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.
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to all appropriate parents. Unnecessary eponymous category. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:51, 5 September 2017 (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 the first, merge the second into it. Expanding the initialism in the category name can be dealt with under the condition that there is consensus to move the main article. ℯxplicit 04:53, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Match to articles - any "normalisation" should reflect equivalent articles. At the moment "digital infrastructure" does not exist even as a redirect, "IT" and "computing" are redirects to Information technology management#IT_infrastructure. I suggest this doesn't go further without input from Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing as it would appear this whole area is a bit of a mess - and maybe the best outcome would be to just delete any "IT/computing/digital infrastructure" kind of categories - it's a pretty vague concept after all.Le Deluge (talk) 00:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the existing real-world coverage and existing categorization (how ever sloppy) are indication enough that we shouldn't delete them but rather improve them, both in category and in main article space. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:06, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - [Brought here by posting] Proposed organization is clear improvement over what we have. I will work with Wikipedia:WikiProject Computing to try and get an IT infrastructure article created; it's an obvious gap in coverage. ~Kvng (talk) 15:21, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I suspect the one category is intended to be about "internet infrastructure" while the other is "infrastructure related to computers". That may be a rationale for keeping them apart under whatever name. But don't consider this to be an oppose vote, I have not a very strong opinion about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but then there's Category:Internet architecture which says it includes Internet infrastructure. For comparison, the phrase "Internet infrastructure" has ~34k gbooks hits. So I still think it makes sense to squash these two into IT infrastructure, Internet architecture be made a child, and then whatever is found in the parent to be particular to the Internet to be moved to the child on a case by case basis. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:15, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A fresh split to "Internet infrastructure", as suggested above, sounds potentially useful – but only if there is a satisfactory distinction from Category:Internet architecture which says that it currently covers this. (I have just added it as a sub-category of digital architecture.)
Disclosure: I swapped the order of the list in the nomination, to assist the closer to preserve the history of the older category. – FayenaticLondon 11:53, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This may be one of the very few exceptions where we may allow the acronym because it is a very strong "word" in everyday language, especially when used in compounds. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I named use the name including the abbreviation in the main article space because the expansion simply isn't nearly as common (est. 49K gbooks hits vs. aforementioned 127K). Also, IT has redirected there since 2013 without complaint, apparently. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 21:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you and Marcocapelle that "IT" is more common than "information technology" in everyday use ("IT infrastructure", "IT companies", "IT education", "IT people", "IT projects", etc.) but "IT" is ambiguous—hence, the main article is Information technology, the main category is Category:Information technology, and all subcategories use the unabbreviated form. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:34, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How does that explain e.g. Category:KFC or Category:CBS Television Network or whatever other term where the abbreviated form is already assumed to be a primary topic in main article space? In any event, I don't see why we should bother with such fine details of internal category-space consistency in this situation where the categories are already woefully inconsistent with reality. One problem at a time - let's fix this long-open sore, and then we can have a separate discussion on whether Category:Information technology should move to Category:IT. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:07, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the follow-up response. I see your point, to be sure, and I don't think "IT" is unreasonable. I just think, as you alluded, that we need to consider the broader context of the parent category. I have a slight preference for "Information technology" over "IT", but ultimately my main goal is just that we use one or the other consistently within the Category:Information technology category tree. Cheers, -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:59, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you used a pipe link there, [[It|IT]]. But while It is indeed ambiguous, IT has been split off from there in 2013, as I said before. So the apparent consensus it that IT is no more ambiguous than KFC or CBS etc. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In retrospect, I actually think I should follow my own advice and let this issue be resolved by using whatever spelling anyone thinks is currently necessary - it's already been a *month* and any further elaboration is just contributing to letting things rot in place instead of fixing the original issue. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:20, 2 October 2017 (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. Timrollpickering 22:58, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a long standing consensus not to create death by occuptation categories. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 07:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per long standing consensus. Oculi (talk) 10:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 02:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not do "profession" + "being dead" categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2017 (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. Timrollpickering 22:59, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speedy? Given the consensus against "celebrity" categories this must be close to a WP:SNOWBALL never mind the "deceased" bit? Le Deluge (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's a long standing consensus not to create death by occuptation categories. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 07:06, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per long standing consensus on 2 counts. Oculi (talk) 10:22, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above --Lenticel(talk) 02:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - speedy per above Radiohist (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because 1-we do not do deceased cats, 2-we do not do "celebrity" cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:27, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this category lacks a clear definition of what a celebrity is for purposes of inclusion criteria. With regard to the question raised by other contributors to this discussion regarding categorization of dead people, I don't have a problem with categories related to cause of death such as the subcategories of Category:Deaths by cause, but listing an article in both this category and one of those subcategories would strike me as over-categorization.--TommyBoy (talk) 19:47, 11 September 2017 (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:Native American allies of the United States[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.
Retain The Crow are a notable example, but several tribes historically took this role, particularly during the Revolutionary war. The smallness of the category, is notable in itself, as the US, in contrast to the French and British, were not good at allying with Indian tribes. One notable relationship was the alliance between the Spanish and the Ute. User:Fred BauderTalk 01:53, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Different Reasons The challenge here is that many tribes were allies with the US at some point and enemies at other points (usually when settlement reached their land). I'm not opposed to some categorization here with during the War of 1812, during the Civil War etc. But we don't have Asian Allies of the United Kingdom or Germanic allies to the Roman Empire because these aren't permanent defining features. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Actually I would argue that RevelationDirect's arguments miscontrue what is going on a lot. The issues were much more complex than that. The starting problem is that most Native American "nations" were not polities in anyformal sense. The did not have clear centralized governments. The ones that did, such as the Cherokee at the time of the US Civil War, split between pro-US and pro-CSA factions. After their return from the Bosque Redondo in 1868, the Navajo generally worked with the US in the fight against the Apachee, but the events that lead up to the Bosque Redondo hardly made them allies. The Paiute have an even more intriguing relationship because at Mountain Meadows they clearly join in attacking the US, but in later times they cooperate with the local powers, the same could be said of Sagowitz. Although since in the 1880s his closest Euro-Americans friends were being rounded up and sent off to prison by the US government for living their religion, which by then he shared, I don't see him ever qualifying for this category. Also do Navaojo Code Talkers qualify for this? I would say emphatically no. The problem is that this is not a permanent, defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2017 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT there is no need for this subcategory to exist, it is overcategorization. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 10:26, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could also be confused with Variable Geo franchise which has a bunch of fighters, albeit for martial arts and not flying vehicles. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:24, 7 September 2017 (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.
Delete Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. I'll defer to subject matter experts about whether the subcat nominated below is needed but there is definitely not a need for two categories to hold the same articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Maybe take another look at the below nomination as I have modified it from a merge to a renaming after further review. I plan to nominate Category:Gundam weapons for deletion as I believe it is too much of an in-universe terminology.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:18, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Like it or not the 14 articles in the two separate sub-categories exist. Even when it becomes 13 that is still a lot of articles to have floating around with no umbrella. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update. I still favor eliminating this category. No objection to Knowledgekid87's merge proposal but, with no loose articles and only one subcategory, that really just amounts to reparenting the category in the below nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Gundam weapons. It makes more sense to roll back the categories to their parent. The newly merged 14 page category can always be named "Weapons in Gundam" or "Gundam mecha". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, then the one nominated merge target is enough indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 14 September 2017 (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.
Nominator's rationale: It makes sense to rename this to a less "in-universe" title that is more indicative of the subject matter, as it almost entirely consists of various Gundam mecha besides the mobile weapons article that I have tagged for deletion due to WP:NOTPLOT.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:16, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Gundam weapons. It makes more sense to roll back the categories to their parent. The newly merged 14 page category can always be named "Weapons in Gundam". - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was my original suggestion, so I'm fine with "weapons" or "mecha". If it is renamed to mecha then the weapons category would be removed. After all, technically they are not "weapons" as they are usually defined in Wikipedia insamuch as that is the in-universe term for mecha.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 13:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with "Gundam mecha" but lets do the merging first as a rename isn't as controversial. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:46, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this merge appropriate? This will remove the articles from the Universal Century tree and there seems no justification for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:Comment - Category:Gundam weapons is listed in both the base Gundam category and the Universal century category, so my justification is that it does not need the "Universal Century" moniker, per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. There are no non-Universal Century categories with mecha in them.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:18, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, fair enough, that's the same thing as above. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 14 September 2017 (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 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century categories, no consensus on the BC categories. -- Black Falcon(talk) 18:21, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The 1st century BC categories have generally to be split between Roman Egypt and Ptolemaic Kingdom categories, though in case of Category:1st-century BC establishments in Egypt only Roman Egypt related articles are contained and hence propose merger.GreyShark (dibra) 14:15, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ptolemaic Kingdom, neutral on others, the Ptolemaic dynasty is generally counted as the 30th and last dynasty of Ancient Egypt. Note that the foreign descent of this dynasty is not without precedent in the history of Ancient Egypt, it is not a reason for a special treatment. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:48, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This change is unnecessary, because there was no non-Roman Egypt. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by that?GreyShark (dibra) 05:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the AD categories; oppose & discuss separately the BC. GreyShark, perhaps Peterkingiron is referring to an exonym/endonym situation. Whether or not that concern is valid, the first thing to do is to make sure all the categories and subcategories match in terms and format, and then consider any other modifications that might be needed across the board. Plus, exonyms appear throughout an encyclopedia, and even "Egypt" wouldn't be recognized by the Romans! Geekdiva (talk) 04:45, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Explanation -- Egypt consists of the Nile valley and delta, plus adjacent desert. The southern boundary varied somewhat between periods, at the expense of Nubia. Equally at some periods, Palestine and Syria were ruled from Egypt. I am saying that we do not need to complicate the category name, because the boundary of Roman Egypt and the present republic differ little from each other. If there were a Roman Egypt and a Nubian (or independent) Egypt at the same time we would need to disambiguate by adding "Roman". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support about the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century categories. These are are all either Roman subjects or Roman citizens (depending on their social status). Oppose the suggestions about the 1st century BC. The turning point is the conquest of Egypt in 30 BC, but by this point Romans had been living in Egypt and associating with its royalty for several decades. The transition is not that clear-cut. By the way, should the categories about Roman-Egyptians also include the Governors of Roman Egypt? We have a list of governors from 30 BC (with the famous failure of Cornelius Gallus) to AD 640 (with the fall of Cyrus of Alexandria). Dimadick (talk) 07:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd century AD categories. Would like a fuller discussion on the BC categories. I don't see how a person would automatically be merged to both the Roman and Ptolemaic categories: he would probably self-identify with only one of them. So it would have to be done on a case by case basis. Assume that the last proposal should read BC. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:52, 25 September 2017 (UTC the )
In terms of nationality, a person can be both Soviet citizen (before 1991) and then Georgian citizen (after 1991); since the category of nationality is labeled "of Ptolemaic Kingdom" and "of Roman Egypt", a person is described simply as citizen of those entities (not in ethnic sense), and doesn't have to self-identify as "Ptolemaic" or "Roman" or "Ancient Egyptian" (as could be understood if categories were named "1st-century BC Roman-Egyptian people" and "1st-century BC Ptolemaic people").GreyShark (dibra) 05:47, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps. But if he died before the Roman takeover, wouldn't it be wrong to automatically put him into the Roman cat? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2017 (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 parent category Category:High school television series is categorized as a genre (Category:Television series by genre), which brought about the original research concerns (what is a "high school genre"?). Interestingly, there is no Category:Television series by setting (the closest to that is Category:Television series by city of location, which deals with cities). The question here is, is this a defining characteristic (specifically for series set in high schools, not all settings)? If not, these categories should be deleted. If so, the setting category should be created, and the listed categories should defined as settings categories, not genre categories; however, the current naming scheme is unclear. @AngusWOOF, Fuddle, Cattus, Xezbeth, and Knowledgekid87: as you participated in the first discussion, I'd like to hear your thoughts. ℯxplicit 04:01, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lean Toward Option B It definitely seems to be a setting category tree rather than a genre to me. It should also be purged of articles about high school-age characters outside of an educational setting. (My vote should only be seen as a weak keep; I'm not strongly opposed to deletion.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lean towards option B but ENGVAR ->rename - the UK at least doesn't really use "high school" as a generic term - it appears in the specific name of some schools but it's a tiny fraction of "schools attended by teenagers". So Category:British television series set in high schools doesn't work for WP:ENGVAR reasons. However I would note that the article High school redirects to Secondary school, so I'd suggest that option B needs a C2D rename to "Ruritanian television series set in secondary schools". Or just "set in schools" - but I'm not sure how distinct from "set in universities" that would be for North American editors. "set in schools" works for British readers though - and I think it probably is WP:DEFINING as a distinct genre. Certainly for long-running shows like Grange Hill it could be argued that the school is the one constant as individual characters pass through it.Le Deluge (talk) 14:53, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option B but with "secondary schools" instead of "high schools". A Category:Japanese television series set in secondary schools should also be created, since there is absolutely no reason why Australia, Canada, South Korea, the United Kingdom and the United States can have a category for television series set in secondary schools, but Japan can't.--Cattustalk 17:09, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why group in secondary school? Then that would include middle school? Or is that because the line is blurred for shows with ninth graders whether they're in junior high (3rd year) or freshman in a four-year high school? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:09, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Well right now there's Category:Middle school television series and Category:High school television series. Are you proposing the creation of Category:Television series set in secondary schools instead? Also, as with the previous discussion, are you then trying to subdivide the entries by the country's secondary school format (e.g. Japanese high school, Japanese middle school, French collège, French lycée, England secondary) or by the country of production (a Japanese production that features a high school or secondary school of any kind)? Where would a fictional TV series like Monster High or The Emperor's New School fit? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 19:31, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If we do keep these, having the global article be Secondary Schools while the US subcategories are High School/Junior High, and some other countries vary from the parent category would be a sensible approach to regional English. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think in this case the issue is not so much setting as subject. These series (and related potential Film categories) are not about setting, but about subject. For example "Smallville" at least for the first few seasons is a "High school" TV show, not because of how much it does or does not occur at a high school. It is a "high school" TV show because the main character and most supporting characters are high school students. The same goes for Spiderman: Homecoming. While a portion of the film does occur at Peter Parker's high school, what gives it the designation high school is that most of the main cast are high school students. Films like Stand and Deliver take this even further. On the other hand if I remember right there is an episode of "The Flash" where Barry Allen and Iris West end up confronting the villain of the week at their old high school. However it has been several years since they graduated high school, on the order of 5 or more if I followed the plot correctly. So this is just an incidental, non-defining location factor. This is not what we want this category to cover. It is not about the location of the action but the social milieu of the characters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose option B This is not a setting category at all. This is a category about subject matter. It is a subject matter that was propelled to a certain extreme with films like Stand and Deliever that it was ripe for a spoof in High School High. Although those are more "noble hero high school teacher films", while we have another set of works from "Sabrina the Teenaged Witch", to "Smallville", to "Fame", to Spiderman: Homecoming, to the Scoobydoo origin film whose name I forgot, to Switched at Birth (although that is somewhat an exception), that focus on students in a high school, and have little role for the staff. They are still in a generalized high school genre when the action is miles from the high school. The characters in Smallville or Sabrina the Teenaged Witch are still experiencing high school related angst and other emotions be they on the school grounds or 50 miles from school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:51, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly support B for consistency with Category:Films set in schools and Category:Novels set in schools; without a strong opinion about whether it is a genre or a subject matter. Note however that these films and novels categories are simply "in schools" which avoid the problem of different school systems and nomenclature in different countries. So the most desirable rename is probably likewise Category:Television series set in schools. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As it seems that we're leaning towards some form of keep, could someone make sure to restore Category:Japanese high school television programsAND return the dozen-or-so articles to that category. I don't know how to find those articles, and I still don't know why the category was deleted in the first place. Fuddle (talk) 17:40, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When needed (probably once this discussion is closed), User:Explicit who closed the Japanese discussion should be able to help. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 17 September 2017 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Contains one article and one template, which itself only contains one link. Trivialist (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2017 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Contains only two articles; also, Zootopia is a single movie and not a "franchise." Trivialist (talk) 01:14, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now per WP:SMALLCAT. Not enough articles to aid navigation right now. We can re-examine when the sequel comes out in 2021 though. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too soon to tell whether the category will be needed or not. Currently, it's not. Nor does it need the disambiguation next to its name.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:56, 8 September 2017 (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.
Note: No opinion on the merge, but the acronym should be expanded per Category:Information technology (C2.B/C2.C)—i.e. Category:Information technology infrastructure. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2017 (UTC)