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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Headmasters of Oundle School to Category:Masters of Oundle School

Nominator's rationale: They seem to be identical, and some articles are in both categories. Rathfelder (talk) 23:59, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both- a master is a teacher, not necessarily Head. Eg David Carpanini is in the latter but not the former. Someone who was both a master and then headmaster should be in both. Oculi (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Not the same thing. John Olver (rugby union) and Kevin Walton were masters but not headmasters.--Mvqr (talk) 11:48, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Master is a bit ambiguous. In some schools it is the head. Can we rename Category:Masters of Oundle School to Category:Teachers at Oundle School. They arent all men.?Rathfelder (talk) 15:36, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That would require a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 13 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:Spatial cognition. bibliomaniac15 19:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Space in life to Category:Spatial cognition

Nominator's rationale: I'm not entirely sure what "space in life" means, but the entries seem to be related to Spatial cognition. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 22:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:19, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Gusfriend (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Television shows filmed in the United States. (non-admin closure) 2pou (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American television series by production location to Category:Television shows filmed in the United States

Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary level of indirection - the state-level categories should be direct subcats of Category:Television shows filmed in the United States User:力 (powera, π, ν) 20:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 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: merge. ✗plicit 02:08, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Disorders of adult personality and behaviour to Category:Mental and behavioural disorders Category:Mental disorders

Nominator's rationale: merge, this groups together very unrelated mental disorders. If one must group them by three or four then this might be a possibility but in Wikipedia we are not limited to a specific number. Besides it is odd not to be able to find Personality disorders directly under Mental disorders, since Personality disorders are one of the most well-known disorders. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I don't love the name "Mental and behavioural disorders", but it's certainly more useful "Disorders of adult personality and behaviour". Perhaps it's simply a holdover from when personality disorders were in a different "axis" in the DSM to all other psych disorders. Regardless, specifying both is no longer useful. And specifying adult disorders is strange, most disorders (except personality disorders and a handful of others) can be diagnosed in at least adolescence. Including most of the ones in that category. --Xurizuri (talk) 22:08, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This category structure was created to mirror the ICD-10 categorization (see https://icd.who.int/browse10/2019/en#/V). This is an internationally recognized way to categorize all diseases and disorders in medicine. The ICD-10 calls the broad category "Mental and behavioural disorders" (codes F00-F99). Amongst the subcategories of this, one is "Disorders of adult personality and behaviour" (codes F60–F69). These titles are what the ICD-10 uses verbatim. The categories have {{ICD category}} at the top explaining this categorization. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:40, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Verbatim titles are of no use, we use common names rather than official names. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Scott Alter. --Just N. (talk) 14:48, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- Is "adult" a necessary part of the title? Are not children (and teenagers) liable to the same disorders? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apparently they can not be diagnosed as such. As mentioned above, this is the official title in ICD-10. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - Almost all disorders that are diagnosable in adulthood are diagnosable in adolescence. In literature and in practice, the only age-based subcategories that are commonly used are geriatric and paediatric. Also, even if we did use the official names, the ICD-10 categorisation is outdated. The current version of ICD-11 uses "Mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders", which would be easily recognisable in the suggested category name. Neither of the current major classification systems describes a specific "adult" category so we shouldn't take it upon ourselves to do so. --Xurizuri (talk) 00:00, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The target has been renamed per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_27#Category:Mental_and_behavioural_disorders. – Fayenatic London 17:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In light of the recent target rename.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm even more for it merging to that name, having been a participant in the renaming discussion. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:24, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I don't see at all that the above affirmation of Xurizuri "ICD-11 uses "Mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders", which would be easily recognisable in the suggested category name" can be accepted as true. Not at all "easily recognisable"! ICD-11 would be fine. --Just N. (talk) 23:55, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure how this relates to the discussion about Category:Disorders of adult personality and behaviour. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:45, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I worded it poorly. Basically, I meant that if someone is looking for a category about "mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders", they'd be able to figure out that they should check the category called "mental disorders". Regardless, on a re-read, that statement was at best a tangent. --Xurizuri (talk) 17:02, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. There is no need to keep this category that was based on ICD-10, now that ICD-11 has superseded that classification. – Fayenatic London 17:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Disaster horror films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Disaster drama films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Disaster adventure films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Disaster romance films ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm not aware of any of these hybrids being recognized film genres, and I'm not sure we need to combine them into single categories in this manner. The fact that these categories were created by an editor whose Talk page is replete with notifications about their categories being merged/renamed/deleted isn't boosting my confidence. DonIago (talk) 18:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, too specific of an intersection.--Mvqr (talk) 12:18, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom and SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 23:56, 17 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. – Fayenatic London 16:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Corsican emigrants to the United States to Category:French emigrants to the United States, Category:People from Corsica and Category:American people of Corsican descent
• Nominator's rationale from a political perspective, Corsica is an integral part of France, and has been since before the formation of the United States. This is also as far as I can tell the only Corsican emigrants category that exists at all. There is no good reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Corsica is an island and belonged to Genoa until 230 years ago. This might be enough to justify a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • French rule in Corsica began in 1768. Which is 253 years ago. The United States can only really be said to began in 1776, so 8 years after Corsica comes under French control. No person currently in this category was born before 1823.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. John Pack Lambert reply above is also convincing. --Just N. (talk) 00:00, 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: merge all. – Fayenatic London 16:15, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Berber emigrants to Category:People of Berber descent
• Merge Category:Berber emigrants to Belgium to Category:Belgian people of Berber descent
• Merge Category:Berber emigrants to the United Kingdom to Category:British people of Berber descent
• Merge Category:Berber emigrants to England to Category:English people of Berber descent
• Nominator's rationale This tree of 4 categories has 2 articles. Both of them are post-1945 migrants from Morocco to the countries in question (1 to Belgium and 1 to the UK) who are already in the Moroccan emigrant categories. Berber is an ethnic designation for a population that lives in multiple countries. Thus it is not a good way to define emigrants, and there is clearly no reason to have 4 categories for 2 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nominator. Nominator's rationale is convincing and well formulated. --Just N. (talk) 00:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all Gusfriend (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge all. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Cornish emigrants to Category:People of Cornish descent and Category:British emigrants
• Merge Category:Cornish emigrants to Australia to Category:Australian people of Cornish descent and Category:British emigrants to Australia
• Merge Category:Cornish emigrants to Brazil to Category:Brazilian people of Cornish descent and Category:British emigrants to Brazil
• Merge Category:Cornish emigrants to Canada to Category:Canadian people of Cornish descent and Category:British emigrants to Canada
• Merge Category:Cornish emigrants to Mexico to Category:Mexican people of Cornish descent and Category:British emigrants to Mexico
• Merge Category:Cornish emigrants to New Zealand to Category:New Zealand people of Cornish descent and Category:British emigrants to New Zealand
• Merge Category:Cornish emigrants to the Pitcairn Islands to Category:Pitcairn Islands people of Cornish descent and Category:British emigrants to the Pitcairn Islands
• Merge Category:Cornish emigrants to South Africa to Category:South African people of Cornish descent and Category:British emigrants to South Africa
• Merge Category:Cornish emigrants to the United States to Category:American people of Cornish descent and Category:British emigrants to the United States
• Nominator's rationale We categorize people by the recognized political unit with international recognition they leave, not by something on the level of a county of England. Unique ethno-cultural identies within such sub-units do not change this fact. Sometimes unique legal situations do, but Cornwall from a legal perspective is no more distinct than other British counties. Because of time scope and some of these categories in theory encompassing pre-1707 migrants, we may need to on a case by case basis place some differently on merger. However we do not categorize people by their ethnic origin in these categories, we categorize them by the political unit they leave or the one they are nationals of, if they are for example children of diplomats who take up residence in a new country and renounce their home country. The descent categories group these people as much as we need to.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Whilst I agree with the sentiment, technically Cornish people are English (despite the wishful thinking of nationalists, Cornwall is without doubt part of England and has been for over a thousand years) so should be under the "English emigrants" categories not the "British emigrants" categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record I think after 1707 we should only be putting people in British emigrant categories, not ones for constitutent parts of Great Britain, but that is a nomination that will involve way more categories. This is a very striagh forward case of what we do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Either we do this for all categories relating to British people (not just emigrants) or none of them. But your chances of getting categories for Scottish and Welsh people in particular moved to British are frankly minute. And if they're not then English categories should not be either. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is an insane amount of categories. Probably in excess of 300 categories. This is a small, doable group. We should judge categories on their own merit, not force a huge scale judging of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • 300?! And the rest! But emigrant categories are not a small group at all. And consistency is important. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support all these. Only 4 of these categories are decently populated. The small ones should be deleted. Rathfelder (talk) 00:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - @Johnpacklambert:, can you explain the second target for the New Zealand, South Africa, and US categories? They don't seem to make sense. Grutness...wha? 02:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got distracted while making this nomination. I have fixed them to the intended categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Cornwall has been officially English for less that 1000 years, and was a de facto viceroyalty for some time after. Legal documents for several hundred years after that referred to Cornwall as separate from England in the same way that Wales is. It was only in the 1880s that Cornwall was declared as specifically part of England from the point of view of regional administration. It also has a strong devolutionist movement. Constitutional status of Cornwall makes interesting reading. Having said that, we don't have emigrant categories for Catalan, Basque, Corsican, or Breton people, so... Reluctant weak support. Grutness...wha? 03:03, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It really doesn't have a strong devolutionist movement. They'd like to think they are, but they're in a very small minority and most people think they're ridiculous. I say that as someone who grew up there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Some of these article say the subject was either English, or English-born, for example Thomas Pascoe, so the notion that Cornish is a seperate identity is not universally accepted. Emigration categories are built around the entity with internaitonal recognition someone left form, not built around their ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • And everyone of these destination countries have existed in anything like their current form for well under 300 years. From the standpoint of international movement Cornwall is not a distinct location from which people are originating for any national immigration purposes in any of the destination locations during any of their time of existence. The only one that might vaguely push back further than the 300 year limit is Brazil.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        • Still a "reluctant weak delete" from me. Anything more and I'd get it in the neck from my proud Penzance-born wife! Grutness...wha? 02:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I fixed all the nomination contents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Australia, Canada, US & NZ and parent, as these are large enough to be viable. Upmerge the rest. Being a peninsula and having had its own language, Cornwall has a distinctive character, distinct from the rest of England. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • One of the targets here is the Cornish ancestry category. That is enough to recognize this distinction. Immigration is not about language or "character", it is about legal national status.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 00:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all Gusfriend (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 07:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ancestors of the British Royal Family ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The royal and noble families of Europe are interrelated to such a vast extent that this category would, if complete, include too many articles to be defining or useful. There is also no definition of the royal family, so we'd be talking about listing all the ancestors of the noble and royal families that married into the family as well. This is non-defining and any useful definition of the term would duplicate existing categories, such as Category:British royalty. Celia Homeford (talk) 12:37, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This seems a somewhat strange proposal for deletion. In the first instance, the nominator is in my view saying that, 'if the category was in a different state from what it currently is, it would therefore be too large and therefore should be deleted'. A nomination based on such a principle would arguably lead to the end of all categories on Wikipedia. Similarly, I don't understand why the nominator is not also nominating Category:British royalty (among many others) for deletion because surely that logic applies to that category just as well. Secondly, I don't know how this category duplicates Category:British royalty (or any other category by that matter); the 'Royalty' category has things like the Sword of Stalingrad in it. While I accept that the Sword is somewhat related to the British Royal Family, I don't think it can be considered British royalty in itself. Finally, while I accept that the nominated category has room for improvement, I don't think it has no encyclopedic value at all. Though it's a given that most European Royal Families are related to one another in some way, I would suggest that there is some encyclopedic benefit for showing how they are related, and to which notable figures they are related to. Alssa1 (talk) 18:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-defining and per previous consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 25#Category:Ancestors of Elizabeth II. Besides, the currently included articles are wholly ludicrous and list an eclectic almost random bunch of people. DrKay (talk) 22:02, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"included articles are wholly ludicrous and list an eclectic almost random bunch of people", such as? Alssa1 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic of e.g. Barbara of Cilli, nor is it for anyone else who is not a member of the British royal family. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, if fully populated this would be a ridiculously large list including large sections of English nobility and European royalty and nobility. There is also more than one British Royal family, the current category includes Wynflaed who was the probable ancestor of two House of Wessex kings from the 10th century.--Mvqr (talk) 12:25, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Devokewater ^(talk) 01:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This would be far too wide-ranging to make a useful category by the time one gets back more than a few generations: If limited to just 10 generations back, the category could potentially have about 2000 members. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 00:10, 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 16:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Horrorcore artists to Category:Horrorcore musicians
  • Propose renaming Category:Grime music artists to Category:Grime musicians (added on relisting, 10 Dec 2021)
  • Propose renaming Category:Hardcore hip hop artists to Category:Hardcore hip hop musicians
  • Propose renaming Category:Nerdcore artists to Category:Nerdcore musicians

Nominator's rationale: They arent artists. Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Calling musicians artists misleads editors whose first language is not English. Rathfelder (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose Musicians are artists. Tons of categeries for music labels are using artists! No way to change that IMHO. The usual term in English is artist roster if labels list their bands and singers/composers. Stop this nonsense nomination! --Just N. (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Musicians are not artists as far as our categorisation is concerned. There are quite a lot of musicians, such as Ron Nesher and Angèle (singer), for example, who were miscategorised as artists. We shouldnt use ambiguous terms for categorisation - that is why we dont use Doctor as a category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Adding the few siblings in Category:Hip hop musicians by genre which likewise currently use "artists"
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: see also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_November_23#Category:Kwaito_artists. – Fayenatic London 10:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Category:Grime musicians's proposed name is missing the "music" part of the category. So whatever the result is, it shouldn't break C2C (though, seeing as the article is at Grime (music genre)), the entire tree should be C2D here). Gonnym (talk) 11:40, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per Category:Musicians. Oculi (talk) 11:48, 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 16:04, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Self-harm in films to Category:Films about self-harm

Nominator's rationale: purge (that in the first place) and rename (to stress the definingness of self-harm), many articles do not fall within the definition of self-harm. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment How will definingness be determined? In Betty Blue, Betty gouges her eyes out. In Fatal Attraction, Alex slashes her wrists. They're major plot points, but are they defining? Jim Michael (talk) 10:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither fits with self-harm as laid out in this article. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They both easily fit the description of the first sentence of that article. Jim Michael (talk) 14:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Reading one sentence without context isn't too helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you're excluding those examples on the grounds of them being suicide attempts. However, it's not clear whether or not either character intends to kill herself. Jim Michael (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I am not aware of any film specifically about self-harm, as opposed to being an aspect of the main characters' behavior. Dimadick (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's a problem with limiting it to films in which it's defining. Most films which are about self-harm are documentaries. Jim Michael (talk) 08:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If it isn't defining for any film, so be it, then purging will lead to WP:C1. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:26, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Dimadick. --Just N. (talk) 00:13, 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 16:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Suicide in film ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. This is in contrast to the articles in Category:Films about suicide. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose This trivializes the subject matter. Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not at all, there are over 300 articles in Category:Films about suicide. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:42, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question Is there a MOS that clarifies which form (Widgets about X vs X in Widgets) is preferred? Gjs238 (talk) 01:18, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not that I know of, but in recent years I have seen many categories been moved to Widgets about X (instead of X in Widgets) exactly because of definingness issues. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. These "X in film" categories (i.e. most of the first level categories in Category:Topics in film) easily become trivia wastebins, and the poorly defined criteria ("suicide that is notable or controversial") can easily run into WP:SUBJECTIVECAT territory. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Not only *successful* suicide are comprehended but also suicide attempts. And yes, it's DEFINING for the feature film plots! --Just N. (talk) 00:19, 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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:42, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Documentary films about eating disorders to Category:Films about eating disorders and Category:Documentary films about mental disorders

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Unlikely to expand much. Dimadick (talk) 13:19, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom and Dimadick. --Xurizuri (talk) 14:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Has anybody really searched the Wp-en for suitable documentary articles? AFAIK Youtube is full of such doc films. I'd expect that this topic is maybe just not a popular one for Wp authors. But it is an essential content for our users (as parents or peers). --Just N. (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I expect most Youtube films do not meet notability requirements for Wikipedia. But feel free to search, of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 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 all. – Fayenatic London 10:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Arbitron market by state navigational boxes to Category:United States radio market navigational boxes by state

Nominator's rationale: Arbitron, now fully subsumed by Nielsen Media Research, defined/defines radio markets in the United States. These are proprietary, and in television, the use of Nielsen market definitions led to an OTRS ticket in 2008. Additionally, not all of the markets reflected in this and its child subcategories are defined radio markets by Arbitron. Renaming would remove any potential concerns similar to the old OTRS ticket for this category and more accurately reflect scope.

There are 51 subcategories of the form "(STATE) Arbitron market navigational boxes" which should all be changed to "(STATE) radio market navigational boxes":

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:11, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment, the 51 subcategories should be listed and tagged too. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Working on this now. (Was not going to do that at 1am.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. - Eureka Lott 15:20, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Gusfriend (talk) 06:55, 1 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Quincy Media ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Company is no longer in business and has sold all of its media properties, resulting in their removal to other categories as appropriate. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:57, 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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Red Peach Radio ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT; only four possible pages, all linked from each other by {{Ruston Radio}}. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:56, 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Mapleton Communications radio stations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Company is no longer in business. Only remaining article in category is a redirect on a topic now owned by another company. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:54, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as creator, per nom. Mlaffs (talk) 00:43, 11 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) 08:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Delmarva Broadcasting radio stations ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No longer an active company (was purchased by Forever Media, which does not have an article or category but likely merits one). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:51, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as creator, per nom. Mlaffs (talk) 00:43, 11 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: no consensus. There is a consensus that the category does have some sort of defining nature to it (doctors who have achieved some sort of notability for appearing on TV and other media). The question posed by the nomination is whether the category fails WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, or to rephrase the question, is the emphasis in the title on "celebrity" (which is subjective) or "celebrity doctor" taken as a descriptive term? It seems that the inability to settle on a new term more or less confirms the latter. It's also worth noting that there is already a main article at Celebrity doctor, which for some reason was not fully taken into account during the discussion. bibliomaniac15 19:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Celebrity doctors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Nominator's rationale: Does this category for medical professionals with "extensive media exposure" (per main article Celebrity doctor) fail WP:SUBJECTIVECAT? For example, Ruth Westheimer is described as a sex therapist and media personality, but not as a "celebrity doctor". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:02, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Definitely subjective and wide open to abuse and misuse. No Great Shaker (talk) 19:21, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose deletion I support a rename but this categorization is valuable. A better name is "Media personality doctors", and that format can apply to lots of categories. Category:Internet celebrities is problematic for the same reason that celebrity status is something to measure, but being a media personality is more certain. Category:Television chefs uses the word "television" in a way that meant celebrity a generation ago, but now "media personality chefs" would apply more correctly. I agree with NGS that determining who is a celebrity is subject to abuse but I do not see that risk with determining who is a media personality. Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:23, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge back to something more appropriate, without celebrity, which is subjective. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to something more appropriate e.g. Category: Media personality doctors or Category:Medical professionals in media. It is not a trivial intersection, these people appear in media as medical experts, hence the category should not be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Marcocapelle. I have added this into Category:Science communicators, but there seems to be no standard naming for such skills, cf. Category:Mathematics popularizers. – Fayenatic London 13:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Doesn't seem like there's a consensus to delete, but no target name has been decided on either.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 06:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If I'd have to choose between my own earlier suggestions, I would take Category:Medical professionals in media. But it is only a weak preference. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:NONDEFINING. While some sources use the term (sometimes only in headlines), it seems to be a label arbitrarily and inconsistently applied (why Mehmet Oz but not Sanjay Gupta?), and often secondary to more straightforward terms like "physician", "television personality", "fitness advocate", etc. And depending on use, it could be construed as either unduly promotional, neutral, or derogatory (as if they're less than "real" doctors): a recent press release uses it as a selling point, while a critic of Eva Carneiro "called her naive and a "celebrity doctor," accusing her of thinking she was bigger than the club." Dr. Ben Carson wrote in his biography: "I don’t want to become a show-business personality or be known as the celebrity doctor." Headlines like "The cult of celebrity doctors" don't help put the term in a celebratory light. As a sidenote, I dislike the apparent shoehorning of "celebrity doctor" into the first sentence as first occupation in the lead of biographies whose "celebrity" status is incidental to their primary occupation as physician or author (Joel Fuhrman is a physician and diet advocate, Nicholas Perricone is a dermatologist, Andrew Weil is an alternative medicine proponent, David Perlmutter is a neurologist and nutritionist, etc.): it often feels cherry-piked ("technically somebody said it so lets slap it on") and it unduly frames the rest of the lead and article. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:37, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added Sanjay Gupta to the category. The article literally says "Gupta is known for his many TV appearances on health-related issues" and we categorize people for what they are known for. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Whether a person is a celebrity is a wholly subjective matter, and thus one inappropriate for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Marcocapelle. I'v changed my mind and canceled my other vote above. Some more precise criteria description would be helpful to eliminate the ususal suspect of SUBJECTIVECAT indeed. --Just N. (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Commment: the proposed renames of Category:Media personality doctors or Category:Medical professionals in media seem even more of an artificial construct, i.e. used only on Wikipedia to classify and meta-classify, disregarding WP:DEFINING and WP:COPDEF. While it's subjective, at least "celebrity doctor" is a term that's actually in fairly wide use. --Animalparty! (talk) 22:50, 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: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Best Actor in a Leading Role for Asian Academy Creative Awards winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Best Actress in a Leading Role for Asian Academy Creative Awards winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Best Actor in a Supporting Role for Asian Academy Creative Awards winners ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia doesn't have general categories for any the Asian Academy Creative Awards so these specific categories don't really have a place here, they are too small. For now. The relevant article is Asian Academy Creative Awards. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:29, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Asian Academy Creative Awards (which should be the main article) indicates that this is Singapore's film award for Asia films, etc. Many countries have such award ceremonies, but only a few of the most prominent are allowed categories (as an exception to . The awards appear only to be four years old, so that none could have the normal minimum of five members yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 16 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.