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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge/delete/rename as nominated. Dimadick and FL each have separate concerns. FL objects primarily to the rename (but not to merging to the decade categories); Dimadick objects to merging/deleting (but not renaming). However, Aidan responds neatly to both of their objections in his response. Finally,headcount is not entirely irrelevant, and merging/renaming/deleting has a clear majority (3–1 in favor of renaming, 3–1.5 in favor of merging/deleting).HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)22:25, 24 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding merging/deleting: Almost all "YYYY ballet premieres" (year) categories until 1909 contain only one or two articles (seeCategory:Ballet premieres by date), which is not helpful for navigation. And for the 16th, 17th, and 18th century those categories are even redundant layers, because each of the few "YYY0s ballet premieres" (decades) categories per century only contains a single year category. So, I propose skipping (and deleting) the decades layers for the 16th, 17th, and 18th century and merging the year cats directly to the century cats (which would result in 1, 3, and 6 articles in those century cats, respectively), and for the remaining years from 1801 to 1909, I propose simply upmerging to the decades cats. (Additionally, all year cats nominated for merging would also be merged to the corresponding "YYYY works" cats.)
Regarding renaming: There is no good reason why the categories need to/should have the word "premieres" in them, and this naming scheme deviates from every otherCategory:Works by date category about individual works (e.g., for cats likeCategory:Operas by date,Category:Musicals by date, orCategory:Films by date, the dates also generally refer to the date they were first performed or premiered). It also doesn't really make sense, because the categorized articles are of course not about the premieres but the ballets in general (technically, the cats would have to be named something like "ballets by premiere date" if one really wanted to include the "premiere" aspect). Therefore, I propose to rename all non-list cats in theCategory:Ballet premieres by date tree (I nominated just the ones that would be left after merging/deleting the ones from 1.) by removing the word "premieres" and pluralizing "ballet" instead.Felida97 (talk)22:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete/rename per nom. The only, very minor, question I have is why the nomination continues until 1909 while until 1899 would be a more intuituve cutoff.Marcocapelle (talk)22:51, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I thought about that, too, but in the end I just considered staying consistent in following my argument for merging year categories (sparseness) more important than keeping the century cut-off. I think since years are merged into a decade, the century line doesn't matter that much (as the merge doesn't impact what the century category looks like), and I would say, as long as the structure is consistent on any given level (i.e. either decade cats without any year subcats or century cats containing only either decade subcats or year subcats, as opposed to, e.g., decade cats with year subcats for some years but not for other years or century cats with some decade subcats and some year subcats), the structure is sufficiently intuitive.Felida97 (talk)01:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I think I remember a previous CFD on this, but can't find it. The point was thatRobertgreer created these as "premieres" because there was sometimes a significant delay between a ballet being written and its first performance. I would not object to merging sparsely-populated year categories to decades, although (like other fully-developed chronology category hierarchies) I would be content just to leave them as they are. –FayenaticLondon13:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Unfortunately, couldn't find this comment either. So, you mean that there was (sometimes) asignificant number of years between the year in which a ballet was completed (so, choreography and music, and potentially libretto, all done) and the year in which it premiered? I must say, due to the different components, I find that quite unlikely, but perhaps you meant something else. But even if what you describe is the casesometimes, I doubt that it's more often the case than with every other kind of work (e.g., plays), for which the category names all follow the proposed scheme and any clarification regarding the year in the name is done in a standardized hatnote (as Aidan721 has suggested below for the ballets and which is already in place via{{Ballet decade}}, for example). To see whether there is any indication of the kind of delay you describe, I've gone through all 120 or so ballets until 1910. At least for that time frame, almost all articles only mention one year (the one of its premiere) and don't indicate that there was a delay or that it was finished in a different year. There are maybe 5-10 for which something like a completion year prior to the premiere year is mentioned, but a) for a few of those, the mentioned completion year is specifically referring to a composition (so, only the music), and b) the time between the two given years is always at most 3 years (a 1-year difference was most common). (Meanwhile, it took me only a few minutes looking at random plays in one "plays by year" category to come acrossone where the time between publication and premiere was 5 years.)Felida97 (talk)00:38, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete/rename per nom. To Fayenatic london's point, that could be solved via a{{Category explanation}} header stating:This category is for ballets premiered in YYYY. To Dimadick's point, it makes them easier to find by grouping them in century/decade categories actually... This precedent has been set again, and again, and again... –Aidan721 (talk)14:18, 16 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Lists of ballet premieres (by century and by decade)
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Deferring for now the question of whether the lists in those categories (separate list for each year; generally entirely unsourced; poorly formatted) should exist in the first place (see, e.g.,List of 1789 ballet premieres orList of 2011 ballet premieres; you can roughly see how many, or few, ballets are listed in eachstand-alone list in theCategory:Lists of ballet premieres by century tree by looking at the number of ballets in theCategory:Ballet premieres by year cats), there is certainly no need for this kind of tree structure: Most of the decades cats ("Lists of YYY0s ballet premieres") contain only one or two year lists ("Lists of YYYY ballet premieres"), and for the 18th and 19th century, there are even only 1 and 2 decades cats. I believeCategory:Lists of ballet premieres by year is quite sufficient for now (honestly, I reckon one could/should probably merge all of those lists, perhaps even intoList of ballets by title, which would then take care of this one remaining lists category as well, but since that then-empty category wouldn't require a discussion to be deleted, I think this can be done independent of this nomination).Felida97 (talk)22:26, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Update: In the time since I started this discussion, Aidan721 has combined almost all of the lists by year into lists by decade (e.g.,List of 1930s ballet premieres), as Fayenatic london suggested, except for three isolated years in the 18th and 19th century (they aren't quite sure what to do with them, see their reply to Fayenatic london below; however, whether they combine those into a 1700–1899 list, turn those into decades lists as well, or leave them as year lists does not affect my updated nomination). So, now, all the nominated decade categories contain one list each. I have updated my nomination and the proposed actions (see above). I still believe the century and decades category levels are overkill for these lists cats. I think retaining the decade cats when they all contain a single (almost always eponymous) list doesn't make sense (and not havingCategory:Lists of ballet premieres by decade as a subcat inCategory:Ballet premieres by decade andCategory:Lists by decade is not an issue as those eponymous lists will still be in their "YYY0s ballet premieres" and "YYY0s-related lists" subcats, respectively). Regarding the century level: For no other kind of work (e.g., plays, operas, films, etc.) do we maintain a century-level-categorization for lists; in fact, for most kinds of work, we exactly have what I propose (a single category for lists without any time period subcats, see, e.g.,Category:Lists of plays,Category:Lists of books), and to additionally sort (approx.) 13 lists into four century categories doesn't seem that useful anyway.Felida97 (talk)03:25, 19 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion, as deletion of categories means removing the contents from all the parent hierarchies. The articles would probably be more useful if merged to decade lists, after which the categories can be speedily upmerged to all parents underWP:C2F. –FayenaticLondon13:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: I've actually gone ahead and done what you suggested for merging to decade lists (except for the isolated years in 18/19 century -- not sure what to do with those yet. Maybe make aList of ballet premieres (1700–1899)?). The articles had very little content and are largely unsourced, but should be more maintainable going forward. –Aidan721 (talk)05:52, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle,Fayenatic london,Aidan721, andAbhishek0831996: Of course you were all right that the categories should not be deleted but merged (thank you for pointing that out). I have updated my nomination (see above and also see update/rationale below the nomination) as follows: I propose we merge the whole tree toCategory:Lists of ballet premieres (which would be created as a subcat ofCategory:Ballet-related lists andCategory:Lists of musical works, where the current "Lists of ballet premieres bycentury/decade/year" cats are located), which would contain no time period subcats and, following Aidan721's recent merges of the year lists, a (max.) total of 13 lists after the merge. Additionally, the "Lists of YYY0s ballet premieres" cats (which now all contain a single list) would be merged to their remaining parents "YYY0s-related lists" and "YYY0s ballet premieres" (the latter may be renamed as a result ofthe discussion right above this one, which is why I included the potential new names in my nomination as well).Felida97 (talk)03:25, 19 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia categories named after mass media franchises
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per nom. There are probably a few exceptions in this category tree of articles which are not about murders or murder victims, but too few to make a difference.Marcocapelle (talk)11:49, 15 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Actors of European descent in Indian films
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on LaundryPizza03's comment? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)05:48, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This entire category tree covers medieval churches by their current locations in the 21st century. Not by creating category trees for obscure medieval regions.Dimadick (talk)08:56, 16 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:20th-century deputy heads of government of Liechtenstein
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Reverse Merge - both categories have subcats regarding film, for example. I don't disagree that there is duplication, but The fiction tree should be merged to the works tree. For example: The work on film may be fictional, but the film itself is not fictional. -jc3719:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure (about fiction being a subcat of works), though I still think some cleanup/selective merging may need to happen. -jc3706:59, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus andJc37. There are only a dozen cats that begin "Fiction set on foo"; all of which can be seen as sub cats ofCategory:Fiction about planets. In my view all of these should be re-named/moved to Works set on... to fit into the "works by setting" category tree using its standard language. There needs to be a clear separation between the topic category tree and the setting category tree.4meter4 (talk)07:13, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Piotrus It does when appropriate. It's not always appropriate. Take for exampleCategory:Non-fiction novels which shows a very small number of works (less than 200 articles in the entire tree when adding up numbers in that cat and its subcats) comparatively to the many thousands of fictional novel articles underCategory:Novels and its various sub-cats. When applyingCategory:Novels by setting and going to any individual sub-cat sayCategory:Novels set on farms should we separate non-fiction novels from fiction ones in that cat? The answer is likely no. We might have one or two non-fiction novels set on farms but isn't large enough a number under policy to createCategory:Non-fiction novels set on farms. We generally need roughly ten articles in a category to justify creating it under policy. My point is, it is better to throw in all the non-fiction novels in with the fiction ones because they are rare and we can't justify sorting them out by our category policies on category size. Both fiction and non-fiction novels are still novels and they still have a setting and they can be sorted together. That's just one example where we can't sort. On the other side I could easily see creating a category treeCategory:Documentary films by setting and sorting out fiction from non-fiction in film this way. There are lots of documentary films so they probably are able to sustain a sub-cat system large enough to be sorted in most locales. However, a region of the world not often featured in film both fiction or non-fiction may not be able to be sorted in this way, and therefore needs to lump both together. Regardless, your original merge proposal was attempting to merge the parent category ":Works set on Mars" to a sub-cat of the parent category: "Fiction set on Mars". That makes no sense. We can merge up to the parent cat but not down to the child. Otherwise we cut off a way to organize non-fiction and navigate up the category tree. You can’t cut out the parent cat or the tree navigation collapses.4meter4 (talk)08:10, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@4meter4 I agree that reverse merge is preferable to my original proposal, if a merge is needed. But I still think it's fine to separate fiction and non-fiction here; otherwise it is hard to find the (agreed, relatively few) non-fiction works. There is value in having them easy to identify, and no cost to doing so. SMALLCAT should not, IMHO, apply to parent categories, which often double as useful container categories, just to pointless subcategories.Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here00:47, 13 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus This has been an odd area to edit in. At first people I call CFD regulars were opposed to the “Works by setting” structure because people erroneously believed non-fiction works didn’t have setting. It wasn’t until I pointed out that narrative non-fiction includes setting as a defining aspect in academic literature that they came around to the idea that there had to be room for non-fiction in the category structure. After that, there has been a trend to deprecate the fiction setting cats in favor of works by setting structure. I don’t necessarily agree with this, but it took forever for me to convince people to buy into the works by setting structure I’m loath to fight for the fiction by setting structure as many see it as duplicative. In other words this category outcome has happened before in this way in other discussions and is following a trend at CFD.4meter4 (talk)01:48, 13 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Needs clearer consensus on rename target, but there is definitely consensus to rename somewhere. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:53, 6 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Still need clearer consensus on the rename target. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)05:35, 15 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:procedural nominaton, this was opposed at speedy because there was no speedy criterion applicable. Nom's rationale was: "To better summarise the contents as the family is wider than just direct relatives of Peggy Jay." I have no opinion about the proposal myself.Marcocapelle (talk)21:22, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mike Selinker's comment? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)02:47, 6 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Anyone who knows to look for these will understand them as part of the legendarium, and not under the name of an obscure island.WP:OVERCAT of redirects would do more harm than good.Jontesta (talk)20:05, 9 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on jc37's most recent comment? If not deleted, I don't see any opposition to the rename. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)05:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming to Category:Númenor location redirects, which would only create a redundant and unneeded administrative category. --Paul_012 (talk)16:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Categorising redirects, with categories titledCategory:Foo redirects, is a Wikipedia self-reference, done for tracking purposes, not as part of the reader-facing categorisation scheme. SeeCategory:Middle-earth redirects, which has a big maintenance category banner on the description page, and several hidden tracking categories. (Maybe I should have said "maintenance cateogory", if the word "administrative" was what you're questioning.) Most such categories do not benefit from diffusing, as their intended purpose is for tracking at a topic-area level (and diffusing might actually make such tracking more difficult). Anyway, I just noticed thatCategory:Middle-earth location redirects is missing the maintenance category template, as it was removed in a May 2024 template change, so I've re-added it. --Paul_012 (talk)06:53, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not very useful as of now (1 article and 17 redirects), but most of them are redirects with possibilities. I'm sorry to informJontesta that thisobscure island is probably the most famous island in the history of fantasy literature. Btw, as a side note, I firmly supportjc37's point about Númenor (as well asValinor,Aman) not being in Middle-Earth, as that's basic knowledge any reader has, so "Middle-Earth" doesn't even qualify as common name for Arda; that's as much correct as calling all of the Solar System "Western Europe" or –to stay in fantasy– it's like calling all ofStar WarsTatooine.Est. 2021 (talk·contribs)00:37, 18 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Fictional characters incorrectly presumed dead
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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Category is for a largely non-important criteria (Being presumed dead incorrectly). This is a fairly common trope across media and generally not important to a given character, which makes a category superfluous.Magneton Considerer:Pokelego999 (Talk) (Contribs)21:57, 7 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I strongly disagree that it is not important as (as I explained the last time this was CfDed) it greatly impacts the characterisation, development, storylines, casting and the reception of characters (I am happy to give examples), and for many characters it becomes one of the biggest things that they are known for and the reason why they get so much SIGCOV. Even for example,Kathy Beale - her faked death was inspired by a real life case, whilstCindy Beale's fake death got a lot of reception - showing that the category is not just in-universe. I am happy to include many more examples of how this impacts the characters. Additionally, there is a lot of SIGCOV about characters faking their deaths. I also disagree that the category is superfluous as if it applied to the majority of characters, there would be many thousands of characters in this category.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)06:20, 14 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Those who support keeping this category, can we get some examples/evidence/sources? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)05:11, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "presumed dead"? by whom? for how long? And many other questions along those lines. This shold be a list, if anything, so that such can be explained. Which of course we cannot do in categories, perWP:BEFORECAT/WP:CLN. -jc3709:11, 15 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. As always with mass nominations, there is no prejudice against renominating individual categories for concerns particular to that category.HouseBlaster (talk • he/they)04:03, 23 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recommened byPARAKANYAA (talk·contribs) because:They're duplicative, have an undefined and vague scope, and are barely used. I don't think they're underused, butAttack is a disambiguation page, which supports their assertion — contents include animal attacks, terrorist attacks, mass shootings, military invasions, and much more. Most articles are, or should be, in more specific categories such as those ofCategory:Terrorist incidents. So I'm excluding subcategories based on a specific method or motive, such asCategory:Antisemitic attacks and incidents, and including only those which are just "attacks". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄)03:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, this is a massive nomination, kudos to nom for their efforts! I am not entirely sure of deletion though, because they are all about incidents of violence. An alternative is renaming/merging all of them from "attacks" to "violence". If deletion or merging goes ahead, it is recommendable to at least keep the mainCategory:Attacks as a disambiguation page to link to e.g.Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents.Marcocapelle (talk)06:28, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: This would be a significant decategorization of a significant number of articles. I would be open to discussion of renaming and/or reorganizing, but I see no reason to pursue this on such a large scale. There are some categories that are sparsely populated (as is the situation with practically any tree of categories) but there are plenty (unfortunately in real-world terms, of course) that have numerous entries. Thanks to all for their efforts and let's discuss further as appropriate.KConWiki (talk)15:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The nominator raises a valid point in that the top-levelCategory:Attacks is unhelpfully vague, as are theAttacks by xxx main subcats. But this seems to be an issue that calls for extensive reorganisation rather than wholesale deletion. I don't think the way this CfD was nominated is suited for discussing the task. --Paul_012 (talk)16:20, 15 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't think that mass deletion is the solution here. I agree that Attacks is vague. I thought of it as helpful for keeping the rest of the attacks child categories navigable.SMasonGarrison00:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't see what is vague about "attack", particularly since it is part of the article title and the lead in numerous articles.Dimadick (talk)08:45, 16 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My thought was that putting all kinds of "attacks", whether they be physical mental or high profile terrorism or literally rock throwing into one category per year or location is weird. The specific types of attacks is not what I was getting at. I didn't mean the whole tree I meant the in year and by location one - which are not often used. Even then I don't really think the top level "attacks" category is the best way to organize this. But deleting this now would kind of be a mess. Though keeping it as is, also a mess. I am supportive of deleting the by year and location categories, but nothing else.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
For example Attacks by target and all subcategories seems fine. This nomination is just too big, and the problem with the vagueness of "attacks" as a word is only a problem with some. So I do not think the whole nomination is the best way to handle this.PARAKANYAA (talk)18:43, 17 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose it follows other convention and fits with others inside Category:1867 in sports by country. Other listings in this category similarly have one category per listing so it is not right to single out the Argentine one. If you are going to merge it should at least be consistent. For the reader it is useful and relevant to keep.— Precedingunsigned comment added byNayyn (talk •contribs)02:08, 7 January 2025 (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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Species that are or were threatened by human consumption for medicinal or magical purposes
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'stalk page or in adeletion 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'stalk page or in adeletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted, seeWikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 2#Redundant WP:RUSSIA categories