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: no consensus to delete, so rename to Category:Current governments. – Fayenatic London 09:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lists of current governments ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and MOS:CURRENTLY. All of these governments are notable having nothing to do with if they are active or not, and the categorization would have to change when they are out of office. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I created it in the style of Category:Lists of current office-holders, as governments are as important as legislatures. (talk) 22:16, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom, also the articles in the category are not lists and the articles already are or should be in the tree of Category:National cabinets. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - They are lists of cabinet members, I don't know if you actually looked at the articles. What should the category be called instead? (talk) 22:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment – I think what you want is Category:Current governments and not Category:Lists of current governments. In the latter, articles belonging to this category should be lists, and not articles about each government. In the former, I think it would also possibly be nominated for deletion per Nominator's arguments. --Yakme (talk) 23:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - I think you're right about Category:Current governments being a better name. Or current cabinets? (talk) 03:09 8 December 2021 (UTC)
        • As said, we already have Category:National cabinets. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. (Each of the articles I viewed contains a list rather than being a list.) All similar current categories should be deleted: these ones. Oculi (talk) 23:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, there would likely be resistance to deleting all those other categories too. (talk) 03:09 8 December 2021 (UTC)

• Agree with deletion of the others, "current" is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• We have never kept a 'current' category at cfd: see User:Good_Olfactory/CFD#Current_or_former for a long list. Oculi (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment - Category:Lists of current office-holders is nothing like Category:Lists of current governments. The articles in the first are mostly of the form "List of current ambassadors from Foo" (which is thus reasonably categorised in Category:Lists of current office-holders as it is the article that needs to be maintained, not the category). Whether there should be a list of current ambassadors is another question, not for cfd ... maintenance of such a list would seem impossible. Oculi (talk) 17:13, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, per WP:IGNORE. I understand why the nominator thinks this should be deleted, and I agree it violates WP:NONDEFINING and MOS:CURRENTLY, at least at first glance. However, the category is actually useful, as it is the easiest way to actually find incumbent office-holders, which ARE notable for being current (shocking, I know). The problems associated with WP:CURRENTLY aren't a big deal in this context, because governments don't change particularly often, and these articles tend to be updated very soon after a change. Take the addition of the Scholz cabinet within minutes of its election as an example. I have no general opinion about the mass deletion suggested by Oculi; these would have to be looked at separately. Renerpho (talk) 09:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, again: the name "Lists of current government" is definitely wrong, because it does not include "lists", i.e. list articles. I think it is meant to include articles about the current governments or cabinets. --Yakme (talk) 10:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    I am fine with renaming it to any of the names suggested above, like Category:Current governments. These articles are generally lists of cabinet members, but as you say, they are not lists in the WP sense, and they are definitely not lists of governments. Renerpho (talk) 10:32, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - Renerpho, I created this category and agree that would be a better name. (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment We do have Category:National cabinets, yes, and these can be made sub-categories, if deemed appropriate (I have no opinion about this). That category is not the same though, compare my example given above: Scholz cabinet is in the Category:German Cabinet, which is in Category:National cabinets. As I said, the distinction of current governments is useful here. Renerpho (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but perhaps as Category:Current governments. "Current" categories are normally discouraged as they rapidly become obsolete, if not frequently updated, but this one is likely to be maintained. What we have here differs from Category:National cabinets because that covers both present and past ones. It is a pity that the items categorised as not appearing by country name, as I need to know that Imran Khan is PM of Pakistan to find the current cabinet of Pakistan. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment It is a pity that the items categorised [are] not appearing by country name – That hadn't occurred to me, Peterkingiron, but now that you mention it, this could indeed be helpful! Not sure how to implement that, though. Ideas? Renerpho (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have created a related move request, for the Category:German Cabinet, see this discussion. Renerpho (talk) 07:18, 10 December 2021 (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. The information in this category may be better rendered in articlespace, per the creator. bibliomaniac15 20:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Assumption (reasoning) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category; it has the appearance of WP:OR. Besides, if you need more than 100 words to explain what should be in the category, and it is still not very clear, then it is probably not a good category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

delete or prune for lack of a main Assumption (reasoning) article (and why the cat has a longer description than most). (PS. I was the creator of this cat). I do think such a main and general article should be written as "assumption" is the non-technical word used - see also wikt:assumption, wikt:Thesaurus:supposition and wikt:Thesaurus:suppose. Any article placed in this cat should mention or have an assumption section, as it is not always obvious why they are an example of the concept (rather than making or relying on specific assumptions). Without an explicit mention, this category does appear as a hodge-podge, with poorly defined entries and as WP:OR. Some articles do explicitly mention assumption, e.g., axiom, common knowledge, Conceptual_model, conceptual system, Critical thinking, First principle, Framing (social sciences), Intuition, Meaning (philosophy), ... and perhaps can remain with the rest pruned out until such time as they explicitly mention why they are assumptions. I would still wait a little bit to get feedback about this discussion from philosophy inclined editors (as I'm not formally such). Dpleibovitz (talk) 21:02, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or prune -- The concept does not serve a category: it is much more an aspect of logic or reasoning than something free-standing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's about the multitude of facets of a logical relation. Some people above seem not to understand philosophical things like that. --Just N. (talk) 23:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• "You don't understand what you're talking about" isn't a good argument (or an argument at all, actually) - something that I assume you're aware of, as a philosophically-minded person. It's also a really great demonstration about why this category isn't a good idea. If only a small number of people can figure out what is happening in the category then it will both be useless to almost everyone and be unreasonably difficult to maintain. So, either it's too complex to be worth keeping, or it's not a well-formed category. Either way, we should delete. --Xurizuri (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: going through the articles, it's pretty apparent that there's no real scope. For example, while it's clear that bias and intuition are intrinsically related, razors are reasonably distant from the main connection between those two. At the moment, it's just a collection of anything that affects the way we draw conclusions. Which is an absurdly broad scope. --Xurizuri (talk) 17:36, 24 December 2021 (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) 06:36, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Obligate nasal breathers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Excessive categorization. We don't categorize animals as four-legged, we needn't have this category either. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:30, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2021 (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) 06:43, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Users who hate Java ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:USERCATNO - Do not have a category which is any grouping of users based on a shared dislike for a person, group, organisation, event, idea, philosophy, or activity User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom – Muboshgu (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Gonnym (talk) 12:41, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. LSGH (talk) (contributions) 12:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2021 (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 to Category:Evaluation methods. bibliomaniac15 20:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Assessment and evaluation instruments to Category:Evaluation methods

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two categories and one article, and besides in practice there isn't too much difference here between an "instrument" and a "method". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Xurizuri (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2021 (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 to Category:Modern Talking album covers. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 22:55, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Images of Modern Talking to Category:Modern Talking album covers

Nominator's rationale: The contents of this category are all image files of the band's album covers, which should fall under the scheme Category:Album covers by recording artist. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:55, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per nom. Also, the new name better describes the purpose of the category, which does not include images like this. Renerpho (talk) 09:57, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- I would not have imaged that it related to a band. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:31, 12 December 2021 (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 to Category:Railroads in the Chicago metropolitan area. bibliomaniac15 20:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Railroads in the Chicago Switching District to Category:Railroads in the Chicago metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: I can't find any article that has the name "Chicago Switching District" in it (other than the category itself) so no idea if this is a thing or not. The category links to Chicago metropolitan area (via Chicagoland redirect). The rest of the category at Category:Chicago metropolitan area uses "in the Chicago metropolitan area" style. Gonnym (talk) 11:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The Chicago Switching District (aka Chicago Terminal District) is a real thing but I think using it may be railfan thinking? Moon Joon (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Indeed, the Chicago Switching District is a real thing, but it's quite a niche term. It referred to a region in Chicago where all customers were eligible for reciprocal switching (which is also a niche term, I'll make an article on that soon). It's not very clear to someone who's not a subject matter expert, and this rename would make it more clear without being less accurate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:32, 12 December 2021 (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 to Category:Atira asteroids. bibliomaniac15 20:17, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Apohele asteroids to Category:Atira asteroids

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the article Atira asteroid. Double sharp (talk) 09:39, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - this is the more common name. Renerpho (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:33, 12 December 2021 (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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 14:13, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cultural depictions of Christian V og Denmark to Category:Cultural depictions of Christian V of Denmark

Nominator's rationale: A minor fix is needed: "og" to "of". Jeeputer (talk) 07:55, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this falls under CFDS criteria C2D, to be consistent with article Christian V of Denmark. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2021 (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 to Category:Lists of covers of Time (magazine). bibliomaniac15 20:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lists of covers of Time magazine to Category:List of covers of Time (magazine)

Nominator's rationale: Formatting benǝʇᴉɯ 06:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the article names do not contain brackets, for consistency it would be preferable to have them renamed simultaneously, e.g. List of covers of Time magazine (2020s) to List of 2020s covers of Time (magazine). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The plural form is standard for categories. See also Wikipedia:Lists of lists#Naming. I would be o.k. with Category:Lists of covers of Time (magazine). Aymatth2 (talk) 12:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename but to Category:Lists of covers of Time (magazine) as Aymatth2 says (set category of lists); this is WP:C2C per Category:Time (magazine) (and C2D per Time (magazine)). Renaming the articles per Marcocapelle would also be desirable. Oculi (talk) 14:25, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "lists..." per Aymatth2. It may be worth going through the individual list artticles and retitling them, too, but that's beyond the scope of the current discussion. Grutness...wha? 00:40, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per Aymatth2 and Marco. --Just N. (talk) 23:36, 12 December 2021 (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. bibliomaniac15 20:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Horror punk album covers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is no scheme for Category:Album covers by genre and I'm not sure there needs to be, especially at a sub-sub genre level. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:02, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment We also have Category:Daft Punk album covers, so whatever is decided here should be done to both of these. I fail to see why these categories are useful, but I don't know enough about punk sub-genres to form an opinion. No other music genre has categories at the sub-sub genre level, as far as I can see. Renerpho (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Daft Punk is a group, though, not a sub-genre of punk, so that seems to be a different situation. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:31, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, you've proven my point (about not knowing enough). Nonetheless, given the apparent uniqueness of the category in the context of music genre categories as a whole, I think I agree with your rationale. Renerpho (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per my comment above (and the replies). Renerpho (talk) 07:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:37, 12 December 2021 (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 to Category:Inventors killed by their own invention. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 23:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Inventors killed by own invention to Category:Inventors killed by their own invention

Nominator's rationale: The Grammar Police are not amused. Also somewhat matches the primary article: List of inventors killed by their own inventions (a protected page which I have requested be renamed to "... their own invention"). Clarityfiend (talk) 03:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:44, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nom (and keep both the list and the category). In this case I appreciate the Grammar Police, but please don't go on a spree. I generally prefer article names to be short. Renerpho (talk) 10:16, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The list has been renamed in the mean time, per nom's request. Renerpho (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:38, 12 December 2021 (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.