Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 24



Category:Primary care physicians

 * 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:American primary care physicians (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 1 November 2017 (UTC).
 * Propose merging Category:Primary care physicians to Category:General practitioners‎
 * Nominator's rationale: The commoner usage Rathfelder (talk) 21:35, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge (or Reverse Merge) I actually think PCP has become the dominant term in the US but it makes no sense to divide these biography categories between the two. This is one of the rare times we can't blindly defer to the article space since we have both General practitioner and Primary care physician. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:28, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge (or Reverse Merge) and put a category redirect into the other. Twiceuponatime (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2017 (UTC)


 * How about turning the existing Category:Primary care physicians into American Primary care physicians, as a subcategory of Category:General practitioners‎, as General practitioners seems to be much the commoner usage in the rest of the world? Rathfelder (talk) 07:56, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I think I might prefer to go with this suggestion. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:42, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd favor that as well. There may be a regional English usage issue here. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:10, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Regional English usage is definitely the problem with several of the medical occupations. The terms Doctor and Physician are used differently in different countries. Rathfelder (talk) 16:20, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- The first contains two American bios. The second is a general category that should largely be a container.  Instead merge to Category:American physicians or REname to Category:American primary care physicians, making that a subcat of Category:American physicians and GPs by nationality.  We have got an ENGVAR issue here, which we seem to have resolved by calling them all GPs, the British usage, perhaps with the odd cat-redirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 29 October 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:Orthopaedists

 * 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 redirect (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Orthopaedists to Category:Orthopedic surgeons
 * Nominator's rationale: Complete overlap. Orthopedic surgeon is the commoner term. Rathfelder (talk) 17:33, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Merge (or Reverse Merge) In the article space, both terms redirect to Orthopedic surgery so no preference on the name. These biography articles should all be in one category tree though. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge as nom. If Orthopaedists is a common American term, we need to leave a catpredirect.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 29 October 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:Protestant denominational families

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  01:03, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Protestant denominational families to Category:Protestantism
 * Nominator's rationale: While Category:Christian denominational families might be considered problematic as relates to scope, reflection of available sources, WP:NPOV, etc., it might also serve a purpose. However, as for Category:Protestant denominational families, the potential of misunderstandings, misconceptions, and WP:POV is simply too vast. Its redundancy is indicated by no equivalent article realm locations of Protestant denominational families, for good reasons. It would border WP:POINT/WP:FRINGE/WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. That is arguably the same reasons why there is no Category:Mainline Protestant denominations, despite that in this case there actually is an equivalent article "Mainline Protestant". If you dig into it, you shall find that there would be virtually no end to possible controversy over this category with objections from all internal and external perspectives. I therefore advocate it should be merged with Category:Protestantism. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:21, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * NOTE: Chicbyaccident, I cannot follow your reasoning at all here, but do note that removing the Category:Protestant denominational families will just result in the Protestant denominational families needing to put directly in the Category:Christian denominational families. Aside your opaque reasoning above removing, I think removing Category:Protestant denominational families would have both pros and cons. tahc chat 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Isn't Protestantism arguably a Christian denominational family containing these others denominations? Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:38, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * If Protestantism is "arguably a Christian denominational family" then Protestantism is even more arguably not a Christian denominational family. Many people will claim that their group (currently under Protestant) is not even part of Protestantism. So, if you tell these people that merely one little part of Protestantism it will be worse. Protestantism is really more of a catch-all term "not anything else" and there is much more variety within Protestantism than any non-Protestant denominational family.
 * Do not forget the purpose of the category tree (is not to inform directly, but) is only help people find the articles they want to find. Making people look in "Protestant" will certainly not help if them, if they do not even think of their own group as Protestant. tahc chat 16:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * There is an issue with Protestantism in the sense that its boundaries are not fully clear. Does Anglicanism belong to Protestantism? Does Evangelicalism belong to it, or the Pentecostal movement? Different people have different opinions about that. I'm not totally convinced that this should lead to an end of the Protestantism category tree, since we may include subcategories of denominations that are counted as Protestant by some sources. But if there is going to be consensus about dissolving the Protestantism tree then there should be a broader proposal on how to operationalize that (since there are so many Protestant categories). Just nominating this one category is not a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, and those issues aren't better solved by having more than one similar categories. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:17, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep -- The target has splits in several different directions, so that making the 15 families direct children of the target would complicate the tree. So do not see where NPOV or any other issues raised by the nom become relevant to this.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep a little bit of OR is involved but not much. And it's a very beneficial navigational aid. Worth the risk. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:57, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Laurel Lodged nailed it. By our rules the container isn't entirely pretty (hence the nomination) but its population is awesome. gidonb (talk) 09:22, 22 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 Catholicism 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, with no prejudice against establishing a History of Catholicism category tree if there is sufficient content to populate it. While the point is valid that not all Catholicism is about the Catholic Church, the arguments to rename (including that the proposed name aligns with Category:History of the Catholic Church and History of the Catholic Church) are more compelling. ( @Chicbyaccident:, please ping me whether will you be nominating the subcategories for renaming.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:History of Catholicism by country to Category:History of the Catholic Church by country
 * Nominator's rationale: In WP:PRECISE reflection to its actual scope - subcategories and articles. Please note that there currently is no such category, which ought to exist. Also per WP:CONSISTENCY with its category info text. Catholicism in the article realm is a redirect. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Chicbyaccident, if you really want this to happen, I suppose you should also plan on renaming all the sub-cats, e.g. Category:History of Catholicism in Poland, and say how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by tahc (talk • contribs)


 * Create subcategory instead of rename . This is a topic on which nominator on which I keep in disagreement with nominator (in friendly disagreement, I suppose), as I don't agree that all Catholicism is about the Catholic Church. For example Catholic spirituality, Catholic culture, Catholic political parties, Catholic trade unions etc etc are not about the Catholic Church as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Marcocapelle, if you really want any or all subcategories to happen, tell us why and how. Are there articles for and of the sub cats that are already in the tree, e.g. Category:History of the Old Catholic Church in Poland. If there is no such subcategory they why keep the Category:History of Catholicism by country at all? tahc chat 19:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It would go too far to split this for every country. Instead weak oppose, I would rather keep the category name as is, with a broader scope, and to keep consistency with sibling categories such as Category:History of Protestantism. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:41, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support the nom. But alsoagree with Marco. However, in this case, the reality is that all sub-cats by country are only to do with the Catholic Church. There is none for the Netherlands. If one is created then Category:History of the Old Catholic Church in the Netherlands could be a good category to create. Following that creation, it would then be appropriate to create Category:History of Catholicism in the Netherlands. But we're not there yet. So for the moment, let the noms proceed without prejudice as to their later re-creation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:20, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per leading article. gidonb (talk) 04:06, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose ~ ScitDei Wanna talk? 11:10, 21 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:History of Catholicism by continent

 * 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, without with no prejudice against establishing a History of Catholicism by continent category tree if there is sufficient content to populate it. There was also support (but not a consensus) for doing away with the continental split altogether, which could be revisited in a subsequent nomination (that should include child categories). -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:53, 6 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:History of Catholicism by continent to Category:History of the Catholic Church by continent
 * Nominator's rationale: In WP:PRECISE reflection to its subcategories and contents. Please note that there currently is no History of Catholicism standalone article for the very same reasons that there should hardly be a such category (other than redirect in the both cases). Please consult instead Catholic Church by country. Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Chicbyaccident, if you really want this to happen, I suppose you should also plan on renaming all the sub-cats, e.g. Category:History of Catholicism in Asia, and say how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by tahc (talk • contribs)


 * Create subcategory instead of rename . Same as above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Marcocapelle, if you really want any or all subcategories to happen, tell us why and how. Are there articles for and of the sub cats that are already in the tree, e.g. Category:History of the Old Catholic Church in Asia. If there is no such subcategory they why keep the Category:History of Catholicism by continent at all? tahc chat 19:53, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * It may go too far to split this per continent. Instead weak oppose, I would rather keep the category name as is, with a broader scope, and to keep consistency with sibling categories such as Category:History of Protestantism. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:21, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- merging the grandchildren to Category:History of Catholicism by country. There do not seem to be enough country articles to merit having a continental split too.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support that alternative as a secondary option. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support to this option. Both categories (Category:History of Catholicism by country) & (Category:History of Catholicism by continent) are not required. (Category:History of Catholicism by country) would suffice. ~ ScitDei Wanna talk? 11:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural Comment Despite my vote above, I'm now wondering if this nom proceed without the children being first nominated for name changes per tahc above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * It's not required per WP:NOTFINISHED. Chicbyaccident (talk) 22:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per leading article. Against deletion as the continents allow for spatial specificity where no country categories are justified. gidonb (talk) 04:07, 22 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:Orders, decorations, and medals honoring women

 * 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) 21:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Orders, decorations, and medals honoring women to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals for women
 * Nominator's rationale: More WP:NPOV, per WP:Consistency with Category:Orders of knighthood for women. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment/Lean Toward Rename The parent category is Category:Awards honoring women and it has a half dozen sibling categories like Category:Awards honoring indigenous people and Category:Awards honoring children or youth. All that being said, I think the proposed name is more succinct. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename as simple and covering the correct meaning. Please nominate the other categories as well. gidonb (talk) 04:13, 22 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:Catholicism-related controversies

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Catholicism-related controversies to Category:Catholic Church-related controversies
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Precise. Please see the scope. It exclusively pertains to this subject. We also don't have this category. So clearly a category precision renaming issue. For included articles that may mistakingly not pertain to the Category:Catholic Church directly or indirectly, they ought to be relocated anyhow. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Create subcategory instead of rename. Same as above. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry, there is a consensus on Catholicism, and it doesn't qualify as an article but is a redirect. Why should the category tree follow other logic, please? I would rather consider WP:OVERCATEGORISATION. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Rename per leading article to Category:Controversies related to the Catholic Church. Flipping the word order as Catholicism is one word and Catholic Church two words. gidonb (talk) 09:17, 22 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:Catholic denominations

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


 * The result of the discussion was: no consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:05, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Catholic denominations to Category:Catholicism
 * Nominator's rationale: Maintaining both these categories arguably borders WP:OVERCATEGORISATION/WP:OR/WP:POINT/WP:NPOV violation, if we verify with the article realm. Please note that Catholic and Catholicism in the article realm redirect to Catholic Church, and that there are no matching articles Catholic denomination or Catholic denominations. Categories should not deviate from WP:Consensus in the article realm but for exceptionately good reasons. The "point" of said categories, as reflected in theological sources, would be more suitably expressed in actual article content such as Catholicism (term), Catholic (term), Roman Catholic (term), Catholic (disambiguation), etc. which is already the case, rather than expressed in a category tree formation. For the record, while I came across the category, it contained Old Catholic Church in Poland, which I then recategorised as into Category:Old Catholic denomations. This preexisting categorisation of Old Catholic Church in Poland exemplifies what's problematic about the neutrality, defintion, and scope with the category, part of which questions also apply to Category:Catholicism. All in all, for this discussion here, it would be suitable to limit the above two to one category. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as POV and pointy. While Category:Catholic denominations has a less than clear purpose, Category:Catholic denominations is part of a clear category system for all Christian denominations. The only problem is that the RCC (like a number of other groups--see the Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.) claims to be the only real Christian denomination. Since Wikipedia is NPOV it cannot support this WP:POINTy merge on the part of Chicbyaccident to make Wikipedia show only the RCC POV. If we wanted to merge instead Category:Catholicism to Category:Catholic denominations then that seems fine. tahc chat 15:23, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I would support that as an alternative merge, as a secondary option. As for the rest, regarding your arguments, I will leave them unanswered here, referring that discussion simply to Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_naming_conventions_(Catholic_Church). Chicbyaccident (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support original nomination, oppose alternative. Support original nomination since there are in fact just two subcats that really belong here (Roman Catholic Church and independent Catholic denominations) while all four subcats may well belong in Category:Catholicism. Oppose alternative because Catholicism is not only a catch-all term for different nominations but also for a wider scope than just churches, so Category:Catholicism should definitely be kept. See also a couple of discussions above, on this same page. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * While I agree that Anglo-Catholicism‎ is not a denomination, there are big problems with your support original nomination. A category should definitely be kept if it is part of a larger category system, even if it has just two sub-cats. To break this standard Wikipedia practice would only be a POV move to support RCC theology (per above).
 * Please also note that if it bothers you to have Category:Catholic denominations with just two or three sub-cats, the obvious solution is to merge the so-called Category:Independent Catholic denominations into Category:Catholic denominations. While it is common to call these other bodies "independent" Catholic denominations, all it really means is "all the Catholic denominations except Rome." tahc chat 19:37, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * They are called 'independent' rather than 'denomination' which means it would probably not be as problematic if Catholicism wouldn't appear in the denominations tree. I may be wrong but I have the impression that in common language the word 'denomination' is primarily used within the context of Protestantism. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if it were so that Catholic denominations fail to use the term "denomination," it would not make them any less a family of denominations. If, however, you think of another term for denominational families that you like better for both Catholicism and Protestantism, just propose it as a change. tahc chat 16:47, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't see a problem with the term denomination here. It's "Catholic denomination" that's a problematic combination, since it doesn't have no counterpart in the article realm and thus borders WP:OR. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:58, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The Handbook of Denominations in the United States is a standard reference book you can find in an public library. Your think that the RCC cannot be called a denomination then you should give us some RSs to that fact. It currently appears to be merely your POV, and OR. tahc chat 21:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Let's not get distracted. The starting point was that merging Category:Catholicism into Category:Catholic denominations is not a good idea because Catholicism is broader than Catholic denominations and afacis that argument is still in place. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * No that is not the starting point-- it is only your POV.
 * The starting point is that Catholic denominations needs to be part category system for all Christian denominations-- so long as Catholicism are still part of Christianity. If you want to try to claim that they are not part of Christianity, then you can try, but let us not have any of this talk about them not being denominations. tahc chat 16:06, 27 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Support I don't usually favour fudges in names, but in this case, I prudent fudge is justified. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. gidonb (talk) 09:28, 22 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:Eastern Catholicism

 * 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. No reason was offered for naming this category to a different format from its subcats such as Category:History of Eastern Catholicism. If it was intended that they should be renamed too, they should have been tagged and listed as part of a group nomination. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 9 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Eastern Catholicism to Category:Eastern Catholic Churches
 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant category per WP:OVERCATEGORISATION - essentially the very same scope. Article Eastern Catholicism redirects. The scope that arguably isn't overlapping with Category:Eastern Catholic Churches is if so overlapping with the legitimate category Category:Catholic particular churches sui iuris. Thus redundant in any case. On a further note, Category:Eastern Catholic Churches now has interwikilinks seemingly mostly to fr:Catégorie:Église grecque-catholique and other language equivalents. That is a problematic categorisation in French and other language version Wikipedias, but that is another discussion. Category:Eastern Catholic Churches should instead inherit the interwiki links currently situated at Category:Eastern Catholicism. A change of this top category ought also affect all the category tree so that the categories subject to the top category would also change formula from "Eastern Catholicism in X" to "Eastern Catholic Churches in X", etc.Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Procedural Comment Can this nom proceed without the children being first nominated? For example Category:Eastern Catholicism in Egypt would need to be changed to Category:Eastern Catholic Churches in Egypt. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:50, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess so? You're free to contribute in order to fill in any gaps you observe, though. For the rest, WP:NOTFINISHED. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I have added a note on that this ought to be done as well. Not sure how to go about formally proposing multiples entries in this same proposal, though. If anyone knows how to do that, please feel free to go ahead in this very proposal. Chicbyaccident (talk) 13:27, 4 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support per leading article and WP:OVERLAPCAT. gidonb (talk) 09:35, 22 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:Website article topics with top-level domain names

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:12, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting website article topics with top-level domain names


 * Propose deleting website article topics with .gov domain names


 * Nominator's rationale: These are very unusually titled categories and it's unclear what they are intended to contain and how they are intended to fit into the category structure. DexDor(talk) 07:55, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete Per WP:SHAREDNAME. Sure, government websites tend to end in *.gov but we have exceptions like drba.net, navy.mil, and philasd.org. Better to category websites by what they are rather than how they're named. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:47, 25 October 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:Shinto in Asia

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. The article is already in Category:Places of worship in Singapore and the subcategories are already in Category:Shinto by country so there is nothing left to merge. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting shinto in asia


 * Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge the single article. As Shinto is essentially the folk religion of Japan and this basically reproduces Category:Shinto by country. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:24, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Upmerge to where? If we're fitting this into the "by country" structure it looks to me as though the one article needs to go into a "in Singapore" category. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Religion in Singapore. It's already in another subcat of Category:Shinto. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Shinto by country, which already has much the same content. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 29 October 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:Maria-Chapdelaine

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Maria-Chapdelaine to Category:Maria-Chapdelaine Regional County Municipality
 * Nominator's rationale: I cannot fathom why anybody ever thought naming the category this way, or arbitrarily moving the head article from its prior title, was a good idea -- without the "Regional County Municipality" for disambiguation purposes, the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for this name is not the MRC, but the Louis Hémon novel Maria Chapdelaine and its multiple film adaptations. Furthermore, virtually all Quebec MRCs have the "Regional County Municipality" clarifier in both the page title and the associated category if there is one. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 24 October 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:Engineer characters in video games

 * 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) 06:53, 8 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Engineer characters in video games to Category:Fictional engineers
 * Nominator's rationale: Not a common theme in video games JDDJS (talk) 00:40, 9 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom. A category with 3 articles is typically too small by Wikipedia standards. It may have scope for expansion, but I an not that familiar with the subject. Dimadick (talk) 08:15, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Engineers I can think of who have their own article but aren't included in the category: Otacon. Engineers who are just redirects but might merit inclusion: Engineer (Team Fortress 2), Torbjörn (Overwatch). It kind of toes the line, but I feel like it could have potential for expansion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 01:53, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose - The category appears incomplete and merits expansion. There are many other engineers listed at list of fictional scientists and engineers in the "video games" section including ones with their own articles like Otacon and Tails (character). Clearly a common theme in video games, though not incredibly so.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 02:00, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @ZXCVBNM The list of fictional scientists and engineers video game section is completely unsourced. How many of the characters are explicitly called engineers, and are not just determined to be engineers by original research? For example, while I haven't played every Sonic game, in the ones I have played, I never remember anybody explicitly calling him an engineer. Yeah, he invents things and is very good at fixing mechanical machines, but he's already in Category:Inventor characters in video games and Category:Fictional mechanics to cover that. I have the feeling this is the case for a lot of the other characters listed on the page. JDDJS (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, after cleaning up the list with only mentions from RS it thins it out a lot. So I'll change my vote to upmerge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 03:28, 15 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Question meanwhile the category contains 13 articles instead of 3, this is no longer a case of WP:SMALLCAT, is it? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle I removed the characters that are never actually said to be engineers, and there are now only 9 pages in the cat, of which, more than half are redirects. Still no reason to not upmerge. JDDJS (talk) 20:10, 21 October 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.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 01:49, 24 October 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:Wikipedians who deny any involvement with the cabal
<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) 06:26, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who deny any involvement with the cabal


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Nonsense/joke category. VegaDark (talk) 01:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - pointless category JarrahTree 14:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a single-user joke category—the sentiment can be expressed on the user page (via userbox, fmbox, or some other notice) without generating a category grouping. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 26 October 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:Wikipedians with... oh, you get the idea
<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) 06:39, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians with... oh, you get the idea


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Nonsense/joke category. VegaDark (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - whimsical nonsense JarrahTree 14:42, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as a single-user joke/nonsense category—the sentiment can be expressed on the user page (via userbox, fmbox, or some other notice) without generating a category grouping. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:21, 26 October 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:Wikipedians who play Osu!
<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) 06:41, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians who play osu!


 * Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly facilitate collaboration. It does not help the encyclopedia to categorize users who play particular games. Extensive precedent to delete these categories; see 1; 2; 3. VegaDark (talk) 00:28, 24 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:48, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Yes I made the page. No one uses it anyway. You can go ahead and delete it. LakesideMiners (talk) 12:06, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom - no functional usage as a category JarrahTree 14:44, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete as having an overly narrow scope. Even if playing a game implied an interest in collaborating on articles related to it, any potential for collaboration is limited to just one or a few articles—with a few exceptions for expansive game series that have tens or hundreds of related articles. In this case, any collaboration would be limited to just one article and, therefore, could take place just as easily on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:22, 26 October 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.