Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 6



Category:Redirected fictional character articles

 * 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) 00:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Redirected fictional character articles to Category:Redirects from fictional characters
 * Nominator's rationale: This category name is a relic from back when loads of fictional character articles existed and were merged/redirected in vast quantities. It's now added to any new redirect via Template:R from fictional character, which is misleading since a lot of the time a separate character article never existed. The new name would have parity with Category:Redirects from fictional locations and Category:Redirects from fictional elements. Xezbeth (talk) 20:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename, very sensible. Thanks for giving the history. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:56, 8 November 2018 (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:Characters created by J. J. Abrams

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:23, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting characters created by j. j. abrams


 * Nominator's rationale: How do we know that Abrams created every character in Lost, Fringe, and Alias? He may have co-created the shows and served as an Executive Producer but these shows lasted for years and Abrams most likely had less input as they went on. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom's rationale... seems like a relatively impossible property to verify. The category is probably more accurately "Characters from works created by J. J. Abrams", which is of dubious value. —Joeyconnick (talk) 18:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete as above. It's interesting to note that no-one has created redirects for Jaylah or Krall from Star Trek Beyond, which I was expecting to see here. Some things do change. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:59, 8 November 2018 (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:Spain under-20 international footballers

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Spain under-20 international footballers to Category:Spain youth international footballers
 * Nominator's rationale: There is a long established convention at WP:FOOTBALL that, in relation to international footballer categories, we use 'youth', 'under-20 or under-21' (whichever is the most senior youth level, as Africa and the Americas have under-20 and Europe has under-21) and senior - so for example, and . Spain, being a European country, has an under-21 team as the most senior youth level, and  exists accordingly. As such, we should not have a Spain under-20 category, and its entries should be moved to  and then this category deleted. GiantSnowman 16:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 16:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – the existence of this category would lead to hundreds more unnecessary ones being created for every country's under-16s, under-17s etc. etc. Jellyman (talk) 07:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support - as per Jellyman's rationale. It makes far more sense to place them all together. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose - category is large and well populated. There is no reason why this category cannot be a daughter category of Category:Spain youth international footballers. See Category:Association football players by under-20 national team for plenty of other examples. Moving all the articles in this category to Category:Spain youth international footballers will serve no purpose but to congest the latter. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 19:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * as explained, the long-establish ed convention for youth categories is to have the most senior youth level (either U20 or U21, depending on confederation - but for Spain, in UEFA, that is U21 and not U20) and then just 'youth' for everything below that. This category has been created and populated in error. GiantSnowman 19:29, 12 November 2018 (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:Wrocław University of Technology

 * 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) 00:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Wrocław University of Technology to Category:Wrocław University of Science and Technology
 * Nominator's rationale: The main article is Wrocław University of Science and Technology. Is there some reason for using different names?  Seeing that it's a potential translation issue (the Polish name for this subject is pl:Politechnika Wrocławska), I didn't want to submit this for a speedy rename. Nyttend (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Weak support, initially I was planning to recommend an RM on the article, but this university advertises itself in English under the extended name including Science . Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support. This is their official name in English per, so sure. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:28, 7 November 2018 (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:Performing groups disestablished in the 2010s

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting performing groups disestablished in the 2010s


 * Also nominating for deletion Category:Performing groups disestablished in 2018
 * Nominator's rationale: Has only one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:25, 6 November 2018 (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:NASCAR teams established in 2005

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:NASCAR teams established in 2005 to Category:Auto racing teams established in 2005
 * Propose merging Category:NASCAR teams disestablished in 2018 to Category:Auto racing teams disestablished in 2018
 * Nominator's rationale: Only has one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:09, 6 November 2018 (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:Dead (band) albums

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:27, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting dead (band) albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Albums category for an artist without an article. The entries here are two split albums that redirect to another notable band but with no info about the releases or this band. I removed the other parent categories except for "Albums by artist" since no sourceable info exists on the band in the English Wikipedia to be able to place it in genre/nationality categories. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 04:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete for the reasons stated by the nominator. I also recommend deleting the redirects for the album titles as well. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete - ridiculous. Oculi (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've been going through this editor's contributions and a dozen empty categories they have created. There are also plenty of ones that only contain one or two redirects. There are also categories like this for albums by bands who do not have their own Wikipedia articles. Dig into their contributions for new categories and you will find other ones similar to this one. I've left a note for the editor and he's been quite active this week so maybe he will offer a response and rationale. Liz Read! Talk! 04:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the category, as there is not an actual article about any of this band's recordings. However, I would not delete the redirects, as it is possible that somebody might search for them, or link to them from an article on a participating band/musician. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:06, 8 November 2018 (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:Gut (band) albums

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting gut (band) albums


 * Nominator's rationale: There are 17 redirected album titles in this category (and only those titles), all of which redirect to the main article, Gut (band), which offers little to no info about these albums beyond a discography section. Categorization of redirects can be useful but not when the entire set within the category point to the same article with nothing to say about those topics. As a reader, I find it extremely frustrating when clicking through such categories. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 02:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note For precedent, I nominated the category Category:Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash albums last June for the same reason, and the result was "soft delete". Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 02:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete - the redirects should also be deleted as there is no useful content for any of them. Oculi (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the category for the reasons stated by the nominator. The large number of redirects for album titles is a bit ridiculous, but they may all be valid search terms for whoever is interested in this band. ---  DOOMSDAYER 520 (Talk&#124;Contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the category, as there is not an actual article about any of this band's recordings. However, I would not delete the redirects, as it is possible that somebody might search for them, or link to them from an article on a participating band/musician. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:05, 8 November 2018 (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:Organisations based in the European Union

 * 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:Organisations related to the European Union. Timrollpickering 21:47, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Organisations based in the European Union to Category:Organisations relating to the European Union
 * Nominator's rationale: This is a rather tentative suggestion, but I think the point of this category is not about where the organisations are based, but about how they relate to the EU - and this would include a lot of lobbying, thinktank and commercial organisations. Rathfelder (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Organisations based in Europe, the relationship of these articles with the European Union is pretty weak. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:Organisations based in Europe includes thousands of articles, and is considerably wider, geographically speaking. There are actually quite a lot of organisations which relate to the EU, but there isn't a category for them. Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What type of relationships with the EU are they about? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)


 * There are actually only two articles in the category at the moment, but I've just found Category:Cross-European advocacy groups which I think is the same general idea, although there isn't an article to tell me what exactly is meant. I don't like its title because I don't know what it is supposed to mean, and of course even the term European is ambiguous. There is also Category:Pan-European trade and professional organisations.  Maybe Pan-European and Cross-European mean the same?  So I think we need at least a category relating to the EU, and perhaps another one (or more?), for organisations relating other, wider, conceptions of Europe. I guess most of the organisations I'm thinking about are based in Europe - in fact most are based in Brussels - but where they are based in not the basis of the category. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We already have Category:Bodies of the European Union and I am sceptical whether we need something in addition. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * That is for official organisations which are part of the EU. There are large numbers of lobbying and advocacy groups and the like which dont belong there.Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For sure advocacy groups don't belong there. But do they belong in a EU category at all? Can you give some examples of advocacy groups that exclusively lobby within EU government bodies? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It's hard to tell with advocacy groups whether they confine themselves to the EU, but many seem to focus on it. See European Union National Institutes for Culture, European Round Table of Industrialists, Gibraltar Stronger in Europe.Rathfelder (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ok, there may be scope for the category after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 27 October 2018 (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.
 * If anyone has been removing members since the nomination, please disclose it here. It currently contains 2 sub-cats and 2 pages. EU-Iran Forum is an event, not organization, so should be removed. OCTA is already in other suitable categories. I would delete the category, move Category:Bodies of the European Union up into Category:Organisations based in Europe, and nominate Category:Trade unions in the European Union for merger to Category:Trade unions in Europe. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I have now tagged the Trade unions category for merger. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Repurpose. There's definitely scope for a category related to the EU, but also scope for one for organisations based in the EU.  The latter should merely be a container category for "Organisations based in France", "Organisations based in Finland", etc., while the former should contain the organisations themselves.  Nyttend (talk) 15:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Fayenatic - delete this, move Category:Bodies of the European Union up into Category:Organisations based in Europe, and merge Category:Trade unions in the European Union to Category:Trade unions in Europe. Oculi (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator to Category:Organisations relating to the European Union, or preferably to ALT1' Category:Organisations related to the European Union. This is a distinct set, and either new title describes the contents better than current title. Yes, remove the trade union and the event, but a Category:Organisations related to the European Union is well capable of expansion, because there are many dozens of organisations whose raison de'etre is influencing or working with the EU and institutions, including the European-level political parties in Category:Pan-European political parties, which I have just added to the category. -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs)
 * PS Many of the organisations categorised under Category:Euroscepticism belong in a Category:Organisations related to the European Union, possibly grouped in a new Category:Euroseceptic organisations. It wouldn't take much searching to find many more sets of orgs for which the EU is a key focus of activity. -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Prefer Category:Organisations related to the European Union. I think Pan-European political parties will be about political groupings in EU Parliament.  Trades Unions are do not tend to be multi-national, so that that part will merely be parenting national items and perhaps Europe-wide coalitions of them.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 8 November 2018 (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.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timrollpickering (talk • contribs) 21:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Classical Palestine
<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 2018 DEC 3 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Classical Palestine to Category:Ancient Jewish Greek history and Category:Israel in the Roman era and Category:State of Palestine in the Roman era (the latter added 25 October)
 * Nominator's rationale: split, the word 'classical' is normally used only for the Greek and Roman civilizations as such (besides Classical Greece preceded Hellenism), I have never seen it been used for countries in the Middle East in the Hellenistic or Roman era. Since we already have a Greek and Roman category in this case, the content can simply be dispersed. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. You might also consider adding Category:State of Palestine in the Roman era. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yes, I've added this to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose - while Israel in the Roman era may imply to the Hasmonean Kingdom and Palestine in the Roman era may imply Roman Palaestina, the State of Palestine in the Roman era is a completely anachronistic notion. I do not like anachronistic categories. Period.GreyShark (dibra) 07:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Moreover I think that having both Category:Israel in the Roman era and Category:State of Palestine in the Roman era is far from ideal. They'd better be merged to Category:Palestina (region) in the Roman era). But discussing the targets needs to be done in another discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * You mean they both should be merged/split into Category:Judea (Roman province) and newly created category:Syria Palaestina. Roman Palaestina is referring to Syria Palaestina.GreyShark (dibra) 11:23, 31 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Palestine in the Greco-Roman era of which the Roman can be a subcat; there was neither an Israel or State of Palestine during the Greco-Roman era, and we have used "Palestine" for the English version of "Palestina". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Israel/Palestine was first occupied by the Syrians (Seleucids), then independent, and finally conquered by the Romans. Having a parent category for these three very different periods (other than an Ancient parent category) makes little sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * These alternatives wrongly conflates a "by region" tree structure with a "by modern state" tree structure. The two should be kept separate. This nom is about the region. Open separate discussions for the "by state" questions please. They also wrongly conflate different time periods when entirely different cultural pressures were brought to bear on the regions under discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2018 (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, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2018 (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:Classical Syria
<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 2018 DEC 3 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Classical Syria to Category:Syria in the Roman era
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, based on the category content this is apparently about the post-Seleucid, hence Roman, period in Syrian history. Further rationale see nomination below. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Classical Syria may imply Hellenistic Coele-Syria, Roman Syria as well as Byzantine Syria. May either be a disambig category or a group category on its own right (as it is now).GreyShark (dibra) 07:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean with "may imply"? Is it a characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having, per WP:DEFINING? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Category:Syria in the Roman era refers to Roman Syria and should be renamed.GreyShark (dibra) 20:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Syria in the Greco-Roman era of which the Roman can be a subcat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:27, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This suggests it was a single era, which is factually incorrect. In the Hellenistic period Syria was not Greek, it was an independent country and just had Greek cultural influences. That changed entirely when the Romans occupied the country. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 29 October 2018 (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, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2018 (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:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles
<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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedia categories that should not contain articles


 * Nominator's rationale: How is this different from Category:Container categories? Nowak Kowalski (talk) 13:08, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The exact meaning of this category is unclear, but it certainly isn't the same thing as container categories. For example, categories for dab/talk pages should not contain articles but are not necessarily container categories. DexDor(talk) 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose by lack of a clear rationale . It is the parent category of Category:Container categories, hence it differs by all the sibling categories of Category:Container categories. (Although I'm not sure why Category:Set categories has been put here.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Struck vote, below comments may give more food for thought. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment: I doubt that this category is actually helpful and would lean towards deletion, but a better rationale might be helpful. Catrìona (talk) 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The previous CFD had a more detailed rationale. DexDor(talk) 20:18, 6 October 2018 (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.
 * Delete as afaics this category is confusing without being useful for anything. It's confusing because it's not clear whether it's supposed to be for categories that shouldn't contain articles or only for articles that shouldn't directly contain articles. This category doesn't (e.g. from looking at inlinks to it) appear to be being used in any processes.  I haven't found this category useful (e.g. when creating User:DexDor/NSCat). DexDor(talk) 20:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - it is certainly confusing. Category:Set categories (which should be enormous but isn't) should be removed. There are categories of images and audio files which should be added. No idea whether it could be useful. Oculi (talk) 01:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 23 October 2018 (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.
 * I have removed Category:Set categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why? Category:Set categories "should not contain articles", it should only contain categories.  --Pascal666 22:24, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is highly confusing to have Category:Set categories as a direct subcategory of Category:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles because a set category is meant to contain articles. As the header says, "a set category is essentially a list of members of a particular group. A set category should only contain pages that are members of the group, lists of members of the group and subcategories containing those things." Instead, this category is a container category and should be in Category:Container categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Strongly Oppose Per Marcocapelle. SuperChris (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. Category:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles is sensible container category, grouping several several different types of category which should should not contain articles. It does exactly what it says on the tin, so I am unsure why the nominator finds it unclear. -- Brown <span style="display:inline-block;transform:rotate(-3deg)">Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 18:41, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * See my comment above re what's unclear about the category scope. Would you be in favour of similar "should not contain" categories (rather than or instead of lists) for dab pages, templates, talk pages, user pages ...? DexDor(talk) 22:03, 10 November 2018 (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 associated with oil shale
<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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People associated with oil shale to Category:Oil shale researchers
 * Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, and per WP:OCASSOC. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2018 (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.
 * Comment. Not sure if Alexander Carnegie Kirk, Alexander Selligue and Fredrik Ljungström (not included in this category but should be) will fit in this category any more if renamed. They are engineers who developed shale oil extraction technology, not oil shale researchers. Renaming will exclude also oil shale industrialists and business persons if relevant articles would be created in the future. Beagel (talk) 17:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
 * How about -- Category:Oil shale researchers and developers. Several were engineers, but involved in its industrial development.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't have a Category:Researchers and developers tree. DexDor(talk) 17:14, 11 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Support creation of Category:Oil shale researchers (somewhere below Category:Researchers), moving appropriate articles down into it and then upmerging the "associated with" category. If rename-and-tidyup achieves the same thing then support. DexDor(talk) 17:14, 11 November 2018 (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.