Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 6#Category:Viacom Media Networks

: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) 09:47, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Gray eminences}}

:Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category for a subjective criterion. The definition of an éminence grise is "powerful decision-maker or adviser who operates behind the scenes, or in a non-public or unofficial capacity", and it's undeniable that there have been a few people in history who became notable that way -- but the problem is that the term gets used incredibly subjectively, to encompass a lot more than just the traditional meaning. The people in this category, for example, include Dick Cheney, Deng Xiaoping, Joaquín Balaguer, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, Diego Portales and José López Rega, all of whom actually held official public positions in their respective countries' governments, as well as a president's communications advisor and (I'm not even kidding about this) a court jester -- and if we define the term that broadly, then this would become a massively unbrowsable megacategory for every politician who ever acted as an advisor or mentor to one of their successors, a good portion of the entire staff of the national leader's office under every government administration everywhere, every high-ranking civil servant in every government department, and even some lobbyists. Accordingly, we should not be categorizing people this way: those who were notable as politicians should be categorized as politicians, and those who were notable as political consultants or advisors should be categorized as advisors or consultants, rather than using a highly subjective and inconsistently-defined term like this. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

:*Delete Per Bearcat. Not all descriptors make good categorization schemes, and this one is far too subjective to be useful as a category. --Jayron32 20:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Delete. Seems subjective. If kept, I'd support a rename to {{cl|Éminences grises}}, since that is the more usual term in English and the name of the article. Grutness...wha? 02:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete -- I also think it is a subjective category, which cannot be allowed. If kept, rename to :Category:Éminences grises or similar. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

----

: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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_14#Category:Forgotten_Realms_deities (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:01, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Forgotten Realms deities to :Category:Dungeons & Dragons deities

:Nominator's rationale: The category structure is now at a point where the arbitrary splits are unnecessary for organization. There is nothing distinctive enough about the campaign settings in relation to the dieties to need to categorize the characters in such a way. TTN (talk) 18:21, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

----

: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: withdrawn by {{u|Rathfelder}}. (non-admin closure) ミラP 03:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) by parliament to :Category:18th-century English MPs‎

:Nominator's rationale: The two categories are identical. They separate the Members of the Parliament of England from the rest of the eighteenth century Members of the Parliament of Great Britain Rathfelder (talk) 17:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose. Part of an established series: :Category:Legislators by term → :Category:Legislators in the United Kingdom by term → :Category:British MPs by term.

:The by-century categories were created later, and I have now made all the by-centuries categories to be sub-cats of :Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) by parliament, which solves the problem.

:It's a pity that the nominator didn't take a minute or two study the category tree before coming to CFD. Would @Rathfelder like to withdraw this misconceived nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

:Oppose The category is useful for containing the subcategories by century. It is not identical to just the 18th century, as England had parliaments going back half a millenium before that. --Jayron32 17:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

:I'm quite happy with BHG's solution. I just didnt like 2 categories with identical contents. Rathfelder (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

::So will you withdraw the nomination, Rathfelder? That would save anyone else wasting time on it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

:::Certainly. Rathfelder (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

----

: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:English MPs of the Tudor period (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 12:20, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Members of the Parliament of England (1485–1603) to :Category:People of the Tudor period

:Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category created to capture Tudor MPs. They are all included in :Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) so that doesn't need merging. Rathfelder (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• 'Oppose. This would add clutter to :Category:People of the Tudor period; it's neater to keep them grouped. Possibly rename it to :Members of the Parliament of England in the Tudor period. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - the category is necessary to separate the subcat of MPS from others of the Tudor period. This is how sub-categories work, to bring coherence and order to the parent. Oculi (talk) 18:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• We could do the same for the Stuart period, the Elizabethan era and the Victorian era. But isnt it easier to just put the relevant dated subcategries into those categories? Rathfelder (talk) 22:40, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

:*{{re|Rathfelder}} Why yes it is. ミラP 23:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:English MPs of the Tudor period. Shorter name, less cluttery. ミラP 23:55, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Note User:Miraclepine (who signs themself above as ミラ) has been indefinitely blocked[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Miraclepine&diff=944383262&oldid=944312452] for WP:CIR. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:11, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• REname to :Category:English MPs of the Tudor period if kept, but this ought only to be a container, since we categorise MPs by Parliament. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:58, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
• {{ping|Rathfelder|Oculi|BrownHairedGirl}} what is your opinion about renaming to :Category:English MPs of the Tudor period? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• If we really want to keep it that seems better. I still think its superfluous. Rathfelder (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• Probably better to rename, because the current title gives no explanation of why clarify why this year range has been chosen. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• (Amended vote) If kept, rename as above. I concur with the comments in the item below this one. The content of this category is a 16th century subcategory, 4 articles 1485-9 and one for 1601. It would be feasible to restructure this by royal house: Late Plantagenet 1266-1399; 15th century (limited to the Houses of Lancaster and York, 1399-1485); Tudor (1485-1603); and Stuart (1603-1707), but if so we ought to remove the existing century categories. If we are to have the suggested Tudor category, the present 16th century category should be merged or copied in. The present structure is highly unsatisfactory. Perhaps with the blocking of User:Miraclepine, this should be closed as Delete and salt. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

----

: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: withdrawn. My mistake for not noticing Huntingdon. (non-admin closure) ミラP 19:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) for constituencies in Huntingdonshire to :Category:Members of the Parliament of England (pre-1707) for Huntingdonshire

:Nominator's rationale: Until 1885, Huntingdonshire was the only constituency that had its borders within any part of the county of the same name, so this name is anachronistic. ミラP 15:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• I'm happy with this, but I would like to remove (pre-1707) from all these categories. The main article is Parliament of England and we should normally follow that. There is no other Parliament of England. Adding (pre-1707) to all the subcategories makes the name excessively long. Rathfelder (talk) 16:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 4#Category:Members_of_the_Parliament_of_England_(pre-1707) was a nomintion to remove the "(pre-1707)" dab, and it was withdrawn by nominator. Please don't go flogging that dead horse. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• If it was withdrawn there was, presumably, no decision. I dont see why this category needs a date range but its successors dont. Rathfelder (talk) 17:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• @Rathfelder, if you really want to re-open that issue, then do so in one centralised discussion by nominating all relevant categories. But raising the same issue at a separate discussion for each individual category is disruptive (see WP:MULTI) .. especially when you demonstrate zero sign of having read WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 4#Category:Members_of_the_Parliament_of_England_(pre-1707). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Nominating all of them would be a big job, and I have no intention of raising this issue on each one. I'm interested to know how people, and you in particular, feel about it now. I understand your remarks about the text book, but I think I've found a way round it. Almost all the articles are now in categories based on the dates of the parliaments. If individual biographies are categorised this way we may avoid the confusion. Rathfelder (talk) 17:57, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Sigh.@Rathfelder:

:::::# I have not mentioned any "text book"

:::::# The problem is not about one book. That book is mentioned to illustrate a wider problem with the terminology.

:::::# The existence of the categories for English MPs by parliament is irrelevant is irrelevant, for the very simple reason that if an editor goes to add a "Category:Members of the Parliament of England for Foo" to a post-1707 MP, that article will not be in any of the "English MPs YYYY-YYYY" categories.

:::::This is all getting ridiculous. I will post a message on your talk. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose The nomination is factually wrong: the borough of Huntingdon was within Huntingdonshire.

:I am increasingly alarmed that Rathfelder and {{u|Miraclepine}} are engaged in prolific categorisation of MPs despite repeatedly demonstrating a lack of knowledge of even the most immediate pertinent facts, let alone the wider topic. I strongly urge Rathfelder and Miraclepine to desist from further categorisation of MPs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - I agree fully with all BHG's remarks. BHG set up a coherent, concisely named and fully implemented set of MP categories around 2005 and it is distressing to see Rathfelder enthusiastically romping around creating mayhem. Oculi (talk) 18:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

----

: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. – Fayenatic London 15:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street to :Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise)

:Nominator's rationale: This is a C2D situation - matching the category name to the franchise article. Why is this good? It gives an accurate reflection of what the category is for. This helps both readers and editors find and use the correct category. Sadly, I need to explain this very basic principle.

:When a category uses the name of an entry of the franchise, instead of the franchise name, it's unclear if the the category is for :A Nightmare on Elm Street, the first film in the franchise, or for the entire franchise. This gets worse when dealing with sub-categories. Is :Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street characters‎ for characters from the first film, or for the entire franchise, including comics? Are users who are in :Category:Wikipedians interested in Nightmare on Elm Street interested in the first film, or in the entire franchise?

:The naming issue does not end there. Not having a correct name, makes sub-category naming inconsistent. These sub-categories :Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street franchise media‎, :Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street (franchise) comics‎, and :Category:A Nightmare on Elm Street series music‎ are using different naming styles to say that they are for the entire franchise. One uses "franchise", another "(franchise)" in disambiguation and a third "series". This makes it extremely difficult for readers to find the category they want, as they need to guess what the name is.

:The use of "(franchise)" is also C2C as it is WP:CONSISTENT with how many other franchise category names work. See :Category:Horror film franchises for example for the similar categories :Category:Friday the 13th (franchise), :Category:Halloween (franchise)‎ and :Category:Scream (franchise)‎. Speedy renaming was also used recently without any problem for :Category:The Thing (franchise)‎, :Category:Child's Play (franchise)‎, and :Category:Gremlins (franchise). Gonnym (talk) 15:54, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Question @Gonnym: the proposal is to delete, but your rationale appears to be an argument for renaming. Please can you clarify what you are proposing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:49, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oh sorry, I had accidentally closed the nomination and wrote it again and didn't notice I forgot to change the type. Yes, this is for a renaming. Thanks! --Gonnym (talk) 17:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose IMO the main article should be moved. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 19:44, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
• Support While I actually agree with Armbrust about a hypothetical RM on the main article name, categories should follow the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

----

: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. The only consensus that is possible to determine is that the DAB component should be kept. However, in terms of where the categorized articles belong, the discussion has evolved alongside and become inextricably intertwined with several other discussions that happened after this discussion was initiated. It seems that the best course forward may be to close this particular discussion as no consensus and start it afresh, should it be deemed necessary. bibliomaniac15 04:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Veritas (political party) members of the London Assembly to :Category:Veritas members of the London Assembly

::* Propose deleting : Category:One London members of the London Assembly (added 5 December 2019)

:Nominator's rationale: consistency with other categories in :Category:Members of the London Assembly, none of which have (or need) the parenthetical disambiguation used in the titles of the parties' main articles. Opera hat (talk) 01:25, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 14:20, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Veritas (political party), {{cl|Veritas (political party)}}, {{cl|Veritas (political party) politicians}}. It is customary to retain the dab in category names; see e.g. {{cl|Conservative Party (UK) politicians}} and :Category:Labour Party (UK) politicians where it is the London Assembly ones which should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 13:40, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

::Are you really saying that it should be necessary to clarify that a Member of the London Assembly will be from a UK political party? Would you be in favour of renaming the subcategories of :Category:Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom by party as well? Opera hat (talk) 01:34, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

::: Such renames would be speedies; but I have better things to do. Oculi (talk) 20:35, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

• Merge back to :Category:Veritas (political party) politicians. Veritas was a splinter party that existed from 2009 (spilt from UKIP) to 2015 (amalgamate with English Democrats). We have two articles and are unlikely to have more. The London Assembly is a local council and local politicians are generally NN (unless notable for other reasons). This category has 2 articles and is unlikely to have more. This also applies to the MEP sibling category, but that might be merged with one covering "independent MEPs". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

::The MEP category, though it will only ever have one article, is part of "a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" within :Category:Members of the European Parliament by country and party so should be kept, according to WP:SMALLCAT. Opera hat (talk) 01:43, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support rename per nom, neutral towards merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:Veritas (political party) politicians per Peterkingiron. Their membership of GLA is already categorised via :Category:UK Independence Party Members of the London Assembly. We rightly don't have a politicians category for every short-lived splinter (e.g. some of :Category:UK Independence Party breakaway groups), and I suggest we also delete :Category:One London members of the London Assembly, the category for One London which these two MLAs founded after Veritas folded. (I am tagging that one now.) – Fayenatic London 09:12, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
• No objection to upmerging, but to :Category:Veritas politicians not :Category:Veritas (political party) politicians; see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 15#Category:Veritas (political party) politicians. Opera hat (talk) 01:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

• Note that the parent category has now been moved to :Category:Veritas politicians – another reason why this category should be moved also. Opera hat (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:Veritas (political party) politicians It's not clear there were even two members - Peter Hulme-Cross gave contradictory information over the years about whether he ever joined Veritas (the group on the Assembly was more to qualify for funding than anything else). Veritas merged into the English Democrats five years ago so there won't be any more members. It's overkill to have a one or two member category here. The destination should match the party article name. Timrollpickering (Talk) 09:25, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Oculi, for consistency with Veritas (political party), {{cl|Veritas (political party)}}, {{cl|Veritas (political party) politicians}} etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• The rename proposed in this nomination has now been overtaken by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_6#Veritas_politicians. – Fayenatic London 22:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)
• Yes, I also oppose the merge+delete. Even if Peter Hulme-Cross's membership is questioned, we still have Damian Hockney. And there is long-standing precedent at CFD to categorise all politicians by party, even if the resulting categories are small. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

----

: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: Option A Timrollpickering (Talk) 15:24, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

Either Option A:

:*Propose renaming :Category:Veritas politicians to :Category:Veritas (political party) politicians

• Or Option B:

:*Propose renaming :Category:Veritas (political party) MEPs to :Category:Veritas MEPs

:Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 26#Category:Veritas (political party) politicians has left us with inconsistently named categories. Speedy renaming of the sub-category was opposed on the grounds of ambiguity. Note: this CFD should be closed consistently with the relisted London Assembly category above, unless that is closed as "merge". – Fayenatic London 14:37, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option A for consistency with Veritas (political party), {{cl|Veritas (political party)}}. We have WP:C2C for easy matters such as this. Oculi (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Option B for the same reason that I proposed the move last time: per WP:CATNAME the standard WP:NAMINGCRITERIA apply to categories too. {{tq|A good title has the five following characteristics: recognisability, naturalness, precision, conciseness and consistency.}} The current, shorter title meets the first four. The proposed title sacrifices naturalness, precision* and conciseness for the sake of consistency. The current title scores 4/5; the proposed title scores 2/5: the current title wins. Opera hat (talk) 20:08, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

::*specifically, that part of WP:PRECISION that says {{tq|titles should unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but should be no more precise than that}}. Opera hat (talk) 20:13, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option A for consistency with Veritas (political party), {{cl|Veritas (political party)}}. This is such a standard issue that we have WP:C2D and WP:C2C for matters such as this.

:The WP:PRECISION policy which @Opera hat cites is part of the policy WP:Article titles. This is a category, not an article and there is long-standing practice with categories, upheld at squazillions of CFDs over 15 years, that category names place a much higher priority on consistency, so follow the article name including dismabiguators (tho a dab may be added to categories if needed). That retention of disambiguators avoids guessing whether the title of the article is ambiguous in category space, which is why for example we have categories of the form "Sean Citizen (musician) albums", even tho Sean Citizen (musician) is the only musician of that name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

::Yes, I quoted from WP:Article titles. But WP:Category names#General conventions says {{tq|Standard article naming conventions apply}} to categories too. WP:Naming conventions is WP:Article titles, and it is WP:POLICY as well. If applying a Wikipedia policy leads to a conflict with something like WP:C2D, which is merely a helpful description of common practice, the policy should take priority. Opera hat (talk) 21:24, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

:::@Opera hat, please go read WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. You are prioritising conciseness, but that is only one of five criteria which can be applied. The policy explicitly says "It may be necessary to favor one or more of these goals over the others" ... and the convention with categories has for over a decade been that the highest priority is placed on consistency and precision.

:::The path you want to drag us down would have us evaluating the disambiguators on every eponymous category ... which would be a massive time sink, and make categorisation harder and less accurate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

::::I understand the point you are making, but to me treating the speedy category move criteria as if they were themselves naming conventions sounds like saying "For the sake of convenience, it is better to stick with a bad title than to spend any time deciding on a better one." WP:NAMINGCRITERIA also says {{tq|The choice of article titles should put the interests of readers before those of editors}}, so whether it is a "massive time sink" should not be a factor. Opera hat (talk) 15:45, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

• Option A The main article of the category is Veritas (political party), so the category should follow that. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:18, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Prefer Option A, but either would so. For those not knowing Latin, veritas means truth, so that there may be scope for ambiguity in Option B. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

----

: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. – Fayenatic London 22:26, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Compositions by Marsha Norman

:* Propose deleting :Category:Compositions by Brian Yorkey

:* Propose deleting :Category:Compositions by James Lapine

:Nominator's rationale: They are not composers but writers. Tijd-jp (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: these were presumably created as parents of e.g. :Category:Musicals by James Lapine (re the librettist) which are now re-parented in "Works by…", leaving the nominated categories empty. – Fayenatic London 14:58, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete all -- All are empty. I assume the content has been moved to "works by …" or "books by …". Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

----

: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:ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks. bibliomaniac15 04:53, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Viacom Media Networks to :Category:ViacomCBS television networks

:Nominator's rationale: As of December 4, 2019, Viacom Media Networks has renamed to ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks. Ridwan97 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Question: Why if the company has changed it's name to "ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks", you are proposing the name be "ViacomCBS television networks"? --Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• {{ping|Ridwan97}} could you please respond to the above question? Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
• Comment I left a notification of this discussion at Talk:Viacom Media Networks and Talk:ViacomCBS. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:11, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
• It seems necessary to override the nomination by Ridwan97 and alternatively rename to :Category: ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks. – Fayenatic London 15:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
• He did respond to me on my talk page here but didn't follow up on my next question. But basically, it seems that :Category:Viacom Media Networks was the name of the US division/subsidiary/whatever and that renamed to ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks. While the international one is ViacomCBS International Media Networks which has :Category:Viacom International Media Networks. Both of these are under :Category:ViacomCBS subsidiaries. :Category:ViacomCBS television networks could be used as a container for these two, but I'm not sure if that is needed. Anyways, to wrap this up, oppose proposal, support renaming to :Category:ViacomCBS Domestic Media Networks. --Gonnym (talk) 15:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

----

: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) 17:32, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{lc|Junior Network shows}}

:Nominator's rationale: Not sure what was the reasoning behind the creation of this category. The 4 pages in it never mention "Junior Network" even once in the article and the infobox actually list different networks. Gonnym (talk) 14:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• Delete - per nom. Moreover there is no Junior Network, so grounds for inclusion seem non-existent. Oculi (talk) 11:09, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. None of the four articles mention "Junior Network" at all apart from the category declaration itself, and we have no article about anything called Junior Network — so it's impossible to determine what this even is. And that's before you consider that we only categorize shows for their originating network in their home country, and not for every network in the rest of the world that bought second window rebroadcast rights — and across all four of these series, no two of them even belong to the same originating broadcaster in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

----

: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.