Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 2
July 4 >

July 3[edit]

Category:1999 disestablishments in Nauru[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.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. CSD G7 Liz Read! Talk! 02:51, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was accidentally created by me due to a typo. When I made the article for the Nauru Local Government Council, I accidentally made the category "1999 disestablishments in Nauru" instead of "1992 disestablishments in Nauru". It is now an empty category. RoundSquare (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2023 (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:Charles W. Whittlesey[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous parent category for only two articles that are already in an appropriate subcat. WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:35, 3 July 2023 (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:Lounge music organists[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.
The result of the discussion was: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2023 (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:Lounge music pianists[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.
The result of the discussion was: Merge (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This category has only 1 entry. Estopedist1 (talk) 18:56, 3 July 2023 (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:Members of the Five Second Society of Wikipedia editors[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete per user assent. I also userfied the associated pages, and noted it at User talk:Captchacatcher#Five Second Society. Hopefully this will help avoid more XfD trips for the content in question. - jc37 09:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate Joke/nonsense/all-inclusive user category. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:43, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is nothing wrong with being inclusive. There are user categories which are practically more inclusive (most being more inclusive unless they have actually edited something...), such as:
{{User wikipedia}}
{{User wikipedia/Member}}
{{User:FormalDude/Userboxes/Not admin}}
{{User:NotAnonymous0/Userboxes/Administrator Bleh}}
{{User gifted}}
{{User alive}}
{{User dead}}
{{User human}}
{{User pulse}}
{{User:Youre dreaming eh?/Userboxes/Mortal}}
{{User on Earth}}
{{User from Earth}}
The last being a humor userbox separate from the one right before it. Captchacatcher (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a difference between a Userbox and a User category. This discussion is about deleting the category. - jc37 01:17, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I'm new to editing Wikipedia. What is the reason behind wanting to delete it? Is it different from this category: Five Year Society? Captchacatcher (talk) 06:36, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming you mean "Is it different from this category: Category:Members of the Five Year Society of Wikipedia editors", well I would be in support of deleting that category too but the differences are explained in the nomination: WP:Five Year Society is a real thing whereas WP:Five Second Society is a silly joke that includes every user in existence. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:48, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, only users that have actually edited something on Wikipedia, so probably a far minority of users. But I understand. I created it, just copying the Five Year Society, and if it isn't allowed you can remove. But is it fine if I keep the userbox without the category? Captchacatcher (talk) 01:43, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It should be. As I noted on your talk page, I went ahead and userfied it for you. I'll go ahead and close this and remove the category. - jc37 09:34, 11 July 2023 (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:American football teams in Europe by country[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The layer (Sport) teams by (continent) and country only exists in these three sports (American football, baseball, and ice hockey). It doesn't aid navigation as none would be near hitting 200 countries (American football 30, baseball 22, ice hockey 51). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 06:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:34, 3 July 2023 (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:Hard science fiction[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 11:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whether a given work counts as "hard" science fiction is subjective. Some of these articles may mention critics characterizing them as "hard", but most do not, with categorization instead representing individual editors' opinions. Even in the rare cases where "hard"ness is of encyclopedic relevance, it is generally not defining. This is better left to the lists at Hard science fiction § Representative works. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:17, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nederlandse Leeuw: Absolutely it would! That would allow for citations or other context for this label. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Listify "hard science fiction" is a genre, and works that fall under it generally are defined by it (WP:CATDEFINE). If it wasn't possible for people to define what specific works do or do not count as hard science fiction, then we wouldn't be able to make Hard science fiction § Representative works.
    I told Tamzin off-wiki that I would oppose a CfD nomination to simply delete the category, so here I am making good on that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:40, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:14, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 3 July 2023 (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:Executive power in Ukraine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19#Category:Executive power in Ukraine

Category:Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19#Category:Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine

Category:Philosophy writers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19#Category:Philosophy writers

Category:Ethicists by nationality[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus to merge per SMALLCAT. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:51, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nationality is not a useful subdivision for ethics, as most work in ethicscrosses country borders. Ethicists should be split by field, tradition (virtue, utlitiltarian, etc) or other related divisions instead. Most of these are also WP:SMALLCAT, and don't need to be merged to the relevant Category:Philosophers by country because those are also split out by century. - car chasm (talk) 03:02, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least the smaller categories with less than 5 articles, per WP:SMALLCAT, neutral about the others. They don't need to be merged to the relevant subcats of Category:Philosophers by nationality because they are already in there, or split out by century and nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SMALLCAT refers to "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". Lots of categories here have lots of potential for growth. Right now, for example, Category:Italian ethicists has three members. I suspect if you gave me half an hour, I could find dozens of Italian ethicists who are notable, I suspect I could even find a couple who already have Wikipedia articles but aren't in the category. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least the smaller categories with fewer than 5 articles per WP:SMALLCAT / Marcocapelle. if you want to have ethicists split by field, you should build up a new category tree rather than changing an existing branch of the well-established Category:People by occupation and nationality tree. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:20, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Ethicist" isn't a meaningful occupation for most of these people - the most correct description of their occupation is "philosopher" - so this doesn't actually belong in people by occupation at all. - car chasm (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is part of Category:Philosophers by field rather than in people by occupation. Articles about philosophers who were not ethicists should be purged, obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • While ethics is a branch of philosophy, not all ethicists are philosophers. For example, lots of political theorists, theologians, lawyers, historians of thought, or sociologists might meaningfully describe themselves (or be described as) ethicists. (Especially if you start thinking about subfields. Lots of medical ethicists are physicians, for example.) Insofar as it's worth splitting up academics by nationality (no strong view on this) I suspect it makes sense to split up ethicists by nationality, too. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:55, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        There are multiple meanings of the word "ethicist" but the meaning of this category is philosophers who study ethics, which is why it's categorized the way it is. Physicians don't belong in this category if they're not philosophers. - car chasm (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • Medical ethicists subcategories should be allowed though. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:39, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          • "the meaning of this category is philosophers who study ethics". There are many academics with 'ethics' in their titles who are not philosophers. (There are university departments with 'ethics' in the title that contain few, if any, philosophers.) I don't see any reason to exclude these ethicists from our ethicist categories, and I'm struggling to understand why you're claiming that we should. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
            Ideally we should have a category that reflects a single meaning of a WP:SHAREDNAME Since the category that is currently labelled "Category:Ethicists" is under the Category:Philosophers tree, that category should contain people who are philosophers. If we need to, we can make a new category for non-philosopher ethicists and disambiguate between categories so the meaning is clear, but we shouldn't mix them together. - car chasm (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category tree is evidently large enough to warrant splitting by nationality in addition to philosophy. However, some of these are WP:SMALLCAT, and should be merged. Here are all of the ones smaller than 5 pages, in reverse alphabetical order:
    –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at least the smaller categories with fewer than 5 articles per WP:SMALLCAT, as listed above by LaundryPizza03. No objection to recreating them if they grow to 5+ article though. A whole tree with many underpopulated cats doesn't aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please quote the part of WP:SMALLCAT you're referring to? Why do you believe that these categories have "no potential for growth", which is what WP:SMALLCAT is about? Josh Milburn (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging smaller categories, unless all are merged. The argument that we should merge the smaller categories appears to be based on WP:SMALLCAT. But "this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". Independent argument is needed that these categories do not have "realistic potential for growth". I many (most? all?) do. Josh Milburn (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example: I just added three existing articles to the Italian ethicists category. We have dozens of articles about Italian philosophers on Wikipedia, and many of them will be ethicists. And that's before we've even added (e.g.) Aquinas, Machiavelli, Cicero... (But I've not done that as I realise it might be a little anachronistic to call them "Italian", and I don't want to pick a fight.) Right now, the categories are underpopulated. But that's a reason to give them a little love, not a reason to delete them. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:02, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I favor keeping the Italian subcat based on those edits; thanks for improving the encyclopedia! - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • An underlying assumption in smallcat is that we're talking about a potential for growth in articles that actually belong in a category. WP:NONDEFINING is what defines whether an article belongs. While many (most?) philosophers dabble in ethics (as do some other professions), the number who focus on ethics and are defined by that specialty is quite limited. The crux of our disagreement is actually with WP:NONDEFINING, not WP:SMALLCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure; we can argue about who counts as an ethicist, and/or who should be defined as such. But I'm still not clear that you've actually provided an argument than any/many/most of these categories do not have "realistic potential for growth". Maybe some of them don't, but they should be explored individually. They shouldn't be deleted in one fell swoop just because they don't have lots of articles right now. The fact that you now support keeping the Italian category should surely make you pause. I only chose that one to populate a little more because I happened to create it... Josh Milburn (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • For most of the editing guidelines under WP:OC, a CFD decision would be based on the concept of a category like being subjective, or overlapping, or being a non-defining award and those problems typically wouldn't change even as articles are added and improved. With WP:SMALLCAT it's a predication about future growth potential that is subject to correction. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe so. But at risk of repeating myself: You've not offered an argument to support your "prediction", and, as I've shown with the Italian example, your prediction seems to be baseless in at least some cases. Josh Milburn (talk) 08:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge at most the smaller categories - there are 1214 people in Category:Ethicists, quite a lot, and I see no convincing reason why these should not be divided by nationality. A brief glance at the numbers suggest that many of them have not been subcatted by nationality. Petscan is a useful tool for this: This search finds 2 Norwegians. Oculi (talk) 23:36, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not quite know if e.g. bioethicians would belong in a (general) ethician category by nationality. Ethicians without prefix seems to suggest philosophers only. Bioethicians would surely belong in a bioethician category by nationality but that does not exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I see potential for growth. The definitional problem is a larger question and embraces the entire tree structure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose. Clearly part of a wider tree and does not fail WP:SMALLCAT. Nationality is not a useful subdivision for ethics, as most work in ethicscrosses country borders could apply to most occupations. People are generally categorised by nationality. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:03, 7 July 2023 (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:Nations at competitions[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19#Category:Nations at competitions

Category:Psychonautics researchers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19#Category:Psychonautics researchers

Category:Raygun Gothic[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created 2021, still completely empty. Its purpose seems to be to hold other broader categories; but those categories should just be on the Raygun Gothic article page, if they actually apply at all. The category itself is empty of articles. Quuxplusone (talk) 14:32, 3 July 2023 (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:Constituencies of the Parliament of the United Kingdom represented by a sitting prime minister[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: IMHO it's not WP:DEFINING for a constituency to have returned a prime minister. These constituencies share a historical coincidence. The existing list article List of United Kingdom Parliament constituencies represented by sitting prime ministers is a lot more useful. – Fayenatic London 13:51, 3 July 2023 (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:1960s assassinated Nigerian politicians[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparently abandoned category scheme; each has one article. Each article is already in a plethora of categories. Oculi (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2023 (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:Cola-like brands[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Category has already been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:13, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Undefined category. Blanked by Artemis Andromeda. What was included weren't even copies of Coca-cola and their selection wasn't clear (biased) to cola brands behind the Iron curtain. A09 (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the category were only 3 pages, all now moved to "Category:Cola brands". There wasn't any difference between those two categories. I support deleting Category:Cola-like brands. Artemis Andromeda (talk) 12:15, 3 July 2023 (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:German chroniclers[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:55, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Category:Belgian chroniclers being Alt Renamed (per Marcocapelle) in August 2022 to Category:Chroniclers from the Holy Roman Empire (because "Belgian" was found to be "anachronistic", and it was not possible to assign them to more specific lands such as Flanders, Liège etc.). Closely related to the ongoing CfR on "German chronicles".
The current cat exp reads articles about medieval and early-modern chroniclers from the German-speaking lands (why "German-speaking"?), but the Template:fooian fooers and Category:German historians put them in the Category:German people nationality tree (arguably anachronistic for all pre-1871 people in this category, which is probably all of them), while Category:Austrian historians (which will not apply to the vast majority of them) puts them into the Category:Austrian people by occupation tree (which goes back no further than the 16th century according to Category:Austrian people by century and occupation, although Category:Austrian historians goes back no further than the 18th century). One of the few "Austrian" chroniclers in this category is Jans der Enikel from Vienna, writing in Middle High German in the late 13th century (when "Austria" was still just the small Duchy of Austria around Vienna). Why should Jans be in the same category as, say, the 11th-century Adam of Bremen from the stem Duchy of Saxony writing in Latin? The only thing they have in common is being HRE subjects, not which duchy they lived in, nor which language they wrote in.
All this is really strange and silly. Language has nothing to do with this, especially if the chroniclers in question wrote in Latin, (Middle) French, Middle Dutch, etc. And we do not need to insert "Germany" or "Austria" before they existed. We should Merge them into the HRE chroniclers cat, and take them out of the German and Austrian nationality trees. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle, Rathfelder, Peterkingiron, RevelationDirect, and Johnpacklambert: FYI as you participated in the 2022 Belgian chroniclers CfR, to which this is a follow-up. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 11:58, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't checked all articles, but assume that they all refer to a pre-1806 period. Support per nom under that assumption. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Assuming there's a manual review for any outliers, this will be more historically accurate and match the earlier nomination. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2023 (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:Fantasy war films[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 01:48, 11 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT; most — if not all — of the articles in this category are also in war- or fantasy-related categories. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 05:03, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, it does not seem to be a subgenre in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete War is kind of inherent to the fantasy genre, especially high fantasy such as LOTR which has been quite genre-defining. I expect to see war in a (high) fantasy film. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:29, 3 July 2023 (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:National Highways in China[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 July 19#Category:National Highways in China

Creating an "Anime and manga about death games" category or renaming and changing the parent categories of the "Battle royale anime and manga" category?[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.
The result of the discussion was: Procedural Close (non-admin closure) This was more of a WP:TEAHOUSE type question and the answer was provided. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:39, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fiction about death games, which "should directly contain very few, if any, pages and should mainly contain subcategories," currently has a large number of articles about anime and manga in it. There is currently Category:Battle royale anime and manga, and some articles are in both that category and Category:Fiction about death games. Should a new "Anime and manga about death games" category be created, should the "Battle royale anime and manga" category be renamed and have its parent categories changed, or should something different (or nothing) happen? QuietCicada (talk) 00:31, 3 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_July_3&oldid=1166140688"