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. – Fayenatic London 09:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Fantasy couture designers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not encyclopaedic, too subjective, no clear definition as to what a fantasy couturier is. To some people this will mean designers who focus on completely outrageous, barely wearable clothing (a la Guo Pei or Iris van Herpen) , to others this will mean anybody not a High Street everyday clothing brand. Much as I love an outrageous frock moment, I think this category weirdly manages to both be potentially too broad and too narrow at the same time. Mabalu ( talk) 23:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• While all that may be true, I created this category because the term "fantasy couture designer" tends to apply (in reliable published sources) to these individuals. While the nominator may feel the category is both too broad and too narrow (wha?), the published sources would seem to disagree: the category seems to be discrete if so far brief. A loose necktie ( talk) 07:29, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a too narrow, and mostly not defining characteristic (only the Bobby Love article mentions it prominently). Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:32, 9 Janguary 2022 (UTC)
• Comment -- Without a robust definition of "fantasy couture", inclusion is a POV-issue, which cannot provide a robust category. Alternatively it is a WP:PERF category if a designer sometimes produces this kind of couture. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• "...Mostly not defining characteristic..." - don't understand so can't respond; lack of a "robust" definition: there used to be one at fantasy couture until it was deleted. Don't understand how WP:PERF applies here at all, so again cannot respond. My emphatic disagreement with the deletion nomination remains unless someone can clarify both of these. A loose necktie ( talk) 12:07, 20 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• The concept of definingness is key to categorization so better read that first. Besides above I added an explanation between brackets how it applies here. Finally it is a bad sign that fantasy couture got deleted: if it does not even deserve an article, why would we categorize by it? Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:44, 20 January 2022 (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, excluding Developmental disability. – Fayenatic London 09:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Developmental disorders to Category:Neurodevelopmental disorders

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as a pointless category layer. Everything considered a neurodevelopmental disorder is also a developmental disorder, and "neurodevelopmental" is the most medically current term (per DSM-5 and ICD-11). -- Xurizuri ( talk) 13:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• If anything, reverse merge -- "neuro" refers to brain and nervous system, but the subject category covers a much wider range of disorders. For example, brittle bone disease is (I think) the result of a genetic disorder but not one related to the nervous system. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Brittle bone disease is entirely outside the topic area of (neuro)developmental disorders. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Developmental disorders is, as indicated by the banner on the category and supported by the article developmental disorder, a category relating to "development" in the psychological sense. That's why it's a subcat of neurodevelopmental disorders. I believe you may be getting this mixed up with developmental disability, which includes physical disability (e.g., brittle bone disease). I would argue that, if anything, this is a reason to merge, because of the risk of confusion. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 00:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Merge as nominated, the term "developmental disorder" is outdated ( ICD-10). Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Further comment - Developmental disability is within the category, which includes a string of physical disorder, many of which are genetic and physical, rather than mental or nervous. If the merge proceeds (as nom) the category will need to be purged or split. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:10, 9 January 2022 (UTC) reply
  • That's a good point - honestly though, that shouldn't really be in there either way. Developmental disability isn't a type of (neuro)developmental disorder, and it's already in the parent Category:Developmental disabilities which is more appropriate. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 11:22, 13 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Comment Whichever way the decision here goes we must avoid the all too common misconception that developmental disability is either synonymous with or a subset of intellectual disability. I have a congenital condition (birth defect) that fits the formal definition of developmental disability but it does not include any intellectual impairment at all. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:58, 12 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge per well reasoned argument to do so, and to make the scope more obviously clear. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:27, 26 January 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 02:59, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Novels about sociopathy to Category:Novels about psychopathy

Nominator's rationale: Rename, leaving a redirect. For Sociopathy we only have a section in the article on psychopathy, which explains that some writers use the terms interchangeably; so there is no clear distinction requiring two categories. Also, we have no parent Category:Sociopathy, compare to Category:Psychopathy and Category:Psychopathy in fiction. I have tagged this as rename rather than merge, as the older page should be moved over the newer one. However, the Wikidata item [1] should be merged to [2]. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Support (I think). Sociopathy vs psychopathy (and to a slightly lesser extent, vs anti-social personality disorder vs Callous and unemotional traits) is... a whole thing. However, the way the articles/redirects are currently set up places sociopathy as an alternative term for psychopathy, and because it's a whole thing, it's hard to draw distinctions. I potentially don't understand the technical implications of some of what you're discussing, but at the very least I would agree that these terms are used synonymous and the categories are redundant. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 13:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Merge these terms are sometimes used interchangeably, and sometimes used as two distinct thinks, but what the distinction is changes over time, the views of the user, and other factors, so they are not clearly distinct topics, especially in the case of defining the subject of fictional works. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:29, 26 January 2022 (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 and delete. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Historical events in the Habsburg Netherlands to Category:History of the Habsburg Netherlands
• Propose deleting Category:Events in the Habsburg Netherlands

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. There is no need to diffuse former countries as precise as modern countries. In this case it even hardly concerns a country, as it was merely one of the possessions of the Spanish Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy respectively. Note that the proposed merge will also leave Category:Events in the Habsburg Netherlands empty. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Support both per nom. Also, the subcats of the historical events category are already present elsewhere in the other subcats of the history category. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 00:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Merge/Delete There are not clear definitions to justify these separate categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:29, 26 January 2022 (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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons by Mdaniels5757 to Category:Wikipedia files reviewed on Wikimedia Commons

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if this empty category should be renamed, merged or simply deleted. I posted on User:Mdaniels5757's talk page, asking if this was a category created for a particular project he'd undertaken but he hasn't been active in over a month so I thought I'd bring this to CFD to see what the regulars here think and if you know what it is for. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:26, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Do not keep -- Such personal categories are not normally allowed. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:50, 7 January 2022 (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. ✗ plicit 03:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Gottfried Leibniz to Category:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
• Propose renaming Category:Gottfried Leibniz scholars to Category:Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz scholars
• Propose renaming Category:Works about Gottfried Leibniz to Category:Works about Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
• Propose renaming Category:Works by Gottfried Leibniz to Category:Works by Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, per WP:C2D (main article's name is Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz) Aza24 ( talk) 02:16, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• I added the sub-cats. Rename and redirect all. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Keep -- It will be necessary to leave cat-redirects otherwise. He is commonly referred to just as Leibniz, which is a redirect to the bio-article. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Rename and redirect all per Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. This is WP:C2D. Oculi ( talk) 18:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• We should follow the article name, per Oculi, but I am surprised that the article title is not Gottfried Leibniz, per WP:COMMONNAME. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC) reply

  I will just note that both Britannica, the SEP and two oxford bibliography entries ( [3] and [4]) have "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz" so if Gottfried Leibniz is indeed the common name (which I doubt), it is probably not so clear cut. Aza24 ( talk) 02:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• These may not have a common name policy. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:59, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Comment: the article was titled Gottfried Leibniz when I created the category in October 2006, but a requested move was made in May 2012 with a very odd rationale, and only two editors participated in addition to the move proposer, and the page was moved to the current name. I don’t believe the page should have been moved to the current name, but I rarely participate in such discussions these days. Viriditas ( talk) 09:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• It appears that on GScholar "Gottfried Leibniz" and "Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz" occur equally frequently, so I am not going to bother about it any longer. Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Speedy rename all to match the article title, per WP:C2D ... but for ease of use, please keep category redirects from the old titles.
  If the article title is changed, then the categories can be speedid gain to the new title ... but any discussion of the merits of the article title belong at WP:Requested moves.
  (Disclosure: I came here after Marcocapelle mentioned this discussion in a question posted [5] on my talk.) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Rename all per C2D; why do we even need a drawn-out discussion? If he is commonly referred to as Leibniz or Gottfried Leibniz instead of the current article title, then the correct procedure is to initiate a WP:COMMONNAME-based move discussion on the article itself and let the categories follow. — David Eppstein ( talk) 07:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Oppose Looking at the actual history I think we need an in-depth discussion on the article to see if the longer name is actually common. A two person discussion should not create a precedent that we follow without thinking. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 17:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC) reply
• Rename all to the article's name. This is clearly a case of routine WP:C2D enforcement that took so much time to close only because the discussion was about the proper title for the article itself. For whatever reason, it has been legitimately decided to have the article as Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Anyone who opposes the Category renaming should get busy with the process of renaming the biography article's title first. Then come back here and change the respective Categories' names. (The redirects help of course but are not the solution here.) No, please do not feel sour: Such are the inevitable, though minor travails involved in a worthy communal project such as Wikipedia. - The Gnome ( talk) 20:10, 28 January 2022 (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.