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: The two members of this category have been redirects for the past 7 years. They both failed notability criteria, so a specific category for them isn't needed.
The1337gamer (
talk)
23:37, 29 November 2015 (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:Super Monkey Ball games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Reverse merge because the games category is well-populated. Which practically means, delete the parent - the one article of the parent category is already in the header of the nominated category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:35, 8 January 2016 (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:Pharaoh and Cleopatra
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.
Category:Lists of films by common 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.
Nominator's rationale: Created back in 2007 -- and kept twice at Cfds that year. This category was followed a year later by the proposed target for the merge, Category:Lists of films by topic. There has never -- far as I can tell -- been a discussion about merging the two, or why we need both. We have an extensive category structure for all manner of things by "topic." We do not, far as I can tell, have a larger "common content" category structure, and probably for good reason. I work quite often in the films area and I really can't tell from the category description why a List should go in one and not the other, and it seems to me that merging to the more defined "topic" might have the added benefit of discouraging people from creating trivial, indiscriminate lists of just about anything they see in films, which as we know, is a problem. For example see the deleted
List of films with boats, where this very category was cited as a reason to keep.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:55, 29 November 2015 (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:History of esports
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 for Now The Smallcat exception usually applies to the smaller subcategories, not the empty parent category. No objection to recreating though when some content appears.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
21:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to parent. However, should the spelling not be e-sports? I would also suggest that all the categories for years in esports up to 2005 (which currently have one member and no main article) should also be merged to their parent.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:40, 5 December 2015 (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:Guitar Hero people
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 The current category structure serves to link a notable player to a businessman who was involved with the company that made the game. This connects unlike articles for no good reason.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:26, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Support alternative to merge the category and its subcategory, per Peterkingiron. I've added a CfD template to the subcategory just now, so this discussion shouldn't be closed for another week.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:55, 11 December 2015 (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:Grand Theft Auto (video game)
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
WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these categories has either one or two members with no potential growth. It would be more appropriate to categorise by the parent series category rather than individual games.
The1337gamer (
talk)
18:41, 29 November 2015 (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:People with dissociative identity disorder
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: I have emptied this category and moved all but one entry to
Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder. This title is more specific and is less likely to be prone to editors "assigning" persons to dissociative identity disorder who have not had definitive diagnoses. Being diagnosed with the condition is also a lot more clear-cut than having the condition.
This distinction is important in the case of the article
Shirley Ardell Mason. While Mason was definitely diagnosed with DID, this diagnosis is controversial (see
discussion in article). Using this wording for the category name avoids Wikipedia having to take POVs on whether such diagnoses are correct.
LukeSurltc16:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep By the same argument there is a place for a category of pages about people with DID: those who have published books and given interviews on TV. That they have DID is not disputed.
67.0.98.166 (
talk)
16:41, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
You're right, I didn't read this nomination carefully enough. My apologies. Usually categories aren't emptied before these discussions occur.
LizRead!Talk!14:05, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; also I am not sure that the "diagnosed with" is supportable either by
WP:NONDEFINING, when you think of Herschel Walker this is what comes to mind? Oh, and by the way he was a football player I gather. Others wrote books, and their "diagnosis" is not documented.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
01:38, 3 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete There are people who even question that DID actually exits. I had a pshycology professor at Wayne State University who was among those people who questioned it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:28, 5 December 2015 (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:Southern Alps
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.
Support regardless of the article name, the category is way too ambiguous to exist as is, since categories are not articles, and cleaning up misfiled articles is not a cheap single event action, but a repetitive constant patrol. Hatnotes on categories are not read by categorization tools, and do not appear to editors who slap categories onto articles when editing. There is no automated tool that can actually understand differences in categorization without IBM Watson level AI, which we do not code for onto our own private computers or run on the toolservers. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk)
04:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
There is absolutely zero history of categorization problems with this particular category. Proper categorization is not as difficult or as haphazardly applied as you make it sound. In my experience, having a main article and a category name that are different causes far more confusion and categorization problems than having a category name that matches the main article but is not 100 percent unambiguous.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose. The article is at
Southern Alps and is not going anywhere, it appears. It's far more confusing to have a category that doesn't have the same name as its main article than it is to have a category name that is not 100% unambiguous. Oculi cites "hundreds of examples", but there are other hundreds of examples that go the other way—
Category:Paris,
Category:London,
Category:Swansea ... As noted above, there is no history of application confusion with this category.
Good Ol’factory(talk)04:51, 7 December 2015 (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:Latter-day Saints portal
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.
I still oppose because I think that the renaming is unecessary work. It is very much work to do und is very complicated to rename so many subjects.--
Broter (
talk)
16:00, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
It seems we agree on the fact that the nominated category is for the LDS church and the renaming will be automated by the closing administrator, so it's not much work at all.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:56, 29 November 2015 (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:Survey of Hindu organisations
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: I'm not clear at all what this is meant to be, but it appears to be an attempt to categorize a variety of Hindu organisations, thus providing a category which is a "survey" or selection of Hindu organisations. If this is indeed what it is, it can just be upmerged to the parent category
Category:Hindu movements and organisations.
Good Ol’factory(talk)08:43, 29 November 2015 (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.