Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 2



Category:Redirects from likely search terms to Wikipedia content

 * 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  03:48, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting redirects from likely search terms to wikipedia content


 * Nominator's rationale: R from search term is a redirect to R from related word. However, I think none of the redirects included here fit that rcat and other ones should be used instead. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 22:13, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete It is assumed that all redirects are from plausible search terms, or else they should go to RfD. –LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄ ) 18:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete Notable articles, Category:Defining and this redirect are what content is supposed to be. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:41, 5 May 2020 (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:Protected redirects

 * 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 (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Protected redirects to Category:Fully protected redirects
 * Nominator's rationale: More precise and also less confusing as also exists and is a supercategory. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2020 (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:Redirects from other disambiguation
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 13%23Category:Redirects from other disambiguation

Cook Islanders

 * 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  03:49, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * to
 * Nominator's rationale: The usual adjectival demonym for people from the Cook Islands is "Cook Island foo", as is fairly common with island groups. This is explained at List of adjectival and demonymic forms for countries and nations and is the form currently used on around 105 other categories. Grutness... wha?   17:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename Doesn't seem to need the conversation. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I put it here mainly because it is sometimes hard for people to believe that the demonym is correct. Someone was likely to oppose a speedy. Grutness... wha?   03:29, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: The name of the group is Cook Islands; but the island group does not include a "Cook Island". The "list of adjectival forms etc …" gives the adjectival form as Cook Island – but although this disambiguation lists three islands it does not list any islands in the Cook Islands group (the largest island is Rarotonga); Category:Cook Islands is listed as "see also". Note that Category:Solomon Islands people and Category:Northern Mariana Islands people uses the plural "Solomon Islands" not Solomon Island etc. Hugo999 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Hi, you pinged me to see this (thanks for that) but I'm not sure what the take-away or action is. Can you clarify? Do you agree with the rename? Disagree? Do you have a better alternative? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Proposal:I suggest a reverse renaming i.e. Category:Cook Island people to Category:Cook Islands people and Category:Cook Island knights to  Category:Cook Islands knights etc. Hugo999 (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * So you propose we name them all incorrectly? Seems a bit drastic. The demonym is "Cook Island", and that's what we should use. I hadn't noticed that Solomon Islands was also incorrect - but that's the subject for a different CfD. PS - fwiw, I work with a number of Cook Islanders and they are insistent that "Cook Island people" is correct. Grutness... wha?   04:42, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - per, which comes to cfd every few years and survives. Oculi (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support - for "Cook Island" as a local accepted usage, although if changes were proposed for the Solomon Islands or the Northern Mariana Islands I would want indications that the proposals were local usage. Hugo999 (talk) 01:37, 13 May 2020 (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:Members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives from Dedham

 * 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  03:31, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives from Dedham to Category:Members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives
 * Category:Members of the Massachusetts Senate from Dedham to Category:Massachusetts state senators
 * Category:Members of the Massachusetts General Court from Dedham to Category:Members of the Massachusetts General Court
 * Category:Members of the United States Congress from Dedham, Massachusetts to Category:Politicians from Dedham, Massachusetts


 * Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to . These are the only political body by city/town categories I am aware of and they are a form of overcategorization. User:Namiba 15:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose There are literally hundreds of members of the legislature each year, and hundreds of years worth of representatives. I'd like to see similar categories for other communities as well. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * There would tend to be one in each house at a time, unless a legislative boundary went through Dedham and there would be two at a time.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * But quite often the person representing a community does not live in that community. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge We have categories for federal Congressional districts but I don't think such an approach is workable at the state legislature level. (Nor is that exactly what is happening here.) RevelationDirect (talk) 18:53, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * , Why not? There are likely to me far more state representatives from a particular location than federal representatives. -- Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 19:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I actually misspoke: we listify cognresspeople by Congressional district like in Massachusetts's 8th congressional district, which is the district Dedham is currently in. State Reps are elected by districts that move every 10 years based on the census so creating categories for every municipality in a state rep district would not be defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:02, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * That's not what we are doing here, though. We are listing people who live in Dedham who represented it in the General Court. If in this decade Dedham is in the first district but next decade it is in the second, the representative would still live in Dedham. It is as defining as, say, sportspeople who live in a given community. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 23:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The proposal includes a dual merge to so that aspect is covered. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Note I've added Category:Members of the United States Congress from Dedham, Massachusetts to the above nomination.--User:Namiba 15:46, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If this happens, I'd like to see them all merged to Category:Politicians from Dedham, Massachusetts as well. --Slugger O&#39;Toole (talk) 13:19, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I mentioned directly below the nomination that they would all be upmerged to that category.--User:Namiba 16:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. This is not a correct way to diffuse by geography. Place Clichy (talk) 13:49, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merge per all, bad method of categorization. ValarianB (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2020 (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:Animal rights 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: no consensus to delete, so rename. This close does not bar anyone from bringing selected cases back for further consideration. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:11, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Animal rights media to Category:Animal rights mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Vegetarian-related media to Category:Vegetarian-related mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Science media to Category:Science mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Biological media to Category:Biological mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Global warming media to Category:Global warming mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:NASA media to Category:NASA mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Paleontology media to Category:Paleontology mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Aviation media to Category:Aviation mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:BDSM-related media to Category:BDSM-related mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Car-related media to Category:Car-related mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Philosophical media to Category:Philosophical mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Dinosaur media to Category:Dinosaur mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Political media to Category:Political mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Professional wrestling-related media to Category:Professional wrestling-related mass media
 * Propose renaming Category:Underwater diving in media to Category:Underwater diving in mass media
 * Nominator's rationale: More to extend Categories for discussion/Log/2020 February 22. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: I used full CfD and not the speedy section because maybe some of these should maybe be changed stylistically and unified. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete all but the NASA category what makes media (mass or otherwise) "Dinosaur" or "Car-related" or most of the others? Dinosaurs don't have media (mass or otherwise), so this is in essence a "Media about Dinosaurs", etc. which suffers from the same problems all the "about" or "related" as in the titles of several categories: how do we objectively decide much about the subject must it be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. How far afield these things go is someone's opinion to include the Category:Ace Ventura in animal rights media. Really - isn't he more of a slave bounty hunter returning escaped animals back to their owners? I note that the NASA category seems to be media authored or published by NASA and that's definable. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I see this as a valiant attempt (by no means the last) to harmonise the names within rather than to justify each one and all its contents.  Oculi (talk) 12:42, 11 May 2020 (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:Historical European Commissions

 * 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 (talk) 14:15, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Historical European Commissions to Category:European Commissions
 * Nominator's rationale: Per convention of not splitting current and former. The present title excludes the current Von der Leyen Commission/Category:Von der Leyen Commission; the rename will fix that.  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:18, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Kaihsu (talk) 18:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Srijanx22 (talk) 04:11, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support to eliminate the illicit current/former split. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support, also eligible to speedy renaming per WP:C2D. Place Clichy (talk) 13:51, 8 May 2020 (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:English Jews of the Medieval and Tudor period

 * 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: split per user:Hugo999. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:English Jews of the Medieval and Tudor period to Category:Medieval English Jews and Category:Jews of the Tudor period
 * Nominator's rationale: split, it is very unusual to combine the Middle Ages with the Tudor period in one category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support Tudor period is between 1485 and 1603, while Middle Ages is roughly from the 5th to the 15th century. That would allow for a clean split, IMHO. Debresser (talk) 08:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Two different historical periods. Dimadick (talk) 18:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Not that split -- I am not sure that there is a need for this split: see History of the Jews in England. The Jews were expelled in 1290 and were largely absent from England between 1290 and 1655.  The appropriate split would be between Category:Medieval English Jews (to 1290) and Category:Hidden Jews in England (1290-1655).  The latter may well be a very small category indeed, but despite its small size should not be merged, as it will serve to show that Jews were absent from England in that period.  Indeed it may be that the nom's second target would be an empty category: Jacob Barnet arrived in 1812 and Antonio Fernandez Carvajal head of the Marrano community of Portuguese merchants in 1635 (see that article and History of the Marranos in England.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is a very useful comment, leading to me checking the articles one by one. We appear to have no articles about 14th- and 15th-century English Jews but we do have some from the Tudor period. Splitting in 1290 or splitting by medieval/Tudor has therefore the same effect. However, e.g. Joachim Gans was apparently not a hidden Jew in the Tudor period. So I think the split as nominated is still good enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)


 * ALT2 The period following the Medieval period (which is generally taken to have ended with the Fall of Constantinople in 1453) is the Early modern period. Split as follows: Category:English Jews of the Medieval period and Category:English Jews of the early modern period. Why the need for dynasties in one but not the other? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:57, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment Because in English history, the Late Middle Ages are considered to include the Wars of the Roses (1455-1487), while the subsequent Tudor regime is associated with social changes. To quote the main article: "Historians debate the extent of impact the wars had on medieval English life. The classical view is that the many casualties among the nobility continued the changes in feudal English society caused by the effects of the Black Death. These included a weakening of the feudal power of the nobles and an increase in the power of the merchant classes and the growth of a centralised monarchy under the Tudors. The wars heralded the end of the medieval period in England and the movement towards the Renaissance. After the wars, the large standing baronial armies that had helped fuel the conflict were suppressed. Henry VII, wary of any further fighting, kept the barons on a very tight leash, removing their right to raise, arm and supply armies of retainers so that they could not make war on each other or the king. The military power of individual barons declined, and the Tudor court became a place where baronial squabbles were decided with the influence of the monarch." Dimadick (talk) 21:06, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Reply couldn't the same for every other country? "We're different from the rest of the world. Period dating doesn't suit us, so we have to use dynasty dating.". Where would that leave us with a single, widely acknowledged dating convention? You might as well tear it up. And tear up "by century" categorisation as well because we're different. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:19, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support as originally proposed. Category:Medieval English Jews and Category:Medieval German Jews etc are the usual format for subcategories of Category:Medieval Jews - except for the caliphates. And Category:English Jews of the Tudor period seems acceptable as a subcategory of Category:People of the Tudor period (although the present category is not a subcategory of it!). Hugo999 (talk) 12:15, 6 May 2020 (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:Governors-General (Military Governors) of Moscow

 * 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 (talk) 14:16, 9 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Governors-General (Military Governors) of Moscow to Category:Governors-General of Moscow
 * Nominator's rationale: rename, the current category name is unnecessary long. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment and support I just opened the first article in the category, Jacob Bruce. It doesn't even mention that he was military governor of Moscow. It is mentioned only on one of the images in the article. Then I saw the same problem on te second article, Alexander Buturlin. Hm. In any case, per Mayor_of_Moscow I support the rename. Debresser (talk) 08:37, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * This Yakov Bruce never was a Moscow Governor. Other Yakov Bruce was appointed commander-on-chief in Moscow about 1781 (, Brockhaus and Efron Encyclopedic Dictionary). TarzanASG (talk) 14:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support as much better name. We might as well consider downmerging the parent . Place Clichy (talk) 14:32, 8 May 2020 (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:Municipal City Heads (gorodskoy golova) of Moscow
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 15%23Category:Municipal City Heads (gorodskoy golova) of Moscow

Category:First Secretaries of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 May 13%23Category:First Secretaries of the Moscow City Committee of the CPSU

Category:Politburo of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union candidate members

 * 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  03:44, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting politburo of the central committee of the communist party of the soviet union candidate members


 * Propose deleting category


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, we usually do not categorize candidates for anything. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete Clicking through these, this tends not to be mentioned like candidates for a general election would be. We also have Category:Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union candidate members. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have added that to this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Obviously keep. There is no any reason for deletion. In Soviet Russia... candiadte is not just candidate. It was the title of very powerful office, among the highest leaders of the country (see Politburo members and 27th Politburo organized as full members and candidates combined). In the same time, members of parliaments or nominal officeholders didn't have real political power, only Communist Party members made real and final decisions (I think it is similar system in China: Xi Jinping was finally chosen the next leader in 2007, but officially appointed only in 2012). For example, from Russian President's biography: "on 18 February 1986, Yeltsin was invited to become a Candidate (non-voting) Member of the Politburo. As a politburo member, Yeltsin was also given a country house (dacha) which was previously occupied by Gorbachev. ... At the next meeting of the Central Committee on 24 February 1988, Yeltsin was removed from his position as a Candidate member of the Politburo. He was perturbed and humiliated...". TarzanASG (talk) 08:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If I understand correctly, these candidates attended the meetings but were not allowed to vote. How powerful is that? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know about voting mechanism in Politburo, but full name is Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. All of them are voting members of the Central Committee. The most powerful members of the Central Committee were appointed as full members or they were appointed as candidates of Political Bureau of the Central Committee. Obviously candidates are less powerful than full members, but they are very powerful among ordinary members of the Central Committee. TarzanASG (talk) 12:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * You just quoted about non-voting power. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

Instead of taking offence, it would be better to withdraw the nomination. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 18:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep per TarzanASG. It's disappointing to see another nomination by Marcocapelle which wrongly assumes that the power structures of the Soviet Bloc mirror those of liberal democracies.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 11:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do not make unjustified speculations about my assumptions, keep to facts. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I was commenting on your rationale: we usually do not categorize candidates for anything. That's an assumption that the word "candidate" carries the same meaning as it does in other contexts, whereas in this case candidate status conferred a right to become active participants in the Politburo. That's wholly different to the status of e.g. candidates for the United States Senate or the House of Commons of the United Kingdom.
 * The second part of what you write here, suggesting that I think that it is not different to the status of e.g. candidates for the United States Senate or the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, is speculative and unjustified. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not speculative. Your nomination failed to note the distinction. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * The word candidate can be used in many different contexts. The fact that I am not describing all those different contexts should not logically lead to the conclusion that I am not aware of that. It was simply a case of WP:PERSONAL. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was a comment on your failure to note a crucial distinction. It clearly does not come anywhere remotely near the criteria set out in WP:No personal attacks, and it's sad that you choose to misrepresent my comment as if it was of that type.  --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 14:27, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * It was not a comment on any failure, it was speculation that I "assume that the power structures of the Soviet Bloc mirror those of liberal democracies". That is something completely different. Don't twist your own words. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I am not twisting anything.  If you believed that there was some material distinction between Politburo candidates and other types of candidate, then that should have been mentioned in the nomination to avoid misleading anyone.  I was AGFing that you nominated on the basis of a mistaken assumption about the power structures rather than by consciously omitting pertinent info. Sorry if my AGF was misplaced. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 17:51, 3 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I've looked at a sample of the articles and many don't mention this characteristic. For example, compare the text and the categories at Petru Pascari. Thus, I'm inclined to delete (or possibly purge or upmerge) on the basis on NONDEF. DexDor(talk) 20:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment My mind could potentially be changed with an affirmative argument to keep these categories: "These particular positions were defining in the Soviet Union because... " RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep. These ranks seem to be very notable positions in the Soviet cursus honorum. For instance, Felix Dzerzhinsky, a most important Soviet political figure, "only" made it to candidate member of the Politburo and was never a "full" member. Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 8 May 2020 (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:Snakes by common name
<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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  03:47, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Snakes by common name to Category:Snake common names
 * Nominator's rationale: Clarity and consistency e.g. with Category:Reptile common names. DexDor(talk) 07:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename Doesn't need a full conversation. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:59, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 10:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Seems very close to WP:SHAREDNAME. Is that fact that a snake has a common name, and that Wikipedia has chosen to locate its article on that critter at that address, not at its scientific name, really defining for the snake? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Indeed - whether an article about a species (etc) is (currently) at a common name or the scientific name shouldn't affect what categories the article is in (it's the same topic). Articles about species (e.g. Yellow-naped snake and Javan spitting cobra) have been removed from this category on that basis. The rename to avoid "by" (and subsequent changes to the category text) may make this clearer.  The pages remaining in this category are things like Fox snake. DexDor(talk) 05:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've added garter snake and gopher snake, the latter a redirect to an article named for the genus - which ought not make a difference because where WP puts an article is immaterial to its inclusion, right. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:41, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why the gopher snake redirect would be in this category - it's not (a redirect to) an article (e.g. an SIA) about a snake common name and there are hundreds of similar redirects. DexDor(talk) 06:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Support, consistent with names of similar categories. Plantdrew (talk) 01:55, 11 May 2020 (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:Associations
<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 action, further nomination required. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:48, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Associations to Category:Voluntary associations
 * Nominator's rationale: Match the mainspace page Voluntary association. Association is a disambiguation page. The headnote says this is for unincorporated associations, but most of the members seem to be incorporated. Most of the members appear to be voluntary associations. The natural meaning of "association" is fairly ambiguous, leading to many pages being included here just based on their names. Jfhutson (talk) 01:57, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Question The headnote's "unincorporated" associations is definitely out. What's the plan with he continent/country subcategories if this passes? RevelationDirect (talk) 07:17, 2 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I think the biggest subcategory is probably Category:Professional associations and they dont really fit happily in to Category:Voluntary associations.Rathfelder (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Trade associations also do not fit in voluntary associations. Nominator has a fair point that this whole tree seems to be a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Perhaps we should merge it to Category:Organizations by type and/or Category:Organizations by subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Marcocapelle. As it stands it's a mess. Rathfelder (talk) 16:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm up for a split proposed above by Marcocapelle or some other fix. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:27, 10 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Keep for now, and discuss how to merge this with Category:Organizations by type and Category:Organizations by subject. In principle, I agree with the split that Marcocapelle has suggested; however, I think that those two target categories themselves have almost no difference and should be merged in some way (I think "subject" to "type," considering scope and also creation date), and so deciding how to split the contents of Associations between the two is a fraught venture. I'd really like to see all three of these merged together into one category, but I think that's a better topic for a future discussion.  bibliomaniac 1  5  17:51, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Merging Category:Organizations by type and Category:Organizations by subject is a whole different issue imho. To me it seems rather obvious that Category:Professional associations should go to Category:Organizations by type because that one is cross-subject, and all the other subcategories from Category:Alumni associations to Category:Trade associations should go to Category:Organizations by subject. However, there are a few other issues with these associations. The articles that are directly in Category:Associations should be moved to somewhere in the organizations tree, that should be done manually. Even more problematic is the fact that all subcategories of Category:Associations by country and Category:Associations by continent should be merged to their cousin in the organizations tree, so this actually requires a batch nomination. Procedural question: should we expand this nomination, or should this nomination be closed and a new nomination be opened? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:14, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think this should be closed and a completely new nomination opened.  bibliomaniac 1  5  02:37, 16 May 2020 (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:Prometheus Award-winning works
<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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  03:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Prometheus Award-winning works
 * Propose Selectively Upmerging the following to Category:Libertarian science fiction books: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12
 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Prometheus Award winners
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
 * The Prometheus Award is for libertarian science fiction and I can certainly see how libertarians would be inspired by resistance to government overreach in Fahrenheit 451 and It Can't Happen Here but neither work presents libertarianism as the alternative. And neither conservative Ray Bradbury nor progressive Sinclair Lewis are even remotely defined by this libertarian award. The authors who are libertarian are already well categorized but the minority of these books that are explicitly libertarian should stay in the category tree. The contents are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * *RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear fail of WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OCAWARD. Congrats to RevelationDirect for their good work in bringing so many of these non-defining awards categories to CFD. --  Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A typical OCAWARD case. No need to listify as there is a good list in Prometheus Award.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2020 (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:Literaturpreis der Reichshauptstadt Berlin Award-winning works
<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. For reference, in case anyone wants to make an article about this in the future, the only entry in this category was Hasko.  bibliomaniac  1  5  03:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Literaturpreis der Reichshauptstadt Berlin Award-winning works
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and WP:NONDEF (WP:OCAWARD)
 * In lieu of a Literaturpreis der Reichshauptstadt Berlin Award main article, the actual category has an introduction that explains this is a German award issued from 1935-40. I can't definitively say that this award is non-defining but there is nothing in English Wikipedia that even hints it might be. There's only one article here so there's really nothing to listify. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * *RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:41, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NONDEF (WP:OCAWARD). As background Literaturpreis der Reichshauptstadt Berlin exists in German wikipedia and none of the other authors has an English wikipedia article. TSventon (talk) 12:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl  (talk) • (contribs) 12:34, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Articlise the category as suggested. The German WP (though I do not understand the language) indicates this was a national prise of the Nazi era and that there is scope to expand the list.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 4 May 2020 (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.