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 two should not be merged as one category is for the women's team and one is for the men's team. The main reason the women's category should be renamed is that it is currently at Category:Kunlun Red Star, while the article Kunlun Red Star redirects to the men's team. Joeykai (talk) 22:23, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Joeykai: It's not currently there; your speedy renaming nomination was processed.
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 -- This is an aberrant category. Most similar ones were converted to the target format several years ago. Care is needed in this case as many Armenians (members of the ethnic group) have no direct connection with the present republic of Armenia. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 3 June 2019 (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, unusual categorization since we normally use "LGBT" as the umbrella term of gay males and lesbians. It is also a recreation of a previously deleted category. Note that the two subcategories are already in the tree of Category:Fictional LGBT characters so merging is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:33, 25 May 2019 (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.
REname -- Rector appears here to mean the head of the university. In England, he would be Vice-Chancellor; elsewhere Chancellor or President. I suggest the neutral Category:Heads of universities in Northern Cyprus. It should be possible to populate it. The one person was replaced in 2010 and then became a Rector in Istambul. His successor may not have an article yet, but probably should and there appear to be several more universities in the same unrecognised polity. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename in some manner. Scope and size issues aside, "Rector of Northern Cyprus" sounds like an Anglican priest (not particularly sensible in Northern Cyprus) or a government position. Use "university rectors..." if the category remains. Nyttend (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2019 (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: With the only content being an albums subcategory, convention has just been to place it in the eponymous category (when an eponymous category is warranted). This just adds an unnecessary level of navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me21:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category contains two subcategories, so works need to be kept separate so that they can be placed in the established "Works by..." category tree. --woodensuperman12:27, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But they are only albums as opposed to books written or films directed. This scheme suggests every music artist with "albums" and "songs" categories should also have a parent "works" category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me23:18, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Then the "works by" scheme needs to be taken to a higher venue for discussion. The "albums by artist" and "songs by artist" scheme (interlinking to one another) has worked fine for years, and a "works by musician" as a parent for each one of those artists is just an unnecessary layer of categorization. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:52, 16 May 2019 (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.
Oppose. The Corps of Army Music is not a band, it's a corps; every British Army musician is a member of it. This category is part of the Category:British Army soldiers tree, which refers only to non-commissioned soldiers, as opposed to Category:British Army officers (although there is currently no Category:Corps of Army Music officers, there could be). The nominator should have done a bit more research before including this category and it should be removed from the nomination. But in actual fact, there's no need to rename any of them. The current titles are the best. Military musicians are commonly called military musicians, not military band members (bandsmen once upon a time, yes, but that's generally been superseded) and putting them in Category:Musicians by band would be completely inaccurate. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not know that about the Corps of Army Music. Happy to back away from that one if the others pass. What I'd say to your greater point is that "musician" is not a rank in the US military. It's a job like cryptographer. So I could see Category:Military musicians staying as is. But the bands themselves are bands. Membership in them is not a job, it's an assignment. My somewhat tautological suggestion is that we should categorize these bands like bands because they're bands. And bands are categorized as "(band name) members."--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2019 (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: In line with the main article and updating the fundamental concept. Hospitals in this century are not generally managed as self contained entities. If this proposal is accepted we may then want to consider whether any of the subcategories should stay as they are, or whether they should all follow suit. Rathfelder (talk) 08:40, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Hospital administrators are a subset of Healthcare administrators. Oviously they're related, but they're not one and the same. As the Intro to the main article says, Healthcare administration includes several different fields: public health systems; health care systems; and hospitals and hospital networks.
Quite a lot of the existing articles are not about hospital managers, or are about people who managed both hospitals and larger systems, were directors of nursing (a distinct discipline) or were ministers of health. A category for people who just managed hospitals would not have many articles. Merging managers, administrators and medical administrators into one overarching category is a good idea if we can agree suitable words, but these things work differently in different contexts.Rathfelder (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2019 (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: The local authority in Cardiff is not known commonly or officially as the City of Cardiff Council. Unfortunately this doesn't meet the speedy rename criteria because I've recently moved back the main article to Cardiff Council, because of a previous rename (against consensus). In addition to the benefits of matching the current title of the main article, the category could potentially hold the election articles for the previous manifestations of the local authority. Sionk (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current Cardiff local authority governs a city and a county, and styles itself "Cardiff Council", so the situation in Cardiff is different from Birmingham. But certainly pre-1996 the district council was more commonly known as Cardiff City Council. I rarely come across the current council known by that name. Category:Cardiff City Council elections would be an improvement, but maybe even Category:Cardiff council elections (lower case) would be more flexible and acceptable. Sionk (talk) 23:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed; the council is currently branding itself as Cardiff Council. Elections to previous manifestations of the authority should be included in the category regardless of its naming, as is done for other local authorities (consideration should be given to merging all the articles on the various incarnations too). Number5712:34, 27 May 2019 (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 As the nom states it is not a defining characteristic of the film. The idea might work as a list article (if there isn't one already) but not as a category. MarnetteD|Talk04:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the fact that "Works adapted for other media" exists does not supersede WP:CATDEF and the video game adaptations are not a defining characteristic of the film. Again a list article is sufficient. MarnetteD|Talk15:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think one could argue that a work being adapted into an opera is a more rare and notable occurrence. As for the rest, I'd have to give them some thought. If you want to open CfDs, nobody is stopping you. :) DonIago (talk) 07:29, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I think one could argue that a work being adapted into an opera is a more rare and notable occurrence." That would actually be grounds for deletion for opera-related categories. In Wikipedia, "rare" translates to "small category". Dimadick (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but also clarify and restrict scope. I think this is a defining category, BUT, be more blunt that this category is for Actual Released Video Games directly of the movie (or perhaps the movie series, The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (video game) being two movies in one game), not merely related fluff or a multi-media franchise (e.g. Pokemon films). I think a good gauge is if there is a stand-alone blue-linked article for the related video game and said game is clearly based on the movie and not the franchise in general or a loose "inspired by" deal. SnowFire (talk) 20:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom. This category is about a non-defining characteristic of these films and shouldn't exist as a category. If someone wants to make a list article of these films, that's their personal choice. Newshunter12 (talk) 23:39, 16 August 2019 (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.
Note: the fact that "Works adapted for other media" exists does not supersede WP:CATDEF and the novel adaptations are not a defining characteristic of the film. Again a list article is sufficient. Gottaa strike this as a list article of these would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE in the extreme. MarnetteD|Talk15:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is 100% a nonefining characteristic for an individual film and does nothing but create overcategorization and confusing cases/debates like when a film/other work is "partially based" on something. A work does not change because it has been adapted into another media, its like if we had Films that have been remade category.★Trekker (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2019 (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: I don't see how being a motion capture actor constitutes a defining category, especially as motion capture use seems likely to only become more prevalent over time. DonIago (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep For consistency reasons. Though I have my doubts about the scope of the category. Is motion capture all that different from traditional rotoscoping? It has been in use since 1915, and has been used extensively in animation. Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps if the category was changed in scope to actors known primarily for motion capture and such? Though I'm not sure how one could make that verifiable. DonIago (talk) 16:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment One could also say that Theater and Television acting is not that different from Film acting, yet Wikipedia has separate categories for theater actors which I question to an extent. As far as voice acting goes I'd argue that that is by far more different than any of those and doesn't really belong in a debate like this.★Trekker (talk) 19:14, 25 May 2019 (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.
