Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All current discussions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Shortcuts
Deletion discussions
Articles
Templates and modules
Files
Categories
Redirects
Miscellany
Speedy deletion
Proposed deletion

Speedy renaming and merging[edit]

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

(The four ~ will sign and datestamp the entry automatically.)
If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:Cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 21:48, 25 April 2022 (UTC). Currently, there are 80 open requests (refresh).

Current requests[edit]

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

Opposed requests[edit]

On hold pending other discussion[edit]

  • None currently

Moved to full discussion[edit]

Categories and transcluded templates are not eligible for CSD G5. Deleting this category would leave dozens of articles with red links which are not allowed per WP:REDNO. You can nominate this category for deletion at WP:CFD. Liz Read! Talk! 23:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The rename should go ahead anyway, as there aren't any other categories just limited to UN states. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, thanks. I’ve added it for deletion at WP:CFD. It was created yesterday by the sock and was populated by articles that only the sock put in there, all of which I’ve now reverted per WP:BANREVERT. The category is now empty. We already have [[Category:Law by country]]. The new category under the original or rename is unnecessary and its creation is just for disruptive purposes by the sock. DeCausa (talk) 07:47, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this way, the (one) article is about a priest in the Church of England who was raised in Scotland. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer full discussion because in Iran they are often literally referred to as "a cleric" (in contrast to Christianity where it is "a priest" or Sunni Islam with "an iman"). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transferred to a full discussion. Rathfelder (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Current discussions[edit]

Shortcut

April 27[edit]

NEW NOMINATIONS[edit]

Category:Italian reserve football teams[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The category does not list reserve teams and such category litteraly makes no sense as Italy has only one reserve team (Juve U23). Dr Salvus 18:16, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People’s Embassies of Belarus[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A category that seems to have no scope for expansion and includes only its own main article probably should not exist. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- These are not diplomatic missions, but rather groups of activists against the current Belorussian regime. Even if we had articles on the "embassies" in each country. I do not think we would need this. The one article is already in a diaspora category. Hence no need for a wider merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:32, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

People by populated place in Spain[edit]

Propose merging:
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these categories consist of only 1-3 articles.

Category:Women writers (early Medieval)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category. I dont think there are any other early medieval biography categories. The 5 subcategories are already in Category:Women writers (medieval) Rathfelder (talk) 08:55, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fishing in Lithuania[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Perhaps merge to Category:Fishing in Europe, not sure about that because the article is about a town (with angling tourism) rather than about fishing. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fishing in Belgium[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and not specifically about Belgium. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User TeX[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These seem to be the same thing. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose LaTex is an expansion on TeX and not the reverse. If you are to merge them, you should merge them in the opposite direction. There are other expansions incompatible with LaTeX. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm fine with reverse merging, but I'm still unconvinced there's actually a useful distinction between these. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]
  • Relisting comment, if reverse merged the following subcategories should be renamed in conjunction:
I will tag these categories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Big 12 Conference men's basketball standings templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Match naming conventions of the templates contained in this category fuzzy510 (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colonial Athletic Association men's basketball standings templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Change name of conference to match naming of templates category contains fuzzy510 (talk) 01:38, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Metro Atlantic Athletic Conference men's basketball standings templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Change name of conference to match naming of templates category contains fuzzy510 (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Southwestern Athletic Conference men's basketball standings templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Change name of conference to match naming of templates category contains fuzzy510 (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Western Athletic Conference men's basketball standings templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Change name of conference to match naming of templates category contains fuzzy510 (talk) 00:58, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference women's basketball standings templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Since the category was first created, the naming conventions for these templates shifted to using the abbreviated name of the conference. The category should reflect this. fuzzy510 (talk) 00:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:03, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference men's basketball standings templates[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Since the category was first created, the naming conventions for these templates shifted to using the abbreviated name of the conference. The category should reflect this. fuzzy510 (talk) 00:45, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose nomination. Instead of renaming these categories, it should be the templates within this category that should be renamed to reflect the full conference name instead of abbreviations to bring them in line with analogous templates for other sports; see Big 12 Conference nomination above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:04, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bakery cafés[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Since I've proposed merging List of bakery cafés into List of bakeries, I'll also propose upmerging Category:Bakery cafés into Category:Bakeries. Bakeries come in many forms... there's no need to separate out cafés specifically. Also, café redirects to coffeehouse; "cafe" is a vague term, at least in the United States. There's no bakery café. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]



April 26[edit]

Category:Historyproject.org.uk interviewee[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCATEGORISATION, not WP:DEFINING Le Deluge (talk) 23:35, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sellwood, Portland, Oregon[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per parent article: Sellwood-Moreland, Portland, Oregon. Perhaps navbox should be moved as well for consistency? --Another Believer (Talk) 22:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vegan bodybuilders[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently two articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 23:32, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Is bodybuilding a sport? Is the intersection of Vegan and bodybuilder a notable one? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • One is a professional bodybuilder so he is surely is a sportsman. The other is not so much a professional. But both are already in Category:Vegan sportspeople so merging is equivalent to deleting in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seafood companies[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these all contain only one or two articles. The number of seafood company articles in Wikipedia is low altogether (not even 100 worldwide). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who opposed the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Is it ok to categorize people by their views? Wikisaurus (talk) 19:45, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support move to Category:Russian opponents of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine. It's by far the best name suggestion. Charles Essie (talk) 02:17, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Let's see. Who is in this category? Natalia Poklonskaya. How come? She personally put to prison a lot of Ukrainian activists in the Russia-occupied Crimea. Who else? Alex Konanykhin. Yes, of course, that guy created a company for paid editing in WP. Do you think his announcement of the "bounty" was an act of bravery? No, that was an advertisement. As about others, they are great people, but again, any sane and informed person is against this war; this is hardly anything significant. Being Russian citizens does not make them special. My very best wishes (talk) 01:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, many Russians just object to the war in general, but do not really condemn the invasion. A typical view can be found here [1]. "no problem can be solved by war" The issue here is not the war. This is just war by Ukraine. "the terrible and bloody decision that none of us could influence and predict." This is not true and denial of responsibility because there was already a military aggression by Russia against Georgia in 2008, against Ukraine in 2014 and Second Chechen war in 2000. My very best wishes (talk) 15:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that would be a little more reasonable category, but still very artificial. But whatever. I do not think that keeping such category would be hugely problematic. My very best wishes (talk) 22:05, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century bishops in the United Kingdom[edit]

Nominator's rationale: UK came into being in 1801. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This doesnt seem very helpful unless we are going to rename the whole of Category:18th-century British people Rathfelder (talk) 11:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"British" also describes citizens of the Kingdom of Great Britain. The UK as a state did not exist in the 18th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:20, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The nomination is unconcerned with nationalities; it concerns two states that existed in different periods of time - GB & UK. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:27, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • REname but to Category:18th-century British bishops or Category:18th-century bishops in Great Britain. The content is such that it is a container for England, Wales, and Scotland with a Catholic subcat. There is no need to include "Kingdom of", which is mere verbosity. My first target might be about nationality, rather than the location of the see, which would mean that an English bishop serving an Irish diocese would belong, which might be undesirable, as the object is to show where they ministered, rather than where they were from. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Senators of the LXIV Legislature of Mexico[edit]

Nominator's rationale: In Mexico, Senate terms are six years in length and span two three-year legislatures, so by-legislature categories in the Senate should cover two legislatures at a time. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I started this category and support the proposed renaming User:Moondragon21 00:25, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Roman numerals are for historians use. Wikipedia is for the usability for normal people/users. --Just N. (talk) 10:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename for consistency. However the category and its siblings should ultimately be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All these members of legislature by specific meeting of the legislature are just invitations to category clutter and we should rid ourselves of everyone of them. I have seen way too many articles with 5 plus such categories to see them as justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Senators of the 60th and 61st legislature of Mexico[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Use Roman numerals to be consistent with other categories and pages of this type in Mexico. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Roman numerals are for historians use. Wikipedia is for the usability for normal people/users. --Just N. (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Justus Nussbaum: The parent articles are numbered in Roman numerals here, e.g. LX Legislature of the Mexican Congress, so if that's your concern, I'd take it to RM for a total of 16 pages. I also recognize I inadvertently...created the other cat because I'm working with HotCat and was missing the old one. Oops! Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename for consistency. However the category and its siblings should ultimately be merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: This is part of an effort to diffuse the parent category, Category:Members of the Senate of the Republic (Mexico), by state represented (not applicable for all senators thanks to proportional representation) and by legislature served. Similar work is being done on the Chamber of Deputies side, where the main members category had 2,600 titles. Furthermore, we have many stubs not maintained in years in this field and in some cases the politicians have gone on to further offices. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:01, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All these members of legislature by specific meeting of the legislature are just invitations to category clutter and we should rid ourselves of everyone of them. I have seen way too many articles with 5 plus such categories to see them as justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reality television contestants by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Convert to container categories, following precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Category:Participants in British reality television series. Those that do not have sub-cats by series should be deleted as WP:SOFTDELETE unless and until such sub-cats are created. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nom, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming to contestants - A contestant is a participant in a game show or contest (which redirects to competition). Not all of these appear to be competition-based. Reality television would appear to be much broader than that. Maybe the whole tree could use better specification in naming? - jc37 03:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In practice nearly every reality tv show is somewhat competition-based. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not according to Reality_television#Subgenres. - jc37 14:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, but I would support splitting out subcategories for those who are expressly contestants. Note that participants can include figures like Simon Cowell and Gordon Ramsey (who are judges on their shows, but not contestants), the Kardashians, the Jersey Shore cast, and others who participate in a non-contestant capacities. BD2412 T 03:28, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Judges and other non-contestants should be removed as non-defining and over-categorisation per WP:PERFCAT. – Fayenatic London 10:15, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, "reality show judge" is pretty much its own occupation, and people who do that is their regular gig should have their own category. I would say that it is also clearly defining that the Kardashians, and the regular cast of non-contest reality shows like The Deadliest Catch and Million Dollar Listing, are participants in reality television series (and not contestants). BD2412 T 16:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Megamind video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry and no potential for further Indagate (talk) 16:19, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Megamind per nom. Only one of the games appears independently notable. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:British lieutenant colonels[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Totally pointless category. The biggest problem is that it does not specify service and lumps lieutenant-colonels of the British Army, British Indian Army and Royal Marines together, despite the separate categories for officers of these services. But also, categorising by specific rank reached serves no useful purpose. The proliferation of these rank-specific categories needs to be stopped now. Pure overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If you object to having all these in one category, then split it. A colonel of marines would historically be an unusual appointment, possibly even a sinecure, as marines served on board ships in smaller numbers than required a colonel to command them. British officers in the army in India held the king's commission, even if commanding Indian troops, in contrast to Indian officers whose commission came from the viceroy. The distinction drawn is thus not a valid one. We should only categorise soldiers by the highest rank they attained (as they will inevitably have passed through the lower ranks first), but if we have articles on lieutenant colonels we should have a category for them. Colonels (unlike generals) are not notable per se, so that having an article means they have achieved something of note. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it was going to be created it should have been split in the first place before umpteen articles were added to it, thus making more work for other editors. The point about the Indian Army is that whether they held the King's Commission or not, they were not officers of the British Army but of the Indian Army. Two completely separate organisations that should not be lumped together (but unfortunately all too often are by those lacking in knowledge of the subject). Indians could also hold the King's Commission, incidentally. Viceroy's Commissioned Officers were a completely separate rank category similar to warrant officers. As for the Royal Marines, lieutenant-colonels (and colonels) traditionally served ashore in the three Royal Marine Barracks, but it doesn't mean they didn't exist (and since WWI they have commanded battalion-sized units just like army lieutenant-colonels). But I don't see how any of that is relevant in the first place. I simply fail to see how rank-specific categorisation is not a classic case of overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burial sites of the House of Burke[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There are currently a couple of pages included in this category: burials at

Blackfriars, London, and Athassell Priory and Ballintubber Priory.

As you can see from these pages themselves, the burials of the people from the 'House of Burke' are surnamed either de Burgh or Bourke.

People with the surnames Burke, Bourke, de Burca and de Burgh are all derived descended from the founders of the dynasty, the House of Burgh.

de Burgh was the original surname which later (in Irish) became de Burca/Burc/Burke/Bourke, etc.

Therefore, since all these people are descended from the original dynasty of Burgh, this category should be renamed as Category:Burial sites of the House of Burgh to reflect the origins of the family. Thank you. WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:House of Burke[edit]

Nominator's rationale: There are currently a variety of pages included in this category: people surnamed Burke, Bourke, de Burca and de Burgh (which is correct).

All these surnamed people are descended from the founders of the dynasty, the House of Burgh.

de Burgh was the original surname which later (in Irish) became de Burca/Burc/Burke/Bourke, etc.

Therefore, since all these people are descended from the original dynasty of Burgh, this category should be renamed as Category:House of Burgh to reflect the origins of the family. Thank you. WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counts Palatine of Germany[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename, "Germany" is anachronistic, this all refers to the Holy Roman Empire before 1806. For example the territory of the Palatinate of Lotharingia is not part of current Germany but was part of the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We seem to be moving most early Germany categories to HRE, though German would still be the appropriate demonym in most cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to have identical purposes. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily long category name. It doesn't really make sense to distinguish/disambiguate between "Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies" and "Dresses worn at the Academy Awards ceremonies". Most people wear one outfit for both the red carpet and the ceremony, so there's no real separation between the concepts. Even when people do outfit swaps, the media tends to refer to red carpet outfits and ceremony outfits interchangeably as "Oscars dresses" and "Academy Awards dresses." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The "background" parameter is deprecated, so this maintenance category is not needed. Also, it can, and has, caused confusion that there was something wrong with an article when there really wasn't. ~CatMan 149(talk) 00:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


April 25[edit]

Category:Leaders of American trade unions[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Many American trade unions operate outside of the United States as internationals and are not strictly "American trade unions." To clear this up, I recommend renaming and purging this category of unionists who are American nationals. User:Namiba 17:15, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the location of the union is more significant that the nationality of its leader. Maybe we should rename Category:Trade union leaders by nationality to make that clearer.Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The present name is clear. The target is not. The important thing is the main location of the union, not the nationality of its leader. Even if it has international operations too, it is still an "American" Union. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:02, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are by definition international unions. Some of the leaders are in fact not even US nationals. Sorting people by the location of the organization they work for is not typical as far as I can tell. We sort individuals based on their nationality. The other option is to delete this category altogether, which is also acceptable to me.--User:Namiba 12:42, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:American trade unionists, this is the far better populated category. We do not need a fork, both categories contain union leaders. (It is unlikely that mere passive membership of a union is even mentioned in an article.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I am comfortable with a merge (and rename) but we should nominate the whole tree to do so.--User:Namiba 13:18, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 14:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reflecting on this further, I think this category should be renamed but containerized.--User:Namiba 12:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Criticism of work[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The rest of the template and main page is named critique of work, so it makes sense to have a uniform name. Pauloroboto (talk) 17:26, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance

Kind regards, Pauloroboto.

Pauloroboto (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator is a Single Purpose Account that has been adding categories to various pages and has added links within article text on several pages, apparently in an effort to bolster search results and page view counts on the fringe topic on which they edit. This proposed merge matches the category name to one of the articles of interest to the editor. Category:Critique of work has been proposed for deletion and should be deleted, not enhanced to match one editor's POV article content. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reverse merge, not all criticism is part of Critique of work, for example Tang ping isn't, but Critique of work is part of Criticism of work. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:08, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree - Reverse merge -That makes sense to me, and it addresses the SPA problem, reflecting a more NPOV general definition of the topic. SPECIFICO talk 15:10, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge. --Just N. (talk) 11:48, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Critique of work has been speedy deleted per WP:C1 on March 24. At this stage, the question is whether Category:Criticism of work should be renamed to Category:Critique of work or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 13:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • As there is no content left for a reverse merge the nomination has become moot. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:41, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Theaters in Derbent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: The member page Judeo-Tat theatre is a cultural genre, not a building. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User kik[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to use ISO-639 1 code rather than ISO-639 2 code. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 25 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Category:User kua[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to use ISO-639 1 code rather than ISO-639 2 code. Alternately delete since the category contains only a userbox and no actual users. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

User lub[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to use ISO-639 1 code rather than ISO-639 2 code. * Pppery * it has begun... 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Bakeries based in California[edit]

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the other "Bakeries of ...X" categories. --Another Believer (Talk) 00:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


April 24[edit]

Category:Final musical releases[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Previously discussed many years ago at this CfD. Although consensus can change, I believe the rationale to delete from the original discussion remains valid. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify your rationale Chchcheckit (talk) 22:45, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "This is categorisation by a trivial characteristic."
  • "Many of these recordings will have been made without the knowledge that they would be the last one."
  • "I could see the posthumous albums making their way in."
  • "Death [of an artist] clearly indicates nothing."
  • And specifically to the broadness of the final musical releases category, no one can ever know what a final release is much less it being a defining aspect of the album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:49, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

K yr argument won, have a nice deletion!! Chchekit — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chchcheckit (talk • contribs) 00:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Populated places in Agstafa District[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Main article is called Aghstafa District. — Golden call me maybe? 19:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Agstafa District[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Main article is called Aghstafa District. — Golden call me maybe? 19:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agstafa District[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Main article is called Aghstafa District — Golden call me maybe? 19:54, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Belgian chroniclers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: These are all mediaeval people and mostly described as Flemish. Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chénier Cell members[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This cell of the FLQ is long gone and by definition will never have many more notable members than it currently does (4). User:Namiba 17:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 12 March 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music memes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a non-defining categorization with its current name. An attempt in 2018 to rename the category to something more defining resulted in no consensus.
I think "Songs in internet memes" or "Songs in memes" makes the defining characteristic less ambiguous and more exact. However, if going into anything more specific is not advisable, I would not be against blowing it up and starting over as the cat has existed for 8 years. – The Grid (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to clarify whether the category should be renamed or deleted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 18:28, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Plays about rabbis[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 18:19, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Norse history and culture articles[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:11, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Palatinate of Lotharingia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There isn't even a main article. Merging is not needed, the subcategory is already part of Category:Lotharingian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably merge -- I think this is the right solution, but it will be necessary to consider how to prevent this merger upsetting the structure of the parents. Would a reverse merge of Category:Lotharingia be better? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Easter traditions by country[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with a single subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. More sibling subcategories can and likely will be created in the future. We often start with one. The parent category has 60+ entries, it's easy to see that several other countries can have similar categories. Category:Christmas traditions by country is a good example of where this can end up in a little while. If you ask nicely instead of trying to take us a step back, I can help create and sort some entries. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:11, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Categorization by country is a common way to do things, and I think it can be informative in this case, too. The fact that there is only one entry seems simply due to the fact that noone has started it earlier. Looking at Category:Easter traditions, there are a number of them where categories for other countries would make sense. In fact I have just created one for Germany, as there was already a tradition there. Daranios (talk) 08:44, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please do not create a category for a single article. There should be at least a handful. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Thanks, good point. But together we have found now four entries. And I think this category does have potential for expansion (with WP:SMALL being the only guideline I have seen so far which councils against the creation of categories with very few members), as e.g. Easter bread, Easter fire, Easter egg and Egg hunt all have sections referring the respective versions of the traditions in Germany, and de:Kategorie:Brauchtum (Ostern) has a number of entries specific to Germany which do not yet have an English translation. Daranios (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - there are not enough articles for a 'by country' scheme. Easter egg should certainly not be put in any country categories. Oculi (talk) 13:08, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:09, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given CfDs massive backlog, the time this discussion will be open is sufficient for any creation of new categories to take place. If no more such categories are created by the time this discussion is closed, then it should be merged. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There was enough content to create categories for Italy and Greece... so now we have more categories :P Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:40, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • No there is not, they only contain 2 articles. Revert creation of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:City councillors[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Many of the subcategories include councillors from places which are not cities. The anchor article is Councillor. Rathfelder (talk) 09:59, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the article "councillor" covers various different types of councillor. If these categories are to be not a grabbag of various kinds of councillor, they should keep "city" in their names. Or if you want to broaden it a little, it could be called "municipal". But there are other forms of councillor that are not related to urban or settle areas, like county councillors, which would include rural regions. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 17:08, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are already "a grabbag of various kinds of councillor", including plenty of county councillors. If we want to differentiate them that needs to be done on a country basis. What counts as a city varies from country to country and over time as does the structure of local government. Or possibly the whole thing should be merged into Category:Local political office-holders by country. Rathfelder (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alt rename to "municipal councillors" per anon and per several of the subcategories. Municipal is broad enough for the content that is currently in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Local political office-holders by country per Rathfelder. "City" only tends to be a generic term for an urban area in North America. In most parts of the world most urban settlements are actually towns. But many of the people in these categories aren't even town councillors. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not object against merging per se, but then all country subcategories should be merged too. Otherwise we will have one merged top category with two subcategories per country. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am striking my previous comment as I realize that in every country city councillors may become or remain a subcategory of local office-holders. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:45, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think some of the country categories are properly called city councillors. What counts as a city varies between countries. Rathfelder (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mass psychogenic illness[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge (or reverse merge), the two topics are mostly overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:56, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bell towers in France[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. The list contains a few links to French city halls, but there aren't any stand alone articles about bell towers. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User hak-0[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: Already deleted per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 21:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:UCFD/I#Wikipedians by 0-level language knowledge * Pppery * it has begun... 14:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops. Was unaware of that before I created it. Speedy delete. —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • C • L) 15:08, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per G7, CX Zoom is the creator and sole contributor. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:52, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video games featuring parallel universes[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: speedy rename. WP:C2C applies; compare Category:Anime and manga about parallel universes‎, Category:Comics about parallel universes‎, Category:Fictional characters from parallel universes‎, Category:Films about parallel universes‎, Category:Novels about parallel universes‎, and Category:Short stories about parallel universes‎ in the Category:Parallel universes in fiction category tree. (non-admin closure) 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:57, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category of this type that uses "featuring" rather than "about". It should not contain games where parallel universes are not an integral aspect of the gameplay or plot. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Card battle video games[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Category seems to completely overlap and be about the exact same thing as far as I can tell. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:15, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crowd collapses and crushes[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge, not yet enough content to diffuse, after merging the top category will consist of 5 articles, one redirect and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Semantics (linguistics)[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Same topic, there's no need to have two categories. The computer science subfield is already differentiated at Category:Programming language semantics and Category:Semantics is full of natural language pages. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 13:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 24 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]


April 23[edit]

People by populated place in Germany[edit]

Propose merging:
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these categories consist of only 1-3 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:25, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs in memory of Matthew Shepard[edit]

Nominator's rationale: All redirects, making verification considerably more difficult Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:48, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as sufficiently populated to be useful. The nomination is factually incorrect, as Scarecrow (song) is currently an article, not a redirect. Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard#Songs indicates notability of this person (or rather, his death) as a topic for songs. However, the nominator has also nominated that list for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard. – Fayenatic London 20:22, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories where all the members are redirects have no navigational use and have been deleted in the past. This should be no exception. I note there is actually one member, so should still be deleted under WP:SMALLCAT. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Such precedents for deletion as I recall were categories of songs by an artist that were all redirects to the same artist's albums. This case is different. WP:Categorizing redirects is permitted and sometimes useful. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Are you suggesting that a link to a redirect is helpful for people looking for additional information? What will a reader find having clicked on the redirect? Nothing. Zilch. Won't find an referenced analysis of the song's reference to Shepard, actually won't find anything. Are you convinced that only redirect songs cats have been deleted? Richhoncho (talk) 23:03, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      You have a point, and there is scope to review the usefulness of the redirect targets. E.g. American Triangle formerly pointed to the list (where the entry for the song includes a link to the album), before user:BizarreLoveTriangle changed it to point to the album.[2] Even so, I acknowledge that (i) the connection to Shepard is uncited, and (ii) in that instance inclusion in the category adds nothing to the info in the list. Even so, I still consider the category a valid sub-cat of Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons, showing that multiple songs were written to mark this death. – Fayenatic London 19:27, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      I have more than a point, you are elevating the NN to the notable by bypassing WP:CATV, even WP:V and and every other verifiability and notability guidelines to try and save a cat with only one article. The redirect linkage is surplus to requirements, because a bluelink to Shepard, correctly, is on the album page. I repeat, nothing is gained by this category. Richhoncho (talk) 07:47, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all information that Wikipedia has to offer on this topic is contained in article Cultural depictions of Matthew Shepard which is already in the category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:EUPHEMISM. This was the best rename I can think of, but I feel at the least it should have a rename that conveys the same information without euphemizing death. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments only. The subcats of this category should have also been nominated to harmonise the proposal. Many of the members of the subcats of Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons are also in the parent AND, if existing, the songs about the individual category. There is also a category Category:Songs inspired by deaths which should also be considered at this juncture. I am not unsympathetic to Marcocapelle's suggestion.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Super Collider (band) albums[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. WP:SNOW. Precedent is that "[name of artist] albums" are acceptable as part of a greater category tree even if only one album was released by that artist. (Non-admin closure.) (non-admin closure) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category of one. Not needed. Toddst1 (talk) 07:58, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per precedent and as the exception to WP:SMALLCAT. Per WP:ALBUMS, "previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:49, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:SMALLCAT: "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist". The scheme here is Category:Albums by artist; the rationale is that the artist is (obviously) a defining characteristic of the album. Oculi (talk) 09:16, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:15, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Legal systems of UN member states[edit]

Nominator's rationale: WP:BANREVERT category created by blocked sock Epq0 yesterday. They are the only person to have populated it and I’ve now reverted thos inclusions per BANREVERT and the category is empty. Category:Law by country already exists. DeCausa (talk) 07:44, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as pointless. There is no need to distinguish whether polities are UN members, as opposed to non-members or jurisdictions that are only part of a UN member (e.g. Scloand or Nevada). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep under the name "National systems of law" or "National legal systems". We do not have a category that unite all national systems of law. --212.114.109.229 (talk) 07:58, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We have a Law by country category already. DeCausa (talk) 10:33, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DeCausa Category:Law by country contains only subcategories and articles such as Marital rape laws by country or Clothing laws by country. But where is the category that unites all national systems of law: Law of the United Kingdom, Law of the United States, Law of the Netherlands, Law of France etc? 212.114.109.229 (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note Above IP has been blocked for using a webhost. Likely, it’s the sock ban avoiding. DeCausa (talk) 18:59, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User eml:pra[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "eml:pra" is not a valid language code. The sole member of this category has been inactive since November 2021. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: seems the language code is valid for Emiliano-Romagnolo language. Gonnym (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"eml" by itself is a valid (albeit deprecated) code. I'm not seeing where "pra" is recognized, and it's not mentioned in the article. Anyway, the standard way of separating language codes is a dash rather than a colon, so rename if kept. * Pppery * it has begun... 12:55, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 23 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Video games set in a fictional location[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Utterly non-defining category family - many games are set in a "fictional location". (While genre can be important - e.g. "space opera" - whether it takes place on a fictional planet or a real-life planet heavily fictionalized is irrelevant.) Note that the creator of said category was blocked for sockpuppetry and creation of inappropriate categories. Aside from it being non-defining, there is no clear inclusion criteria either - how much of a work needs to be on an island? What if the island is the size of Great Britain? Australia? etc. SnowFire (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, clear example of WP:OCMISC in the context of categorization by location. Being set in a real location is useful to track the portrayal of the location in popular culture, but a fictional location is just a random name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to the counterparts without "fictional". For example, "Video games set on fictional islands" should go into "Video games set on islands". "Planets/moons" should go into "Video games set in outer space". "Country" would be a problem because the entire category tree would need a reckoning in that case, not just video games. I for one would probably support deletion of both the entire "country" category tree as well as "fictional location" itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not agree with an overall merge for islands or countries. By all means recategorize to an ocean category if it concerns a fictional island in a real ocean, or recategorize to a continent category if it concerns a fictional country in a real continent. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I did say that "countries" is an exception. But for islands, whether a game is set on an island can certainly be defining, although whether the island is fictional or not, likely isn't. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:37, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


April 22[edit]

Category:Redirects from official titles[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Looks like {{R from official title}} is currently an upmerged rcat, so this category page does not seem useful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from official names[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Looks like {{R from official name}} is currently an upmerged rcat, so this category page does not seem useful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:12, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from native names[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Looks like {{R from native name}} is currently an upmerged rcat, so this category page does not seem useful. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Redirects from telephone number[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: speedy rename WP:C2C. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not sure why this isn't pluralised, like almost all the other Category:Main namespace redirects. 1234qwer1234qwer4 19:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Executed Roman women[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: speedy rename. WP:C2C. – Fayenatic London 21:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per parent categories ★Trekker (talk) 15:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Churches in Russia by region[edit]

Nominator's rationale: rename per tree of Category:Buildings and structures in Russia by federal subject and more precise category name. Reparent Category:Churches in Siberia to Category:Churches in Russia as this does not concern a federal subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mosques in Makhachkala[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. The article is already in Category:Mosques in Russia so a third merge target is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mosques in Grozny[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. That article is already in Category:Mosques in Russia so a second merge target is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now as too small to be useful. I have added the Chechnya parent to this nomination, although there is scope to re-create this if more articles are created, as the Russian (ru:Категория:Мечети Чечни) and Azerbaijani Wikipedias have plenty of content. – Fayenatic London 19:15, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monasteries in Russia by region[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently one article. The article is already in Category:Religious buildings and structures in Kazan so a second merge target is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Synagogues of Derbent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sichuanese[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "sichuan" is not a valid language code. Neither of the users in this category have actively edited in years. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to User mis-scm (missing language, tentative code "scm"; ISO 639-3 [3]) Sichuanese language (dialect group) exists -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:13, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose that rename; there aren't any other categories for uncoded languages and I don't see why we should go out of out way to keep this category containing only long-gone users. * Pppery * it has begun... 13:46, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sichuanese has 100 million speakers, more than many other languages with user language boxes. That in of itself would seem to be a good reason to have around, since we have many lesser used languages with language boxes. We could convert it to the greater language grouping, Southwestern Mandarin, which does have a language code, ISO 639-6 code "xghu" and 260 million speakers, if you'd prefer a higher level categorization, {{user xghu}} (or {{user cmn-xghu}} or {{user zh-xghu}}). But 100 million seems like a good size that could support a language box. And here are two self-identified speakers already, so there could be more who just don't know about the box. The more recent post-2000 Chinese migrants should have many natives from this area of China. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is all wishful thinking that has had twelve years to come true but hasn't. I never understand why people engage in this sort of scheming rather than just leaving these abandoned relics to their fates. * Pppery * it has begun... 04:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    What's wishful thinking is that there would never be any Sichuanese users on Wikipedia ever again. For a population of 100 million speakers, of a province that is not a complete backwater, with a large diaspora population, there are likely many users who do not know of this template. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 05:50, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 22 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Category:Ukrainian genocide[edit]

Nominator's rationale: A WP:POVFORK Cat of Category:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment and Category:Massacres of Ukrainians. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 01:32, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religious buildings by constituent entities of the Russian Federation[edit]

Nominator's rationale: I'm hoping the regulars here know whether or not Wikipedia categorizes according to "by constituent entities of the Russian Federation". In my quick search, I could only find this phrasing on 5 categories created today by editor User:Boxes12. If there is another appropriate category, this category could be merged. Liz Read! Talk! 01:17, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You all seem to have encyclopedic memories...but it seems like there are several options here. Liz Read! Talk! 05:28, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]


April 21[edit]

Category:Television stations in the Champaign–Springfield–Decatur market[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name; don't want to use the Nielsen market name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese Players Texas Rangers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Nonsense category, an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Korean Players Texas Rangers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Nonsense category, an unencyclopedic cross-categorization. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per a nomination that was so well-phrased, so well-thought out, that I had to use it myself. 😃 UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:44, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Virtual YouTubers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Match parent article ViperSnake151  Talk  17:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - The term VTuber has been embraced for those using avatars on other platforms as well and is not exclusive to just YouTube. The change would allow link-up to those other platforms. – WashuOtaku (talk) 23:00, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Infobox song with A-side or B-side quote formatting fix needed[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category is no longer applied by {{Infobox song}}, and its name does not appear to exist in template space. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of the Ottoman Empire of Ukrainian descent[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be an undue piece of POV pushing. I noticed it today when a bunch of Ottoman royals were added by a Ukrainian football coach. This information is not supported in any of these articles. Presumably there was a Slavic courtesan involved in the Ottoman succession at some point, and that is where the premise arises, but even then, what one might except is a single sultan tagged as being of Slavic descent.
The are very real questions to be asked about whether the notion of this particular category can ever be substantiated given that the death of the Ottoman Empire preceded the birth of modern Ukraine and the crystallization of Ukrainian identity. Because of this, there are unlikely to be any sources labelling Slavic concubines in the Ottoman period as "Ukrainian". But again, this is somewhat needless to expound, because ultimately, it is fairly self-evident that there is not a single scrap of information in any of these articles, let alone reliable sources, mentioning anything about Ukraine or Ukrainian descent. Iskandar323 (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also the user seems to place this to every Ottoman royalty he sees. Beshogur (talk) 09:28, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as an obtuse piece of presentism. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Laurel Lodged: I assume you mean you disagree with my point about the anachronous nature of the category as a whole, but that was only one of two points. Perhaps the most important is that there is no information that I can see, let alone reliable sources, sourcing the attribution of this category as a concept to any of the article's that have been very recently categorized with it. If there is presentism involved, it is in the sudden tagging off half the genealogy of Ottoman sultans as somehow now of Ukrainian descent (perhaps not so coincidentally as a war is giving rise to renewed Ukrainian identity politics). Iskandar323 (talk) 08:22, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - if kept, a neater way would be to make it a container category for eg Category:16th-century Ottoman sultans (if the unspecified premise supports this). Oculi (talk) 10:23, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Anachronistic, also used as propaganda tool. Beshogur (talk) 09:49, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: The actual ancestry of Hurrem is unknown, she was probably born somewhere in today's west Ukraine. Calling her Ukrainian is unjustified. I doubt anyone considered Selim II children as being of Ukrainian descent.Marcelus (talk) 13:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The article on Hurrem Sultan says that she was a Ruthenian and thus a Polish subject in what is now Ukraine. Descent categories are of some use within a few generations when it may still be a defining characteristic, but most of the content seems to be members of the Ottoman dynasty long after her time, when having a such a descent was a trivial characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genevan diplomats[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: procedural close moving this back to WP:CFDS (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, per WP:C2C, it should have been speedied per discussion below. Second, the current name is very confusing because it might be taken to refer to 19th- to 21st-century diplomats who happened to live in Geneva, but that is not what the category is intended for. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
@Oculi and Rathfelder: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. Rathfelder (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Lower Yangtze Mandarin[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "jianghuai" is not a valid language code. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 21 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]


April 20[edit]

Category:GS Consolat players[edit]

Nominator's rationale: GS Consolat is the former name of Athlético Marseille. Essentially, all these players in this category should be in Category:Athlético Marseille players. We should just merge this into that. Otherwise, just delete the other category and move this category there (or just delete this one). Anyways, there just needs to be one category called Category:Athlético Marseille players and this one can't exist. Paul Vaurie (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:900 mm gauge railways in Iceland[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not a category that's going to have more than a single entry anytime soon. Kj cheetham (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:600 mm gauge railways in Iceland[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Not a category that's going to have more than a single entry anytime soon. Kj cheetham (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial seafood[edit]

Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, ambiguous characteristic, how should we distinguish commercial edible fish from non-commercial edible fish? All edible fish in these categories is traded and sold. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Sensible solution. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Other taxa are not segregated in this arbitrary manner. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:21, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Makes sense, including the new category Category:Edible echinoderms that fits the scheme. --AlienFood (talk) 08:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm neutral on the matter, but aren't the vast majority of fish edible? Is this really that defining of a characteristic for a category? Inter&anthro (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair question, but that requires a separate discussion about the target. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In fact I think a better argument could be made for reverse merging Edible X to Commercial X, or even deleting some or all as WP:NONDEFINING. As mentioned above, nearly all fish are edible (from guppies to sharks), yet not all have commercial operations (e.g. devoted industries and/or specialized fishing techniques). A species of fish may be eaten occasionally or ceremonially by some people, but not farmed or hunted on larger scales. Many marine and freshwater fish are commercially caught around the world (often for human consumption) rendering the categories (if fully populated) enormous, practically useless and largely redundant to Category:Fish taxa. --Animalparty! (talk) 21:23, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support No way can we judge whether over centuries different species have been commercially exploited. Rathfelder (talk) 12:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse-merge in light of Animalparty's !vote. Commerical is a lot more vague than edible, although personally I do not have a strong opinon on either, and both categories could do with a healthy purge. Another option is to rename into something such as Category:Aquatic species that are commercially fished or Category:Aquatic species that are commercially caught for "X", if there is a consensus for a name change. Inter&anthro (talk) 22:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are some arguments against your proposed categories. Many marine species that are used by humans are neither fished nor caught but farmed, e.g. salmon, algae, oysters. --AlienFood (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose commercially fished sealife is not only about human edible sealife. There's other things that are fished and turned into fertilizer and animal feed and jewelry and other products -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:52, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't make sense either. There are many human edible sealife that is not fished commercially, even if they are traditionally eaten. They may be not commercially viable due to population size, habitat, being an endangered species and thus illegal, etc. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 16:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge doesn't make sense as fish and mollusc species might be edible but are not used commercially, e.g. endangered species. --AlienFood (talk) 07:28, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose most fish/molluscs/crustaceans/echinoderms are edible (i.e., humans can gain calories from eating them without being poisoned). Some of those that are poisonous can be detoxified with appropriate preparation (is fugu an edible fish? People do eat it without dying.) Most species in these groups aren't regularly eaten by humans for a variety of reasons. They may taste bad, be small in size, occur in small numbers, occur in places that aren't easily accessed by humans (e.g. the deep sea), etc. Commercially fished species are the ones that humans eat regularly. Edibility is too broad a criterion to be WP:DEFINING. There is some gray area with "commercial"; commercial could cover a spectrum of species sold in global markets for millions of dollars annually to species that a subsistence fisherman might occasionally sell to their neighbors. However, I think "commercial" is more manageable as a defining characteristic than "edible". I would be inclined to delete the "edible" categories, but included articles shouldn't be simply recategorized as "commercial" without confirming that the recategorization is appropriate. Also, note this previous deletion discussion:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 December 10#Category:Edible cephalopods. Plantdrew (talk) 02:16, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 19:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Polo clubs[edit]

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, all have only one or two articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JBchrch talk 19:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all part of an established hierarchy of categories, and isn't polo increasing in popularity, so cats all have potential to expand. PamD 20:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not an established tree, there are only 10 country categories including the above 6 which are heavily underpopulated. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hollywood, Los Angeles history and culture[edit]

Nominator's rationale: split, throughout the category tree we have history and culture separated (with cultural history as the intersection), there is no reason why we wouldn't apply that to Hollywood to. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Haven't checked the entries in the category but I'm assuming Marcocapelle has. Gonnym (talk) 14:43, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:West Lusatia[edit]

Nominator's rationale: delete, West Lusatia is not a real region and the category mainly contains populated places for which the term West Lusatia is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I'm surprised that this has been nominated for deletion. The concept "West Lusatia" or Westlausitz has been around for 70 years and is testified, not just in the literature, but in culture. For example, there is a West Lusatian dialect and a West Lusatian Museum. What is a "real region"? West Lusatia may not be a formal administrative entity, but it appears to be geographically and linguistically quite well defined. Bermicourt (talk) 18:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian bell towers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: purge and manually merge, the articles about churches and cathedrals should be removed and articles about bell towers should be kept. However, bell towers do not have a religion, so manually disperse to Category:Bell towers and its country subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translators en-en[edit]

Nominator's rationale Nonsense user categories - one cannot meaningfully translate (or proofread a translation) from English to English. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:36, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-sa[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Don't need two categories for South African English. "En-za" appears to be the correct code. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery per en-au below, wouldn't this be en-ZA? Gonnym (talk) 14:46, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for the uppercase naming convention below is that is what mw:Extension:Babel forces people to use. Since there's no mw:Extension:Babel population going on here, there's no reason to rename to uppercase, although I have no objection to merging both to Category:User en-ZA instead. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-cñ[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 4, then recreated out-of-process one month later. The reasons for the original deletion appear to still be valid. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User en-au[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 4#Category:User en-ca * Pppery * it has begun... 16:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User smo[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Rename to use ISO 639-1 code rather than ISO 639-2 code. Alternately, delete as the category contains only one userbox and no actual users. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; keep the userbox pagename around as a redirect -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 04:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the All-India Yadav Mahasabha[edit]

Nominator's rationale: This follows earlier discussions (Category:Nair people CfD and WT:IN - Caste lists vs. Caste cats) where editors reach consensus not to have caste-categorizations. All the articles categorized are unsourced to be a member of the organization except Poornima Krishnappa, thus a blatant violation of WP:BLP and/or WP:OR, where applicable — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Notified WT:IN of the CfD — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:PAGES WITH LOGIN REQUIRED REFERENCES OR SOURCES[edit]

Nominator's rationale: If this isn't used, it should be deleted. If it is used, it should be moved to a NON-SHOUTING version. Fram (talk) 13:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note; we already have Category:Pages with login required references or sources, so I guess the above is redundant and unused. Fram (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I created it at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 136#CATEGORY:PAGES WITH LOGIN REQUIRED REFERENCES OR SOURCES because a template combination sometimes added the all caps version and it was an ugly red category on articles. The templates no longer add it so it has nu purpose now. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I probably should have realized looked more closely and realized that this was useless when I added parent categories on December 10. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT motorboat racers[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Farfetched categorization with just ONE entry.Mill 1 (talk) 12:31, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Cherry Tree, Pennsylvania[edit]

Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just two entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Na'vi[edit]

Nominator's rationale: "navi" is not a valid language code. The collaborative value of a category grouping users who have a basic understanding of a constructed language invented for a film is questionable. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it would depend on the language community, if it were as active as the Klingon speakers or the Sindarin/Quenya speakers, or Esperanto speakers. It does have the IETF code "art-x-navi" so it would seem there would be some users. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 20 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Older discussions[edit]

The above are up to 7 days old. For a list of discussions more than seven days old, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/All old discussions.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/All_current_discussions&oldid=1023411456"