Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 12

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< October 11
October 13 >

October 12

edit

Category:British music logos

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Category:British music logos

Template:Yachtracing-stub

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge Category:Yacht racing stubs; keep the template. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:20, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge into Template:Sailing-stub. Only 36 usages and the term sailing (also an Olympic sport) covers yacht racing, windsurfing, kitesurfing, model boat racing, dinghy racing etc.

I have also proposed renaming yacht racing stub templates to sailing stub templates, which I'm waiting for feedback. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:25, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Yacht racing stubs.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Critics of veganism

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Category:Critics of veganism

Centuries in Landskrona‎

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: manually merge older dates, prune C20 & 21. Many members are already in subcats of the target e.g. Category:Former buildings and structures in Landskrona. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge, most articles don't belong in a history category but rather in e.g. a buildings and structures category. The articles that do belong in a history category are so few that they can easily put together in a single category. For reference: only 5 of the biggest world cities have their own 15th century category next to Landskrona. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:21st century by city has a lot of city categories. Leaning Oppose. Gonnym (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:26, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What if we purged the categories of things which obviously do not belong (such as buildings/structures) and then see what we are left with? At that point, we can have a more informed discussion about whether these are helpful for navigation. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should probably ping @Gonnym and Marcocapelle for their thoughts on the above. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Women local politicans

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Women local politicans

Category:Israeli insurance brokers

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think we should either generalize this category to not be specific to just brokers from Israel, or delete it because its unhelpful for navigation right now Mason (talk) 22:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Graph algorithms

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Needs to be called either that or Category:Graph (discrete mathematics) algorithms, per graph (discrete mathematics) and WP:C2D. The latter seems more awkward, though. 1234qwer1234qwer4 11:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting; see comment below.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of speedy discussion

This was objected to by means of filing a CFDS request to undo the move. Pinging @Ymblanter, David Eppstein, and 1234qwer1234qwer4: for their thoughts. Best, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts are adequately expressed in the hatted section above: "Graph algorithms" is by far the COMMONNAME, it is the title of the main article/section of this category (graph algorithm), it is not in need of disambiguation as a phrase, and we do not need to pick out and disambiguate individual words in phrases that are not ambiguous as a whole. Oppose rename. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:FL-Class cricket articles of Mid-importance

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Category:FL-Class cricket articles of Mid-importance

Category:Cricket articles by review

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no A-class articles within the project's scope; apart from that the project banner doesn't even has the A-class review parameters anymore. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 15:50, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also the following which are no longer used by the banner shell anymore as well.
Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 17:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per C4. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Medieval German LGBTQ people

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. Thank you Bearcat for knowing what to do here. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 16:07, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Moving this category out of the ordinal-century format broke its tranclusion of {{LGBTQ people by nationality and century category header}}. The code of the underlying template is quite complex and inflexible, and I doubt this error could be fixed without radical alterations. I don't believe it desirable to undertake that, especially when it is unclear to me how renaming the category actually addressed the original concern that this category is unhelpful for navigation. Pinging previous discussion's participants HouseBlaster, Bearcat, Marcocapelle, and Smasongarrison. —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:32, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The transclusion problem was very easily solved by untranscluding the "broken" header template, and simply filing the category directly in appropriate parent categories instead of doing that via a transcluded header template. That's not a radical solution at all, as it's an entirely normal way of including categories in parent categories — we can use header templates instead of directly transcluded categories where they're useful and fit the circumstances, but there's no rule that we must always use header templates instead of directly transcluded categories, and no rule that a category is inherently invalid just because its parentage doesn't suit a header template. Note also the existence of siblings for Category:Medieval French LGBTQ people and Category:Medieval Italian LGBTQ people, and of a parent Category:Medieval LGBTQ people, all of which suggest that this is both an acceptable and expected category. Bearcat (talk) 14:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep. The whole point of the category header is that its only supposed to be used on a very specific kind of category. Thanks Bearcat for making the fix. Mason (talk) 15:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

(LGBT identity) fiction

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename the top three, keep the bottom 2. (non-admin closure) Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nominated for speedyrename by Fayenatic london, contested by me and agreed by Raladic, I'm opening CfD reccommended by Marcocapelle. I suggest these changes, I also nominated gay and lesbian categories in case this discussion decides something else in the other direction. Web-julio (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


Category:Anti-LGBTQ Pentecostal activists in 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: merge (non-admin closure). Charlotte (Queen of Hearts • talk) 19:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two biographies. Upmerge to Category:Anti-LGBTQ evangelical Christian activists in the United States and Category:Anti-LGBTQ Pentecostal activists. Web-julio (talk) 11:18, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Volleyball players from Izmir

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 keep. I will redirect Category:Volleyball players from Izmir to the diacritic version. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:57, 18 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:All Elite Wrestling personnel

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 19#Category:All Elite Wrestling personnel


Category:Upper class culture in Maryland

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mostly consists of various localities and neighbourhoods. Not clear how that constitutes "upper class culture". AusLondonder (talk) 05:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the neigbourhoods articles should be purged anyway and not much is left beside that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 12 October 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per above. Any similar categories should probably be bundled with this. Sdkb talk 13:05, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This should have been nominated together with the category for working-class culture in Baltimore. The idea that because the nominator is ignorant of the concept of working-class culture or upper-class culture is a bizarre reason to delete the category. We identify something as working-class or upper-class through...reliable sources. The same thing we do with everything else. The argument for deletion boils down to "The concept is strange to me. I don't get it, so delete it". That's bogus. The argument that neighborhoods don't belong is not an argument for deletion, it's an argument for removing the neighborhoods. Although if reliable sources characterize a neighborhood as upper class, I see no reason not to include the neighborhood. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 12:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Armenian scholars of constitutional law

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:Armenian jurists. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. only one page in this category which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 05:11, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon X and Y

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:09, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For isonomy, I'm bringing these for discussion based in this one, feel free to merge the discussions.

Reasons: all of these only contain from two to four concrete articles plus a list, and some of them contain redirects. Web-julio (talk) 04:19, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a very bold move out of complete nowhere given that the vast bulk of these categories are perfectly valid navigational tools. The Sword and Shield category in particular contains five articles, while the bulk of the others contain around four or so articles, which are sizeable numbers when collected as a group. Merging all of these sub-categories back to the main category would clutter said category with twenty-three additional articles, and when the total Pokémon species category is covering nearly sixty articles, all of which have valid ways of better organizing them, a merge back would be detrimental for both navigational and practical purposes and be overall unwieldy for covering this subject effectively. I feel a merge would be unwise, and support keeping the bulk of these split.
As an aside, I did mean to discuss the Ruby and Sapphire and Sun and Moon categories when it wasn't midnight in my time zone, but given that this is being brought to the forefront now, I'll bring up my gripes: Both of these categories I feel definitely have room for expansion, but do not have enough articles to justify a split for the time being, in my mind. I wished to discuss this with other editors who I was aware had projects that would fall under these categories in order to resolve this matter further, but this discussion has thrown a wrench in that. Additinally, with Ruby and Sapphire in particular, I did also wish to discuss that I'm admittedly unsure if Regi (Pokémon) should be included within the category, and not just the redirects, given the overarching group was introduced in those games, which could potentially allow for a better justification of RS's sub-category. For the time being I am unable to discuss this as effectively with the categories being suddenly brought to deletion, but I would appreciate the nominator's insight on this, and my other points, as a whole, without a volley of deletion discussions being brought in as a retort. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:35, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, I was the one who created Ruby and Sapphire and Sun and Moon categories, so I admit that I thought these would be fine, but since you brought the other one for debate, maybe these would also be against policies or what CfD participants think of. So I'm open to comments. And they can be recreated, but where's the line and what would be the criteria for such inclusion/category creation next time?
Because, 5 isn't even a big number overall for general categories. And WP:SMALLCAT says [...] will never have more than a few members, [...], which is not the case, they will eventually be bigger. Web-julio (talk) 05:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - WP:SMALLCAT was deprecated in 2023. (Oinkers42) (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I'm quoting it, as the quantity isn't a factor anymore for deletion. Web-julio (talk) 17:37, 16 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:03, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have always considered 4, occasionally 3, to be the minimum number of articles for a category to be useful. Many categories exist with four articles. These Pokémon categories are useful enough to stay, while the Gen 6 one is not because there are fewer articles. If more Gen 6 Pokémon get articles, we can bring it back. QuicoleJR (talk) 12:27, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon X and Y

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one item that has an article. The main Pokémon species category is not overly cluttered, and thus this sub-category is not necessary and better off deleted for the time being. Should more X and Y Pokémon get articles, I am unopposed to future recreation, but for the time being it is not necessary and has no immediate use in the near future. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:48, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment at the time of nomination, this only contained Klefki. It now contains the generation VI list, Klefki, and a large number of redirects. My same argument still applies here; two subjects are not enough for a subcategory when the main category is not suffering from clutter as-is, and is overall unnecessary. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 03:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You nominated it while I was populating. Anyways, you created Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Gold and Silver, which only contains three articles and the list. The same happens with Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Scarlet and Violet by QuicoleJR and Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Sword and Shield by Cukie Gherkin (recently, redirects were put in this one). Based on these, I also created Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire and Category:Pokémon species introduced in Pokémon Sun and Moon, in which each one contains only two articles plus list and three/two redirects. So, all of these are debatable, and I'm sure many people here on CfD would vote them all of these for upmerge. Web-julio (talk) 04:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument against this category being deleted is that other categories should also be deleted? That's a fairly bizarre argument. In any case, the other categories, while fringe, do provide some navigational utility given four articles would be better off sub-categorized compared to two. Including all of those groups of four and above in the main category would be unwieldy; they're better off organized for the sake of cleanliness and readability. Two articles is nowhere near enough to provide potential category organization issues, and the plethora of redirects are not proper articles, especially when many of them are redirecting to topics often discussed only in brief in the parent article.
While the RS and SM categories may be iffy in a similar vein, this discussion is pertaining strictly to the XY category, and per Wikipedia:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, this is not a point we need to worry about for this discussion. I'm admittedly still considering the former two and wish to discuss them further outside of the scope of a CfD as well. For now though, I feel as though this sub-cat still isn't serving a valid navigational or practical benefit, and would likely need at least a few more fully fledged articles before a sub-cat like this would be beneficial for navigational or practical purposes. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: WP:OTHERCATSEXIST says: an appeal to "Other similar category schemes don't – and shouldn't – exist" may be an appropriate argument for arguing for deletion of a category.. Web-julio (talk) 05:38, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And you missed the point in commenting about other categories, because I didn't mention Red and Blue, for example, I indeed assessed the current state of the others, which is precarious as well. Web-julio (talk) 05:41, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Huh, didn't know there was a separate exception for categories. Then ignore my OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, as it's not relevant to this discussion.
In any case, I didn't bring up Red and Blue either, and I wasn't arguing anything related to it, so I'm a bit confused about how this relates to my prior arguments. I argued that the current sub-categories were fine for categorical purposes, and that the XY one specifically was not, and you saying "I disagree" doesn't really answer my arguments at all, unless I'm wildly misinterpreting what you're saying here. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Regardless of any other categories that may exist, 2 articles is still too few for a useful category in my eyes. Let us leave any other potential categories to a different discussion (like the one currently above, for instance). (Oinkers42) (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now. X and Y have a rather limited pool and even among people working on these articles it feels like there's very unlikely to be any articles spun out unlike the other games. While I understand the need to subcategorize, even projects like WP:SE don't have a subcategory for every Final Fantasy title, as some of them just don't have enough content (case in point, the Final Fantasy V category was only remade her very recently, after the list was recreated). No prejudice if this situation changes at a later time.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:SpaceX astronauts

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Prior to September 2024, all astronauts listed in Category:SpaceX astronauts had simply flown on a SpaceX capsule launched on a SpaceX Falcon 9 launch vehicle. Now, with the completion of the recent private spaceflight mission Polaris Dawn, two SpaceX employees—Sarah Gillis and Anna Menon—have been astronauts (while employed by SpaceX) on this recent commercial spaceflight. It would be confusing to categorize the two of them as merely the sense of astronauts who have flown on SpaceX equipment, as they are also SpaceX employees, and are categorized in Category:SpaceX employee astronauts. (more emplyees are planned to fly on future spaceflights). N2e (talk) 17:46, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 04:24, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to tag Category:SpaceX employee astronauts. Thoughts on zxcvbnm's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:37, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:British patrolwomen

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 to delete Category:Women Metropolitan Police officers. Rename Category:Women Merseyside Police officers to Category:Merseyside Police officers (and add non-women to the category). Merge the rest as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:45, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge these intersections doesn't meet the criteria for defining under WP:EGRS. One note: For Women Merseyside Police officers Either dual upmerge under egrs or broaden to Merseyside Police officers. Mason (talk) 23:27, 23 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Necrothesp's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:47, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would need to know more about how the intersection between Women Police officers and the met is defining. Just because they're both important on their own doesn't mean that the intersection is. What does @Necrothesp think about repurpsong Category:Women Merseyside Police officers to Merseyside Police officers? Mason (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Mason's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:28, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Necrothesp: Thoughts on the above? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fine by me. There are probably enough of them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:32, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Tourist attractions in Salem

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:Tourist attractions in Salem district and turn the category into a dab. (non-admin closure) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: IS empty. The one entry was not relevant, so was deleted Isoceles-sai (talk) 08:06, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:10, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:11th-century Somali people

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:Ethnic Somali people and Category:10th-century African people / Category:11th-century African people (as applicable). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 15:06, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed for speedy.C2C: parent is Somalian people by century, but @Marcocapelle: makes good points that "Category:Ethnic Somali people and the country Somalia did not exist yet in the 11th and 12th century. " Mason (talk) 23:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a bit problematic because there is also Category:Ethnic Somali people and the country Somalia did not exist yet in the 11th and 12th century. On top of that it is unclear whether Somalian would include or exclude current Somaliland. So I think it is better to re-parent these categories, move them from the Somalian to the Ethnic Somali tree. Also rename the 13th to 19th century categories to "Somali". For example in the 13th century category there is someone in the Maldives who was probably an ethnic Somali. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:04, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that they should either be renamed per above or merged to Category:Ethnic Somali people and 10th-century African people/11th-century African people. Mason (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: thoughts on the above? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:42, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Members of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 17#Category:Members of the Order of the Holy Sepulchre


Category:Solent_University (and sub-categories)

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:47, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The university has changed its name and the alumni category link on the wikipedia page has been incorrectly updated, so is currently going to a blank category page Mystery Cat (talk) 15:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean a Blank Category page? Mason (talk) 21:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies. I mean a category page which hasn't been created yet - they changed the name in the link without checking if that category existed. It's 'see also' at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southampton_Solent_University#Notable_alumni Mystery Cat (talk) 09:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: None of these were tagged; I will do so now. I will note that on Wikipedia, Example page and Example_page are equivalent (just like Example page and example page are equivalent).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:59, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:NCT Wish albums

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:37, 20 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two redirects which are articles already in Category:NCT Wish songs. Information provided in the song articles do not further elaborate on the single albums to justify both albums and songs categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait some discussion needs to happen elsewhere as to whether the two articles should be reclassified as "single albums" rather than just "single" - I believe for consistency sake they should probably be migrated to the “single album” format which would be valid for this category.
Either way, the artist has an EP being released in about 5 hours that will inevitably have an article created in the extremely near future (within hours) that will belong in this category which could change the direction of this deletion discussion before the nomination can run its course. No point in going through a week worth of deletion discussion if by the end of it the nomination rationale that all the votes are based upon will no longer be valid. RachelTensions (talk) 04:10, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Steady (NCT Wish EP) has now been created and added to the category. There are now multiple articles using this category. RachelTensions (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Two redirects and a subcategory as of relisting. Is this enough to keep the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 19:17, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Riize

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. – Fayenatic London 10:40, 23 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only album articles which are already sufficiently categorized in an albums subcategory for the group. This is an unnecessary eponymous parent per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:58, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CATMAIN does not provide any rationale for keeping eponymous categories but simply provides instructions on how to categorize articles within an eponymous category should one exist. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:51, 24 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The new subcat are just image files, which would already be placed in individual articles, and the group would be more defining to SM Rookies than the other way around. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been 4 subcats added to the root category: Category:Riize songs, Category:Riize EPs, Category:Riize album covers, and Category:Riize audio samples. RachelTensions (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another article was just created & added. RachelTensions (talk) 06:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 October 4#Category:Riize.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:19, 4 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I neglected to ping people. Relisting this time with a ping.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:53, 12 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: I am willing to concede to keeping this one. I don't think the categorization here of image and audio files, subcategorized or not, justify an eponymous category since they are contained with the articles within the category. However, the addition of an article on a tour by the group adds a bit more substance (albeit minimally) to allow for the category's existence. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:48, 22 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lostwave

edit

  Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 October 20#Category:Lostwave

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_October_12&oldid=1253554268"