Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 November 30

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< November 29
December 1 >

November 30

edit

Category:Actresses by city or town

edit
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 as nominated for the first two. For Category:Actors by city or town in France, rename to Category:French actors by populated place (C2C is a very strong argument). (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: opposed at speedy. However, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_February_22#Category:People_by_city_or_town. Mason (talk) 21:25, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Ceyockey and Aidan721: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Mason (talk) 21:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Prussian military personnel

edit
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:Prussian military personnel by province. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 01:39, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Physicians from Austria-Hungary in Bosnia and Herzegovina

edit
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:Physicians from Austria-Hungary. Marcocapelle's argument is very strong; potentially adding any of the articles currently in this category (Gisela Januszewska, Bohuslava Kecková, and Teodora Krajewska) to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina physicians can be discussed at the relevant talk page. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 20:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection we don't categorize doctors by where they practice Mason (talk) 19:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Novel awards by country

edit
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: deleted under G7. (non-admin closure) Edward-Woodrow (talk) 01:28, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: made in error Themightyquill (talk) 09:17, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Comics characters with spider powers

edit
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 Category:Comics characters with spider powers. Category:Fictional characters with spider powers would need to have a separate discussion on its own right first. bibliomaniac15 06:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both Category:Marvel Comics characters with spider powers and Category:Comics characters with spider powers into Category:Fictional characters with spider powers. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note: It actually included more pages and subcats, but looks like they were removed by other users, likely AHI-3000. Est. 2021 (talk · contribs) 11:26, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, most of the content was already concentrated in Category:Marvel Comics characters with spider powers to begin with. AHI-3000 (talk) 18:18, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Incest in legend

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Category:Incest in legend

Category:Agricultural researchers in India

edit
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. bibliomaniac15 06:52, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category, merge in principle, but I've already added each person to their specific vocation (such as Botanists active in India, Indian agronomists). the parent category "Researchers in India" was merged into Indian scientists. Mason (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
keep and improve I would argue that agricultural researchers cross traditional expertise categories and were/are supported by the governments both British and Indian. Includes a mix of chemists, microbiologists, pathologist, biochemists, entomologists, botanists, plant breeders, statisticians, and so on. Shyamal (talk) 02:01, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How do you suggest we improve it? Because the name at present isn't helpful. Is this category supposed to be about agricultural researchers active in India? Is it supposed to be indian nationals who are agricultural researchers? Mason (talk) 02:34, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated by the wording, it is nationality and time agnostic. There is a fairly well defined circumscription for "agricultural research". Agricultural research was and is a major field of research with colonial and socialist sponsorship. You added Leslie C. Coleman to "botanists" (for having described one species of fungus!), that would be a very poor descriptor for a person who held a position as a "director of agriculture" in India and came from Canada. The loss of historical context is huge in removing this category which potentially has a very large number of notables. I am sure the same could be done for work in other countries, it just happens that the classification is currently lacking parallels from other countries. In places like the US there is the Agricultural Research Service under the USDA. In India there is the ICAR but a category like "ICAR employee" would be too restrictive and could at best be a subcategory as there are state as well as federal services. In some languages like French "Agronomy" is considered equalent to "agricultural science" but the term agronomy as used in India is a subset of agricultural science and research. Shyamal (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So I understand that you @Shyamal thought the wording was clear, but given the conventions for categories, this category would be named "Indian agricultural researchers" if the researchers were "Indian nationals", or Agricultural researchers active in India if the researchers were defined by the location of their research, which I think is what you mean by "nationality [...] agnostic"
Can you point to some example occupation categories that match what you have in mind? Because I thought medical researchers was a close analogue. Mason (talk) 22:14, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I am not sure what more is needed - there are categories like Category:Research_in_Africa, Category:Botanists_by_location_of_research and Category:Botanists_active_in_South_Asia (although I cannot see why active is not entirely redundant). If you want to follow the scheme of researchers in "subject area" - perhaps like Category:Researchers_in_Rapa_Nui_archaeology then maybe you could alternately consider the Americanized style of "researchers in Indian agriculture". Shyamal (talk) 02:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also check out Category:Baptist missionaries in India Shyamal (talk) 16:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for digging these up. They're helpful at seeing what you're intent is for the category. I think something like "Agricultural researchers active in India" captures your intent within the category structure. But, I'm not really sure that the location of research is defining for agricultural researchers. My understanding is that for botanists, the researcher is active in a specific location, similar to how archeologists are active in certain dig sites/cultures. Are Agricultural researchers typically focused around a specific region, as opposed to a specific crop or method? Mason (talk) 19:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised that you are asking for this information after all this. Any person who deals with the history of agriculture would know - here are some old sources 1234 - Any reader would expect all the people mentioned in those volumes to be discoverable under a single category. Shyamal (talk) 12:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful to learn this. I give up. By this logic you should be deleting - Category:Medical_researchers as well. Shyamal (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned, this location matters for places with a colonial history - people were posted from other locations. I see geologists having a similar situation for India - there were people from Ireland, Moravia, US etc working in India. I still see botanists "active in" as being redundant and inaccurate. If it was collectors I understand it but you can be a botanist or entomologist who is a specialist Indian taxa and be entirely resident in the Natural History Museum in London. I think the overall categorization fails in an understanding of location-based science particularly in the colonial context. I do not see a need to be fixated on how similar the grammar needs to be across categories. There should actually be similar categories to deal with agricultural researchers i n the Carribean, the Dutch East Indies etc. There can be differences - we see that parallels already exists that are precise and concise. Shyamal (talk) 12:52, 27 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:43, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional Arabs

edit
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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 19:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge , this category confuses Arab ethnicity with the Arab world aka Middle East. People from the Middle East aren't all Arabs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category is large enough on its own. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:24, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, keep in mind that Category:Arab people has subcategories for people from all the different Arabic-speaking countries in it, so unless this is changed I think that justifies the inclusion of all their respective fictional counterparts under Category:Fictional Arabs. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is a complete distortion of the scope of the category. It is defining for a fictional character to be described as an Arab, as for many other ethnicities. This is completely irrelevant with membership of countries in the Arab League, countries which all have non-Arabic population. Category:Fictional ancient Egyptians are not Arabs, for instance! Your robot-like work of thoughtlessly copying the structure of non-fiction people categories into the realm of fictional characters creates a mess. Firstly what defines a fictional character is different, especially in the realm of ethnicity, as characters are often correctly defined by a few stereotypes, while real people never are. Secondly, even nonfiction categories are sometimes wrong. Place Clichy (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly is your point here? People from Arabic-speaking countries are generally considered to be Arabs unless part of a non-Arab minority group. Modern Egyptians are generally considered to be Arabs, and most people don't dispute this notion. AHI-3000 (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unknowledgeable people don't dispute it. Wikipedia exists to make people more knowledgeable, not less. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean? People from Arabic-speaking countries often self-identify as Arabs. AHI-3000 (talk) 11:04, 1 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Kurds in Iraq and Syria, the Copts in Egypt, the Kabyles in Algeria, the Berbers in Morocco and Tunisia are just a few significant minorities which strongly identify apart from the Arab majority, numbering in dozens of millions. The significant Armenian community in Lebanon can't be called Arabs by any stretch. A solution here would be to use a fictional Arabs category only for articles for characters which are explicitly individually defined as Arab (not Iraqi or Lebanese or Egyptian) and not geographic sub-categories. But as the term Arab is used so vaguely with conflicting meanings, merging to Middle Eastern may be a better outcome. Place Clichy (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lists of people by place in the United Kingdom

edit
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:Lists of British people by location. bibliomaniac15 06:55, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. I have a slight preference for the target name because it is more consistent with parent Lists of British people and children Lists of English people by location and Lists of Scottish people by location, and because there is a preference for names where the splitter is at the end per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 1 § X by Y in Z. Place Clichy (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(answered after relisting) While I could live with a reverse merge, I don't think that the opposing argument makes much sense. These categories for people... in the United Kingdom are casually placed in parent categories named for British people: Category:Lists of people by place in the United Kingdom is currently in parents Category:British people by locality and Category:Lists of British people, and Category:Lists of British people by location has Category:Lists of people by city in the United Kingdom as a child. There are no children categories for these mysterious non-British UK people, except if you consider the English and Scottish categories as that, which is quite a stretch. This hypothetical difference between British and non-British people from the UK is not not present at the level of parent categories either. It does not exist for any other country, e.g. we don't have parallel trees for Category:People in Qatar next to Category:Qatari people, despite the well-known fact that ca. 90% of residents of Qatar are not Qatari nationals. I don't think it would be workable to try and have such a distinction in categories (it should be made clear in every article when possible though, of course). Please merge anyway whatever the consensus target turns out to be, as a better outcome to the status quo. I still slightly prefer the initial target, because of the format of the parent categories. Place Clichy (talk) 04:06, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Zayed

edit
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) HouseBlastertalk 01:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted by Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 23#Category:Recipients of the Order of Zayed. A nomination for speedy deletion under Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G4. Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion was declined. Celia Homeford (talk) 10:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As I stated in the speedy deletion nomination, the category was previously not consistent with other categories relating to national honors, and was deleted based on it's previous flaws. I am maintaining this category and in it's current state is not there is no rational for deletion. Vyvagaba (talk) 10:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:35, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Indo-Europeanists

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Category:Indo-Europeanists

Category:Fictional self-sacrifices

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Category:Fictional self-sacrifices

Category:Suicides in Milan

edit
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 (but bordering on no consensus) (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 19:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per trivial cat, we don't categorize deaths by place "Also avoid categorizing people by information associated with a person's death, such as the age at which the person died, the place of the person's death, or by whether the person still had unreleased or unpublished work at the time of their death." Also per WP:OCLOCATION, "The place of death is not normally categorized" Mason The primary category is cause of death (that is then diffused by country). Mason (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, the place of a hospital or the place of a car accident etc. is often unrelated to someone's life, unless they have been living in that place. But in the latter case they are already in a "People from populated place" category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as the comparative information the categories generate is really interesting. If the aim is to create a uniform dumbing-down of the present structure, and if there may be a consensus for that, could we please have a comprehensive approach all at once, instead of a nibbling at the edges? For instance, everything in the tree Category:Suicides by city should surely be here. And is Category:Suicide bombings by city outside your line on this, Mason? Moonraker (talk) 13:17, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: I don't see how you can get much intoformation from the categories as there's huge selection effects. The aim isn't to dumb down the present structure, but to restore it. I appreciate your suggestion of bundling but, I think that this issue boils down to the specific part of a city folks died in, isn't defining. I don't see Suicide bombings by city being on the chopping block as that describes "death" as opposed to individual deaths. Mason (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I do not see a reason to merge city-level categories to country-level categories. The latter are too big, and need to be subcategorized. Dimadick (talk) 20:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:34, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Suicides in New York City

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Category:Suicides in New York City

Category:Deaths by firearm in New York City

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Category:Deaths by firearm in New York City

Category:Publishers of Doctor Who books

edit
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) HouseBlastertalk 19:38, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, companies in question publish other things besides Doctor Who --woodensuperman 14:41, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 16:40, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:32, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional female businesspeople

edit
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. bibliomaniac15 06:57, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This new page name would be shorter and also consistent with its real-life counterpart Category:Businesswomen. AHI-3000 (talk) 03:12, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:30, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Deaths in Caracas

edit
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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Deaths within a city is not defining Mason (talk) 00:31, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:29, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Serer jurists

edit
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) Qwerfjkltalk 13:08, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEGRS and WP:NARROWCAT. All three distinct members (Doudou Diène, Alhaji Bai Modi Joof, and Laïty Kama) are already in other subcategories by nationality and occupation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:00, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Mason (talk) 19:14, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional centaurs

edit
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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 01:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, as there are almost no articles in the category that are not redirects. They would be dual merged into Category:Centaurs with the exception of Centaurs in popular culture, which would only be merged into Category:Centaurs. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:57, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Just as with harpies, above, specificity is good in this area. People looking for fictional centaurs should be able to distinguish them easily from other fictional creatures—it makes no sense to have a single category for centaurs, harpies, werewolves, Snagglepuss, etc., where you have to click on each article to find out what kind of creature it represents. This is a decently-sized category, and I don't think that it matters whether the entries redirect to the books or other media in which they appear—they still lead readers to the exact subject they're looking for. It'd be a lot harder to locate that if merged with other categories that also contain redirects.
Imagine being redirected to The Last Unicorn because it contains a harpy, when you're looking for centaurs, and having to scan or search the contents of the page just to figure out whether a centaur is mentioned—and possibly wondering whether there might be a centaur in the novel that isn't mentioned in the plot summary! I see no benefit to lumping all of these creatures together, and some distinct disadvantages. P Aculeius (talk) 15:37, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. What centaurs aren't fictional? Mason (talk) 19:15, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We count centaurs from Greek mythology separately from this category, which is for modern works of fiction. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional harpies

edit
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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 01:34, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created by blocked sock. WP:SMALLCAT that is unnecessarily specific. Entries can be dual merged to Category:Cultural depictions of Harpies. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:12, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I don't think anybody would think to look for fictional harpies under "fictional animal–human hybrids", which may have its own justifications as a title, but which just doesn't seem like a likely category to search under. Specificity is good here; if someone wants to find other examples of harpies in fiction, they shouldn't have to wade through dozens of listings of other types of creatures, hoping to find the few that are harpies. The category seems large enough to justify its existence, and has potential for expansion. This goes for "fictional centaurs" too—even more so, as that's a much larger category. P Aculeius (talk) 15:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Specificity isn't helpful as they're all also in Harpies already... Mason (talk) 19:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:24, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fiction about otherworld

edit
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:Fiction by setting. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There seems to be an overlap here, with one generally encompassing the other. I am not really convinced this category was required. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 14:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fiction by setting. There is an important distinction between afterlife and parallel universes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:01, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@LaundryPizza03: Well, Category:Fiction about the afterlife also exists as well... ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 17:40, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:23, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Non-Austrian military personnel in Austrian armies

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 12#Category:Non-Austrian military personnel in Austrian armies

Category:Massacres committed by anarchists

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Category:Massacres committed by anarchists

Works set in outer space

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Works set in outer space

Category:Black composers

edit
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. There was no substantiative rationale for keeping. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:ETHNICRACECAT, we do not categorize people by skin color. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedents regarding Category:Black people. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Would of "Composers of African descent" work as a rename to change the scope slightly? I'm thinking of this page (List of composers of African descent ). Mason (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a big difference between "delete" and "rename". I am not fighting for any particular revised name, but I think the category is worth keeping. Pete unseth (talk) 22:31, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purge. I agree with Pete on this. We may need to purge the handful of folks from Melanesia.Mason (talk) 18:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:10, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Works set on the moon

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Category:Works set on the moon

Category:Cyber Security by country

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 December 20#Category:Cyber Security by country

Category:Fictional brands

edit
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) Qwerfjkltalk 13:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. Target already contains all articles except Stay Puft Marshmallow Man and Products produced from The Simpsons. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional executions by method

edit
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/merge (not to Category:Hanging in fiction). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:34, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT: Method of execution is arbitrary in fiction and may include methods that do not exist in real life, such as by black hole. Category:Fictional executed characters is fairly small, too. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all proposals. And why not nominate Category:Fictional executed people by crime as well? AHI-3000 (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't considered that, since I wasn't as sure. Did you mean Category:Fictional executed people by crime? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"may include methods that do not exist in real life": categories about fictional events are not prohibited. Apokrif (talk) 21:30, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that; what I should have said is that the method of execution is usually plot-irrelevant. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:53, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear I still oppose any deletion or merging of any nominated categories. I do not support this weird obsession with destroying categories just because they're too small. AHI-3000 (talk) 05:22, 2 December 2023 (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.

Ungulates

edit
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 the "prehistoric" categories; no consensus on the rest. WP:NPASR. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 19:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main categories were renamed back in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_October_19#Category:Even-toed_ungulates and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 October 19#Category:Odd-toed ungulates, respectively. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename of the "prehistoric" categories - which, to a complete and utter lack of shock on my part, are the only ones not created recently or by a blocked sock, but delete the rest. They seem like textbook WP:NARROWCAT - people can just navigate into subcategories to find these, nobody's going to specifically care about whether a film is about a _insert unpronounceable name here_. I'm even dubious about whether the move was sound in the first place due to WP:COMMONNAME guidelines being violated, but even if it goes back to ungulates it still makes little to no sense. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:46, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Frozen conflict zones

edit
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. There is a lot of discussion, but I will note that the creator has not convinced anyone to support keeping the category. Consensus is not a vote, but our essay about WP:SUPERVOTEing rightly points out that an XfD discussion is not an "admin's suggestion box". Thinking this category runs afoul of WP:DEFINING is a valid opinion, and getting even a "no consensus" result out of this 5–1 discussion would require the five to have egregiously terrible rationales. Thus, there is consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) HouseBlastertalk 20:03, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is a "frozen conflict zone"? Is this an invented label, or something that's subjective and redundant with other categories such as Category:States with limited recognition? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Frozen conflicts are a thing verily recognised in reliable sources, to the point where we have an article on them. The article itself lists a number of zones where frozen conflicts apply, all supported by reliable sourcing. It is unrelated to the article OP suggests, as there are states with complete recognition that are frozen conflict zones, and there are states with limited recognition that are not frozen conflict zones. — Czello (music) 22:37, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as a characteristic that is temporary by nature (even if it lasts long). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would its nature of being temporary necessitate deletion? Surely if it ceases to fit into the category we simply remove the category? — Czello (music) 22:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • When it is temporary, it is not defining. It is a matter of recentism. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Some of the locations within this category have been frozen for decades - in some instances as many as 70 years. It's hard to argue this is a case of recentism. Additionally some of the locations are strongly defined by the fact they are FCZs or have been created as a result of frozen conflicts. — Czello (music) 14:23, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • That just confirms my "even if it lasts long". There have probably been numerous conflicts in the past that seemed frozen but where ultimately there was a breakthrough, that will happen with the conflicts in this category too. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Then the category is removed from that article. — Czello (music) 09:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        • If it would have been a defining characteristic it wouldn't have to be removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
          I don't think I've ever seen a rule stating that something that might one day change means it can't be defining, especially when we're talking about political situations that have remained unchanged for decades. Also, the fact that it could change is speculative/WP:OR; when we have unchanged political situations for, in some cases, as many as 70 years, it's difficult to argue it's not defining. — Czello (music) 14:38, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the concept is notable, which situations qualify is subjective. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:48, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    All the situations are supported by sourcing, either at frozen conflict or in their individual articles. — Czello (music) 16:55, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The sourcing is really about having reputable people with the opinion of it being a frozen conflict. Others may see it as a the new normal, or diplomatic nicety. Having sources for competing opinions is great for the article space where nuance can be captured while maintaining WP:NPOV but not for the binary category space. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:42, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Sorry if this appears pushy, but I feel it's worthing highlighting that, as consensus is not decided by majority vote, that the the delete arguments have been addressed and rebutted with no further response.
— Czello (music) 23:00, 25 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I provided a reply, sorry for the delay. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:43, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete besides the other delete reasons, I found verifiability issues in both entries that I checked. For example, Czello added the category to Nagorno-Karabakh but there is no content in the article (sourced or otherwise) that supports the description. Ditto with South Korea. WP:DEFINING is also unclear. (t · c) buidhe 04:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    These additions were from frozen conflict, but if there are issues with sourcing then surely the correct solution is simply remove the category. — Czello (music) 15:27, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Since categories don't have citations, they need to be verified and sourced in the article. Please esure to follow WP:CATV in the future when adding categories to any article. Since categorization is supposed to be defining, if it's not in the article at all that's a sign the category should not exist. (t · c) buidhe 17:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of them are sourced in the articles (for example, Abkhazia). Any that aren't can easily be removed. That's not a valid reason for deletion. — Czello (music) 20:53, 3 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The main article Frozen conflict defines this more as a tactic of conflict and geopolitical influence on third countries, mostly specific to Russia and around it, rather than a type of conflict. There are many conflicts in history with stalled for a long time without much actual fighting, such as the Siege of Candia, Alsace-Lorraine, the Cold War, the Pale of Calais or Gibraltar. They are not much different from the selection here, especially the presence of South Korea in the list, either by the frozen or conflict character. However, they would not belong in the category, because its scope is peculiar and subjective. Place Clichy (talk) 04:43, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:4-polytope stubs

edit
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. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:46, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stub category with under 50 stubs, upmerge to Category:Geometry stubs. Andumé (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:04, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Television episodes directed by cast member

edit
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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:01, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly-named category for a non-defining characteristic. Television episodes are not defined by the matter of whether they were directed by a cast member of the series or not -- and, for added bonus, the majority of the content here is redirects to episode lists, not standalone articles about episodes, so they mostly fail to contextualize any possible claims of unusual significance. Essentially this is just trivia, not a thing that unifies these episodes into a special class of thing that gets discussed or analyzed as a group on this basis.
And even if it were to be kept for some reason, this wouldn't be its correct name, so it would have to be renamed anyway. Bearcat (talk) 20:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
  • Badly-named category - I completely disagree, it adequately and clearly identifies what the contents are about.
  • Television episodes are not defined by the matter of whether they were directed by a cast member of the series or not - actually, they are. If you'd look at the draft that I'm working on (User:Gonnym/sandbox/episodes/cast; one of the only pages linked to the category) you'd see 23 references so far that only talk about television episodes that are directed by one of the cast members of the show. That clearly established two things, the first that it is a defining characteristic, and the second, that the subject itself is notable. References:[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]
  • the majority of the content here is redirects to episode lists, not standalone articles about episodes so what? Any researcher who'd like to use Wikipedia to research the subject of episodes directed by actors of the series, will want the data, regardless of it this is currently a redirect or a stand-alone article.
  • and even if it were to be kept for some reason, this wouldn't be its correct name, so it would have to be renamed anyway - that is your opinion, please do not present it as fact. I completely disagree with it.
Since the above nomination is based on poorly presented opinions and incorrect statements, I can only see a WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument here. Gonnym (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, I don't give a flying honk what you do or don't "disagree" with about the category's name, because Wikipedia's standard naming conventions, and basic grammar, both disagree with you. A properly named category would, firstly, require the plural "cast members", not the singular "cast member", and it would require "cast members of something", not just "cast members the end". I am quite simply correct about this, and I am not debating you on that point: cast members, in the plural, of something, very extremely end of discussion on that.
Secondly, it isn't a question of whether you can find sources discussing the actors as a group — this isn't a category for the actor/directors, it's a category for the episodes, and you haven't shown sources discussing the episodes as a group. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Derwin, Nina (June 7, 2023). "TV Actors Who Directed Episodes of Their Shows". shondaland.com. Retrieved November 8, 2023.
  2. ^ Marder, Hannah (July 19, 2021). "29 TV Stars Who Said "Screw It, Let Me Have A Go At Directing" On Their Hit Shows". BuzzFeed. Retrieved November 8, 2023.
  3. ^ Nobleza, Jessica (February 16, 2023). "10 TV Actors Who Directed Episodes of Their Hit Shows". Collider. Retrieved November 8, 2023.
  4. ^ Spears, Jordyn (June 23, 2022). "8 TV Actors Who Directed Episodes of Their Own Shows". MovieWeb. Retrieved November 8, 2023.
  5. ^ "27 TV Actors Who Directed Episodes of Their Hit Shows". FandomWire. May 5, 2023. Retrieved November 8, 2023.
  6. ^ Eames, Tom (March 27, 2017). "9 TV stars who directed brilliant episodes of their own shows". Digital Spy. Retrieved November 8, 2023.
  7. ^ Nardino, Meredith (October 20, 2022). "Cynthia Nixon, Ian Somerhalder and More TV Stars Who've Directed Episodes of Their Own Shows". Usmagazine.com. Retrieved November 8, 2023.
  8. ^ Pantoja, Kevin (August 7, 2021). "10 Actors You Didn't Know Directed Episodes Of TV". Screen Rant. Retrieved November 8, 2023.
  9. ^ Fleming Jr, Mike (February 14, 2021). "'Your Honor' Finale: Peter Moffat Explains The Shakespearean Downfall Of Bryan Cranston's Judge Desiato". Deadline Hollywood. Retrieved November 13, 2023.
  10. ^ Schwartz, Terri (January 3, 2018). "Clark Gregg Directs His Own "Mini-Marvel Movie" in New Agents of SHIELD Episode". IGN. Retrieved November 13, 2023.
  11. ^ Harp, Justin (July 22, 2018). "Marvel's Agents of SHIELD is bringing back Clark Gregg in season 6". Digital Spy. Retrieved November 13, 2023.
  12. ^ Ortiz, Andi (April 26, 2023). "'The Flash': Danielle Panabaker Admits Directing Her Last Episode Was 'One of the Few Times I Got Emotional' in Final Season". TheWrap. Retrieved November 13, 2023.
  13. ^ Pfeifer, Kelsey (July 21, 2020). "Elizabeth Henstridge On Why Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.'s Time Loop Episode Was 'The Perfect One' for Her Directing Debut". TV Guide. Retrieved November 13, 2023.
  14. ^ Rico, Klaritza (Jun 17, 2020). "Variety Streaming Room: Star Cynthia Erivo, Director Jason Bateman and Producer Richard Price on Adapting 'The Outsider' For HBO". Variety. Retrieved November 13, 2023.
  15. ^ Martin, Denise (January 23, 2014). "Adam Scott on Greatest Event Guilt, Wearing Short-Shorts, and Directing Parks and Recreation". Vulture. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
  16. ^ Iacobucci, Jordan (August 14, 2022). "The Office: 10 Best Episodes Directed By A Cast Member". Screen Rant. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
  17. ^ Meroney, John (April 14, 2012). "'Roger Isn't Who I Am': An Interview With John Slattery of 'Mad Men'". The Atlantic. Retrieved November 13, 2023.
  18. ^ "Jon Hamm to direct Mad Men episode". The Sydney Morning Herald. May 27, 2011. Retrieved 2023-11-13.
  19. ^ Bryant, Jacob (April 25, 2017). "'The Flash' Star Tom Cavanagh Talks Directing This Week's Episode". Variety. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
  20. ^ Derschowitz, Jessica (September 20, 2016). "Zooey Deschanel on directing the New Girl season 6 premiere". Entertainment Weekly. Retrieved November 12, 2023.
  21. ^ Michael, Jalen (June 9, 2022). "10 Emmy-Contending Actors Who Directed on Their Own Series". Backstage. Retrieved November 16, 2023.
  22. ^ Coates, Tyler (June 12, 2023). "When Stars Direct Their Own Shows: Bill Hader, Donald Glover and More Actors Who Wear Multiple Hats". The Hollywood Reporter. Retrieved November 16, 2023.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, signed, Rosguill talk 00:02, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Bearcat. Mason (talk) 04:23, 6 December 2023 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_November_30&oldid=1190894964"