies of the United States. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support, since I actually tried to nominate this category for deletion yesterday for the same rationale, but according to the edit preview, it would not have been listed on this discussion log correctly.--TommyBoy (talk) 19:55, 25 June 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:Hollow Earth theory and Category:Flat Earth theory[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 main policy-based rationale in this case would be WP:C2D, that the category to match the head article. This closure is not an endorsement of the nom's original rationale. bibliomaniac15 02:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not theories in the scientific sense, just pseudoscientific ideas. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Removing the word "theory" makes the label an assertion of fact, which seems to be opposite of what the nominator intends.
And I deplore the tendency of some science fans to take partisan approach to labelling topics. Calling something a "theory" doesn't endow it with some stamp of validity: dictionary definitions of "theory" (e.g. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theory) include much looser meanings than those suggested by the nominator, including speculation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - both articles have 'concept' in the first few words. Hypothesis might be another possibility; or model, cf Steady-state model. The names in this case should not follow the articles, which are Flat Earth and Hollow Earth. Oculi (talk) 10:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A theory doesn't have to be a scientific theory, and removing the word is an assertion of POV on the part of Wikipedia. Besides which, Hollow Earth actually was a scientific theory. It was proposed by Edmond Halley, a highly regarded scientist, Fellow of the Royal Society, and the Astronomer Royal. Flat Earth was a pevrfectly acceptable belief amongst natural philosophers (who would now be called scientists) in Classical Greek times and was probably the only belief before then. Neither principle article concentrates on the ridiculous beliefs of modern new-age dickheads, so the nominator's rationale is based on demonstrably false assertions. Next time try applying the scientific method to your claims, particularly the principle of falsifiability. SpinningSpark 11:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per WP:C2D, there is no reason to have a different name for the category than for the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the names of the main articles. Dimadick (talk) 07:28, 27 June 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:Binary logic[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. bibliomaniac15 02:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OR
Nominator's rationale: Binary logic is a disambiguation page, whose main topic is boolean logic. This category contains only three articles on electronic device which employ binary logic, and it has no sub-categories ... so no way is a remotely complete grouping of content related to binary logic.
I don't know enough about this topic to decide what the solution is ... but I can see that something needs fixing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No big deal if removed at all. All practically used logic hardware is binary/boolean; the few non-binary types are either failed exotics of the past or ivory-tower constructs of the present. Retired electrician (talk) 08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first thing to say here is that binary arithmetic is not synonymous with binary/boolean logic. In arithmetic 1+1=2, or in binary, 1+1=10. In boolean logic 1+1=1. There is a case here for having a category, perhaps named category:logic circuits, that is intermediate in the hierarchy between category:logic gates and category:digital circuits for circuits that are more complex than, or built of, basic logic gates. Binary decoder would fit into that category, as would majority function for instance.
However, as currently organised, category:binary logic is fulfilling no useful purpose, so unless someone wants to take on the task of populating the category I suggested above, then I'm for getting rid of it. It makes no sense whatever that adder (electronics) and subtractor are in binary logic but adder-subtractor is in binary arithmetic. The third entry, binary decoder does not belong in the binary arithmetic category, but is already otherwise suitably categorised. SpinningSpark 10:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If someone wants to create and populate a new category per one of Spinningspark's suggestions after deletion, that would be fine. ~Kvng (talk) 14:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Spinningspark has the right of it from an engineering point of view. Math folks don't usually talk of binary logic, they usually call it Boolean algebra or two-valued logic. So deletion seems reasonable to me. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:32, 25 June 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:Bucephala[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 to Category:Bucephala (bird). MER-C 15:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: The bare title Otus is a disambiguation page, so some renaming is needed. The head article is Goldeneye (duck), and the scientific name Bucephala (bird) redirects there. I am not sure which to use. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bucephala is a dab page. DexDor (talk) 05:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option A. I think our normal practice is to use scientific name for the category even where the article is at the common name. DexDor (talk) 05:12, 25 June 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:Indian State Government Engineering Colleges[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. MER-C 15:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a category of lists and should be named thusly. BenKuykendall (talk) 02:47, 25 June 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:Whalers[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 per option B. MER-C 15:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming either
Option A
Option B
Nominator's rationale: Whaling is the hunting and killing of whales for their usable products.
The term "whaler" is ambiguous. It can refer either to a person involved in whaling, or to a whaling ship.
The ships are currently at Category:Whaling ships, though the head article is whaler.
It's perverse to have the people categorised under the same term as we use for ships, so we need some disambiguation. I have no preference between "Whalers (people)" and "People in whaling", and I am open to other ideas ... so long as we disambiguate somehow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option B. I suspect there are people connected with the industry onshore (e.g., whaling company managers) who are categorised. Grutness...wha? 03:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support option B as simpler, clearer and more inclusive: Christian Salvesen was a major figure in Scottish whaling, but not a whaler himself in my understanding. . . . dave souza, talk 10:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option B avoids the problem of the ships. Rathfelder (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Option B for reasons stated above, and also because a nominative phrase reads better than a parenthetical description --Carbon Caryatid (talk) 20:27, 26 June 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:Warner[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. MER-C 15:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category redirect from an ambiguous title. Warner is a lengthy disambiguation page. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - It's a category that's way too ambiguous. Although most people would think of WarnerMedia, I'd say delete, as it would be way to confusing as one word for that specific instance, just as it is now. Koridas talk? 02:45, 25 June 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:The Hitcher[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. If other articles regarding the film series are created, there's no prejudice towards recreating the category. bibliomaniac15 00:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Only three articles, and no prospect of expansion BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The three articles are already in Category:Hitchhiking in fiction so merging is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Usually I would support delete, but in this case there are three films of this series, which makes it perfectly possible to make a film series article and possibly a character article about the villain (whom is quite iconic).★Trekker (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @★Trekker, if and when those articles are created, then the category can be re-created. But unless there is some imminent prospect of those articles appearing, we don't need the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 6 July 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:The Essential[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. bibliomaniac15 00:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation. This a category for a series of compilation albums (The Essential Lou Reed etc) released by Sony's Legacy Recordings division ... but other companies have also released albums with similar names, so some disambiguation is needed to clarify the scope, and stress that this is not just a generic WP:SHAREDNAME category.
I have tried to find a dab which isn't too verbose, but other editors may have better ideas. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Do distinct compilations for diverse artists such as the Backstreet Boys, Herbie Hancock, and Ozzy Osbourne really need to be categorized based on the way a record label markets their back catalog? I might nominate Category:Gold series albums and Category:Playlist compilation albums, among others, pending the outcome of this discussion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:21, 25 June 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:Somali-language newspapers published in Somaliland[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 25#Category:Somali-language newspapers published in Somaliland

Category:Tata[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: convert to category dab page. bibliomaniac15 03:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation: the bare title Tata is a dab page.
This is a parent category for Category:Tata family, Category:Tata Group and Category:Tata institutions, so those names are already taken ... and "Tata (India)" is the least-worst name I can think of. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 25 June 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_June_25&oldid=969371544"