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 13:01, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, "texts" is a set category and a proper subcategory of "literature" as a topic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't think individual texts should be covered in a "literature" category. Dimadick (talk) 07:18, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- A better solution will be to move those things that are actually texts out of the target and into the subject. This is unfortunately an ill-defined tree, which may be combining hieroglyphic texts and Hellenistic (or later) Greek texts. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per others, but support some redistribution. Court records like the Judicial Papyrus of Turin are surely "texts" rather than literature, while the Book of the Dead is literature rather than (just) a text. Johnbod (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think various stelae or papyri (which for whatever reason were excluded, now included) may not rise to literature (any more than a stop sign, one's grocery list, or the law codes would). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:12, 8 October 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:Bangladesh lists of awards and nominations[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.
Weak support, afaics there are no other categories like this. I would not object if someone would create a full tree by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 4 October 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:4th-century BC disestablishments in Mexico[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:merge, anachronistic category, Mexico did not exist in the 4th century BC. This is the same as in this earlier discussion, it even concerns the same article. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This appears to have the only one item for the whole millennium. Can we have a follow up nom to get rid of what will be empty parents? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 4 October 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. MER-C 13:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, redundant category layer with the main article and one subcategory. No need to merge, the subcategory is already part of the tree of Category:Spaceflight in fiction. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, redundant.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:38, 4 October 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. MER-C 13:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: False Category. None of the shows listed are original programs by TV Asia. All of them are imports from India that have been syndicated in the US on said network. Acquired programming does not warrant a separate category. TheRedDomitor (talk) 14:58, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No original programing, and no sources to indicate otherwise. Dimadick (talk) 16:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree. Delete. Foxnpichu (talk) 16:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. To be fair, the rule once was that television series could be categorized for any television network that had carried them, regardless of whether it was as original or acquired programming — but we smartly tightened that up many years ago due to the category bloat, and this clearly fell through the cracks. Bearcat (talk) 03:34, 5 October 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. MER-C 13:20, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename, this is not clearly a set category that requires plural. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:56, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT renaming, per rationale of nom. (and I was apparently the creator of that subcat).
FWIW, the entire categorization schema of Category:Spaceflight is a large mess. It needs a lot of work to rationalize it all, and I have no idea how to get a group of interested editors to tackle such a large mess. N2e (talk) 15:30, 3 October 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.
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:no consensus, without prejudice to a new nomination proposing something different.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Found this via User:SDZeroBot/Category_cycles/1; as it stood the two categories were contained within each other. I broke the cycle as "art galleries" clearly form a subset of "art museums and galleries".
I believe the distinction being made here (at least in terms of how these categories are used) is that an art gallery is a private institution that sells art as well as displaying it, whereas an art museum is a usually public institution that primary displays works, and doesn't sell them. The problem is that that doesn't match with usual British English usage, in which "art museum" is rare and most organisations of the latter type are also called "art galleries" or simply "galleries". For instance, the Guildhall Art Gallery, the Dulwich Picture Gallery and indeed the National Gallery are all in the parent, so are presumably being taken not to be "art galleries" in the sense intended for this category.
I don't think my suggested title is great (many of what might be called "art museums" are private institutions) but I can't think of a better way to express the distinction. Nevertheless, "art museum" vs. "art gallery" isn't it, certainly in British English, which per MOS:ENGVAR we should probably be going with here. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 08:46, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The suggestion of "Commercial galleries" is the phrase I was grasping for, I think; nomination amended. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not really seeing the problem - all the museums are in the parent Category:Art museums and galleries in London, & I don't think the ambiguous/overlapping terms cause much of a problem. This is not a British English-only problem, as many American (and Australian etc) museums are called "gallery" too, not least the National Gallery of Art. It's certainly true that "art museum" is not idiomatic in British English, but apparently is in American. If a solution were needed, one might go to Category:Commercial galleries in London, which encapsulates the distinction better. Some private galleries are effectively museums. Many other cities have categories for eg Category:Art galleries in New York City and Category:Art museums in New York City - would these need renaming too? Consistency fetishists might argue so. Johnbod (talk) 12:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - New Zealand, where I live (and work in the arts) tends to use the term "dealer gallery" for galleries where art can be purchased. I'm pretty sure other countries use similar terminology. Would this be a sensible/useful way of splitting out (as subcats?) such galleries from institutions which display art to the public? Grutness...wha? 15:05, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not very usual in UK, I'd say. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bankside Gallery is not publicly owned in the usual sense - it's owned by a charity. Most of the time it exhibits works (usually by the members of the societies) for sale. I don't think there is a permanent collection (the societies may have stuff, but they aren't the same. Johnbod (talk) 03:38, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see no need to make this distinction. Debresser (talk) 22:48, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps it would make sense draw up another proposal to merge these two. Debresser (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since that would simply be another WP:CfD discussion, it seems like unnecesary bureaucracy to create another discussion for that. I'll clarify here that my argument is that:
having these two as separate categories with their current names creates avoidable confusion, and I believe something should be done to change this; and
I'm ambivalent as to whether the solution involves renaming this subcategory to better clarify its scope, or merging it with the parent on the basis that the distinction is unnecessary.
I am sorry, but pages like Afd, Cfd and Tfd are very formal and bureaucratic. You proposed a rename. It is unlikely that the outcome of this discussion will be a merge. But I have no problem with supporting it nevertheless: Upmerge into Category:Art museums and galleries in London. Debresser (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I had started a new discussion someone would have criticised me per WP:TALKFORK. If I'd waited until this one was closed and restarted it someone would have criticised me for not respecting consensus. Sometimes you can't win. YorkshireLad ✿ (talk) 08:55, 9 October 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge. MER-C 13:18, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for mayors of a city not large enough to guarantee the "inherent" notability of all of its mayors; even the one mayor who actually has an article to file here at all has it because he went on to serve in the provincial legislature, rather than for having been mayor per se, and the only other article here is a list. Full disclosure, I'm actually the original creator of this, a decade ago when our notability standard for mayors was an automatic inclusion freebie for all mayors of any city that happened to pass an arbitrary population cutoff -- but consensus has deprecated that, so there's no longer any guarantee that this category can ever actually be expanded at all. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, these are very small cats and there is no reason to call out particular local gvmt officials in the office of "mayor" from any of many other gvmt or civic roles to have its own category. N2e (talk) 15:27, 3 October 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.
The result of the discussion was:merge. – FayenaticLondon 08:34, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, possibly leave a redirect. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nuclear power is a sub-set of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy includes power (electric) and non-power (non-electric) applications such as district heating etc.. Ideally nuclear power should be merged into nuclear energy. TharikRish 20:43, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tharikrish, it's true that "power" in this case is a sub-set of "energy". However, there is no nuclear energy-related templates, which aren't about nuclear power. All templates in these two categories about nuclear power. Side note: nuclear power is the first item on the disambiguation page Nuclear energy. —andrybak (talk) 17:06, 7 October 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. MER-C 13:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. I'm surprised this wasn't changed at the same time. Grutness...wha? 04:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, obviously the category name should align with the title of the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - the earlier discussion was one of the more surprising decisions at cfd. Oculi (talk) 11:32, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the recent discussion. The last discussion on this one was in 2006. Btw, Bhg, your ping to me didn't work. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ping did not work for me either. No idea why it did not. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry Grutness! Johnbod (talk) 15:07, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about non-ping, folks. The edit in which I tried to ping is [1], which looks fine to me ... but if anyone can identify what went wrong, I'd welcome the diagnosis. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To match the main article. Dimadick (talk) 16:09, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, leaning towards a Keep: As I see it, this rests on two things – (1) consistency with the article title "The arts" and (2) consistency with the earlier discussion.
"The arts" might have been a stable article title for some time, but there doesn't seem ever to have been any discussion of whether it meets WP:THE. That page lists two conditions which usually have to be met for an article title to begin with "The", and "The arts" arguably doesn't meet either. The unstated rationale for using "The arts" seems to be to ensure that it looked as distinct as possible from "Art".
@BrownHairedGirl: I'm happy to take this to RM, but should I wait for this discussion to close first? Ham II (talk) 09:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ham II, if it goes to RM now, then this discussion would be effectively on hold pending its outcome. If this discussion closes first, then there is a possibility that this CFD may be need to be re-run after the RM, if the two produce different outcomes. So no neat opion.
Personally, I would oppose the RM, since it would create avoidable ambiguity in a title which is already terse ... and if the RM resulted in a renaming, I would still support having the category at "the Arts", because ambiguity is more problematic with categories. But that is my view, and if you disagree, then you are entitled to open an RM if you want to. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose removing "the" too. There's no doubt the usage, and distinction from "art" confuses those not used to it, but various attempts to mitigate that have failed - see most recently the related Talk:Art/Archive_3#Rename_of_art from June. Johnbod (talk) 14:15, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I've started the RM here. Sorry to hold this discussion up, but as so much of it is riding on the article title I think that at least needs to be stress-tested. Ham II (talk) 10:35, 10 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom -- This is an appropriate follow up to a nom on numerous annual, decade, etc categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 4 October 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.
