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.
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:55, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: "Problem solving" is an extremely vague way of describing a television series and inclusion criteria are unclear as "problem solving" tends not to be used to describe shows in reliable sources. The current entries seem to be a fairly random selection of shows and in my opinion none of them have "problem solving" as a defining characteristic of the show. I think shows would be better categorised using other categories. 86.23.109.101 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Created by a user Band1301 (talk·contribs) blocked for disruptive edits and ignoring warnings. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Very vague name - and anything which could accommodate shows ranging from Growing Pains to Taskmaster is too broad to be of any use. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ill-defined category. Dimadick (talk) 12:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:56, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:Chamber virtuosi of the Duke of Parma[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 Rathfelder (talk) 19:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, in addition it does not concern a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment all three were opera singers, so that I am not sure that "artists" is quite right, as I would expect it to refer to the graphic arts. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds fine to me. Rathfelder (talk) 21:55, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That surely is an improvement. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:09, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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 (no opposition), but nominated category was empty at the time of this close. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:19, 11 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:52, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are trivial intersections of ethnicity and profession. Diplomats represent nation-states, not ethnic groups. User:Namiba 19:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, trivial intersections with ethnicity are against WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Per WP:OCEGRS and because diplomats are already coming from one nationality to another nationality (which often overlap with ethnicities) so this is just going to be a jumble. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:17, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an unfair, rude, and uncalled for personal attack. I did not create any of the sub-cats here. Mr. Simpson should cease and desist from his rudeness, and failure to assume good faith.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per nom. I find the attack on me for properly placing categories in an appropriate parent category uncalled for and unjustified. It is rude attacks like Mr. Simpson has perpetrated on people who try to rationally build categories in a connected way that undermines our ability to have civil discussions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 11:00, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Per this discussion, the current name of the category implies that the cat contains articles about leaks, rather than video games that have been leaked. I'm also not opposed to deleting this category if that's where consensus goes, but I'm not as familiar with those guidelines so I won't speak to that. Alyo(chat·edits) 19:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and non-defining.--User:Namiba 19:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and non-defining. Would a screenshot or something two days before announcement make a game qualify for this? ~ Dissident93(talk) 22:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining and trivial. --Le Panini[🥪] 02:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as trivial and non-defining. --Just N. (talk) 11:01, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Category contains 2 redirects only. No navigational help. Richhoncho (talk) 18:54, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Two is too few. ~ Dissident93(talk) 22:19, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 11:28, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now These places had more than five mayors but most would not be notable. No objection to recreating any if they exceed expectations and ever get to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Merge — Thanks, I'd found it not long ago, intended nominating it later after all the other deathly stuff. William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:11, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Additional layer adds complexity without aiding navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agreed with each of the above. This category adds no value. Kestenbaum (talk) 05:59, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Unlike the singular "god", the plural "gods" clearly refers to the non-monotheistic deities. Similarly, the parent category is "gods". Therefore, it doesn't need the disambiguation like the main article would. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, "fictional gods" may imply male and female fictional deities together, but perhaps we do not need the distinction by gender anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support A male deity is a god. Dimadick (talk) 12:29, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 11:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Unless it's a gendered occupation, which there is a separate category for, these cross-categorizations are not notable. I.E., there is nothing special about a male detective that makes it necessary to have an X+Y category instead of being in both category X and category Y. Any subcategories should be merged into the relevant non-gendered parent category. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:10, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose, we need to discuss the subcategories either all in conjunction with the two top categories (with the risk of a trainwreck), or in multiple smaller nominations before we finally discuss the two top categories. Deleting the top categories before we delete the subcategories does not make any sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Marcocapelle's oppose. Jumping the gun here somewhat. ImaginesTigers (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as we have Category:Men by occupation and Category:Women by occupation it's difficult see why fictional people should not be similarly categorised. There would be an argument for using men and women rather than males and females. Oculi (talk) 02:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeRename both to Category:Fictional men by occupation and Category:Fictional women by occupation respectively Match and integrate into the non-fictional trees. There are some subcategories using "male" and "female" in the non-fictional trees. However, unless it is a gendered occupation, some of the subcategories should be deleted as a separate nomination. But let's be honest, we're not likely to get rid of Category:Female superheroes, as there are very few and the gender is notable. William Allen Simpson (talk) 22:33, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been told once that fictional categories use "male" and "female" rather than "men" and "women" because some fictional characters are anthropomorphic rather than human. This is just for info, I do not actually oppose the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've changed to oppose. It does seems reasonable to use male, female, hermaphrodite, et alia. Perhaps the standard tree is wrong? Where do we discuss such things these days? OTOH, it is "Wonder Woman". William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:32, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment OCEGRS means we do not put individuals directly in categories that say men or women, only in categories that have an overlap of occupation (broadly defined) with sex. This is why Category:American women is supposed to be a container category. I am not sure if OCEGRS applies totally to articles on fictional beings. However since these or just contained categories, they do not violate OCEGRS rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The rationale is incomprehensible. Dimadick (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:AfC pending submissions by age/2 weeks ago[edit]
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.
Delete per nom, or otherwise turn into a parent category of the relevant per day categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 11:36, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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:Honorary Members of Xirka Ġieħ ir-Repubblika[edit]
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.
Background In the past, we've deleted dozens of similar categories for high ranking visitors and those nominations are listed right here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Delete, per nom. In addition there is no article about the medal, which should be a prerequisite in such cases. Nigej (talk) 08:14, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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.
