Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 27 June 29 >

June 28[edit]

Category:Characters in Disney package 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 to Category:Disney animated characters. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 20:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lots of already established characters have appeared in these films, its only maybe defining for those few characters who debuted in them. ★Trekker (talk) 08:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:History teachers[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 appropriate subcats of Category:Schoolteachers by nationality. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:37, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: with three exceptions, having been a history teacher is trivial for the people in this category and unrelated to their notability. The three exceptions: Lars Brownworth, Gertrude Hull and Yuan Tengfei, should be moved to parent Category:People in history occupations. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) if there is no consensus to delete, I will support this as a second best option. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge Clicking through the articles, it seems trivial in practice but I agree with Necrothesp that they should be merged to the teachers by nationality categories if they're not there already - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedurally merge to treachers by nationality categories as appropriate. The reality is that below the college level, overlap in subjects taught tends to go fairly high.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Daffy Duck[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:Daffy Duck films. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:21, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename As Nominated Seems to be the cleanest. Oinkers alternative rename is still better than the current name though. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Bugs Bunny[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 per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The suggested title does not define the scope. Dimadick (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Bugs Bunny is the main character of (many of) these films. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How is your comment relevant? I chose the term "featuring" to imply that Bugs had a speaking role in the film, while the suggested title does not see any difference between featured roles and cameos. Dimadick (talk) 08:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • No @Dimadick: thats not what it implies or suggests. And having a speaking role is not defining (never will be no matter how much you try to push your naming shemes). A film should only ever be categorized by character if the film is specifically about that character, no one should be adding "Bugs Bunny films" to a film where he only has a small role.★Trekker (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • But they will. "Bugs Bunny films" implies that the scope is every single appearance of Bugs, not that he is a starring character. Dimadick (talk) 08:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • No it doesn't @Dimadick:. That not how pretty much anyone describes films, and certainly not on Wikipedia.★Trekker (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • I'm with Trekker. I wouldn't call Thor: Ragnarok a Hulk film, for example. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Films starring Bugs Bunny- This makes it a lot cleaner. (Oinkers42) (talk) 21:44, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Pepe Le Pew[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:Pepé Le Pew films. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining ★Trekker (talk) 10:23, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:44, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine Use the same naming format as the Daffy Duck nomination above, even if I disagreed with that outcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Speedy Gonzales[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 per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine Use the same naming format as the Daffy Duck nomination above, even if I disagreed with that outcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Bosko[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 per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine Use the same naming format as the Daffy Duck nomination above, even if I disagreed with that outcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Porky Pig[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 per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:42, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine Use the same naming format as the Daffy Duck nomination above, even if I disagreed with that outcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Sylvester the Cat[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 per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:46, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine Use the same naming format as the Daffy Duck nomination above, even if I disagreed with that outcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Tweety[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. per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:47, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine Use the same naming format as the Daffy Duck nomination above, even if I disagreed with that outcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Buddy[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 per nom (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The suggested title does not define the scope. Dimadick (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dimadick: A "scope" that shouldn't exist..... Films are not defined by simply having a character in them.★Trekker (talk) 10:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can't think of a more defining feature than characters and setting. Directors, and screenwriters are merely production trivia. Dimadick (talk) 10:51, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Dimadick: Well Dimadick Wikipedia guidelines don't agree with you, and you have been informed of this numerous times.★Trekker (talk) 10:54, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Arbitrary guidelines, mostly set up by one or two users without discussion. Dimadick (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Dimadick: You know very well that that isn't true, we have had countless encounters on these kinds of discussions and many many editors have agreed that your naming schemes are not ideal.★Trekker (talk) 10:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              • We haven't had many encounters on the topic of fictional characters, and I have not participated in more than one or two discussions on the naming schemes. But anyway, I am talking about Wikipedia:List of guidelines, where the discussions rarely attract much participation. Dimadick (talk) 11:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine/Follow Main article Use the same naming format as the Daffy Duck nomination above, even if I disagreed with that outcome. (This does present a unique issue that the main article, Buddy (Looney Tunes), has a disambiguation that should appear in the category name as well. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Films featuring Foxy[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. per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine/Follow Main article Use the same naming format as the Daffy Duck nomination above, even if I disagreed with that outcome. (This does present a unique issue that the main article has a disambiguation that should appear in the category name as well. -
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:Films featuring Piggy[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 per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:50, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:39, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine/Follow Main article Use the same naming format as the Daffy Duck nomination above, even if I disagreed with that outcome. (This does present a unique issue that the main article has a disambiguation that should appear in the category name as well. -
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:Films featuring Tex Avery's Big Bad Wolf[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 per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 13:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Featuring" is not defining. ★Trekker (talk) 10:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The suggested title does not define the scope. Dimadick (talk) 10:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are a whole lot of "featuring" categories nominated on this page. These discussions should be closed in conjunction. Agree with nom that "featuring" a character is a too weak characteristic of a film. So in all cases either delete (if it concerns a secondary character in most of the films) or rename (if it concerns the main character in most of the films). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename somehow (specifically for this category) either as nom or per Oinkers42, as a more clearly defining characteristic. Note that in this parallel discussion there is more support to follow the rename as nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine Use the same naming format as the Daffy Duck nomination above, even if I disagreed with that outcome. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:04, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Belgian chroniclers[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:Chroniclers from the Holy Roman Empire. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are all mediaeval people and mostly described as Flemish. Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment -- Two of the people appear to have French names and prove to be Liegois, presumably Walloons. Liege was enclaved in Lower Burgundy. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of these chroniclers lived long after Lower Burgundy had disappeared from the map, so renaming to Lower Burgundy is not an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gilaki clans[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Category:Gilaki clans

Category:Clans by nation[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:Clans. and selectively merge to Category:Families by nationality. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:05, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "By nation" is not consistent with current category hierarchies that are by country, nationality, or ethnicity. Ethnicity seems to be the best fit here. – Fayenatic London 18:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Naturalized citizens by nation[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 14:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "By nation" is not consistent with current category hierarchies that are by country, nationality, or ethnicity. Country seems to be the best fit here, cf. Category:Denaturalized citizens by country. – Fayenatic London 18:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Poetry by nation or language[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Category:Poetry by nation or language

Category:Navy officers by nation[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 per Marcocapelle. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "By nation" is not consistent with current category hierarchies that are by country, nationality, or ethnicity. Nationality seems to be the best fit here, cf. parent Category:Military personnel by nationality. The contents are actually by navy, so it could be argued that this is by country. – Fayenatic London 19:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Royalty by nation[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 per nom. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "By nation" is not consistent with current category hierarchies that are by country, nationality, or ethnicity. Nationality seems to be the best fit here, as I think this tree is about origin rather than where they served (where there is a difference). – Fayenatic London 20:00, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation[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 14:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At my suggestion this was merged into Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people. Having listened to complaints and read more about the history of the period I think that was a mistake. Poland and Lithuania continued to have considerable independent existence during the Commonwealth, with seperate political arrangements. I suggest that it would be more sensible for Category:18th-century Polish people by occupation to be a subcategory of Category:18th-century Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth people as Category:18th-century Lithuanian people by occupation is. Rathfelder (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Commonwealth itself was said to be both monarchy and republic, it wasn't like there was a Polish republic and a Lithuanian monarchy or vice versa. The army was seldom split. The church is organized by dioceses rather than by countries. With regard to the education system, if you mean there was freedom to teach in both languages that does not mean there were two countries. The same is the case in Switzerland. Yes the Commonwealth was a federal state, but so are Germany and the United States nowadays. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And we have occupational categories for the German and American states. Why shouldnt we have them for the states of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth? Rathfelder (talk) 21:14, 18 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • USA is much more homogenous and shorter lived than the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Rathfelder (talk) 15:33, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shorter lived is incorrect, homogeneity is a subjective judgement. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:27, 19 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where is the problem exactly? Cannot someone be categorised as both German and Czech? They aren't mutually exclusive. Language is only one component of ethno-national self-identification. I must disappoint you, but states as we understand them today are a very late invention.Marcelus (talk) 19:57, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:21, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

German bishops[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 14:13, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, there wasn't a specific German nationality within the Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are we planning to remove all the German categories before 1870? Rathfelder (talk) 13:35, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This is a follow up to other recent changes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Yes, there very much was a German nationality in the Empire. Srnec (talk) 03:35, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact, I might add, there was a constitutional difference between being a German bishop and an Italian or Burgundian bishop in the Holy Roman Empire after the Concordat of Worms. In any case, the categories refer to bishops of sees in Germany not to bishops who happen to be of German nationality. Srnec (talk) 03:37, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the time of the Concordat of Worms, the old Carolingian kingdoms of Germany and Italy had de facto been merged to the Holy Roman Empire some 160 years earlier but they were never formally abolished. So an official document may still refer to them for just pragmatic reasons. In any case there is no reason to separate e.g. Adalbold II of Utrecht and John Scotus (bishop of Mecklenburg) to two different categories, as now is the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why can't Adalbold go in the German category? In any case, you are still treating the Italian bishops in the HRE completely differently. Indeed, you are lumping together all Italian bishops on the basis of geography but all bishops in the HRE (incl. Italians!) on the basis of politics. Srnec (talk) 00:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Putting Adalbold in the German category would amount to OR, there is no source describing Adalbold as having German nationality. The nomination is about German bishops, not about Italian bishops. Happy to discuss the Italians at another occasion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think the question of how we deal with the constituent parts of the Holy Roman Empire needs more thought. I dont think we can just amalgamate them into the empire. I'd be happier to leave the German, Austrian, Swiss etc. categories subcategories of the relevent HRE categories. Its clear that most editors think that German existed in some sense before 1870. To take an example at random: Reuss-Lobenstein is described as "a state located in the German part of the Holy Roman Empire." Rathfelder (talk) 18:37, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is not a reliable source and this is obviously an editorial inaccuracy. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • And again Meir ben Baruch Halevi talks about " the transfer of the center of Ashkenazi Torah culture from Ashkenaz to Austria for generations to come" when he moved from Frankfurt to Vienna. Germany and Austria are seen as distinct. Rathfelder (talk) 07:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Ashkenaz it was also associated with the Rhineland and in the context of the sentence you are quoting it is obvious that this is meant. Austria was not any different than Bavaria or Saxony or you name it, they were all constituent parts of the Holy Roman Empire. If he had gone to Bavaria instead of Austria then "from Ashkenaz to Bavaria" would have been equally accurate, hypothetically speaking of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why do we have Category:People from former German states? And in the article High Germany it says " the term Hochdeutschland to mean Alpine Germany was not uncommon in the 16th century." The Imperial County of Reuss was subject " to German authority" in the 11th century. Holstein "once existed as the German County of Holstein (German: Grafschaft Holstein; 811–1474)." There is an enormous amount of evidence that Germany was seen as a political entity long before 1870. Rathfelder (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Rathfelder: it is not that the word "German" had completely disappeared between the 10th and 19th century. E.g. there has always been a German language. The whole point of the discussion however is that there wasn't any country or polity called Germany. It was called Holy Roman Empire. It is similar to the Romanian language existing before the country Romania was established. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the Holy Roman Empire was not coterminus with anything subsequently called Germany. If we are going to abolish the German categories surely the Austrian, Dutch, Luxemburg, Slovenian and Swiss categories have to go as well? And not just for bishops. It seems very clear to me that these countries were thought to exist, both by their inhabitants and others and also by later historians long before they officially did. I'm reading a book about Vienna in 1913/4 which points out that the word Austria did not appear in any constitutional documents at that time. But I dont think that means that Austria did not exist. Rathfelder (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, if we are going to abolish the German categories surely the Austrian, Dutch, Luxemburg, Slovenian and Swiss categories have to go as well, until they emerged as a polity. As a side note, we are using common names in Wikipedia so we use Austria instead of Cisleithania, but under whatever name this did exist as a polity. However I have never heard using Germany as a common name for the Holy Roman Empire, nor as a common name for any state within the Holy Roman Empire, so we should just stick to Holy Roman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Should we not, therefore, have a more comprehensive proposal for discussion? Rathfelder (talk) 18:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Kingdom of Saxony[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: purge. ​ (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 14:15, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: purge, this is a historical category, but mostly populated with articles about populated places that still exist today. This is not the way we categorize articles about geography. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom but it will be a lot of work. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:12, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There may be some merit in recording places by former polity. In this case the Electorate of Saxony became a kingdom, but there were also various Saxon duchies. I suspect that all these are united in the present land so that there may be some merit in having this, but the places should be in Category:Populated places in the Kingdom of Saxony. On the other hand, we had a similar nom concerning places in the county of Oldenburg (now part of a larger polity), which I think we did not keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Peterkingiron: indeed we did not keep it. Categorizing current places by every former polity or division they ever belonged to would result in a huge amount of categories, especially in Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:26, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a clear policy about this sort of interaction between history and geography? Rathfelder (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support/Comment I support this approach to remove the clutter but Rathfelder makes a good point: do we provide clear guidance on former polity. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Policy The policy that we seem to be creeping towards in recent years seems to be "Do not categorize current places by every former polity or division they ever belonged to. Categorize them by their current geo-political location, if undisputed, or by each currently claimed geo-political administration if the location is claimed by more than one sovereign or near-sovereign entity. Otherwise listify all the historic geo-political entities to which the location was assigned." @RevelationDirect, Marcocapelle, Peterkingiron, and Rathfelder: Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I remember, that is entirely in line with closures of similar CfD discussions in the past. I suggest to update the categorization guideline upon closure of this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Women's junior national softball teams[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Category:Women's junior national softball teams

Category:History of baseball outside the United States[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. – Fayenatic London 12:12, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:OCMISC. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The history of baseball outside of the United States is a distinct topic, and clearly has discrete subtopics. The game developed in the United States (and perhaps to some extent, Canada), and was only later introduced elsewhere, with relatively little direct interaction with American baseball. This is clearly not what "OCMISC" is talking about—this is not a mere container for miscellaneous topics, but rather for discrete topics within a clearly-defined sphere; and the topics and subtopics contained do share various commonalities—they are clearly not random or unrelated except for some connection to baseball. This category seems like a logical way of organizing them together. P Aculeius (talk) 15:29, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This category is no different from this discussion. Should be upmerged to Category:History of baseball. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:30, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is different. There is no clear reason why "brass bands" would have different or discrete histories per country or region different from whatever country isn't being "othered" here—and in fact there's no obvious reason why any country would be viewed as the originator of brass bands, such that a designation of "other countries" has an obvious meaning. Subjects such as baseball in the Caribbean or the Mexican League or baseball in Japan, Australia, or Britain all have unique features besides mere geography—it makes perfect sense to treat these as a group. I cannot imagine what useful purpose is served by distinguishing brass bands of "other" countries, whatever countries are meant; but the history of baseball in various places is very much tied to the unique cultures in which it has been introduced. P Aculeius (talk) 23:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (maybe selectively merge to Category:History of baseball), the category would have been useful if there would have been a substantial number of articles about all countries but the US. But that is not the case, the articles are mostly about individual countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure that's what categories are for... so that people can find articles about topics related by a common theme. Someone reading about the history of baseball in Japan might be interested in the history of baseball in Australia or the Dominican Republic, but not in the designated hitter rule, the expansion of the American League in 1962, the dead-ball era, the All-American Girls' Professional Baseball League, the Kansas City Athletics, etc. I fail to see why there need to be articles about all other countries combined in order for this to be a valid or useful category; in fact that would surely make it less useful than it is when the information is spread across many different articles that all belong to the same category. P Aculeius (talk) 09:48, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Baseball by country for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps that would make a better merge target. Some of the articles might fit in both categories, but the categories themselves serve different purposes. And although it doesn't preclude a merger, OCMISC clearly doesn't apply. P Aculeius (talk) 02:38, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Each baseball in <country> category page should not be included in Category:Baseball by country as it is a container category so should only include sub-categories. There are a select number of pages that should be merged into Category:History of baseball but the rest of the pages do not belong in this category structure. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If it can't be merged there, then it shouldn't be deleted or merged, because this category has a valid purpose that will not be achieved by either course of action. P Aculeius (talk) 04:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
(Some of) these categories will be moved into Category:History of baseball. Having a separate category for history of baseball in every country except the United States most certainly violates WP:OCMISC and this should be upmerged to History of baseball as appropriate. There is no need for this sub-category. Read the guidelines, please. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:42, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You read them. OCMISC clearly does not apply here, as I explained above. These are not random topics with no relationship to one another except for not being in the United States. And you don't get to decide the outcome of this nomination. The category is perfectly valid, and cannot be deleted simply because one editor decides that there's no value in grouping related topics within a field. You must achieve consensus using arguments based on actual policy—not a blatant misapplication of one that superficially sounds like it could be related. P Aculeius (talk) 04:50, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These are random topics with no relationship to one another except for not being in the United States. The articles are not about the commonalities between all countries but the US, they rather are about each country separately. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, they're not random: they're all articles about the history of baseball in countries other than the United States. Articles about baseball in the United States dominate the field, leading to some very odd results if this proposal is adopted. Category:History of baseball contains twenty-four articles and sixteen subcategories with hundreds of individual articles; Category:History of baseball outside the United States contains twenty-five articles and one subcategory. If this category is upmerged to History of baseball, then the majority of articles will be about the history of baseball in other countries, even though they constitute only a tiny fraction of all articles about the history of baseball. And most of the other articles would be miscellaneous, suggesting that the articles about the history of baseball in other countries are the main contents of the category.
Earlier I suggested merging with Category:Baseball by country, which I still think makes some sense, but the nominator objected on the grounds that it is a container category. But does it have to be? Is there a good reason why we can't have a category that contains both articles about baseball in other countries and subcategories for baseball in specific countries, where the number of articles justifies having such subcategories? P Aculeius (talk) 12:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Soyuz (political party) politicians[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 Hecseur (talk) 15:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, I don't see any growth potential here. Hecseur (talk) 13:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Infobox element[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 14:20, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are sub-pages of the master template {{Infobox element}}. Rename along the lines of Category:Infobox element subtemplates and Category:Infobox chemical templates. Cf Category:Infobox element isotopes templates for another master template, {{Infobox element isotopes}}. – Fayenatic London 08:37, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, this more accurately describes what is in the categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: as I wrote below, the proposed names do not correctly describe the content. This from an editor who creates & maintains in this area. -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- this CfD does not justify upholding an unrelated, uncontested WP:CFSD request for Category:Element data sets/overview. Instead, the upholding is needlessly complicating the process & the discussion. -DePiep (talk) 03:57, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand the urgency, but OK, let's move it twice. I've processed the speedy nomination and added it here for a second renaming. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now support all with the expanded nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. I am an editor who develops & maintains these areas.
Proposed new name Category:Infobox element data sets does not describe or reflect the content. Given this initial mistake, consequences like other names proposed and following category tree names will also be incorrect. Motivation "Rename along the lines of .." is WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: mistaken similarity does not make an argument. Example Category:Infobox chemical templates even does not contain used or maintained templates; it is a graveyard.
And there is no reason or ground to remove a "/" from a category name. This being maintenance categories, there is no requirement to use long, descriptive, documenting, full sentece category names. Worse: such names are not helpful at all, because it requires reading the sentence titles in a category listing, while glancing for hit words is much more editor-friendly. Having "../overview" in the title is much easier to recognise than having to read and compare descriptivce names ('what is the difference between those cat names is see? And which one has what I am looking for').
For a long time, I have been actively creating, developing, and maintaining the area of these categories (except for the dead IB chemical one; actually I maintain the real live ones re {{Chembox}} and {{Drugbox}}). So I am surprised to find this XfD here without having met even one Talkpage discussion opening with like "I find this strange, could someome explane and the names be improved?". Since the remaming questions started at WP:CFSD, three template editors (experienced, TPE even) skipped this more natural step, going into confrontational DR right away.
All in all: the new names do not reflect the (actual and intenteded) content, they do not use smart naming principles, they forego editors' input actually working in the area, and they are not well researched. -DePiep (talk) 06:46, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Not about "to the author", I already said it is about those who actually work with this develop & maintenance area. One could have started a regular talk on how to "de-crypt" names. Changing into misnomers is not a solution; thereafter 'consistent' renaming of related & subcategories would make it worse. Note that the names mentioned, and their subcategories, are not a simple category tree. -DePiep (talk) 15:09, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I understand that you are annoyed by the fact that it did not start as a regular talk. But that can no longer be changed. We are at CfD now and if you think the proposal is not good then please take the effort to explain why it is not good. Just calling it misnomers is not sufficient. Or, ideally, come up with an alternative that, simultaneously, much better clarifies what it is in these categories and addresses your own concerns whatever they are. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: again, no need to make it personal, makes it hard to stay away from distractions.
XfD enforces a timerestricted conclusion, while in this case it takes time, research and considerations to disentangle the area. These templates sets have been developing long time growing multiple relevant topic branches (which clarifies why current names are not clear enough &tc.). Unfortunately, I have little time to help analyse & disentangling it, did not even have time to check the subtemplate branches. Also finding helpful naming patterns is involved. Hard to do so within one week and involving non-involved editors (drive-by-tagging; risk of underinformed; uphill arguing introduced).
So, for now I strongly suggest a "No change" (no consensus) closure for this, of course with a No Prejudge Against Future Changes clause. -DePiep (talk) 06:00, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you have not provided any reasonable argument against the proposal, I would not expect this to close as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • CFD discussions do not have to be closed in a week, and very often continue for much longer. – Fayenatic London 07:37, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both true and not enough. We cannot count on this. Still, no acknowledgement from any contributor here that more profound research & proposal is needed. -DePiep (talk) 08:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • If you come up with better names after this gets closed, then by all means nominate them again. – Fayenatic London 21:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, that's the better plan. Expect pings by then. -DePiep (talk) 13:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • Yes, this can be closed per nomination as an initial improvement and we can discuss further improvements later. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: No, that is not what FL and this thread says. The proposal is not "an initial improvement". As said, the proposed names do not reflect the content, so they are not to be implemented full stop. I agree with FL that after closure (with no change), better names can be proposed. -DePiep (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @DePiep: it was indeed what I said, and I would expect the closer to implement the nomination. You have not given a rationale that anyone else understands for why the proposed names are inaccurate or not an improvement.
    • Oh, and @Marcocapelle: please follow WP:INDENTMIX. – Fayenatic London 12:00, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is just truth in advertising since they contain infobox elements. No one WP:OWNS these categories and the intended use should be intuitive for the community. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:53, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: As I pointed out above, the proposed names do not describe nor intended nor actual use i.e. pages cointainted. This will even more derail when subcategories are 'consistently' renamed. -DePiep (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What alternative rename would make the intended/actual use clear to other editors? - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:29, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the right core question. In short: takes more time. See my recent reply to Marcocapelle above, @ 06:00. -DePiep (talk) 06:02, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_June_28&oldid=1104779468"