Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 24

< June 23	June 25 >

June 24

Category:People from Ashburnham and Penhurst

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#Category:People from Ashburnham and Penhurst

Category:Poltava National Technical University faculty

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 14:23, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Poltava National Technical University faculty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article which is already in several other faculty categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for Now per WP:SMALLCAT. No objection to recreating later if it ever gets up to 5+ direct articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:12, 1 July 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.

Architecture by country and style

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#Architecture by country and style

Architecture by country and period

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

The result of the discussion was: rename all (option 1). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:36, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American architecture by century to Category:Architecture of the United States by century
Propose renaming Category:British architecture by century to Category:Architecture of the United Kingdom by century
Propose renaming Category:Chinese architecture by century to Category:Architecture of China by century
Propose renaming Category:Estonian architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Estonia by century
Propose renaming Category:German architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Germany by century
Propose renaming Category:Greek architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Greece by century
Propose renaming Category:Iranian architecture by period to Category:Architecture of Iran by period
Propose renaming Category:Italian architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Italy by century
Propose renaming Category:Malaysian architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Malaysia by century
Propose renaming Category:New Zealand architecture by century to Category:Architecture of New Zealand by century
Propose renaming Category:Romanian architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Romania by century
Propose renaming Category:Slovak architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Slovakia by century
Propose renaming Category:Slovene architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Slovenia by century
Propose renaming Category:Spanish architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Spain by century

Propose renaming Category:Sri Lankan architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Sri Lanka by century
Propose renaming Category:Swiss architecture by century to Category:Architecture of Switzerland by century

Nominator's rationale: in line with the CFD above, either Option 1 as listed above, to create consistency with the parent e.g. Category:Architecture of the United States;

or Option 2: as above but use "in" rather than "of", e.g. Category:Architecture in the United States by century, because this would also match the sub-categories e.g. Category:18th-century architecture in the United States‎. – Fayenatic London 18:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, because meanwhile denonyms are mainly used for people (nationality). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 24 June 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.

People from Ukraine by former raions

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

The result of the discussion was: merge all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:11, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

more categories nominated

Nominator's rationale:. Raions of Ukraine are the second-level administrative divisions of Ukraine, this is a tree of people by the former raions in Ukraine that were in place until 2020. We might recategorize all people by the new raions that were kept or estabished in that reform, but I do not think that is very necessary and besides it would lead to a huge amount of work, so the proposal is to just merge to first-level administrative divisions. Note that the importance of raions has been greatly reduced in the reform of 2020 and the number of articles per raion is often relatively small. In addition, this proposal does not touch the categorization of people by populated place, so it will only impact people in rural areas putting them in larger regions. At WikiProject Ukraine there was little response and no opposition when this proposal was announced. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly makes sense to me. Ymblanter (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Per the points I raised at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Ukrainian places)#Disambiguation: settlements in (un)ambiguous raions. Hecseur (talk) 14:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:People from Semenivka Raion (Chernihiv) is listed above but hasn't been tagged for this CFD discussion. Just noticed that it wasn't lighting up in pink and I thought the tag had been removed but it was never tagged in the first place. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Liz, I have tagged it now.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, there are a few red-linked categories (probably left over from moves). ― Qwerfjkl talk 18:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have fixed this. Ymblanter (talk) 18:57, 31 July 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:Stars by type

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

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Stars by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems redundant. It is the only sub-category of Category:Star types and appears to serve no function. It was created in 2018, and prior to that, its members were just members of Category:Star types. I propose to get rid of it and return all of its members back to Category:Star types. Lithopsian (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes: (1) this should have been proposed as a merge rather than deletion. (2) The parent category currently holds only generic articles on types of star, whereas the nominated category holds sub-cats of stars by type. I concur that in other hierarchies, this distinction has been abandoned, i.e. there are precedents for such a merge. (3) If merged, follow-up work should be done to merge the interwiki categories that have been copied from English Wikipedia, see d:Q6864552 and d:Q54811253 – ping me, I am willing. – Fayenatic London 10:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is a container of categories conforming to particular types of star, and it is useful for it to be separate from the parent category which contains articles on actual start types.--Mvqr (talk) 13:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 24 June 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:Micrococcineae

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 31#Category:Micrococcineae

Category:Micrococcineae stubs

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 both. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Micrococcineae stubs to Category:Actinomycetota stubs

Propose deleting Template:Micrococcineae-stub (added 26 June)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent, as it only contains one stub page. If not merged, rename to Category:Micrococcaceae stubs per the above CFD. – Fayenatic London 19:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Sort of. I say delete it. Since the suborder Micrococcineae is no longer in common use there is no need for the stub going forward. And Micrococcaceae isn't large enough to merit its own stub. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 03:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the above editor has merged the only member article into the suggested target,[1] so deletion is now the same as merging. I have added the template to the nomination for deletion, which I should have done in the first place. – Fayenatic London 07:48, 26 June 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.