Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 7



Category:Fishing companies

 * 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: do not merge. MER-C 09:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Fishing companies to Category:Seafood companies
 * Nominator's rationale: Only 5 articles. Seafood companies is much better populated, and there is considerable overlap. If agreed the subcategories can speedily follow. Rathfelder (talk) 18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * No problems, seeing that seafood is the larger category (better populated to me is an oxymoron), although I do not personally think that 'seafood' per se is a 'better' term. JarrahTree 23:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I would be quite happy to rename them differently, but while some of the seafood companies clearly do fishing, some dont. Rathfelder (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * weak oppose While I recognise that there is a commonality there is also a distinction between seafood companies and fishing companies in that a seafood company doesnt necessarily engage in the physical activity fishing. Fishers are also a subset of primary producers, and seafarers. Seafood companies may not primary producers, nor will they be seafarers, additionally seafood companies can be exclusively wholesale suppliers, and retailers. Gnangarra 09:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Gnangarra's argument of a clear distinction between actually fishing and selling fish. Dimadick (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, none of the three articles really belongs here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep -- There is a clear distinction between companies that buy and market fish when it is caught and the fishermen who catch it. The fish commonly in my country (UK) goes through an auction market between.  The problem is that most companies owning trawlers are too small to be notable.  I am not clear how fish farming is organised, but suspect that this also does not involve notably large companies.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The latter is exactly the problem. It obviously leads to the question why this category should be kept. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I was surprised how few articles there are about fishing companies. If we get more we could revisit this, but for the time being I think fishing companies as a subset of seafood companies, and some of them clearly catch or raise fish as well as selling them. Rathfelder (talk) 18:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Agree fishing companies are smaller than seafood companies, fishing companies are commonly involved in at sea events either as victims or as rescuers. The loss of vessels & crews are note worthy events, the fact that its a hole in Wikipedia's coverage doesnt change any that. Gnangarra 04:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
 * The discussion convinces me that the issues raised in fact put question to either keep or merge - a common problem with a huge range of quite inappropriate category trees from the very beginning where maritime activities never had adequate review...(or since) JarrahTree 15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose These are occasionally overlapping but logically distinct concepts. For example, a company that makes rods for recreational fishing is not a seafood company. SFB 11:57, 15 September 2019 (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:Durham University cricketers

 * 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. MER-C 10:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Durham University cricketers to Category:Durham MCCU cricketers
 * Nominator's rationale: It is not Durham University Cricket Club which has had first-class status since 2001, but Durham MCCU (and as it was known prior to 2011, Durham UCCE). This would be in line with other MCC University categories such as Category:Oxford UCCE cricketers (which really needs renaming to Oxford MCCU cricketers), Category:Cambridge MCCU cricketers and Category:Cardiff MCCU cricketers. StickyWicket (talk) 17:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nominator. Johnlp (talk) 23:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:55, 8 September 2019 (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:Jawaharlal Nehru Award laureates

 * 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. I'll place this on the manual page in case someone wants to make a list. MER-C 10:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting jawaharlal nehru award laureates


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, many articles do not even mention the award, e.g. Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete (listify if necessary). This is clearly an award largely being given as part of diplomacy to foreign heads of state etc.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:30, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete the award is not defining enough to recipients to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 14 September 2019 (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 contributing under Creative Commons

 * 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 per option A. MER-C 09:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons to (A) Category:Wikipedians contributing under a Creative Commons license or (B) Category:Wikipedians who contribute under a Creative Commons license
 * Nominator's rationale: Creative Commons (CC) is the organization; contributions are made under a CC license. I am neutral on "contributing" versus "who contribute"—most of this tree uses "contributing" but there are more categories overall that use "who contribute" (see here).
 * Also... While they are not part of this nomination, I would also appreciate thoughts about the subcategories. Which format should they use? (1) Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons #.# (2) Wikipedians contributing under a Creative Commons #.# license. (3) Wikipedians contributing under CC #.#. (4) Wikipedians contributing under a CC #.# license. If you would be kind enough to indicate 1, 2, 3, or 4, I will start a follow-up nomination once this one closes. (Pinging the category's creator, User:HarJIT) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support (A) as the most natural phrasing. I'd leave the idea of whether this tree should be split by specific license to the users actually making use of it. SFB 11:59, 15 September 2019 (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:Maney Publishing academic journals

 * 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. MER-C 09:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Maney Publishing academic journals to Category:Taylor & Francis academic journals
 * Nominator's rationale: Per . Maney has been fully acquired by T&F and every journal they had is now published by T&F directly. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment It's a bit more complicated than that. Journals in the humanities and social sciences (such as Dutch Crossing) are now published under the Routledge imprint and should be categorized in Category:Routledge academic journals. --Randykitty (talk) 07:52, 15 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment Routledge is a T&F imprint. Randykitty's point is a good one, but the outcome should still be to eliminate the subject, but this may need to be done manually by categorising them according to their current imprint.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure the distinction is meaningful much. If you go at and you select 'Journals', you're taking to T&F. If you go to product search and you search for Dutch Crossing you find nothing. The only indication that Routledge is involved seems to be minor branding on the cover. But sure, merge those from Routledge to Category:Routledge academic journals. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:18, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:04, 23 August 2019 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, the infoboxes in most of the articles still need to be updated. Once that is done, it will become clear which article should be moved to which category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Though some are published under the Routledge imprint, that imprint still belongs to T&F, thus recategorisation to T&F is valid. Let the topic experts categorise these articles more finely, if desired. SFB 12:01, 15 September 2019 (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:Mario Party 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: rename. MER-C 10:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mario Party games to Category:Mario Party
 * Nominator's rationale: The "games" disambiguation is unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:44, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. –LaundryPizza<b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 21:08, 7 September 2019 (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:Zone of the Enders games
<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. MER-C 09:22, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Zone of the Enders games to Category:Zone of the Enders
 * Nominator's rationale: Originally a game series, it does not require a games subcategory. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:12, 22 August 2019 (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, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose the series combines both games and anime, thus the category split is appropriate. Compare for example Category:Silent Hill games. SFB 12:04, 15 September 2019 (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 interested in the French Empire
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in European colonial empires. MER-C 10:35, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in the French Empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in colonial history
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in the German Empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in colonial history
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in the Portuguese Empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in colonial history
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedians interested in the Spanish Empire to Category:Wikipedians interested in colonial history
 * Nominator's rationale: merge to a new category. Every of the nominated categories has only 1 or 2 members, of which 1 Wikipedian, User:Jethwarp, is interested in all four. Category:Wikipedians interested in the British Empire‎ can be added as a subcategory of the new category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with the rationale, but suggest an alternative merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in European colonialism (see European colonialism) or Category:Wikipedians interested in European colonial empires (see European colonial empires). "Colonial history" is too broad, in my opinion, as colonialism has occurred throughout history across virtually all cultures and geographic regions. The new name should reflect the fact that the scope of interest is specific to European colonialism. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:39, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Category:Wikipedians interested in European colonial empires is a better alternative indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 26 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Disagree - My suggestion would be that not to tweak with separate country wise Empire categories like Category:Wikipedians interested in the French Empire Category:Wikipedians interested in the German EmpireCategory:Wikipedians interested in the Portuguese Empire and one can create  Category:Wikipedians interested in  colonial history and add all these categories into it and even Japan Colonial Empire/Russian/ China or others like Sweedish Empire / Ottoman Empire / Danish Empire / Dutch Empire can be added.The point in argument is that a British citizen may be interested in British Empire histrory but not in history of Spanish or French and vice -versa. Thanks Jethwarp (talk) 03:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * The British Empire is not included in this nomination. There are more than enough wikipedians interested in that topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Less people interested / more wikipedians interested distinction cannot be applied as criteria for nomination, I feel a uniform rule should apply to all category Jethwarp (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Amount of interest certainly is a criterion. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 29 August 2019 (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, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support for all those nominated (except one) Jethwarp is the only person categorised. I agree that Category:Wikipedians interested in European colonial empires might be a better target, but have no strong view.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:35, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support merge as insufficient members to warrant these Empire-specific categories. SFB 12:06, 15 September 2019 (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:Listed buildings and structures
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country. Categories listed at WP:CFD/W/M. (non-admin closure) ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 22:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Listed buildings and structures to Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register
 * Nominator's rationale: If there's supposed to be a distinction between these two categories, it's not evident. Not quite sure which way the merge should be done, but since the Listed buildings article is UK-specific, I'm suggesting the older cat be retained in order to avoid confusion. Paul_012 (talk) 22:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
 * PS Most of the content which should probably fall under this tree is currently categorised under the sister cat Category:Heritage registers by country. Ideally, there'd be a distinction between the categories containing the buildings and structures and the categories containing the list articles for each register, but since, in most cases, both seem to be categorised under the same eponymous categories (e.g., Category:Listed buildings in England contains both the subcats for the buildings and for the lists), perhaps we could forego the distinction and accept that everything be categorised under the same tree? --Paul_012 (talk) 22:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose - we have Category:Heritage registers, with its subcat scheme Category:Heritage registers by country: perfectly standard. IMO there should be no listed buildings within it as a listed building is not a heritage register. Category:Buildings and structures by heritage register should be a subcat scheme for Category:Buildings and structures; maybe it should be renamed to Category:Listed buildings and structures by heritage register. It is also standard to include lists with articles, usually sorted at the top, eg . Oculi (talk) 08:53, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oculi, I understand your oppose is in response to my additional post script remarks? What about the original proposal for Category:Listed buildings and structures? --Paul_012 (talk) 11:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge, do not oppose reversed merge, for example Category:Listed buildings in Sweden has not been diffused by heritage register so it should not be moved under a by heritage register parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That makes sense. Also, subcategorising by country would probably be a better option, seeing as there don't seem to be any categories that cover international heritage registers. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Support some merger but not necessarily as nom . The appropriate target would by one with a "by country" split (together with World Heritage sites.  Listed buildings is indeed a UK concept, but it looks as if there is something similar in Hong Kong and several other countries.  I think US has buildings on NHBR (I may have the term wrong).  In England, the buildings appear on a list maintained by Historic England; in Wales by CADW; and other bodies elsewhere.  To say this is not a register is mere semantics (nit-picking).  The next split below a national one should be by register.  In UK siblings include registered parks and gardens and scheduled ancient monuments.  The category suggested as a target is the parent to a tree that needs tidying up, so that there is only one Hong Kong child and one UK child.  I appreciate that some of my suggested siblings do not necessarily concern buildings and structures.   Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
 * voted again below.

<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, MER-C 09:00, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Suggest merging both to Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country as a container for various national categories. This target would need some restructuring.  The headnote should explain that it is intended to include all forms of legal protection, whether formally listing, scheduling, or registering.  Where a country has multiple registers (as UK does), there will need to be a national parent covering all the registers, etc.  Part of my objective is to have something that American buildings on historical registers can be parented by.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not against this variant, but it does require supplementary restructuring indeed, so if this goes ahead it should probably be listed at WP:CFDWM. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Peterkingiron's alternative, as nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:48, 22 September 2019 (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:Mamluk architecture in the Palestinian territories
<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. MER-C 10:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mamluk architecture in the Palestinian territories to Category:Mamluk architecture in the State of Palestine
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Category:Buildings and structures in the State of Palestine, etc. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename per WP:C2C. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per WP:C2C. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:14, 8 September 2019 (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:Australian architecture by period
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 10:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Australian architecture by period to Category:Australian architecture by style
 * Propose merging Category:Danish architecture by period to Category:Danish architecture by style
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; in the first case, the one sub-cat is already in the target, and in the second case, the one sub-cat is a style rather than a date range. – Fayenatic  L ondon 06:44, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Note: the parent Category:Architecture styles by country, which may be speedily renamed to Category:Architecture by country and style, contains several other national categories "by period" or "by period or style" that should be renamed or, in some cases, split. – Fayenatic  L ondon 03:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, these categories only contain a Renaissance Revival architecture subcat, which is more a matter of style. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2019 (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:Fictional rogues
<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. MER-C 10:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting fictional rogues


 * Nominator's rationale: Unclear scope, two contradictory descriptions. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. I have removed one description, which was mischievously added by an anon (who also vandalised Rogue Pictures). The remaining description "good at hissatsus" is unclear; if it refers to hissatsu series, it does not seem suitable for categorisation. There are currently only three member pages. Consider emptying (not merging) and redirecting to Category:Villains. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:31, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete this is an often used term, but has no agreed upon definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 14 September 2019 (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:Fictional people
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge. MER-C 10:19, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Fictional people to Category:Fictional characters by attribute
 * Nominator's rationale: "People" is not descriptive of this category's contents, since the majority of the Category:Fictional characters tree is not specific to human characters. (In fact, a large section is specific to non&#8209;human characters — see Category:Fictional characters by species.) No clear distinction from Category:Fictional characters by attribute. –<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b> ( d c̄ ) 04:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. In theory I could see scope for Category:Fictional people as opposed to fairies, aliens etc. but currently things got diluted too much. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:09, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Support, seems valid and helpful. After merging, redirect to Category:Fictional characters. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:26, 14 September 2019 (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.