Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 23



People whose statue is in the National Statuary Hall Collection

 * 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) 01:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Category:People whose statue is in the National Statuary Hall Collection
 * Category:People whose statue was formerly in the National Statuary Hall Collection
 * Category:People whose statues replaced other statues in the National Statuary Hall Collection
 * Delete these recently created categories as overcategorization, specifically WP:OCAWARD : categorization by receiving an "award" functionally from a state legislature. Not a defining feature.  As a fallback, if deletion is rejected, at least upmerge the two child categories as a second preference; there's no need to separate them out, the category can be for everybody who was ever there.  Clarifying note: Category:National Statuary Hall Collection, which contains articles on the individual sculptures as works of art, is fine.  The above three categories are for the people themselves depicted in said statues.  That isn't really how Wikipedia does things.  Category:Sculptures of the Metropolitan Museum of Art is fine; Category:People depicted in sculptures at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, which would be placed on Jesus / George Washington / Herclues / Napoleon / etc., would be strange, as nobody thinks a defining aspect of George-Washington-the-person is that there's art of him in a museum somewhere.  And if these floodgates were opened, sufficiently famous people would have 40+ similar categories added to them.  These categories are already sufficiently covered by the list at List of sculptures in the National Statuary Hall Collection, which includes links to the people depicted there.   SnowFire (talk) 23:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep these categories. The National Statuary Hall Museum is not an art museum, as the older category (Category:National Statuary Hall Collection) suggests. It is a collection of statues honoring people each state has chosen to honor. This is completely different from people whose portrait happens to be in the Metropolitan Museum of Art. It is a collection deliberately created, and with a purpose: to honor selected Americans. Taken together these 100+ individuals define the United Ststes as much as the members of the Senate do, or more. By keeping them as a category we can conveniently add an important link to people like Florida’s humble John Gorrie, a physician who invented mechanical refrigeration and air conditioning. Saves adding a sentence to every one of the 100+ articles. The List of them does nothing to help the person looking at the article on a person depicted:
 * As I’ve done a lot of work on the history of taste, why some books are classics and others aren’t, why we listen to Mozart and not Salieri, it is valuable to know how the perception of who states want to honor changes over time. For example, it allows easy appreciation of the removal of Confederate figures, and an increase in women. The purpose of the two smaller categories is to allow changing values to be more easily perceived. To put them all into a single category “People whose statue was ever in tbe National Statuary Hall Collection" is taking chocolate and milk and making chocolate milk out of them: useful for some purposes, but not the same as having chocolate and milk.
 * If you look at the categories, bear in mind that they are not complete. I pretty much stopped working on them when it seemed this was coming.
 * I hope whoever reads this reflects on the impact these proposed deletions could have on my enthusiasm for editing Wikipedia. If you are interested, here is my home page: http://fsu.academia.edu/DanielEisenberg. deisenbe (talk) 03:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom while adding a line about this in every of the articles is the right way to go. Categories are meant to summarize an article, not to complement an article, so if there isn't even any mention of this in the articles it should by all means not become a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Listify and delete. The category system does not simply exist as a platform for creating lists of everything it might be possible to create a list of — we categorize people on their defining characteristics, not on every single fact that happens to be true about them. Obviously it's a relevant distinction for the purposes of article content, but it's not defining enough to require a category for it — we use mainspace list articles, not categories, to generate most lists of most things, while categories have to reach a much higher standard of definingness than just "there are people who can be filed in it". And the question of whether a person's statue replaced somebody else's statue, in particular, is the most spectacularly non-defining characteristic I've seen since at least the time somebody tried to categorize people by their blood type. Bearcat (talk) 16:32, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Per deisenbe, although the plea to his emotional support was less than ideal, the argument behind it is rock-solid.SuperChris (talk) 18:51, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete that isn't what makes these folks notable; presumably, it was their notability in other fields that got their statues put somewhere and taken out. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:26, 28 October 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

 * 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 NOV 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 6 November 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)


 * 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)


 * 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 Palestine

 * 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 NOV 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 6 November 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)


 * 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.

Foo in media

 * 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. Timrollpickering 11:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Army in films to Category:Films about the United States Army
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Armed Forces in films to Category:Films about the United States Armed Forces
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Air Force in films‎ to Category:Films about the United States Air Force
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Navy in films‎ to Category:Films about the United States Navy
 * Propose renaming Category:United States special operations forces in films‎ to Category:Films about United States special operations forces
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Army in fiction to Category:Fiction about the United States Army
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Navy in World War II films‎ to Category:Films about the United States Navy in World War II
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Navy SEALs in films‎ to Category:Films about United States Navy SEALs
 * Propose renaming Category:Delta Force in films to Category:Films about Delta Force
 * Propose renaming Category:Psychological operations of the United States Army in films‎ to Category:Films about psychological operations of the United States Army
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Army Rangers in films‎ to Category:Films about United States Army Rangers
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Army Special Forces in films‎ to Category:Films about United States Army Special Forces
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Marine Corps in films to Category:Films about the United States Marine Corps
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Marine Corps in popular culture to Category:Popular culture about the United States Marine Corps
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Marine Corps in comics‎ to Category:Comics about the United States Marine Corps
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Marine Corps in television‎ to Category:Television about the United States Marine Corps
 * Propose renaming Category:United States Marine Corps in video games‎ to Category:Video games about the United States Marine Corps
 * Propose renaming Category:Magic in fiction to Category:Fiction about magic
 * Propose renaming Category:Alchemy in fiction‎ to Category:Fiction about alchemy
 * Propose renaming Category:Curses in fiction‎ to Category:Fiction about curses
 * Propose renaming Category:Magic in comics‎ to Category:Comics about magic
 * Propose renaming Category:Magic in film‎ to Category:Films about magic
 * Propose renaming Category:Magic in television to Category:Television about magic
 * Propose renaming Category:Magic in video games‎ to Category:Video games about magic
 * Propose renaming Category:Psychic powers in fiction‎ to Category:Fiction about psychic powers
 * Propose renaming Category:Unicorns in fiction‎ to Category:Fiction about unicorns
 * Propose renaming Category:Superhuman features or abilities in fiction to Category:Fiction about superhuman features or abilities
 * Propose renaming Category:Curses in video games‎ to Category:Video games about curses
 * Propose renaming Category:Telekinesis in fiction to Category:Fiction about telekinesis
 * Propose renaming Category:Telepathy in fiction‎ to Category:Fiction about telepathy
 * Propose renaming Category:Psychic powers in television‎ to Category:Television about psychic powers
 * Propose renaming Category:Unicorns in television‎ to Category:Television about unicorns
 * Propose renaming Category:Unicorns in film‎ to Category:Films about unicorns
 * Propose renaming Category:Unicorns in popular culture to Category:Popular culture about unicorns
 * Propose renaming Category:Invisibility in fiction‎ to Category:Fiction about invisibility
 * Propose renaming Category:Time travel in fiction to Category:Fiction about time travel
 * Propose renaming Category:X-ray vision in fiction‎ to Category:Fiction about X-ray vision
 * Propose renaming Category:Time travel comics‎ to Category:Comics about time travel
 * Propose renaming Category:Time travel films‎ to Category:Films about time travel
 * Propose renaming Category:Time travel literature‎ to Category:Literature about time travel
 * Propose renaming Category:Time travel television series‎ to Category:Television series about time travel
 * Propose renaming Category:Time travel video games to Category:Video games about time travel
 * Propose renaming Category:Time travel in short fiction‎ to Category:Short fiction about time travel
 * Propose renaming Category:Time travel novels to Category:Novels about time travel
 * Propose renaming Category:Time travel television episodes‎ to Category:Television episodes about time travel


 * Nominator's rationale: As per Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 2, better to make it clear that categories of this nature are to be applied when a subject is the primary focus of a work of fiction, not an incidental element. DonIago (talk) 16:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it make more sense to use "in television" as a parent category for the other one. There are Tv movies/documentaries and individual episodes of other series that could use the "in television" category.★Trekker (talk) 17:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure I'm following you? These nominations (more added since your original comment; sorry, I wasn't finished at the time) are about making it clear that these cats should be used when whatever element is primary to the medium rather than allowing for incidental mentions. What did you have in mind? DonIago (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I seem to have missinterpeted the move category direction. I thught it meant "television series".★Trekker (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. No, it's just "Foo in medium" to "Medium about foo". DonIago (talk) 19:26, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, this rename will result in more clearly defining categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * small Comment – need to fix up Category:Film about unicorns... should be Category:Film about unicorns —Joeyconnick (talk) 22:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Quite right! DonIago (talk) 02:13, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support – sounds like a move in the right direction. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Foo about X is a bad way to categorize; if anything these should be listified and sourced. The Foo about X suffers from the inherent problems of subjectivity and overcategorization. How much about X must the Foo be to be included and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Take as an example: Category:United States Army in films, how many of the films are really "about" the army, rather than about other stuff where characters are "in" the army? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:36, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * My logic has always been "name of "X" in the title or it being explicitly stated in the article that it is about the subject.★Trekker (talk) 21:33, 28 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Clearer scope and easier for readers. Orientls (talk) 02:59, 31 October 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:Films about criminals

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:53, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting films about criminals


 * Nominator's rationale: This category appears underused, and it seems like if it were truly used, there would be a lot of redundant overlap with Category:Crime films, which will often feature criminals (along with the authorities). Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 15:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Object -- Category:Crime films is tagged as a container. If this one is really not required it should be merged, not deleted.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete suffers from the usual Foo about X problems, how much about "criminals" or a particular "criminal"? must the film be, and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC) As an example: what about All the President's Men (film), which is categorized as about journalists and journalism, but isn't it also about criminals? But alas, that - like the current categories - is just someone's opinion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:40, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Object Such a category is good to have as a parent category for more specific ones.★Trekker (talk) 21:35, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Object Crime films are not always from the POV of the criminal or even feature them as the main topic. Dimadick (talk) 08:22, 29 October 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:Urban transit advocacy organisations

 * 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. Timrollpickering 11:05, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Urban transit advocacy organisations to Category:Public transport advocacy organisations
 * Nominator's rationale: Urban transit is an American term. Public transport is more widely used in other places. Several of these organisations do not limit themselves to urban travel. Rathfelder (talk) 10:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Support per parent Category:Public transport. Oculi (talk) 11:52, 23 October 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:C. Wright Mills

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:55, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting c. wright mills


 * Nominator's rationale: too thin for an eponymous category. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:23, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Mills was an important figure in 20th century sociology. There are books that he has written and concepts that he has introduced that should make it into Wikipedia as articles (The Causes of World War Three and Listen, Yankee, for a start). By coincidence, I have recently started a draft at Draft:Abstracted empiricism, which has a heading in the Oxford Dictionary of Sociology. bd2412  T 12:46, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's no prejudice to recreating it if you can meet the threshold at Overcategorization. Now there are just two articles and a subcategory--that is not enough to justify an eponymous category. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:45, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * To be clear, if the category is clear, the subcategory would remain and be recategorized at some higher level of abstraction? bd2412  T 02:26, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep; a premier scholar in a major field, and many of his works will qualify for notability. Yes, there are two articles and a subcategory, but if you deleted the subcategory and moved all its contents into the nominated parent, you'd have six articles.  If he were responsible for a bunch of topics in disparate fields (rather than them all being things he'd written) that couldn't be placed in a single category, you'd either have more subcategories or more articles in the parent category; when deciding whether to have a category for a person, it doesn't make much sense to give less weight to articles on related topics than to articles on diverse topics.  Nyttend (talk) 22:00, 26 October 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:Daredevil seasons

 * 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 to merge, but rename to Category:Daredevil (TV series) seasons. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Daredevil seasons to Category:Daredevil (TV series)
 * Nominator's rationale: The parent category, Category:Daredevil (TV series), is rather small - it has only the main article, a list of its characters, and a media file - 2 articles and 1 file. Perhaps this category should be merged into the parent category, as it doesn't yet seem necessary to split the seasons into a subcategory. – numbermaniac  12:22, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Oppose: There is a scheme of Category:Television seasons by series in which this type of exception is allowed by WP:SMALLCAT. The scheme allows readers to easily navigate from seasons of one show to another. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:38, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support, per nominator's rationale. Matt14451 (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Oculi (talk) 11:57, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Daredevil (TV series) seasons. Retaining the category makes sense, but the parent category has (TV series), and "Daredevil seasons" sounds like they're some sort of seasons that people have called "daredevil"; my first thought was that it was for some kind of sporting seasons (e.g. "Ricky Henderson's top base-stealing season) or something else that fans might deem to have been "daredevil"ish.  Adding (TV series) will make the meaning unambiguous.  Nyttend (talk) 22:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Retain and rename per Nyttend. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:59, 2 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

 * 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 NOV 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 6 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)

 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)
 * 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)


 * 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.

Teachers colleges

 * 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: --Relisting. User:Good Olfactory (talk) 03:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC) at 2018 NOV 5 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Option A:
 * Propose merging Category:Teachers colleges to Category:Education schools
 * Option B:
 * Propose merging Category:Education schools to Category:Teachers colleges
 * Propose renaming Category:Education schools by country to Category:Teachers colleges by country
 * Propose renaming Category:Education schools in China to Category:Teachers colleges in China
 * Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Japan‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Japan
 * Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Poland‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Poland
 * Propose renaming Category:Education schools in Russia‎ to Category:Teachers colleges in Russia
 * Nominator's rationale: merge (option A) or reverse merge (option B). The previous attempt of merging Category:Education schools and Category:Teachers colleges failed, not because because anyone objected merging, but because there was an issue about the 'correct' name of the category. Here is a new attempt and please note that "no consensus" is worse than either of the two proposals because it will leave us with two categories with an identical scope. Also note that in option B a large number of country subcats have not been included in the nomination; the ones that have not been listed here should be decided upon individually, taking in mind WP:ENGVAR. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Option A - there are only 2 articles (one in Zimbabwe, one in Turkey) and no subcats in Category:Teachers colleges, created in 2016, long after Category:Education schools. Also Teachers college is a redirect to Normal school. Just create Category:Education schools in Turkey and Category:Education schools in Zimbabwe for the 2 articles. Oculi (talk) 21:03, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Option B:. I think "Education schools" invites misinterpretation. Rathfelder (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Prefer Teacher Training Colleges. I sampled a number of countries, mostly anglophone and Teachers' Colleges and Schools of Education (not Education Schools) seemed to predominate.  My recollection of UK system is that Colleges of Education and Teacher Training Colleges were free-standing institutions training school-leavers to be teachers, whereas Schools of Education were providing a post-graduate Certificate of Education to those with a Batchelor's degree in another subject.  Whatever the outcome, we need a single worldwide parent (and a "by country" parent.  The national subcategories should reflect national usage.  Categorisation should reflect their function, not their name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I Prefer Teacher Training Colleges, but this may be because I went to one. In the UK they were independent, but have subsequently become universities, or merging into them.  Previously the universities ran Schools of Education. But I think we should avoid using the word school, because it invites misinterpretation.  I think the word Teacher needs to appear.  And we need to make it clear whether this category includes only independent organisations or also departments of universities.Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 23 October 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:Months in the 2000s

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


 * The result of the discussion was: relisted with 2 siblings at 2018 November 19. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting months in the 2000s


 * Nominator's rationale: I don't really get the purpose of this category but I would like to have more experienced editors take a look <b style="color:#060">L293D</b> (<b style="color:#000">☎</b> • <b style="color:#000">✎</b>) 02:39, 12 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.
 * This category apparently contains a subset of Category:Current events archives. The decade category may make sense only/especially when somebody takes the effort to diffuse the entire Category:Current events archives by decade and turns the latter into a container category. For the nominated category, if kept, I would suggest to rename this to Category:2000s current events archives because the current name is very unclear. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment - there are earlier articles such as January 1900 which are very similar in content to Portal:Current events/January 2000. January 1990 is in contrast a redirect which could and should be categorised in Category:Months in the 1990s (which would not then be a subcat of Category:Current events archives, which starts in 1995). So I would keep the name in harmony with Category:Months in the 1970s say and add redirects for missing months pre-1995. Oculi (talk) 11:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support Category:Current events archives for 2000s or similar. Category:Current events archives is too big and needs splitting by decade.  Similar ones will be needed for 1990s and 2010s.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:03, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - there are already Category:Months in the 2010s and Category:Months in the 1990s. Oculi (talk) 17:29, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, but all they contain is "Current events archives". The emerging consensus seems to be to rename all to match that.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Either that (with redirects from Months to Current events), or the other way around, namely turning Category:Current events archives into a disambiguation page redirecting to the three most recent months by decade categories. There is no need to keep all of them, per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 25 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Reorganize We should just follow what Marcocapelle has suggested, of which is to standardize this section to fit with those used for the 1990s and 2010s. It is of the utmost importance that Wikipedia uses a unified standard for how articles are organized, and this reorganization would exceedingly beneficial in that regard.SuperChris (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename as Category:Current events archives for the 2000s or similar. Category:Months by decade is overkill and not even used in a standard way. Content related to Current events archives should be moved accordingly, and unrelated content should be removed, with other subcategories of Category:Months by decade probably deleted. Place Clichy (talk) 12:37, 13 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:BioWare companions
<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 NOV 5 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:BioWare companions to Category:Video game sidekicks
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT, the subject does not merit such an overly specific category. As far as I can tell, pretty much all Bioware characters who have articles here are party members for the main character's party. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:14, 3 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 Since I originally created the category, I figure I might as well give the context for why I made it. I noticed a lot of overall coverage of BioWare companions taken in aggregate -- who was the best, the worst, what were recurring archetypes BioWare used and how game romance was handled, etc. So I felt it made a degree of sense to just give that a category outside of the usual franchise-specific character ones. But yes, the vast majority of articles we have on BW characters are on companions -- the obvious exceptions being Revan, Commander Shepard and some of the listy character articles, but these are rare enough that, even for a hypothetical person just searching for info on BioWare companions, they probably wouldn't have much of a problem. On the record I do think the idea of RPG party members is probably distinct from the more general idea of a 'sidekick', though I'm not now actually advocating that be split into a separate category. – The Millionth One (talk) (contribs) 00:28, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, <b style="color:#4B0082;">ℯ</b> xplicit 07:10, 12 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) 00:01, 23 October 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.