Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 16 August 18 >

August 17[edit]

Category:Songs about Hawaii[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Category:Songs about Hawaii

Category:Music videos shot in...[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Category:Music videos shot in...

Category:At the Movies guest hosts[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 16:48, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: this isn't a defining category, it would be akin to having one like Category:Guest stars on NCIS or another long running show. Most of the subjects listed here (prior to me fixing the erroneous cat addition) didn't even have it mentioned in their article as it was trivial and a minor appearance. Even those that are left, with the exception of perhaps Aisha Tyler make this a super undue category (or whatever you want to call it) and would set a precedent for allowing much more trivial category additions than is necessary. PRAXIDICAE🌈 18:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it would. Game show hosts can be a defining category per convention (WP:COPDEF). (Guest) hosts of Jeopardy is not. There are many well-known roles or aspects we don't categorize: there is no Category:Star Wars actors or Category Star Trek actors, even though it's the first thing most people associate with Mark Hamill or William Shatner. --Animalparty! (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, guest host is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 20 August 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:Set families[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 per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:50, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article, Family of sets. The majority of contents are of a set category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:14, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename but to Category:Family of sets. This is clearly a topic category: most of the contents are theorems, problems, lemmas, conjectures, theories etc and not families of sets. Oculi (talk) 12:04, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alt rename per Oculi, the category does not just contain articles about families of sets. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Families of sets, not to Category:Family of sets. That just sounds illiterate and stupid. The supposed "rule" that topic categories cannot be plural is incorrect, is frequently and appropriately violated, and should be thrown out. The actual rules are that (1) if the same noun has both count-noun and mass-noun forms (as "opera" does), the topic category goes with the mass noun (for which the singular/plural distinction does not apply), and (2) if a topic category is about a singular noun, we should use the name of that noun as the topic category. But we should not make topic categories that use singular count nouns for the study of plural subjects. If we had a category about the general topic of villages in Poland, rather than collecting individual villages, we would not call it Category:Village in Poland, because it would be about a topic that involves multiple villages, not just one. If we had a category about the general topic of housecats, rather than about individual pet cats, we would (and do!) call it Category:Cats, not Category:Cat, because there is more than one housecat that the topic is about. Analogously, this category is about a topic that involves multiple families of sets, not just one. This specific case is a little confusing because the non-technical English word "family" does have a mass-noun meaning, but not one that is recognizable as mathematics or that can be used within the technical phrase "family of sets", which is unambiguously a count noun. If you are really really anal about needing to have a singular category name, then you have to look much farther from the main article name: the singular phrase for the general topic to which this subtopic belongs is Category:Set theory (not available: already used for the more general topic) and its subfields are "X set theory" for some X. Much of the study of families of sets belongs to extremal set theory, for instance, but not all of it. I'm not sure whether there is an appropriate X that would adequately describe this topic. A very small number of sources use "theory of families of sets", but not enough to satisfy the (much more useful) rule to "use words and phrases which exist in reliable sources". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Families of sets per nom and David Eppstein. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:03, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • David Eppstein has a fair point. I struck my contribution. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:00, 23 August 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:Football teams in Austria-Hungary[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 merge/delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layers, with one subcategory each. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:33, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:10, 17 August 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.

History of Porto-Novo[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:52, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles in three categories, of which one article does not really belong in a city category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:09, 17 August 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:Hotels in Financial District, Boston[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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:54, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Hotels in Boston. No need for a subcategory with a single entry. --Another Believer (Talk) 17:37, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 17 August 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:Toho Monsters[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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:55, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think "monsters" needs to be capitalized. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename, monsters is not a part of any proper name here. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 17 August 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:Standardized tests for Physics[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: upmerge. bibliomaniac15 05:29, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with a single article serving no real purpose. OpenScience709 (talk) 18:04, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added two sibling categories to the nomination. I also added a SAT article to each category, but they still each have only two members so far.– Fayenatic London 19:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What about the AP Physics series and AP Chemistry and AP Biology? That would bring the latter twocategories up to at least 3. regardless, the categories need to be renamed to use correct capitaliztion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 22:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I agree with the below. OpenScience709 (talk) 12:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Standardized tests and (e.g.) Category:Biology education, too little content to keep it scattered among three subcategories. I do not agree on adding the AP articles here, they are about the courses not (so much) about the exams, they belong in the Education parent instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:07, 17 August 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.

Swiss people by language[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The first three category pages state that they are mis-named or ambiguously named. That text was added by Dbachmann in 2016.[1] This is a procedural nomination to open a discussion either for renaming or for that explanatory text to be replaced. – Fayenatic London 09:37, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • An alternative is to delete the first three. If fully populated, way too many Swiss people would be in a German- or French-speaking category to make the categories useful. And with some exceptions the language borders coincide with the canton borders (WP:OVERLAPCAT). The 4th nomination is just to create a new subcategory, but it should become a subcategory of Category:Ethnic groups in Switzerland, because it has nothing to do with ancestry. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support deleting the first three for the reasons described by Marcoapelle.--User:Namiba 13:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- rather than rename. Some cantons are Francophone; others are German-speaking; a few are Italian-speaking. It would be better to split Swiss people by canton. Swiss people can be split by canton, and these categories can be groups according to language. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We already have Category:People by canton in Switzerland but I think we'd better leave it to implied language instead of creating explicit container categories for language on top of the canton categories. Two cantons are bilingual by exception (Valais and Graubünden) and there can also be individual exceptions. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They can not clearly be related to a canton so we might have a separate discussion about them. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those would definitely require a separate discussion, since writers and singers are much more often categorized by language than people of other professions. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have put those sets (singers, writers) into the nominated categories – thank you. I also found Category:Suisse romande as a parent category for French-speaking Switzerland, but no equivalents for the others. – Fayenatic London 14:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep : No offense meant, but I think the proposal lacks a proper understanding of how the Swiss view and define themselves - cantonal roots are stronger than the language spoken at home and I believe here we are looking at ethnic groups, meaning that the cantonal identiy is the marker. A few Swiss-French (Romands) natively speak German (Fribourg, Wallis); there is also a very large Italian community in the country yet these native Italian speakers would never be seen as Swiss-Italians but rather Swiss-Germans if they live in Zurich, or Swiss-French in Geneva. On a side note, very few Swiss-Germans speak "proper" German natively, so labeling them German-speaking as a primary ethnic marker may be erroneous. Not sure I make a lot of sense here but the bottom line is "It's complicated" Superboilles (talk) 21:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I re-read OP's proposal and agree that the categories state that they are misnamed or ambiguous, but AFAIK there's no alternative available. It's a non-issue in Switzerland. Superboilles (talk) 21:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Superboilles: if this is not about language but about geography, wouldn't you agree that Category:People by canton in Switzerland suffices so that we do not need this ethnic categories at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Marcocapelle: - We do need the distinction between Romand, Alemannic, and Swiss-Italian people: the current structure is the least worst solution I can actually think of. Replacing Swiss-French with Romands would be ok, but Alemannic as a language is also spoken outside of Switzerland: I don't think it's being used to designate people elsewhere, but still that would be replacing a confusing designation with another. Superboilles (talk) 12:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I understand these primarily to be linguistic categories but that is how Switzerland operates. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • needs clarification - are these categories for people who live in Switzerland or are of Swiss Origin but of a specific heritage e.g. Romandy (Swiss-French)? Heritage and language are different things. Or is this support to be for dual nationals/dual heritage? Or is it something different more akin to Wallonia and Flanders in Belgium where its not just language but there's more nuance around cultural and political identity? I don't think the current or proposed naming captures this. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 22:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It surely is not about heritage or nationality, but as of now it is unclear whether it is about language that people individually speak or about "language area" where they live. By the way, Switzerland does not have any form of government for the "language areas", in contrast to Belgium. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 18 August 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:Debut live albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 05:22, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is really nothing significant or defining about an album being a music act's first live album. These could be released early in one's career or late or even after they pass. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:31, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is to not include such debut mixtape and live albums under the debut albums categories which are for studio albums. So many bands and artists release mixtape albums or live albums as their first ever album, before their debut studio album. I've seen many live albums inappropriately categorized as a debut studio album and this category is to distinguish the two. As you can see in Category:Debut albums, Category:Debut mixtape albums also exists. It was right for Category:Debut remix albums to go, as this type of album would never be released as an artist's first ever album. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 01:53, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a single live album in this category that qualifies as an artist's debut release, so this interpretation seems a little fogged. If this is indeed true, and this category gets kept, these articles should be purged. Nohomersryan (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is true, they just haven't been added yet. Category still being populated. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:56, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If an act's debut album happens to be a live album, then Category:Live debut albums may be appropriate, but how many artists debuts are live? But the nominated category is not a defining aspect for an established group's first (which is not the same thing as debut) live album, whether it be released two, twelve, or twenty years after their actual debut release. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:47, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:59, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, not all artists will release a live album. Your debut a live album is not significant nor is it vastly different to your 2nd, 3rd, 4th etc. live album. If such categories exist for Debut Remix Album, Debut EP, Debut Studio Album and all the other album types these should be deleted too. The only "debut" cat that should exist is Debut album and Debut Single. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:35, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Debut works seems to be a significant aspect of any artist's career. Dimadick (talk) 05:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point of the discussion is that the category does not just contain debut works because the wording of the category name is ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:CATDEF. Also, does it mean first recorded or first released? Does it mean live, or re-recorded in the studio to make a 'live' album? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:14, 24 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above, and ambiguous. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:05, 25 August 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:Bishopric of Trent[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:06, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scope is not concerned with the see (diocese) of Trent but with the princely state of the Holy Roman Empire. Name is consistent with other Price-Bishoprics of the Empire. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:40, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not against the rename, but the category is small enough to be upmerged. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:04, 28 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's keep for the moment. The above comment might be true for every bishopric Category so a wider discussion may be needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:51, 17 August 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:Novels about war and 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: keep (not merge). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. There is very little discernible difference between one category and the other. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:05, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done that, as an uncontroversial application of WP:SUBCAT. Most of these articles are now in Category:Novels set in fictional wars. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:38, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose, its unclear what the proposal is trying to fix or achieve. War novels/literature are a genre whereas a novel can contain war as a plot device or storyline without being in the genre of war. A plot device is different to the main theme/storyline. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 20:37, 17 August 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:Soldiers in science fiction[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Category:Soldiers in science fiction

Category:Breton businesspeople[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:FOO from Brittany. bibliomaniac15 05:24, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, trivial intersection between ethnicity and occupation, see also WP:EGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 29 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternatively rename them scientists/businesspeople from Brittany. Geography seems more significant than ethnicity with these biographies. Rathfelder (talk) 08:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • The articles are already in that tree, in some populated place in Brittany subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- If there were five articles, I would say Rename to "Business people from Brittany", but there are only four in each. Populate? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:14, 17 August 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:Souls (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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reflects the main article (Dark Souls) recent renaming and scope change. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:26, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, following the outcome of the RM for the article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 20 August 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:Clinton Administration initiatives[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:18, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Administration" is a common noun and should be lowercase. It should match similar categories such as Category:Clinton administration personnel and Category:Clinton administration controversies. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:32, 17 August 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:Obama Administration initiatives[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Administration" is a common noun and should be lowercase. It should match similar categories such as Category:Obama administration cabinet members and Category:Obama administration controversies. Woko Sapien (talk) 14:30, 17 August 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:Prince of Persia 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: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article here so its not viable for its own category ★Trekker (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Video game nobility[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Category:Video game nobility

Category:Abjad writing systems[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Category:Abjad writing systems

Category:Writing systems derived from the Phoenician[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Category:Writing systems derived from the Phoenician

Category:Kampouchean documentary films[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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New category that was created two days ago, without any apparent explanation of what would make a "Kampouchean" documentary film distinct from a "Cambodian" documentary film (which the creator just filed as a subcategory of the new one instead of moving all the films). If the creator doesn't like the word Cambodian, then they're free to try their luck with a renaming proposal that would likely fail -- but they haven't shown a compelling reason why we would need two separate categories for the same country's documentary films. Bearcat (talk) 02:18, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Asian history had not better to be write by the US or Western's eyes who do not know about our culture. Not to mention, Asians was always stigmatized (or "cancel" in GenZ's idea) what makes the problems become more serious. (Betabum (talk) 10:00, 17 August 2022 (UTC))[reply]
Firstly, this has nothing to do with anybody "cancelling" anything, or with being culturally insensitive. If you're really so convinced that our categories for Cambodia-related topics should be named "Kampouchean" rather than "Cambodian", then you're perfectly free to nominate them for renaming through the category renaming process — but Wikipedia has rules about how things work around here, and one of those rules is that you are not entitled to just arbitrarily create parallel categories for the same thing at different spellings of its name without following our standard process for getting the existing category renamed. And, for added bonus, there is absolutely no case whatsoever for renaming only this category while not simultaneously renaming every single category in the entire Category:Cambodia tree.
And another one of our rules, incidentally, is that once this discussion has been initiated, you are not at liberty to remove the CFD template from the category — the only people who are entitled to touch the template at all are me, if I choose to withdraw the nomination, and/or the administrator who closes this discussion when it's done — you are not entitled to touch the template at all, and in fact you can be temporarily or permanently editblocked for being disruptive if you try that stunt again. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 17 August 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:Songs in memory of deceased persons[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: manual merge. bibliomaniac15 05:25, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:EUPHEMISM. This was the best rename I can think of, but I feel at the least it should have a rename that conveys the same information without euphemizing death. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:39, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comments only. The subcats of this category should have also been nominated to harmonise the proposal. Many of the members of the subcats of Category:Songs in memory of deceased persons are also in the parent AND, if existing, the songs about the individual category. There is also a category Category:Songs inspired by deaths which should also be considered at this juncture. I am not unsympathetic to Marcocapelle's suggestion.--Richhoncho (talk) 08:44, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as having too wide a scope. ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have created Category:Songs based on real people which means that the nominated category can be deleted indeed. Admittedly it contains many articles that are only vaguely in commemmoration of someone. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Further comments. In light of this new category it would be good to rename all the sub-cats to 'songs about,' merge where there is an existing 'songs about' I see no logical reason why songs written before and after should segregated. Perhaps @TenPoundHammer: might support such an outcome. Richhoncho (talk) 12:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominated category has 10 sub-cats, all which are now all well catered for. However, it also directly contains 275 articles, including Afterimage (song) which at least belongs within the parent Category:Songs inspired by deaths, and Amelia Earhart's Last Flight which as a "farewell" song belongs in that one and, I suggest, in the new Category:Songs based on real people – which so far only contains sub-categories, no articles directly. I have removed 3 other songs where the category did not seem appropriate, and I note that some songs are in specific sub-cats by name, but if not kept, a manual merge would be required rather than a straight deletion. – Fayenatic London 08:27, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    A manual check is of course alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Sure, if someone would like to. - jc37 08:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly I would like to. Please would the closer list this at WP:CFDWM rather than process it immediately? It is easier to work from a category's contents than to trace them later from diffs, as I had to for Category:Pranksters. [2] – Fayenatic London 22:14, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this category could be very controversial. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 01:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge, and UpMerge subcats only to Category:Songs based on real people - the subcats should be renamed to match the format "...based on..." as well. - jc37 08:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:00, 17 August 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.

Effect of tropical cyclones[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: per Bibliomaniac15, disperse and delete Category:Consequences of weather events; rename Category:Tropical cyclone impact by region to Category:Effects of tropical cyclones; manually partial merge contents of Category:Effects of hurricanes there too; rename Category:Effects of hurricanes to Category:Effects of hurricanes in the United States. – Fayenatic London 12:25, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge/split, better alignment between the category layers. All content is about tropical cyclones aka hurricanes but it does make sense to have a separate US subcat. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2022 (UTC) (signed a few hours later)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:58, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, why would the US cat be hurricanes, but the other be tropical cyclones, if the terms have the same meaning? ― Qwerfjkltalk 20:09, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:48, 17 August 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:Propionibacterineae[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Category:Propionibacterineae

Template:Propionibacterineae-stub[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 25#Template:Propionibacterineae-stub

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_August_17&oldid=1109723743"