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 suggesting to merge these and purge redirects. There are only two articles the parent category: the main one and an overview of the TV show. No reason for a container eponymous category for this media franchise made up of redirects from individual episodes or seasons and then a category for the films separately. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯23:46, 17 May 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.
Purge and mergetoCategory:Sport fish, the main category for game fish. It does seem like there are potentially a bunch of miscats, although I think that the human usage of these fish as a game/sport fish is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. I don't think that the intersection between "salt/freshwater" and "game fish" is defining though. Alternatively, the information in the category could be listified and then deleted afterwards. bibliomaniac1521:10, 26 May 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.
Purge and mergetoCategory:Sport fish, the main category for game fish. It does seem like there are potentially a bunch of miscats, although I think that the human usage of these fish as a game/sport fish is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. I don't think that the intersection between "salt/freshwater" and "game fish" is defining though. Alternatively, the information in the category could be listified and then deleted afterwards. bibliomaniac1521:10, 26 May 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 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, I created this category (and live with chronic pain myself). Chronic pain can come in many forms but there are many similarities for the people that live with it. I don't think the category being difficult to populate is a reason to delete it. Moreover, it may not be easy, but it is possible. A google search comes up with many relevant hits, like this one: https://www.foxnews.com/health/famous-people-who-live-with-chronic-pain. Plus, I would guess there are hundreds of people on wikipedia who have or have had chronic pain. It is important for wikipedia to have information that is relevant to people and it is helpful for everyone to know about well known people who live with chronic pain. I created this category to bring more representation to an underrepresented issue. I think it is more constructive to try to improve it, rather than try to delete it.Lena Key (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is circular because these articles are not necessarily mature. If you mean the cart is before the horse, i.e., the wikipedia articles must be improved before such a category can exist, please say so. Samuel Coskey (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a characteristic that belongs to be mentioned as a key biographical characteristic in the header of the article. Sources do not do that either. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, logically this category is no different than numerous other approved categories. I don't see it as generic (there are many causes of chronic pain but the affect on one's achievement potential is similar). I don't see it as difficult to populate (search wikipedia, search secondary sources via the internet, search pain advocacy group magazines, etc for notable figures with chronic pain). I do see it as defining, or potentially defining (in the wiki sense, not the usual sense of the word) for many figures, and I don't see an argument for non-defining anywhere above this point (just declaration). Samuel Coskey (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think we will find many articles about people who are notable because of their chronic pain. And though chronic pain is common we wont often find it mentioned in biographies. So this would be a category of people who publicised their problem which is an unsatisfactory basis for a category. Rathfelder (talk) 12:31, 22 May 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.
Kind of hilarious that I picked a random category that actually exists... I'm CfDed out right now, but if someone else wants to nominate it, I'll likely support. DonIago (talk) 15:21, 19 May 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 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 all; consider any mergers separately There was very little discussion about the suggestion to merge some categories so that is best handled in its own right. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: computer science is a sub-topic of the broader field of computing. Computer science is the theoretical side, but computing includes the uses of computers, the computer industry, and the societal impact of computing.
Support but also merge all 1930s years into a single decade category; probably also 1940s, as there is not (and never will be enough content for decent categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support I agree with the approach to rename the categories rather than remap them. Making the category broader is appealing and practical. We can always go back later and create computer science sub categories, which is a much easier task compared to doing the opposite. BthompsonHV (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BthompsonHV, yes in theory we could created subcats for computer science by year. But in practice, I didn't see enough articles to populate a computer science by year series unless it is filled with articles which don't really fit, like now. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 23 May 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.
Nominator's rationale: Contains no articles, only redirects which all redirect to the same target album. No benefit to readers Richhoncho (talk) 06:52, 17 May 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.
Category:Fictional Presidents of the United States
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 both. This is mostly keeping in line with the logic of the rationale. There's no consensus about deleting the "films about" category, and purging would be something anyone can do on their own. bibliomaniac1503:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Fictional Presidents of the United States per nom, and Delete the "films about" category, which suffers the usual problems of works "about" topic: what objective criteria dictate how much about the topic must it be and what reliable sources tell us it is at least that much about the topic? What's included and what's not show precisely this problem. Take a few examples Independence Day (1996 film) and Monsters vs. Aliens which one might think were about alien invasions where the fictional POTUS plays a role but surely, these films aren't about that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Purge the films category, remove films that aren't primarily about a fictional president. Carlossuarez has a point, though deleting the category entirely is a bit too drastic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 21 May 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.
Reverse merge. As nurse is a predominently female profession, and was so at the time of the American Civil War it is the male nurses that should be placed in a non-diffusing gender category, per WP:GHETTO. Place Clichy (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its still true now that about 90% of nurses are female. I think before 1900 there were probably no men who would have described themselves as nurses. Rathfelder (talk) 19:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer reverse merge -- I suspect that the males employed in military hospitals were doing similar work, but called Hospital orderlies (or such like). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 19 May 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.
None of these are nominated for renaming. I don't see a need for the inclusion of "Template:" as it just makes the category name longer and is really redundant as "infobox" makes it clear we are referring to a template. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't add the 3 above as they are for a different template. Yeah I guess the template prefix isn't needed, as I said, I was ambivalent about it. What about the uppercase "I" in "Infobox", as it's a proper noun? --Gonnym (talk) 09:13, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned the other cats only because if we're going to rename cats, we should consistently rename all related cats. I have no real opinion on whether "i" should be capitalised although I have seen capitalised cats un-capitalised in the past. Either way is fine with me. I'm happy to go with the majority. --AussieLegend (✉) 11:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename without "Template:". Keep the "i" of infobox capital. I'm indifferent if we want to lump in the other cats that should be renamed. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 16:47, 17 May 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:Recipients of the Gold Medal of the City of Milan (France)
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.
Stardust is an Indian film and celebrity gossip magazine that used to have annual Stardust Awards for Bollywood films. A large majority of the articles in this category don't even mention this award so it doesn't seem defining. The winners are already listified here in individual list articles for any reader interested in this former award. -
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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 2#Films by demographic audience
