Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 2

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

September 2[edit]

Category:Juventus F.C. Under-23[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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 08:46, 7 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Juventus U23's name has been changed to Juventus Next Gen. Juventus F.C. Under-23 has arleady been moved to Juventus Next Gen. Please, do the same changes with the subcategories.

Pinging Nehme1499, GiantSnowman, Ortizesp, SuperJew and Mellohi! who took part to the article's RM. Dr Salvus 22:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renamings[edit]
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:Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific[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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article Turner Broadcasting System Asia Pacific was renamed to WarnerMedia Entertainment Networks Asia Pacific in May 2021, and Turner International India was merged into it; then it was renamed again in May 2022 to Warner Bros. Discovery Asia-Pacific after the corporate merger with Discovery, Inc. Turner Broadcasting System Latin America was similarly moved to WarnerMedia Latin America and then to Warner Bros. Discovery Americas. These can probably go ahead speedily as WP:C2D, but as there is a merge I am listing the set for a full discussion. The categories were tagged by MegaSmike46 in July but not listed until now. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 2 September 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:Consequences of wars[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#Category:Consequences of wars

Category:Underground 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: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 09:54, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subjective inclusion criteria, same reason as the Cult films category. hinnk (talk) 18:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
Ortizesp (talk) 00:17, 3 September 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:Metasongs[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 09:56, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Metasong" is not defined in Wikipedia or at Wiktionary (Metasong is a cross-namespace redirect to this category). There are only two articles in the category where "metasong" is actually mentioned in the article (Highway Song (James Taylor song) and Memories of El Monte; in other cases assigning them to this ill-defined category appears to be WP:OR. If this category is deleted, also speedy-delete-G8 the redirect Metasong. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:50, 2 September 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:Fiction about astronomical locations[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#Category:Fiction about astronomical locations

Architecture by country and style[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 "Architecture in FOO by period or style" (option 4). There has always been a consensus that something should be done, and post-relist, this discussion seemed to have more support for Option 4. bibliomaniac15 03:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Harmonise the inconsistent category names within Category:Architecture by country and style, and match them better to the rest of the hierarchy above and below.
Either Option 1: as listed above, to (i) create consistency with the parent e.g. "Architecture of Albania"; (ii) use "style" rather than "period" where this describes the contents, following precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 7#Category:Australian architecture by period; (iii) split some between articles on styles and sub-cats by style, following the split of the parents Category:Architectural styles and Category:Architecture by style at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 15#Category:Architectural styles.
or Option 2: as above but use "in" rather than "of", e.g. Category:Architecture in Albania by style, because this would also match the sub-categories e.g. Category:Gothic architecture in Albania. All the sub-sub-cats of Category:Architecture by style and country use "in"; only the sub-cats of Category:Rococo architecture use "of". If there is support for Option 2, I propose to also nominate all the parents for renaming likewise, e.g. Category:Architecture of Albania to Category:Architecture in Albania. – Fayenatic London 10:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose to Option 1. Where to start? The precedent of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 September 7#Category:Australian architecture by period, discussing one subcat, and attracting one support, is about as weak as it is possible to imagine. Some country categories, like Austria, have style sub-cats, but others, like China, don't. This would be a terrible solution for them. The "Category:British architecture by period or style" type of title is MUCH better, but this proposal is to do away with that, and turn everything to "style", which doesn't work at all. Wikipedia editors and categorisers are often very poor at deciding the "style" of buildings, and we generally don't have enough categories to cover all styles. Significantly, no benefits at all are suggested from this rearrangement, other than consistency, which is always a bad sign in these proposals. Using "in" rather than "of" doesn't make much difference to anything, imo. Johnbod (talk) 12:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "some… don't": But that's exactly why I have nominated some cases for splitting rather than renaming. The example you chose, China, includes Art Deco and Baroque which are styles, and the rest are periods. – Fayenatic London 19:48, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • "by period or style… is MUCH better" – OK, let's add Option 3, Architecture of Foo by period or style, and Option 4, Architecture in Foo by period or style.
    • Options 3 and 4 both require renaming Category:Architecture by country and period to Category:Architecture by country and period or style, and merging Category:Architecture by country and style to it. – Fayenatic London 20:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      We can solve "period" problem for China, Japan, Korea, etc. through unfortunate generalization "Traditional arch of/in Chine", until we have more editors able to add more articles on that arch, and help distinct between styles and periods in arch of these countries (which has as much distinct styles and periods as European if not more). As such, Traditional arch of Foo can be, then, included upward in both "style" and "period" parents. ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming Category:Fooian architecture by parameter to Category:Architecture in/of Foo by parameter, because meanwhile denonyms are mainly used for people (nationality). With respect to Johnbod's comment, style is largely dependent on period, so I can understand the opposition towards removing "by period". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Johnbod: I would be grateful for a further reply. You seem to be mainly opposing some which would change "period" to "style". If "period" is not removed, can the change from "Fooian" to "of/in Foo" go ahead (option 3/4)?
  • As for "of" versus "in", consider whether it is useful for Aswan Dam and Sardeh Band Dam to remain in Category:Architecture of the Soviet Union. They were built with Soviet support in Egypt and Afghanistan, so were originally in "Soviet architecture"; but the pages would have to be removed if it was renamed to "Architecture in the Soviet Union". – Fayenatic London 20:40, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:30, 22 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Option 3, or failing that, Option 4 (no real difference). Any response @Johnbod? @Marcocapelle, do you have any preference between 1/2 and 3/4 (your !vote above is unclear). — Qwerfjkltalk 15:29, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unclear indeed. I do have a clear preference for any of the above renaming options over the status quo (since they all change it to "of Albania") and a weak preference for option 3/4 over 1/2. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming Category:Fooian architecture by parameter to Category:Architecture in/of Foo by parameter per Marcocapelle. Denonyms should only be used for people. --Privybst (talk) 11:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting a fourth time is a bit of an unprecedented thing, but we're pretty close to a consensus. It all comes down to "in vs. of." I'd like a further assessment from others on the analysis that Fayenatic london brought up: Do we conform the name to the parent or the subcats, and is the scope/intention of these cats geographic or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 16:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Still oppose the whole thing - this will create a bigger mess than we already have. Some names that look like "period"s are, I'm sure, in fact styles, & dividing the two will be harmfully confusing. In a similar way blanket changes to adjectives/in/of will have bad effects where borders have changed. This is the sort of top down rearrangement that appears fine here, but is likely to cause a mess in the sub-cats (which are not nominated). More and more, I distrust proposals based on "consistency". Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The objection about periods and styles is an objection to option 1 and 2 only, right? With respect to bad effects of changes from adjectives to in/of, I can't quite imagine how that would make a difference, can you give an example? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • This has been relisted to solve the "in" or "of" issue. With respect to the example of Fayenatic london, I do not think we should include these articles in a Soviet country category. Apparently my thinking rather comes from an "in" perspective. These examples are a special case that may deserve a special category, e.g. Category:Buildings and structures built by the Soviet Union abroad. China may well have a sibling. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case there is a preference for option 4. Perhaps my presentation has been too confusing for Johnbod to see the proposal clearly, as he has not presented any objections to what is actually intended. He objects to splitting categories by period from categories by style, but this proposal puts categories by period and style together. The categories for China, Italy, Spain and Turkey would no longer be split. The only splitting, e.g. for America, Britain and Canada, is to separate out the articles about styles from the subcats of buildings, where there is sufficient content to justify a separate category for such articles. Here is Option 4 in full. Look – the Irish categories by period and by style get merged together:
– Fayenatic London 16:18, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
remainder of Option 3
As a spectator to this, I ask, how long until this CFD will be inevitably closed as no consensus? It has been relisted 4 times since late June to no avail, and those with dust mite allergies must be suffering harshly as we I speak. — Mugtheboss (talk) 17:55, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Be patient. Johnbod's specific grounds for opposition have been fully answered – except his mistrust of consistency in principle, which is widely followed at CFD. The linked discussion about the parent categories is working through a lot of detail which affects the choice about "of"/"in". The Colonial categories could end up using "see also" links rather than being subcats if "in" is taken more strictly. – Fayenatic London 05:58, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Option 4 Option 2 - to answer Johnbod's "where to start(?)" we need to start by renaming "Fooan architecture" to "Architecture in/of Foo" (I would prefer "in"). ౪ Santa ౪99° 18:14, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Santasa99: don't you mean Option 4? or do you oppose "by period or style", for which Johnbod has made a strong case above? – Fayenatic London 21:12, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, yes, (sorry did not see that you label it Option 4; it sits just above box labeled Op.3). ౪ Santa ౪99° 06:29, 21 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, so, I have no opinion on the nom, but I think the problem this discussion seems to be having, is noted right in the article, Architecture:
    • "It is both the process and the product of sketching, conceiving, planning, designing, and constructing buildings or other structures."
    So for the question of "of" vs "in", for me it's a simple question:
    Is the intention to consider the category contents as art (the abstract - the "process") or a contructed object located somewhere (the concrete - the "product")?
    If it's art, then we should use "of". If it's an object, then it should be "in"
    And by the way - this issue exists in most of art, especially the fine arts. So we probably should keep that in mind, as this could/should probably lead to some broader discussions. - jc37 01:51, 28 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (!voted above) Option 4 ("in") or failing that Option 3 ("of"). I suggest this discussion should be closed either way, and the of/in matter discussed in another discussion. — Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 5 November 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:Funeral directors of the United Kingdom[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 & rename to Category:Funeral-related companies of the United Kingdom. – Fayenatic London 12:15, 14 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same thing as far as I can see. Rathfelder (talk) 17:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 15:58, 2 September 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:Funeral directors of Austria[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#Category:Funeral directors of Austria

Pickle cabal[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:10, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate joke/nonsense user categories. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as per red-tailed hawk’s explanation and, as an extension to that, this essay. Mugtheboss (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    So essays overrule guidelines and policies now? * Pppery * it has begun... 21:17, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I never said that. While guidelines overrule essays, in this situation we are voting wether this category is suitable for inclusion in its current state, and taking all into account is a crucial part of that (much like how a jury must take everything into account, not just the laws in place); if others share the same concerns as me and hawk in this matter, it must be taken into account. Mugtheboss (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:IAR is a policy... ––FormalDude talk 03:39, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Wikipedians interested in food and drink. desmay (talk) 19:06, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Have some fun for once, Pppery! These can stay if people find it humorous. CollectiveSolidarity (talk) 22:35, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userboxes can be used for the expression of humor, you do not need categories for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:31, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep, it's a valid spear of interest. Andre🚐 01:55, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this does no harm and doesn't merit deletion. Let the community have a little fun for once. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (in a jar, with some dill) Don't tell me the cabal isn't real?! Then what did I change my signature for?! –LordPickleII (talk) 19:00, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Addendum: On a more serious note, I don't think the guideline rational by the nominator applies: It states This includes any grouping of users that is patently false (e.g. Wikipedians who are zombies, Wikipedians in their 780s) [...], which would apply if the category would claim "Wikipedians who are Pickles". These users don't make the absurd claim to be a (delicious) food item, but rather that they are part of a "cabal", which is a long-standing "inside joke" around here, so much that cabals have their own humour page, as Pickleswipe pointed out. –LordPickleII (talk) 19:10, 8 September 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 about Hawaii[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 and purge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:13, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Like many other "songs about" categories, a lot of the entries are present because of WP:SHAREDNAME, and Hawaii being in the title. For example "Harleys in Hawaii" by Katy Perry is nothing about the country/state. Many of these songs do not have lyrical content that relates to Hawaii >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:06, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have removed the cat from Harleys in Hawaii. I suggest you remove any other articles on songs which are not about Hawaii, leaving the category only including articles on songs about Hawaii.--Mhockey (talk) 23:31, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis? You need to provide a rational? If Category for deletion requests are like other AFDs, we're not supposed to remove content before deleting them. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 16:45, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is in the wrong category, we do not delete the category. We remove the article from the category. If you want to argue that all the articles in the category are wrongly categorised, you need to provide a rationale. Arguing that "a lot of the articles" are wrongly categorised, without saying which (except for one), is no rationale for deleting the category. Mhockey (talk) 18:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Removing members of a category is frowned upon if it is a way of forcing a delete. Removing members that do not belong in the category is fine. Richhoncho (talk) 10:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. I am not explicitly favoring keeping this category anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subcat of Category:Songs about states of the United States, so even if it had only a few members, it seems that it should be kept per WP:SMALLCAT. Mhockey (talk) 19:14, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nom, plus WP:V and WP:CATDEF. Pretty much every member of this category is in shared named or already in an appropropriate category. Songs about learning to speak Hawaiian to go on a date are not about Hawaii, it could happen anywhere in the world! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:03, 19 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge, User:Mhockey introduced a probably decisive argument. This category should not be singled out from the tree. Still, a song about learning to speak Hawaiian to go on a date should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:45, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:29, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- There are sibling categories for most other US states. Purge if necessary, but do not be too rigorous in excluding the language, culture, etc of this island group. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 4 September 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]

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:Nobility characters in video games Timrollpickering (talk) 11:50, 6 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Current name is a bit akward and doesn't mesh with its child categories. "Video game nobility/royalty" could casually refer to people who are highly regarded within the gaming comunity. ★Trekker (talk) 13:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:27, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nominated. I would not object strongly to Pppery's alternative, but IMHO the extra word is unnecessary; like the parent Category:Fictional nobility, "nobility" will be understood as a collective noun for characters, not an abstract noun for virtue. – Fayenatic London 09:59, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    The point of my rename is not that ambiguity, but to clearly limit it to only articles on fictional characters rather than video games containing the characters, avoiding the problem that has caused a bunch of "X in fiction" categories (which contained works containing X rather than Xes themselves) to be renamed to "Fiction about X". * Pppery * it has begun... 14:28, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Jontesta (talk) 19:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Support rename either way. Pppery raises a good point. — Qwerfjkltalk 11:00, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have a slight preference for Pppery's suggestion. — Qwerfjkltalk 18:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename either way, but I prefer Category:Nobility characters in video games per Pppery. --Privybst (talk) 13:42, 26 September 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:Writing systems derived from the Phoenician[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 17:08, 12 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, writing systems have a complex history and the (small or large) similarity with the ancient Phoenician script is better discussed in a list article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:21, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep until someone writes the proposed list article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:44, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep until a more dynamic list article is created, and then relist on CfD. It would make creating said list much easier. Mugtheboss (talk) 17:58, 28 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:26, 2 September 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:Fictional locations by location[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 10:15, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, weird category title and sparsely populated with subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 2 September 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:Association footballers' wives and girlfriends[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#Category:Association footballers' wives and girlfriends

Category:Deaths from brain cancer[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 all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:23, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Neither place nor cause of death are defining where the cause is common.' Rathfelder (talk) 09:51, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - in each case the nomination omits other parents to which the categories must be upmerged, eg Category:Deaths from cancer in Wisconsin and Category:Neurological disease deaths in Wisconsin. It is fairly standard to diffuse people categories by state. Oculi (talk) 13:11, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • I dont object to the additional mergers Oculi suggests. Rathfelder (talk) 15:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • I do object. The status quo is better than ultimately having all articles in no less than three "deaths in" categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Delete the categories after removing the category from all the category contents. Do not merge. The creator of most of these categories is blocked indefinitely from Article and Category for their disruption in category creation after this discussion at ANI. 20SS00 was unable or unwilling to understand that cause of death is in almost all cases WP:NONDEFINING, creating a large number of categories and adding every biography he could to them. This has left behind a massive cleanup problem that doesn't seem to have an easy way to handle. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This appears to be part of the cleanup process - merging is fine. StarryGrandma (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be quite happy to see them all deleted, along with their parents, but I cant see how that can be done. Rathfelder (talk) 20:15, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you intend to have all Deaths from cancer by country subdivision upmerged to national level, or to have the Deaths from brain cancer tree upmerged to Deaths from cancer in general, or both? It should be clear what you are after, because then we can help you thinking along. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both. Place of death is never defining for conditions like this, and most cancers affect several different organs of the body. Rathfelder (talk) 09:41, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Most of the subcats have fewer than 5 articles. There might be a case for keeping those with 5 or more, but I doubt it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I don't think we need to list deaths from brain cancer in any country by said countries' subdivisions. 2600:6C52:4C40:E77:C14B:1461:77D6:B071 (talk) 01:17, 9 September 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:People fined in the Partygate scandal[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 September 10#Category:People fined in the Partygate scandal

Uyezds[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 all (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:43, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More uezds by governorate
Nominator's rationale: Following WP:RM at Talk:Uezd. Three of these were tagged by user:Nunuxxx in July but not listed until now. – Fayenatic London 06:00, 2 September 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:Elisabethpol Governorate[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 10:52, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following a WP:RM at Talk:Elizavetpol Governorate. That move previously had no consensus in 2011 and had little participation in July 2022, so I am listing this for a full CFD discussion rather than Speedy. These were tagged by user:Nunuxxx in July but not listed until now. – Fayenatic London 05:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:CFD if only temporarily. When this RM result is overturned after a fresh better attended discussion we should move back the category names too, but it is uncertain whether this is ever going to happen. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per C2D. --Privybst (talk) 10:21, 7 September 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:Ceramic objects[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:Ceramics. There seems to have been some confusion over the proposal. I believe it was intended as a merge, at least for the subcategories. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 10:57, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless, misnamed new creation, under which various large categories have been placed, mostly not containing articles on objects at all. There was no discussion before, & the creator, User:Evrik has a track record for this sort of thing. Parenting at Category:Ceramics should be restored. The category is just not needed, & should just be deleted. Johnbod (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: As pointed out below, this should really be a "re-merge back to where they were in the first place", rather than deleting to leave them parentless. . I did say "Parenting at Category:Ceramics should be restored." Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please refrain from personal attacks? --evrik (talk) 03:42, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Personal attacks are very unhelpful. Rathfelder (talk) 10:20, 2 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Says another creator of undiscussed and uselss categories. Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not expect any participant in this discussion aiming to remove the content of the category from the tree of Category:Ceramics altogether. The question is whether this is a viable subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah, well, people were saying "delete" rather than "merge", and "deleting" a category does mean removing content from parent hierarchies. As for viability, IMHO the contents are sufficient to usefully separate them from the parent Ceramics, but I would not object strongly to upmerging. – Fayenatic London 08:35, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, a remerge is what is wanted. I've added a note, but the nom did say "Parenting at Category:Ceramics should be restored." What do you think would be the utility of this extra and badly-named layer? Johnbod (talk) 19:32, 5 September 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_September_2&oldid=1125740451"