Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1[edit]

Category:Clergy from Tabriz[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 to Category:Shia clerics from Tabriz. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 21:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the articles are about Shia clerics. No other categories of Iranian clergy. Rathfelder (talk) 20:35, 1 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:Wikipedia extended confirmed users[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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Automatically-granted user groups do not make useful user categories for roughly the same reasons service awards don't. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant as well as being very out of date, with the existing user group.--Mvqr (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]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:Missing Wikipedians[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 11:41, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/October 2007#Wikipedians by activity (relisted) and/or Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 14#Category:Wikipedians who have not edited for a significant amount of time * Pppery * it has begun... 16:31, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, there is a very valid use and it may be empty because the amount of retired users may vary. It is useful in knowing what editors ceased editing and the list looks fine. there isn't a fatal flaw except for it is a recreation of a deleted category but this one is acceptable otherwise. Dawn Lim (talk) 06:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a peculiar category, for WPans who appear to have ceased editing. It is supposed to be automatically populated by a template but is in fact empty but for some explanations. There is a list: Is that not enough? Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the category is populated by Template:Not around but it feels that the template itself is sufficient, I do not see what a category might add (even the list is questionable). By the way, the template populates two more categories and I think those two category assignments can be removed too. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, potentially speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of substantially similar category that was previously deleted. VegaDark (talk) 02:42, 16 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:ASF Andrézieux players[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 Category:Andrézieux-Bouthéon FC players which was created in 2020, and move Category:ASF Andrézieux players (created in 2015) to Category:Andrézieux-Bouthéon FC players. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 15:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club is called Andrézieux-Bouthéon FC; ASF Andrézieux is the old name. This category needs to be merged to that one. Paul Vaurie (talk) 15:39, 1 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:Impact of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on sports[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need this category? Can't the subcategory (Sports events...) just live under Category:2022 in sports and Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine? --Another Believer (Talk) 15:05, 1 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:Buildings and structures associated with the Benzon family[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 14#Category:Buildings and structures associated with the Benzon family

Category:Rebellions against the Buyid dynasty[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 to Category:Rebels against the Buyid dynasty. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 18:34, 30 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content of the category, there are only biographies of rebels. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 1 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:Māori science[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 9#Category:Māori science

Category:Andrézieux players[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, duplicate nomination (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to merge Category:ASF Andrézieux players into Category:Andrézieux-Bouthéon FC players. They are the same club, and Andrézieux-Bouthéon FC is the new, current name of the club. Paul Vaurie (talk) 04:39, 1 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:Former vandals who now contribute constructively[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not meaningfully different from Category:Formerly banned users, which was deleted in 2010. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. That was a G7 (creator request) deletion in 2010, so there's no rationale here as the nominator didn't create Category:Former vandals who now contribute constructively. {{User Reformed Vandal}} adds this category. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There was a clear consensus to delete the category at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 19#Category:Formerly banned users prior to the creator requesting deletion, and in fact the creator was convinced to G7 their own category because consensus was clearly against them. This argument does not work the way you think it does. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the commenters in 2010 thought this would be forced upon unbanned users. As this category is mostly generated by a userbox it's obviously opt-in. The other concern was a lack of demand, but as 140+ users have the userbox apparently this isn't an issue either. It works exactly the way I thought it did! — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Alexis Jazz, with the caveat that a note should probably be added to the category page explaining how the category gets generated and emphasizing that it should never be applied to someone involuntarily. So long as that is done, the rationale for deleting the other category clearly does not apply here. I can see clear potential value in this category existing, such as someone looking to speak to reformed vandals to understand how to turn around vandals better. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    There were several people in the 2010 discussion who made comments acknowledging the category was pointless if opt-in. Finally, to everyone suggesting keeping this or any of the other user categories below, how do they ha[ve] the capacity to facilitate coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement of the encyclopedia * Pppery * it has begun... 18:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sdkb just explained that. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:31, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Sdkb. I do not understand the perceived need to police harmless user categories. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:06, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- no reason to remove it as long as it's opt-in. The category is not pointless: it's a voluntary statement by former vandals that they have been rehabilitated. -- RockstoneSend me a message! 21:30, 5 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:Wikimedians who oppose rebranding the WMF[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 28#Category:Wikimedians who oppose rebranding the WMF

Category:Wikipedians who feel disappointed with WMF[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. Despite the bare numbers of !votes I am not finding a "keep" result, because some may be discounted, since they stated "per Guy Macon" whose rationale was disproved. – Fayenatic London 12:57, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This does not change the result but for the record I dispute the WP:SUPERVOTE claim "some [!votes] may be discounted, since they stated 'per Guy Macon' whose rationale was disproved." There was a strong concensus in favor of my rationale at Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 57#Clarifying scope of non-disruptive statements of opinion on internal Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 04:38, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate advocacy user category. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:00, 1 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:Wikipedians assessed by WikiProject Users[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. – Fayenatic London 12:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Continuing the tradition I started last year of celebrating April Fools by (seriously) nominating an April-Fools-related user category for deletion. Neither Personal userspace categories, nor joke user categories are allowed per Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 00:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I created it since it was needed to make the counter here work. If it's disrupting anything, that obviously takes precedence and I'd be fine removing that element. If there's no actual discreet harm, though, I'd say just leave it be. There are tons of other similar categories, so that guideline subpage does not seem to reflect the de facto consensus that they're permissible. Broadly, categories are supposed to aid the development of the encyclopedia, and this category does that by helping make a joke work, thereby providing a minor boost to editor retention, thereby benefiting Wikipedia. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 08:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, all that says is that Wikipedia:User categories is under-enforced. I'm pretty sure that if I were to nominate most of Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories at CfD it would get deleted. A better way of judging the extent to which Wikipedia:User categories still reflects consensus is to look at past deletion discussions of user categories, which I've helpfully cataloged at WP:UCFD/H. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but in the absence of any evidence of harm, I'm moving to keep. The category provides only minor benefit, yes, but that outweighs a case that relies purely on invoking a (consensus-questionable) rule, since we are supposed to be guided by what's best for the encyclopedia rather than mechanically applying rules without considering their underlying purpose.
As an alternative solution, I'll withdraw my !vote if you're able to create or point me to an on-wiki method of displaying the number of transclusions of a template that doesn't require using a category. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:37, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Made it out of the time crunch! This might be what you are looking for. I might be wrong, though! 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 (ramble) 21:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Pointless and also inappropriate. Gonnym (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Redirection would probably work here, right? –JJP ‐Talk‐☖ 22:18, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, because the user category redirects shouldn't exist either. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:44, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pppery: But they do? Should we be getting rid of them then?
I did notice WP:OC/U doesn't even mention them, so you seem to be right they aren't currently reflecting a global consensus. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:49, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm likely in the minority on this point, but yes, I think we should be getting rid of them. Moving from my own viewpoints to what I think is the general consensus: user category redirects should only be used when people edit war to reinstate deleted categories on their user pages, so bringing up their existence in a CfD that's not about them is illogical. Even that's a begrudging compromise that satisfies nobody and was never formally agreed upon. Instead one person unilaterally implemented it and nobody, including me, is brave enough to disturb the status quo and risk triggering drama magnets like User talk:Only in death#They really don't like getting "No" for an answer, do they?/User talk:MjolnirPants#The Fun Police are back. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:03, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The redirects were a compromise solution after a very well participated and heated debate here at CFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:17, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Link? * Pppery * it has begun... 04:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Marcocapelle seems to be right. A few discussions here and one here mention them.
    We might be overdue for a centralized RFC or something here, but I would encourage @BHG to weigh in on the matter before I consider doing something like that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:58, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I was aware of those discussions, but don't see that compromise being formally agreed upon there; Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their user pages was created in February 2017 so a discussion in October 2017 pr May 2017 can't establish consensus for it. There was a discussion on its name which only tangentially discussed whether it should exist, and a bunch of discussions in which VegaDark (no ping to avoid canvassing; since I'm pretty sure they would support deletion here) said basically a longer version of what I said above. Anyway, none of those CfDs IMO support the existence of that compromise, but instead it's, as I said, something BrownHairedGirl unilaterally implemented and no one wants to disturb.
    Since you've brought those up, I might as welll point out that this discussion is going almost exactly the same direction as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 8#Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humor, which was closed as delete,
    I should probably disengage at this point, since I'm starting to bludgeon this discussion. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @MJL: fer gawd's sake, please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please do not waste yet more editor time on this by starting another RFC.
    I would much prefer that there were way few user categories, most of which do not actually facilitate collaboration. But the guidance against advocacy categories is important, because they facilitate dividing the community into factions, which is very disruptive.
    There is long-standing guidance against joke categories, which the vast majority of editors accept, because there are plenty of other ways of making a joke without abusing the category system.
    Unfortunately, a very small but very vocal minority of editors insists on this way of making a joke, to the point of refusing to accept any consensus to delete. So they retain deleted categories on their user pages, contrary to WP:REDNOT, despite numerous explanations over the years of how this creates perma-clutter at Special:WantedCategories, impeding the work of those who do the thankless maintenance task of cleaning up that list.
    That's why I re-create those non-empty deleted usercats as redirects to Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their user pages as a least-wort way of ensuring that the recidivists don't actually sabotage cleanup work by cluttering Special:WantedCategories. That was renamed to Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories after vocal objections from a few editors who felt that an indicator of how they had rejected a consensus to delete might stigmatise them as editors who had rejected a consensus. (::eyeroll::) Whatever; at least it still works as a way of keeping clutter out of Special:WantedCategories.
    So my main concerns in all this remains: do whatever is needed to ensure that this junk does not clutter up Special:WantedCategories. Cleaning up the flood of redlinked cats is hard enough work without making it worse by adding perma-junk to the cleanup list. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please do not waste yet more editor time on this by starting another RFC. Noted and will follow. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:28, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep its a prank that you can enjoy even forgetting to add it TheScottish801 (talk) 10:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This reason to keep makes absolutely no sense. Could people please try to actually follow WP:USERCAT rather than spamming this discussion with WP:ILIKEITs that should be ignored by the closing admin? * Pppery * it has begun... 15:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Humorless nomination to delete a humor category. Quit the policy-waving as the policy explains nothing in this particular case and explain how Wikipedia would actually benefit from deletion here. If you can't, you're wasting volunteer time with these nominations. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 18:39, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The category "Wikipedians with unconventional user categories" was proposed as a compromise between those who liked lighthearted categories (or red-linked categories) on their user pages, and those who wanted to delete them all. I do not understand the perceived need to police harmless user categories, but especially don't understand it inside this compromise parent category. I do not love having some of my user page categories in this parent category instead of as red links, but I listened to and understood the arguments of people like BHG who did not want the red links, and they probably do not love this parent category either. That's what compromise is about. Waiting a while and then destroying the compromise is really uncool, and disrespectful of other editors. Please try harder to leave people alone if they are not hurting anything. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:14, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not assist collaboration, which is the only valid purpose of WP:USERCATs. Those who think that this sort of lame joke is funny and who would leave en.wp if they can't make lame jokes can of course make the lame joke in many other ways without abusing the category system. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per WP:USERCAT and per above. VegaDark (talk) 02:04, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep due to reasons pointed out by User:Floquenbeam. We still need some safe humor methods! 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 (ramble) 21:36, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is another "let's randomly ignore established precedent" non-argument propped up by a straw man. I am not trying to crack down on all safe humour methods, only the one of a sort that has been prohibited by longstanding precedent for more than a decade. (WP:UCFD/I#Nonsense/joke/humour categories]) * Pppery * it has begun... 21:40, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I, uh… kind of already made a point to cite Floquenbeam’s response? We’re not hurting anyone or anything.
    Also I donated to Wikipedia, so let that be me paying for the server resources required to keep this running also how did you reply that fast? 𝙰𝙶𝚛𝚎𝚊𝚝𝚄𝚜𝚎𝚛𝚗𝚊𝚖𝚎𝙲𝚑𝚘𝚒𝚌𝚎 (ramble) 21:50, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Floquenbeam's argument is IMO similarly meritless, applying a very dubious "other stuff exists" case, when most of that other stuff has merely flown under the radar rather than been actually agreed on (and most of the stuff of this sort that has been brought to CfD over the years has been deleted, mostly after CfD nominations by VegaDark). Nor does this even fall into the scope of Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories, which is for categories that were originally populated despite being red and then later created by someone else, whereas this category was populated and created by the same person. And my motivation here is to enforce the rules, not to worry about performance, and I have this page on my watchlist and happened to check it only a few minutes after you posted your comment. * Pppery * it has begun... 22:00, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a simplistic, untrue, and unfair summary of the last decade. For a long time - longer than a decade - humorous categories were tolerated/overlooked when they were non-existent red-linked categories. BHG and others pointed out that these red-linked categories were hindering maintenance of ... I forget what feed, exactly, something like "wanted categories", but I'm sure all regular CFD participants will know what it is ... and eventually, both sides grudgingly accepted a truce of sorts: no more red-linked categories, BUT humor categories were created and stored in the catch-all Category:Wikipedians with unconventional user categories (and the similar Category:Wikipedians who retain deleted categories on their userpages). Harming exactly no one. Getting in the way of exactly zero "proper" user categories. Except now, in a case where Pppery is admitting upfront that they are nominating such categories to get back at people who create joke categories on April 1st, this truce is discarded when no longer convenient. I'm confident Pppery would be against re-instituting humorous red-linked categories again, which there was also a "long-standing precedent for in the last decade". It is inaccurate and unfair to claim that the situation has been the same for a decade and categories like this have never been allowed. People just accepted a change in how they were handled, naively assuming that both "sides" would honor the compromise. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:06, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Floquenbeam and the complete lack of evidence that deleting this would do anything but annoy people for zero gain and potential harm. —Kusma (talk) 16:18, 25 May 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.

April Fools' Day nominations[edit]


Category:Wikipedia humor[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: April fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia is supposed to be a serious and formal site. No funniness! ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 14:25, 1 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:Bielefeld[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: April fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:54, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for an entire category for a topic that does not exist. B2TF (talk) 04:49, 1 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:Contents[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 with Special:AllPages. April fools' is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 02:53, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category to Special:AllPages.[4-1] Aasim - Herrscher of Wikis 04:31, 1 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_April_1&oldid=1109731551"