Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 19



Category:Statues of lions

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


 * Support for reasons given above. Grutness... wha?   23:53, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Greenshed (talk) 02:38, 20 November 2017 (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:Public sector positions

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting public sector positions


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


 * Delete -- too broad to make a useful category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 20 November 2017 (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:Ophthalmologists by country

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename; the objections have been sufficiently answered. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:17, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ophthalmologists by country to Category:Ophthalmologists by nationality
 * Nominator's rationale: All other medical specialists are sorted by specialty and nationality‎. In reality it's a meaningless distinction. Doctors are very mobile and the articles rarely specify their nationality. Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I think I support but am not quite sure what the rationale means. Does the nominator mean that WP:RS rarely specify the country (not the nationality)? Also, most doctors I know are still working in the country in which they trained although it would probably be more common to say the Dr Snodgrass was a British ophthalmologist rather than a ophthalmologist from the United Kingdom. Greenshed (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support. Certainly not a meaningless distinction (and almost every article specifies their nationality!), but the rest of the category tree uses nationality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:59, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Nationality" carries nuances of ancestry/race/immigration status. Category:Ophthalmologists by nation or Category:Ophthalmologists by nation of licence or Category:Ophthalmologists by nation of practice or Category:Ophthalmologists by nation of training or Category:Ophthalmologists by nation of birth may be OK, but I don't see the point.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I suggest considering renaming the subcats Category:Afghan ophthalmologists to Category:Ophthalmologists‎ in Afghanistan, etc. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:49, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't know about the sources of the articles, but the articles about physicians themselves, of which there are thousands, rarely specify nationality when they move from one country to another, as many physicians do. I'd be perfectly happy with a recategorisation along the lines of Category:Ophthalmologists‎ in Afghanistan, but it would be an immense undertaking.  But whatever we do I think Ophthalmologists should be treated in line with all the other specialists. Rathfelder (talk) 21:36, 25 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose We do not categoize professionals by their country of "nationality" but by the country of practice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * What is Category:Physicians by nationality? Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Categorizing professionals by country of practice would be much better, but is not actually happening. Even this category contains subcats by nationality. Rename for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 27 November 2017 (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.


 * User:Fayenatic london, I don’t think the responses were sufficient at all. I think you WP:supervoted. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe: I weighed all the arguments carefully before closing, and am prepared to defend my close at WP:DRV. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Could you perhaps summarise the objections and summarise the answers? My reading is that the proposed rename is agreed to be bad, but we'll do it because all rest are bad the same way.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not claiming to represent other discussants, but this nicely rephrases my own contribution to the discussion indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Category:1586 animal births

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1510 animal births to Category:16th-century animal births
 * Propose merging Category:1540 animal births to Category:16th-century animal births
 * Propose merging Category:1586 animal births to Category:16th-century animal births


 * Nominator's rationale: We have just a few articles (three readily identified at present) on animals born in the 16th century. Categories containing one article are not useful and there is no prospect of filling in all the years from 1501 to 1600 with reasonably populated animal births categories. I have proposed a general scheme for animal births category cut offs at Category talk:Animal births by time and am seeking consensus on whether this is quite right across all time periods.  However, the 16th century seems like a clear case and so I am only bringing these categories here for now.Greenshed (talk) 21:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * please also tag the category pages when starting a CFD discussion, see WP:CFD. I have done this for you on these three. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:46, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. Greenshed (talk) 02:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom, and these years of birth are just guesstimates anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge one entry categories are not all that useful. Marcocapelle's point that the years of birth are not known precisely also is a strong argument against these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 26 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disney's Tarzan characters

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Disney's Tarzan characters to Category:Tarzan characters
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Tarzan characters; articles are not specifically about Disney versions. Trivialist (talk) 17:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom None of the mentioned characters originated in the Disney version. Dimadick (talk) 19:18, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge the characters involved predate the disney adaptation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 26 November 2017 (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:Disney's Winnie-the-Pooh

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Winnie-the-Pooh to Category:Winnie the Pooh (franchise)
 * Nominator's rationale: C2D: Winnie the Pooh (franchise). Trivialist (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom The original books use hyphens, but the Disney version does not. It is called "Winnie the Pooh", not "Winnie-the-Pooh". Dimadick (talk) 19:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disney's Robin Hood characters

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge/delete (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Disney's Robin Hood characters to Category:Robin Hood characters
 * Nominator's rationale: Contains only one Disney-specific character. Trivialist (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom A category with only one article. The Disney film actually has a number of original characters, including a sidekick to Prince John, but I am not certain we could write articles on them. Dimadick (talk) 19:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete since the one entry is already in the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 26 November 2017 (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:Songs from Disney's Pocahontas

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Songs from Disney's Pocahontas to Category:Songs from Pocahontas (1995 film)
 * Nominator's rationale: C2D: Pocahontas (1995 film). Trivialist (talk) 16:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom To match the title of the main article. Dimadick (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2017 (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:Disney's Alice in Wonderland characters

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Disney's Alice in Wonderland characters to Category:Lewis Carroll characters
 * Nominator's rationale: Category largely duplicates Category:Lewis Carroll characters; articles in the Disney category are not specifically about the Disney versions. Trivialist (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom None of them originated in the Disney version. Dimadick (talk) 19:30, 19 November 2017 (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.

Castles in the Eifel categories

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging:
 * castles in the eifel (germany)
 * castles in the eifel (luxembourg)
 * castles in the eifel (belgium)
 * castles in the eifel (rhineland-palatinate)
 * castles in the eifel (north rhine-westphalia)
 * Nominator's rationale: Excessive categorisation. We generally categorise by country/state and mountain region, but not both. We already have Category:Castles in the Eifel, Category:Castles in North Rhine-Westphalia, Category:Castles in Rhineland-Palatinate, Category:Castles in Belgium, Category:Castles in Germany and Category:Castles in Luxembourg, so there is no need for these categories added by a (currently banned) user. The articles should be upmerged into Category:Castles in the Eifel and (if not already) into their respective country or state categories. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

"Disney's" categories

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Aladdin to Category:Aladdin (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Aladdin characters to Category:Aladdin (franchise) characters
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Aladdin in amusement parks to Category:Aladdin (franchise) in amusement parks
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Aladdin video games to Category:Aladdin (franchise) video games
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Alice in Wonderland to Category:Alice in Wonderland (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Beauty and the Beast to Category:Beauty and the Beast (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Beauty and the Beast characters to Category:Beauty and the Beast (franchise) characters
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Cinderella to Category:Cinderella (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Hercules to Category:Hercules (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Mulan to Category:Mulan (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Peter Pan to Category:Peter Pan (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Pocahontas to Category:Pocahontas (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Snow White to Category:Snow White (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Snow White in amusement parks to Category:Snow White (franchise) in amusement parks
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Tarzan to Category:Tarzan (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Tarzan video games to Category:Tarzan (franchise) video games
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's The Jungle Book to Category:The Jungle Book (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's The Little Mermaid to Category:The Little Mermaid (franchise)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's The Little Mermaid characters to Category:The Little Mermaid (franchise) characters
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's The Little Mermaid in amusement parks to Category:The Little Mermaid (franchise) in amusement parks
 * Nominator's rationale: C2B: correcting disambiguation style; "Disney's" is not part of the common name of these properties. Trivialist (talk) 16:39, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Should not these categories be named as franchises, or after the film that started each franchise? Dimadick (talk) 19:34, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Good point. I've changed the proposed names to match the names of the articles about the individual franchises, and spliting off Sleeping Beauty into a separate nom, since it doesn't have a franchise article. Also I'm removing Category:Disney's Tarzan characters, which I duplicated here by mistake. Trivialist (talk) 02:15, 20 November 2017 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Disney's The Black Cauldron characters

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging disney's the black cauldron characters


 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:The Chronicles of Prydain characters, as The Black Cauldron was an adaptation of the Chronicles of Prydain series. Trivialist (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom The category seems to include no original characters. Dimadick (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge nothing new in the way of articles with the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 26 November 2017 (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:Disney's Tangled

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


 * The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Disney's Tangled to Category:Tangled (franchise)
 * Nominator's rationale: C2D: Tangled (franchise) Trivialist (talk) 16:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 19:37, 19 November 2017 (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:Art depicting Hebrew Bible figures by medium

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible figures by medium to Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible figures - Note: this target is in speedy rename process to Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible people
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge, unnecessary container category with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Excessive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2017 (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.

Art depicting Hebrew Bible figures

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


 * The result of the discussion was: merge and delete as nominated.  ℯ  xplicit  05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible prophets‎ to Category:Prophets of the Hebrew Bible
 * Propose deleting Category:Art depicting Torah figures‎‎
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge, unnecessary container categories with each only two subcategories. Note: the categories don't need to be merged to Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible figures Category:Art depicting Hebrew Bible people since the content is already in other subcats of it. And Category:Art depicting Torah figures‎‎ doesn't need to merged to Category:Torah either, because the subcats are already in a specific Torah books category (Genesis and Exodus respectively). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Excessive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:33, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: No project banners were on the talk pages until today. Let's leave this to run for another week, in case project alerts now generate more comments. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:07, 29 November 2017 (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:History of cardiovascular surgery
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Cardiology, Category:History of surgery, and Category:Vascular surgery.  ℯ  xplicit  05:03, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:History of cardiovascular surgery to Category:History of surgery
 * Nominator's rationale: 2 articles, neither entirely appropriate for the category Rathfelder (talk) 11:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge presumably to all three parent categories, but purge the Saturated fat and cardiovascular disease article first. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2017 (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:Royal Navy officers who were court-martialed
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Royal Navy officers who were court-martialed to Category:Royal Navy officers who were court-martialled
 * Nominator's rationale: Seems more appropriate to use British English spelling as this category refers to officers of the British Royal Navy. Ykraps (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * No objections here from the category's creator. In fact, I don't see any reason not to go ahead with it without further discussion. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:08, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename as proposed. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 10:56, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support obviously. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:01, 23 November 2017 (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:Rozee.pk
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rozee.pk


 * Nominator's rationale: Of no use as entires are only two: founder and website. Delete it. Störm   (talk)  06:40, 19 November 2017 (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:Megafauna
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:  at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 26.  ℯ  xplicit  04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting megafauna


 * Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of Africa
 * Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of Eurasia
 * Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of North Asia
 * Propose deleting Category:Neogene Megafauna of Eurasia
 * Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of North America
 * Propose deleting Category:Neogene Megafauna of North America
 * Propose deleting Category:Paleogene Megafauna of North America
 * Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of Oceania
 * Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of Australia
 * Propose deleting Category:Megafauna of South America
 * Nominator's rationale: Few (if any) of the articles in these categories describe the animals as megafauna. Some of the articles give no indication of the weight/dimensions of the animal.  The Megafauna article lists many definitions of the word - "In terrestrial zoology, megafauna ... are large or giant animals. The most common thresholds used are weight over 40 kilograms (90 lb), over 44 kilograms (100 lb), or over a metric ton 1,000 kilograms (2,205 lb). This includes many species not popularly thought of as overly large, such as ... humans. ... the most common usage encountered in academic and popular writing describes land mammals roughly larger than a human that are not (solely) domesticated. The term is especially associated with the Pleistocene megafauna – ... It is also commonly used for the largest extant wild land animals ..... Other common uses are for giant aquatic species, especially whales, any larger wild or domesticated land animals such as larger antelope and cattle, as well as numerous dinosaurs and other extinct giant reptilians. The term is also sometimes applied to animals (usually extinct) of great size relative to a more common or surviving type of the animal, for example the 1 m (3 ft) dragonflies of the Carboniferous period."
 * Many of the articles that have been placed in these categories (e.g. Ocelot) would not fit most of the definitions of megafauna. Note: Animal species are well categorized by their position in the tree-of-life. A general upmerge (e.g. to Category:Fauna of Africa) is probably unnecessary as most of the articles are already in lower level categories such as Category:Mammals of Africa.Some articles (e.g. these) may need to be upmerged. DexDor(talk) 06:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Without taking sides, it would appear that because Wikipedia cannot define what a "megafauna" is - because its contributors have not done enough research as to which definition is widely accepted in expert WP:RELIABLE secondary sources - there have been inconsistencies in how editors categorize which animals as megafauna. The proposed solution is to do away with the Category. Regardless of the merits or otherwise of eliminating the category, it does not address the original problem. William Harris •   (talk) •  10:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete - megafauna is not a defining characteristic, especially since multiple definitions of the term exist. Rlendog (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep and rename to, similar to existed . 178.92.49.94 (talk) 23:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * What would the inclusion criteria for that category be? See WP:OSE. For info: The category you refer to was created very recently. DexDor(talk) 07:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep and Listify with a view to the list being referenced and used to curate the categories. The nominator is correct in noting that many members probably don't belong.  The parent article Megafauna is pretty good, but needs work.  Megafauna should be converted to lists, with some aspiration to become complete and accurate.  The links to categories Megafauna should be replaced by links to the lists produced by listifying the categories.  The categories should be kept, per WP:CLS.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe can you clarify what part of CLS you think means these categories should be kept? DexDor(talk) 07:05, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey DexDor. What I think I mean is that ... there should be lists of megafauna, and then, per CLS ("each method complements the others"), the listed megafauna on each list should be categorised.  Being a type of megafauna is defining.  I'm not really saying "Keep these categories", so much as "categories like these need to exist".  The set of categories you listed need major renovation, but the renovation / curation is more to do with the contents than the category titles.  If you propose to listify the categories, delete the categories, curate the lists, then re-create the categories, then OK.  If you propose to stop at deleting the categories, citing poorly curated memberships, then I oppose, as you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater.  We needthe categories, and as poor as these are, they are not worse than useless.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:15, 16 December 2017 (UTC)  I most definitely oppose deleting Category:Megafauna, for example.  Whether that category should be subcategorised by continent, or by time period, is a worthy topic.  I would be happy to see upmerging and trimming.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * There are many cases where we have lists without a corresponding category (e.g. for award winners, animals frequently seen at a particular nature reserve) - I think you're misinterpreting CLS. Every species can be categorized as mammal, fish etc so we don't need these categories. DexDor(talk) 07:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
 * We need Category:Megafauna, the current membership needing cleaning notwithstanding. I suggest that it should be subcategorised by time period, not by the current continents. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NONDEF. Note that WP:CLS just says that in some occasions lists and categories may happily exist next to each other, but it does not require lists and categories to coexist in all instances. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tamil sequel films
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Selective manual upmerge is required.  ℯ  xplicit  04:32, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting tamil sequel films
 * Propose deleting hindi sequel films (added on relisting)
 * Propose deleting telugu sequel films (added on relisting)


 * Nominator's rationale: Sequels should be categorised by country, not language. There is no parent category called "Sequel films by language", only "Sequel films by country". Kailash29792   (talk)  15:10, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: While the nominator's rationale is sound and there is unanimity in the discussion thus far, I am relisting to allow consideration of three factors which were not addressed above: (1) this category was previously nominated for deletion on 2016-12-22; (2) there are two similar categories, Category:Hindi sequel films and Category:Telugu sequel films, which perhaps should be nominated as well; and (3) about 60% of the articles in this category are not in Category:Indian sequel films, so deletion without merging would remove them from the category tree. Pinging User:Kailash29792, User:Dimadick and User:Bearcat.
 * Delete Most of the sequel categories are underpopulated and do not require splitting. Dimadick (talk) 06:02, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sequelness and language do not intersect to create a WP:DEFINING trait of the films. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, per nom, and upmerge where needed.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:37, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Indian sequel films. I have added the Hindi and Telugu siblings into the nomination. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:43, 19 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment - I realise it would take a lot of work to change the whole category tree, but surely the usual term is "film sequel", not "sequel film"? Grutness... wha?   00:00, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete what is and what is not a sequel can at times be hard to determine, and is not always defining. Is "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" a sequel to "Mr. Deeds goes to town"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)


 * 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.