Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 4



Category:Video games featuring female antagonists

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:05, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting video games featuring female antagonists


 * Nominator's rationale:Redundant and unnecessary. Adds nothing relevant to this wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darksheets52 (talk • contribs) 21:10, 4 March 2016‎


 * I completed the nomination for the above user but am neutral on the question at this time. See Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 2 for a previous discussion. --BDD (talk) 21:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * In the previous discussion someone suggested to listify, that may be an alternative to consider. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I am willing to consider that option--Darksheets52 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep and purge. The last, failed nomination was way better substantiated. Indeed adds a relevant aspect, is both defining and clearly defined, though – from a number of games I picked – categorization isn't always clearly sourced. Propose adding some more content-related fields to the many peripheral fields in Template:Infobox video game, including protagonist and antagonist, possibly also plot. --PanchoS (talk) 09:30, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * A video game featuring male or female antagonists is not a defining or relevant element especially with video games. The information can be written in the articles themselves. Not to mention, it is far TOO specific.--Darksheets52 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Who says that and on which basis? In action films, apart from setting and theme, protagonist(s) and antagonist(s) are two of the most defining aspects, and the same seems to hold for action games. If these two aspects are not defining - what else is? In comparison, Staff, physics engine and game engine are clearly less relevant details regular people wouldn't know nor be interested in at all. And remember, we're writing a general audience encyclopedia, not one targeted to hardcore gamers. --PanchoS (talk) 16:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Again, this category does not cover a video game's defining aspect. A protagonist or antagonist being female/male is just as irrelevant and undefining as does who wear eye-patches and similiar. The same cannot be said for staffs, physic and game engines. Also it is too specific considering the other options. Too much precision kills the precision. At the very least, this might be suitable for a list.--Darksheets52 (talk) 21:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep A valid deletion rationale has not been presented.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * According to the rules, the categories must be a defining and relevant characteristic. This category is not either a relevant or a defining aspect.--Darksheets52 (talk) 15:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete if listified . Not to go on the ludology vs. narratology debate, but the defining aspect of a video game is that it's playable and interactive. Most of the categories on video game deal with that part, how it is played: Category:Zombie video games, Category:PlayStation 4 games, Category:Single-player-only video games. How it is narratively and thematically set comes second to that, so there are categories that categorize video games in broad strokes, like Category: Science fiction video games or Category: LGBT-related video games. That there's an antagonist in the story that happens to be female is a very specific thing. However, I do think it is a notable subject, with related articles like Gender representation in video games and Women and video games (a quick WP:VG/RS custom Google search brings up plenty of articles and listicles like "best video game bosses", where female characters are also included). I also like to point out that the sentence "This category should not include video games where the female antagonist is merely a sidekick to the main antagonist" currently on top of the category is an odd distinction to make, and WP:OR to decide that. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note. I gave it some more thought. List of video games featuring a female antagonist would be an inappropriate arbitrary list, failing WP:LISTN. If it's a notable character, it can have its own article. If the game is particularly notable for, let's say, a controversial, or progressive portrayal of a female character, that can be mentioned at Gender representation in video games. Just for having a female antagonist character in a video game is not enough for a list or category, because it doesn't say anything substantial about the game or the character. soetermans . ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 12:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep The narrative aspects of a game seem to be more relevant to a general audience than the trivial, non-defining categories about Staff, physics engine and game engine. I would not mind seeing these nominated for deletion. The game article should, however, actually have character information about its antagonist, or antagonists, to establish this is verifiable. Dimadick (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as long as we're talking about significant female antagonists rather than minor ones. An antagonist drives the conflict and is therefore a significant aspect of a narrative. Them being female or not is no more or less notable than the protagonist's gender, which list was also kept. Sarochi (talk) 06:59, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I admit it's not a hugely important category but I think it's still a relevant example of gender representation in video games as most primary antagonists in games are male and gender representation is occasionally discussed, were the ratio of male and female antagonists more even I would agree with deleting this. Madbane54 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep I believe it is a valid and relevant category and don't see arguments that persuade me otherwise. We detail many topics in great detail and arguments like "antagonists with eyepatches" is a ridiculous exaggeration, especially given the furious conflict that's been raging for the last couple years about gender and gaming. Ogress 02:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Exile political parties of Bhutan

 * 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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Exile political parties of Bhutan to Category:Banned political parties in Bhutan
 * Nominator's rationale: Essentially a C2C request, but probably not straightforward enough for speedy. An exiled political party will pretty much always be a banned one, so I recommend bringing this in line with the other members of . The two articles currently in the category indicate that both parties are indeed banned, by the way. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. --PanchoS (talk) 08:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: Is there any real evidence that the parties listed in this category exist, or ever existed, inside Bhutan - or are they just groups formed by some people in the ethnic-Nepali exile community? The article on the Bhutan Peoples' Party says it was "founded in West Bengal" i.e. outside Bhutan. One of the sources cited for the article on the Bhutan Communist Party (Marxist–Leninist–Maoist) states "The Bhutan Communist Party (Marxist-Leninist-Maoist) was born in the camps of Nepal, with the encouragement of Nepal's own, powerful Maoist movement". Also is there any reliable evidence that either of these "parties" were specifically banned? The activities of these groups probably fall under what the Bhutanese authorities would call "anti-national activities" - and the people calling themselves the CPB (MLM) appear to have engaged in a bombing campaign - so their activities would be illegal, but that is not quite the same thing as a specific ban on these parties as such.  Chris Fynn (talk) 16:00, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course, banned parties and parties in exile are not the same. Apart from the consistency issue, from what we know, it is however only proved that both parties are banned, while it remains disputable (possibly WP:POV) whether the parties are parties-in-exile without a veritable party basis in the country. So at second sight, my decision to support the rename is even clearer than it was before. --PanchoS (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I briefly considered whether it was relevant that neither party may have ever been active in the geopolitical boundaries of Bhutan, but I don't think it matters, given the overall category structure. We've gone with "parties in" when we could just as easily say "parties of". If these parties are concerned primarily or exclusively with Bhutanese politics, I don't think it matters where they're based. --BDD (talk) 16:59, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support -- If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Political parties of exiled Bhutanis or Category:Exiled political parties of Bhutan. The present name seems grammatically wrong.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support rename to Category:Exiled political parties of Bhutan per Peterkingiron's iron proposal. Better name. The term "Bhutani" might be confusing, because we have a disambiguation page that claims it is also used by a sub-group of the Baloch people in Pakistan and Iran. Dimadick (talk) 20:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Please note that there are no other categories named this way. If we want to start distinguishing and separately categorizing banned and exiled political parties, perhaps this is the first step. --BDD (talk) 14:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support original nomination per PanchoS and BDD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II

 * 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: split to the name proposed in the nomination (per lead article), and the additional Africa category proposed in discussion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mediterranean, Middle East and African theatres of World War II to Category:Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II
 * Nominator's rationale: rename per main article Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II and move the (East) African content to parent Category:Theaters and campaigns of World War II. Combining Mediterranean, Middle East and East Africa in one category is pretty arbitrary. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Alt split to  and, the former including only the North African theater, the latter including both East and North African theaters. Any geographic grouping is somewhat arbitrary, but we should follow article mainspace here, while having some valid replacement to hold the Africa topics (general ones, East African, and West African) together with the North African ones. While there will be some overlap regarding to North Africa, that's depicting reality. --PanchoS (talk) 11:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * That's also a good solution. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with PanchoS. The East African theatre was quite distinct from the campaigns along the Mediterranian coast.  In theory, the campaign across Algeria might be split from the Egypt/Libya theatre, but since they joined up at the end, I do not think would be a good idea.  Again the campaign to conquer Syria might be split out, but since the British high command was in Cairo, this too would not do well.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Alt split per PanchoS's suggestion. A geographic category for the various African theaters sounds like a good idea. Dimadick (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:BPHC

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:BPHC to Category:Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani – Hyderabad Campus
 * Nominator's rationale: Main article of the category is Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani – Hyderabad Campus. Not eligible for speedy, as it was only recently renamed and without discussion. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:13, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename as an uncontroversial case. --PanchoS (talk) 09:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename -- We do not like abbreviations, as they are meaningless to most people. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Rareware

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rareware to Category:Rare (company)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rareware characters to Category:Rare (company) characters
 * Propose renaming Category:Rareware games to Category:Rare (company) games
 * Propose renaming Category:Rareware stubs to Category:Rare (company) stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Rare (company). Article was renamed after this RM. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Category:Rareware to Category:Rare (company) – C2D: per Rare (company). Recently renamed after this RM. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Rareware characters to Category:Rare (company) characters
 * Category:Rareware games to Category:Rare (company) games
 * Oppose. I think that the natural disambiguation of the company's former branding is preferable to a parenthesised disambiguator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Rareware was the name for just 9 years, 1994–2003. After 13 years I think we can use the short name. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:39, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The company was and is much better known as "Rare" than "Rareware" so the latter would not be a natural disambiguation. Rename to match main article. Eye close font awesome.svg czar  14:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Rare is its common name. Rareware is a name that was used by the company like a decade ago, which is obviously outdated. AdrianGamer (talk) 11:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: 1. per C2D. 2. per common name. 3. The company has never been officially named Rareware, it has always been Rare Ltd since incorporation. Rareware was simply a branding used for a short period of time on box covers, and throughout that period the company's name was still Rare Ltd. (source). --The1337gamer (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename The main article was renamed after much discussion. The category should blindly follow that change. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename top category per . If the company's product brand was still "Rareware", I would be inclined to keep the subcategories' names, however the company abandoned the brand altogether, so the best we can do is to rename all as proposed by the nominator. --PanchoS (talk) 10:45, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename, I agree that there would be a case for Rareware if it was the longterm branding of the company however as it has not been in use for about 13 years the proposed name is better.--65.94.252.62 (talk) 21:07, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename all, as per consensus/discussion at the speedy opposition collapsed above. czar  00:30, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename all But the new category about the company should mention in its parents that this is a Microsoft subsidiary. Dimadick (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Done. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support but I also wonder if the new Category:Rare (company) characters shouldn't be containerized. Otherwise former employees might end up here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Five Towns, New York

 * 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, given 10:5 support with a range of arguments on both sides. If this was a formal location e.g. city or county, I would have looked for a stronger consensus, as there certainly used to be a US pattern to include the state except for the most well-known cases; but as this is an informal grouping, and there are no other pages using the name as a title (as opposed to in the title, pace DuncanHill), the majority win this one. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:59, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Five Towns, New York to Category:Five Towns
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Main article of category is Five Towns. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:58, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Category:Five Towns, New York to Category:Five Towns – C2D: per Five Towns. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:45, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The new title is ambiguous. It is surprising that the head article is not disambiguated, but regardless of that choice, this ambiguous categ name would lead to miscategorisation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)


 * Support rename to match title of parent article. If any claimants to the name exist hat would demand disambiguation, they haven't appeared since the Five Towns article was created in 2004, a dozen years ago. Alansohn (talk) 14:39, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose – there are numerous claims to the title as google shows. It is indeed surprising that the head article is not disambiguated. Oculi (talk) 01:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support To match main article and per WP:COMMONNAME. There must not be too much risk of confusion,; there's not even a disambiguation page. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why doesn't this apply to individual US cities? See Milwaukee/Category:Milwaukee, Wisconsin, where the same logic should apply. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to match article name. If it ever becomes disambiguated, then the category can be renamed, but it doesn't need to be now. Having a category that is named differently than the corresponding article will cause more confusion than having a category name that is not 100% unambiguous. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Why shouldn't we match it with individual US cities? See San Francisco/Category:San Francisco, California, where the same logic should apply. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:51, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yup. I would argue that it should apply everywhere, and that that particular category is therefore misnamed. It's just a form of American exceptionalism in action. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:06, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename per . It might however be a good idea to disambiguate the main article. --PanchoS (talk) 09:46, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Too specific.--Darksheets52 (talk) 15:09, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support to match article title. I see no reason to believe that the title will lead to miscategorization. Let a RM determine whether "Five Towns" alone is sufficiently "ambiguous". czar  15:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- I so not think we can be sure that there is not other group of places known as "the five towns". Even if this is the primary use, categories sometimes need disambiguators when articles have none, eg Category:Birmingham, West Midlands for Birmingham.  This is necessary to prevent inadvertent miscategorisation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Birmingham is always trotted out as an example as if it's the norm, but I think that there are far more examples that go the other way—,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , —I could go on, but you get the idea. All of these categories follow the name of the article, even though the name is "ambiguous". Birmingham is clearly an outlier in this regard and does not reflect standard practice in Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:01, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - this is clearly the standard, as of now, even for individual US cities where the article name doesn't include the state - e.g Boston/Category:Boston, Massachusetts. See Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 15, where I tried to change this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:11, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , you present a "standard", which does not exist as you describe it. Take a look for one set of examples at Category:Neighborhoods in Manhattan, where nearly all match the actual standard across categories of matching the title of the corresponding article: Category:East Harlem matches its parent East Harlem, while Category:Five Points, Manhattan corresponds to its parent article Five Points, Manhattan (which is appropriately disambiguated, as there are actual articles that match that same title). Demanding that category names must contain disambiguation that is not present in the corresponding article creates needless confusion for editors and readers alike. If a neighborhood Five Towns is the article title, then so be it for the category. Just because it was banned in Boston (or Milwaukee) is no reason to impose an irrational "standard" elsewhere. Alansohn (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * New York City, as far as I can tell, is the only exception. Any other place in the US, as far as I can tell, the category names are as I stated. Five Towns isn't in NYC, it's a suburb. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:44, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , I'm not arguing that it's in New York City, but that's irrelevant. The issue here is the clear standard to disambiguate only when necessary. You've offered nothing as evidence for this imaginary standard other than Boston and Milwaukee. I've offered several dozen where the standard of matching article and category titles apply. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support wp:commonname, wp:concise--Prisencolin (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per main article. If disambiguation is needed, the article should be moved as the first step. However, in this particular case I doubt whether disambiguation is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose, "Five Towns" brings to mind Stoke-on-Trent and Arnold Bennett. DuncanHill (talk) 00:02, 15 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , where is this other article that is causing confusion with Five Towns so that it requires disambiguation as a category, but not as an article? Alansohn (talk) 12:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Did I say a) that there was another article? No, I didn't. b) That Five Towns as an article doesn't need disambiguating? No, I didn't. So your question is based on assuming I said things that I didn't. FWIW, I think Five Towns as an article needs disambiguating. Almost nobody will have heard of this informal grouping which contains no towns, but many will have heard of Anna of the Five Towns, or be otherwise familiar with the usage for Stoke. The proposed category name, which is what I was commenting on above, is confusing and misleading. DuncanHill (talk) 13:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename per main article. If that's a problem then RM is the place to start. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:22, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose categories need more diambiguation than articles, because they can be added without any consultation of what their contents are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * , you are flat out wrong in presenting this as a categorical imperative. There are indeed some limited situations where categories need more disambiguation than articles, but that is far from always true. The New York City borough of Queens is covered by Category:Queens, New York, while Category:Queens lists female monarchs; but this is only true in limited cases like these, where there is indeed a risk of confusion given the word "Queens" being both the name of a place and the plural of a female monarch. The overwhelmingly common standard is demonstrated by Category:Paris and Category:London, which exist without disambiguation, despite the existence of Category:Paris, Maine, Category:Paris, Tennessee and Category:Paris, Texas, along with Category:London, Ohio and Category:London, Ontario; in all seven of these cases, the blindingly obvious standard of having the category name match the title of the article is followed. At this CfD, there is no confusion and no disambiguation is necessary. In this case, the unnecessary discrepancy between the titles of the article and the category create needless confusion to readers and editors alike. Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Real Monarchs SLC players

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) sst✈  08:33, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Real Monarchs SLC players to Category:Real Monarchs players
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Main article of the category is at Real Monarchs. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:56, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that 5 months counts as "long term stability", and "Real Monarchs" sounds ambiguous. This needs a full discussion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:08, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Real Monarchs SLC players to Category:Real Monarchs players – C2D per Real Monarchs. — Michael (talk) 23:52, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Head article moved from to  on 21 August 2015  . No sign of any previous moves since page creation on 11 September 2014‎.


 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 20:57, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Support - to match article title. GiantSnowman 10:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. With respect to the opposed speedy, I don't agree with User:BrownHairedGirl. Having an article at a new name for 5 months without any attempt to reverse during those 5 months would definitely count as long term stability of the article name for me so this nomination could have been speedied. One month seems a more reasonable requirement. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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 of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: relisted at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_23 in order to nominate sub-cats too. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:44, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People of Levantine-Eastern Orthodox Christian descent to Category:People of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent‎
 * Nominator's rationale: merge (in either direction, I've tagged both categories), the two categories obviously have the same purpose. There aren't any other Eastern Orthodox Churches in the Levant than the Greek Orthodox Church of Antioch and the Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Now, we might want to keep the two categories separate but broaden the former's scope to, or even (more drastically) to. Normally, we don't categorize by religious descent, but it seems alright if these are ethnoreligious groups. It would however be helpful to have a main article on "Levantine-Greek/Eastern Orthodox Christians". There is Arab Christians, and there is Antiochian Greek Christians but not much in between. In any case, in the course of improving our coverage of these topics, this may be revisited. --PanchoS (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Really unsure about these. But note that apart from the named Greek Orthodox Churches, there is also Oriental Orthodoxy including the Syriac Orthodox Church, the Coptic Orthodox Church of Alexandria and the Armenian Apostolic Church, which are also part of Eastern Christianity, though omitted at Eastern Christianity in Syria.
 * Oriental Orthodoxy is not part of Eastern (/Greek) Orthodoxy, and (except for Syriacs) it is not Levantine either, so we should be a bit careful with merging too much at once. Some more difficulties to take into account: we also have Catholics in the Levant, and not all Levantine Christians self-identify as Arab. But the main question is of course: which group(s) are considered to be ethnoreligious descent group(s) according to reliable sources? As you pointed out, there is not too much information about that available. We have had a very long discussion about this more than a year ago, see here, but this neither led to consensus, nor did it result in a new or improved Wikipedia article. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge then purge -- of the three articles in the target, two are Melkite Catholics (not Orthodox at all). I am not clear what language is used for worship in the Antiochan church, but even if it is Greek, are the adherents using Greek language in other contexts?  I suspect that this is being driven by the expatriate subcats of the target, which I have not examined.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. By the way, Greek is the language of worship, but having said that, there is no guarantee that descendants of Levantine-Orthodox people still visit a church of the same denomination as their ancestors. The articles hardly ever touch that subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge Eastern Orthodox is the more accepted generalized term. It excludes Oriental Orthodox, who are a totally different group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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:Bugatti Chiron

 * 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: speedy close, an article (disambiguation page) was nominated here. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bugatti chiron


 * Nominator's rationale: I think the two pages here are distinction. I believe the Bugatti Chiron (2016) should be "Bugatti Chiron". The other one has a 18/3 in the name. Winterysteppe (talk) 03:17, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment. I believe that you have the wrong forum here. Bugatti Chiron is in article space, not category space. You should be using the WP:RM procedure to propose moving Bugatti Chiron (2016) to Bugatti Chiron, not the WP:CFD procedure. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:44, 4 March 2016 (UTC)


 * 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.