Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 14

< November 13
November 15 >

November 14

Category:Fictional destroyed planets

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:03, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An extremely specific category that only covers three articles (Alderaan, Gallifrey, Krypton). Extremely small and narrow in focus, and doesn't seem particularly useful in comparison to the much wider scope of "fictional planets". Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 23:53, 14 November 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:Further education colleges in Bridgend County Borough

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: dual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:09, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Buildings and structures in Bridgend County Borough.

Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. Better categorised within parents. AusLondonder (talk) 23:40, 14 November 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:Restaurants in Cornwall

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: dual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge also to Category:Cornish cuisine.

Category containing a single article, unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 22:56, 14 November 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:Critter Country

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:Bayou Country (Disneyland). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:10, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: On November 15, 2024, the original Critter Country at Disneyland will officially be renamed Bayou Country.

Even though the second version of the land in Tokyo will remain known as Critter Country, I think it would be a good idea to rename this category Bayou Country (similar to the fact that there is a category for the theme park area Frontierland, while the equivalent lands in Tokyo and Hong Kong Disneyland are known as Westernland and Grizzly Gulch, respectively.) Contributor19 (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Bayou Country (Disneyland) per C2D. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:09, 22 November 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:Caves of Xinjiang

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Category:Caves of Xinjiang

Category:Caves of Shandong

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:Landforms of Shandong and Category:Caves of China. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:11, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One article, which should be moved to the next highest category Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 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:Caves of Liaoning

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:Landforms of Liaoning and Category:Caves of China. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains one article, which should be moved up the line to Category:Caves of China

Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:30, 14 November 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 by game

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:08, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with the lists. It should be noted that English Wikipedia is the only Wikipedia that categorizes them by game, all others are by generation. It would also be inclusive of those introduced in PLA such as Kleavor or PGo such as Meltan, which currently are isolated. VIII and VII are the only generations which include Pokémon introduced in different games, all other lists or categories by game would be the same as by generation. Web-julio (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming makes sense and is more consistent and inclusive overall. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 20:56, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a better title/semantics: Would removing the word "introduced" or replacing "introduced in" with "from" be better? Or rename them to Category:Generation I Pokémon, for example? Since that's how the list refers to them and would be short and less wordy. Another issue is: some Pokémon were introduced before their generation was introduced (or am I wrong?). Web-julio (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of the species with articles were introduced prior to their generation, so it shouldn't be an issue, but either way I'd consider them part of their normal debut generation given it's their most prominent debut appearance. As for the name, I have no preference whether the "introduced in" should be removed or not. Has one ever considered Magneton? Pokelego999 (talk) 06:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. So now I think "introduced in" is fine. Web-julio (talk) 02:15, 19 November 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:Caves of Henan

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:Buddhist grottoes in Henan. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Every article that is listed here is a manmade site, and fits better under the proposed name, since caves are predominantly natural.
Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:19, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should actually be merged to Buddhist grottoes in Henan Kingsmasher678 (talk) 19:40, 14 November 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:Big 12 Championship Game venues

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Category:Big 12 Championship Game venues

Category:Caves of Fujian

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:02, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Every page is just a redirect to the same page. Not usefule. Kingsmasher678 (talk) 18:57, 14 November 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:Fictional orcas

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:Fiction about orcas. The Bushranger One ping only 06:07, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only contains one article about a fictional orca, Orca (DC Comics). The rest are either redirects or about different works. The category could be moved to Category:Fiction about orcas, but it should not be in the fictional characters category tree. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:55, 14 November 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:Gobiesociformes stubs

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:Gobiesocidae stubs. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The order Gobiesociformes is no longer recognised by recent sources, which instead place its only family (Gobiesocidae) into the order Blenniiformes. —Trilletrollet [ Talk | Contribs ] 15:57, 14 November 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.

US state independents

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. For the future, User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massCFDS is the script you want for CFDS. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2A. Independent should be lowercase as it is not a proper noun. Consistent with use at Independent politician Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 15:52, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or rather, not C2A. First time using User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD and I meant to speedy them! I suppose a discussion isn't unreasonable. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 16:05, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsure. I understand the argument that "independent" isn't a proper noun, but it always seems to be treated as one in every case I can recall, as though it were a political party (and in a few cases it actually is, though probably not most of them). But it always seems to be capitalized in relation to elections. Maybe that's just for consistency, but changing it in all of these cases might be confusing, since it differs from general practice. P Aculeius (talk) 16:56, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To get a sense for the general use in sources, I checked the first few Google News results for "Bernie Sanders independent". In the articles I opened, 16 used lowercase, five used uppercase, and one used a mix. It's clear some sources use "Independent," but I don't think it's "consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources" as MOS:CAPS suggests. For intrawiki consistency, I believe there are only three article titles which refer to independent politicians in a US context, all of which use lowercase: List of third party and independent performances in United States elections, Third-party and independent members of the United States Congress and List of third-party and independent United States state governors. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 05:49, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you account for how the word is used in those results? They may be making a distinction between the word as applied to specific politicians where they would normally use the name of a party (Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Green, etc.), which is how the titles of these categories seem to use it, and more generic uses of it as a common noun/adjective to describe politicians in general. If a distinction exists between how it is used when capitalized and when in lowercase, that distinction would be relevant to this discussion. P Aculeius (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the uses from the first few RSes in the news results: "Bernie Sanders, the Vermont independent beloved by progressives," "He is the longest-serving independent in Congress" (Times of Israel); "The independent, who caucuses with Democrats, said…" (ABC News); "Though he is an Independent, Sanders caucuses with the Democratic Party" (USA Today); "Though an independent, except when he ran for president, twice, as a Democrat, the 83-year-old senator caucuses with Democrats" (Boston Globe); "Sanders, an independent who caucuses with Democrats" (Guardian); "As a lifelong independent, were you hesitant about running in a Democratic primary?" (Nation). I think all the quotes are referring to "independent" as a descriptor where they would otherwise state a party affiliation. Jjamesryan (talk | contribs) 05:41, 17 November 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:Pokhara Premier League

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category not needed, as the only sensible article in the category is the main event article itself (plus one person somewhat associated to the event is in there). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:45, 14 November 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:Fictional Belgian people

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 22#Category:Fictional Belgian people

Category:Disputed territories of Pakistan

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: Merged Gedrose (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Territorial disputes of Pakistan and similar Category:Territorial disputes of India, as well as comparable categories for all other countries with territorial disputes. This category is a duplicate under a different name and should therefore be deleted. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 11:36, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename to Category:Disputed subdivisions of Pakistan - my intention was to group the territories or subdivisions that are disputed (by other countries) as a subcategory of "Category:Territorial disputes of Pakistan" and "Category:Subdivisions of Pakistan". Not all the territorial disputes of Pakistan involve a specifically named territory or subdivision. For example the Durand Line (the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) does not refer to a specific subdivision or territory but the exact placement of the border is disputed by Afghanistan. The Sir Creek dispute is about where the maritime border (between India and Pakistan) should run. However, the Pakistani control of the whole of Gilgit-Baltistan is disputed by India, and vice versa with Ladakh. I felt there is a distinct group of articles that could go in this category. Gedrose (talk) 12:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We already have 271 categories named Category:Territorial disputes of [country/region]. You are suggesting adding another duplicate category, Category:Disputed territories of [country/region], totaling 271 and placing them under Category:Territorial disputes of [country/region], beginning with Pakistan. I believe we need to nip this in the bud and speedily delete this category. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 13:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. We have 128 such categories on Category:Territorial disputes by country, plus a couple more not in that category. Your search includes about 150 categories that have no relevance to this discussion. Are you actually basing your !vote on an unrefined search listing? I'm not sure why you cannot see that there is a distinction between a disputed border (which might be as little as a couple of miles either way) and a disputed province/state/district/territory claim (which might cover tens of thousands of square miles). Gedrose (talk) 13:26, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The search has nothing to do with it; out of around 128 countries with territorial disputes, this category for Pakistan is still the only one. I think we need a broader discussion on whether we want to take this approach, as Pakistan is clearly not the only country with disputed territories. Taking this approach would require roughly 128 new categories of this kind. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 14:16, 14 November 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:Government in Albania

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:Government of Albania. The Bushranger One ping only 06:13, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merging the categories will eliminate redundancy and align with standard naming conventions for national government categories. Iaof2017 (talk) 10:11, 14 November 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.

Identity-first language for autistic people categories

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:06, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest changing the name of the overall category to “Autistic people” and all subcategories such as “Entertainers with autism” to e.g. "Autistic entertainers” (some subcategories are already named this way). I realise that there was a discussion about this a few months ago, but I believe another discussion is warranted because:

a) the previous discussion only involved about three people, with no evidence that any represent the autistic community;

b) The rationale for the conclusion was that “person on the autism spectrum” is a compromise between identity-first language and person-first language. This is factually incorrect. It is demonstrably person-first language. It is just less disliked than another form of person-first language, “person with autism.” The comment that expressed the rationale for the conclusion also had a misconception that being autistic is different to being on the autism spectrum;

c) We shouldn’t compromise between a term clearly preferred by a community and a term more preferred by people outside that community; we should choose the former;

d) The previous conversation only pertained to the main category, not the subcategories, many of which currently retain the language most disliked by autistic people: “… with autism"; and

e) Changing to identity-first language has been suggested on the talk pages of some subcategories over the years but action hasn't been taken.

The reason for proposing identity-first language for all categories and subcategories is that the autistic community clearly prefers to use identify-first language rather than person-first language; this is well-documented as the wish of autistic communities since 1999 and with increasing empirical evidence of it as a preference of ordinary autistic people in various English-speaking countries.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17]

"Identity-first language" in English refers to the simple adjectival form (in English the adjective comes first). We generally use this form of language when describing a neutral identity - e.g. "Hungarian entertainers," "lefthanded entertainers," "autistic entertainers". Person-first language is distancing language, generally used when you want to distance a person from something negative about themselves (e.g. "entertainers with COVID-19," "entertainers with criminal convictions," and sounds wrong when used for neutral characteristics (e.g. "entertainers with Hungarianness," "entertainers with lefthandedness"). As such, identity-first language is neutral about autism (see WP:COP and WP:NPOVTITLE), while person-first language implies autism is negative. It also implies autism is separable from a person's core self, and is associated with low acceptance of autistic identity which, in turn, is associated with low wellbeing for autistic people.[18] Elcalebo (talk) 08:42, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, this is clearly correct. The preference of autistic communities for identity-first language is well established across many surveys from reputable sources.
English-speaking autistic people overwhelmingly prefer identity-first language. Not all do - up to about 1 in 5 prefer person-first, and it would be polite to respect the preferences of individuals on this, where they have been clearly expressed. However, it has been clear for some years that they are in the minority.
All reputable sources that have kept up with debate in recent years now recommend defaulting to identify-first language for autistic people.
Thanks for raising this! Oolong (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point about respecting personal preference. This could maybe be done on individual pages eg quoting how they describe themselves. Elcalebo (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move to identity first language in line with the primary article also being so at Autism where similar discussions were held and the article was moved away from person first to identity first language as reflects the sentiment of the majority of the community it discusses. Raladic (talk) 22:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Important context! Elcalebo (talk) 06:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MikutoH, Smasongarrison, TheZoodles, and Omnis Scientia: pinging participants to previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the ping. My comments on the previous discussion may be disregarded. I now realize I was partly arguing out of a resistance to change, which is obviously not a good motivation (though I do think it's a little bit funny; an autistic struggling with change in autism category nomenclature). I am going to refrain from further discussion in the current proposed name changes. Cheers. TheZoodles (talk) 09:13, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the wish of the community is not a decisive argument here. What matters is the WP:COMMONNAME in (recent) literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for advising about the relevant policy. In this case, the wish of the community is shaping the common name in recent literature. In gathering citations above, I was focusing on references to the wishes of the community. But some of them are also about general guidelines for professionals and writers in light of different groups’ preferences. The more recent these are, the more likely they are to suggest identity-first as default, trumped by personal preference at least in personal interactions. Elcalebo (talk) 07:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, if the preference of the community in question was at odds with how the world at large overwhelmingly talks about members of that community, the existing Wikipedia policy is that common usage should win out. I'm nearly sure I remember seeing something to the effect that where it's not that clear which usage is more common, the subject's own preference should decide? I can't find it right now though.
    In any case, I don't think it matters too much here; there's been a strong trend towards using identity-first language for autism by default for a good few years now, across the board. Besides autistic people overwhelmingly preferring it, family members tend to, and even professionals - many of whom were actively taught that person-first is better - have shifted very strongly this way over the last few years.
    Any relevant style guide that isn't recommending identity-first language already is out of date. Oolong (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. This one is a little personal to me as I found out a while back that I am highly likely an undiagnosed austic woman - not gonna lie, that really explained a lot 😭 - so thank you, @Elcalebo, for starting this convo. Its a very important one to have. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:41, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support As both a diagnosed autist and a former biomedical researcher, I can confirm that in both the autistic community and medical/scientific usage there is a definite movement away from 'person with autism' to 'autistic person'. Many recent publications advocate that clinicians ask autistic patients what their preferred usage is, when interacting with them. Urselius (talk) 09:05, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Identity-first language is prevalent in the more recent literature. If sources are required I recommend referring to textbooks which often discuss terminology choices in their introductory sections.--TempusTacet (talk) 11:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support. I'm also onboard with renaming based on the literature, because it's something like 80% of autistic people prefer autistic people, other stake holders (parents, clinicians etc) are more mixed. But like... I think we should defer to what the community calls themselves. SMasonGarrison 13:16, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Support per above. --MikutoH talk! 22:23, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. Should be identity-first as recent literature writes it that way, and I have come across multiple people in the neurodivergent community who prefer being designated "autistic people" to "people with autism" (including autistic relatives, but I digress). JeffSpaceman (talk) 22:17, 21 November 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:Retail buildings in Slovakia

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:Retailing in Slovakia. The Bushranger One ping only 06:12, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 14 November 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:Fuji TV

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. The Bushranger One ping only 06:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Official full station name VenezuelanSpongeBobFan2004 (talk) 01:36, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist as these categories were not tagged for CfD until now.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Bushranger One ping only 04:47, 14 November 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:Volcanic eruptions in 1963

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:03, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duel merge for now. This is an isolated category that's currently unhelpful for navigation SMasonGarrison 04:27, 14 November 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:General elections by country

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:Parliamentary elections by country. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a container category for parliamentary elections, but its current title is problematic for several reasons, the main one being that 'general election' is an ambiguous term, as in some countries it refers to parliamentary elections (e.g. India, UK, New Zealand etc), in some it refers to elections in which both the president and parliament are elected simultaneously (most Latin American and many African countries), and in others it refers to elections in which posts are up for election at multiple levels of government. The national subcategories are (in almost all cases) named in accordance with the article title format for each country, and of the 96 subcategories, 48 use 'parliamentary', 29 use 'general', 16 use 'legislative' and four use 'federal'. As 'general' should be discounted for the reason mentioned above and 'federal' would not be appropriate as most countries are not federal, this leaves 'parliamentary' and 'legislative' as the two realistic options for alternative names. As well as being the most commonly used, I think 'parliamentary' is also the clearest description for the average reader, and is also the format used on Commons. There is one anomaly in the category that will need dealing with as a result of a name change (the US one, which is the only subcategory that isn't for parliamentary elections), but could just be removed from this specific category tree). Number 57 03:38, 14 November 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:Aggressor units of the United States Air Force

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:25, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains only the subcategory Aggressor squadrons of the United States Air Force. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:51, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on The Bushranger's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:30, 14 November 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:Worms (obsolete taxon)

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) 21:16, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The name of the obsolete taxon is "Vermes", not "Worms". jlwoodwa (talk) 22:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article and the relevant history is located in Worm.Dimadick (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Worms and populate with the other taxa listed in the disambiguation category currently there. Otherwise rename per nom and purge content not about Vermes. This category is a weird hybrid of several things, and we either needs to embrace that, or give it a clear focus. It's possible (I haven't checked) that after the purge there won't be enough content to warrant a category and it should be deleted wholly - no objection to that. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:28, 31 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) 02:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I probably should've specified in the last relist: Thoughts on Pppery's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:25, 14 November 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:Latvian people from the Russian Empire

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) 20:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, if fully populated this would largely overlap with Category:People from Courland Governorate and Category:People from the Governorate of Livonia. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could Category:Latvian people from the Russian Empire be the parent in a sense of both those categories? Because for navigation it might be helpful to make this a container category. SMasonGarrison 22:21, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Nyttend's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's response?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:24, 14 November 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:Films set in summer camps

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) 03:06, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we need both categories? I can see a difference between the two, but I doubt that small distinction will actually be followed. Gonnym (talk) 17:18, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. Every film in the about a summer camp cat must be in the setting cat because its impossible to have a film about a summer camp without being set in a summer camp. Setting is a primary defining feature of narrative works like film, so it is an essential category and should not be deleted or merged.
That said most of these articles belong in the setting category tree and not the topic category tree. One of the problems with the topic category tree is it often confuses topic with setting. Most of these films aren't about summer camps but about other things like friendship, growing up as a teenager, and host of the other things. Adams Family Values would be a perfect example of this. That film is about a family in conflict with a gold digging murderess as it primary story line. Parts of the film (and its just a side tangent) just happen to be set in a summer camp and its not "about a summer camp". Likewise The Parent Trap isn't about a summer camp but two twin sisters who re-unite after being separated at birth, and then switch places in an effort to reconnect their parents. Only a small portion of the film is "set" in a summer camp, and most of movie happens in the Boston and California homes of their parents. However, a documentary film about a summer camp would be a film about a summer camp, and a fictional film entirely set in a summer camp could feasibly be considered about a summer camp depending on narrative arc. Topic is much more subjective category whereas setting is clearly definable.4meter4 (talk) 17:27, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You just said in more words what I said in my nomination, that the small distinction isn't something that editors can handle, seeing as the about category is full of films not about summer camps. Gonnym (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort of. There is overlap but category trees by topic and setting often do overlap, which is ok. Topic and setting are two different things, but they are both defining aspects of a narrative work that may or may not overlap. I don’t think it hurts to have both, but if we must delete one the topic cat is by far the more ambiguous and therefore less useful category. The setting cat should be kept.4meter4 (talk) 00:22, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus for any particular action. I will tag Category:Films about summer camps to allow for a reverse merge. Further comments in general would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:30, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Further comments in general would be appreciated :)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:22, 14 November 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:Fictional mammoths

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 and redirect to Category:Fictional proboscideans. There is clear consensus that this category should not exist in its current form. There are also unopposed suggestions that a Category:Fiction about mammoths or a Category:Mammoths in fiction could exist, but not really support for transforming this category into that category. That leaves the proposal for deletion and the proposal for a merge/redirect. Nobody explained why a merge/redirect would be bad, and therefore I read the delete votes as being at least lukewarm to the suggestion to merge and redirect to Category:Fictional proboscideans. Of course, discussion about the categorization of individual pages can take place at their talk pages (perhaps pinging participants here to said discussion). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:12, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 3 out of 4 of the entries in this category are redirects. Only article is of a book series and not of a fictional mammoth character. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on FL's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:38, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To those of you supporting a rename, what is your second choice? To those of you advocating the category's deletion, do you support a rename instead? Everyone: If renamed, what should the rename target be?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:22, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete already, I don't know why you haven't already, just 3 redirects, and The Mammoth Trilogy. Category:Fiction about mammoths could exist, but it probably would go by different name, nonetheless I would find better to simply categorize those article in Category:Mammoths just because. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, a Category:Mammoths in fiction or Category:Fiction about mammoths would include topics not already in Category:Fictional mammoths, such as The Mammoth Hunters. BD2412 T 17:18, 14 November 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:IShowSpeed livestreams

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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains redirects. It is generally considered harmful for a category to only contain redirects so there isn't much else for me to say here. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 02:42, 14 November 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:Cities and towns in Kiphire district

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: dual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing just one article. Unhelpful for navigation. Merge to parent, already categorised in other parent. AusLondonder (talk) 20:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Can I understand the rational for merging? If it is because there is only one related article, then do we have any guidelines saying we shouldn't create a category with one article and with the possibility of inclusion of many more articles as and when they are created? Such creation helps users to categorise easily instead of creating the articles in a broader category.
It's good to be streamlined rather than waiting for symptoms to appear to take actions. Pls note, I am not saying we should create empty categories! Thaejas (talk) 05:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A category containing only one article is simply useless for navigation. It serves no purpose. If more articles are created or located, no objection to re-creation. AusLondonder (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:32, 6 November 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) 02:21, 14 November 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.

Yacht racing biography stubs to Sailing biography stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:20, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up to this, broaden the scope of these stubs to sailing (Olympic sport) to include windsurfing, kitesurfing, dinghy racing etc. WPs Sailing, Stub sorting and Sports were notified a month ago without any feedback. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Large nomination; given extra time for objections.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 14 November 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:Children of Clint Eastwood

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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Eastwood family exists. --woodensuperman 09:36, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a rationale for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. There are only two entries for entertainers in this category, which have recently been created. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --woodensuperman 10:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are many articles that categorize a person by anther related person (for example their spouse or parent). These articles were originally categorized with Clint Eastwood, so what you are basically saying is that we can't have these specific categories, but categorizing a person with the category for another person is alright. Inpops (talk) 13:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, people should not be categorised by other people per WP:DEFINING, WP:OCASSOC and WP:COPSEP. --woodensuperman 13:21, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 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) 01:58, 14 November 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:Children of Charlie Chaplin

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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:57, 22 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not needed, Category:Chaplin family exists. --woodensuperman 09:35, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Not a rationale for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 09:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you look at the whole tree, only historical figures are usually included in this category. It is not WP:DEFINING for these people as they are notable in their own right. There are only two entries for entertainers in this category, which have recently been created. I don't think this is a precedent we should be encouraging. --woodensuperman 10:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 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) 01:55, 14 November 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:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state)

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:1500 V DC multiple units of Australia. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 05:24, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded subcategory of Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Australia, and a complete carbon copy of the Category:Electric multiple units of Victoria (state). EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:38, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:28, 6 November 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) 01:54, 14 November 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:1500 V DC multiple units of New South Wales

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:1500 V DC multiple units of Australia. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 20:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same reason as Category:1500 V DC multiple units of Victoria (state); unneeded and clone subcategory, except the NSW one excludes New South Wales R set, which to me is only a marginal difference. EditorGirlAL07 (talk) 04:42, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:29, 6 November 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) 01:53, 14 November 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:Ikusaka, Nagano

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) —Compassionate727 (T·C) 14:32, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing only the main article, an an article about a national park, both of which are already appropriately categorised. AusLondonder (talk) 20:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Useful category, for grouping of articles about Japanese municipalities, with links also to equivalent categories in other language Wikipedias. Please find something else to do rather than (proposal of) deletion of useful content and wasting of time. Same for other Japanese municipality-related listings here by the same User, Maculosae tegmine lyncis (talk) 23:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How is a category containing two articles, with one being the main article, useful? This is a village of less than 2000 people. How does it aid navigation, which is the purpose of categorisation? AusLondonder (talk) 14:29, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 20:32, 6 November 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) 01:53, 14 November 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:PewDiePie videos

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:14, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains Scare PewDiePie (a series, not an individual video), his videography, a list, good, but that still isn't an individual video. It also has two of his songs, which themselves aren't videos, but songs that also have a music video. Then you're left with just Minecraft Multiplayer Fun (and two songs which are already in the pre-existing songs category). People including the creator Sebbog13 are likely to just simply oppose this, however, the criteria I gave is the same reason Category:Video game glitches was unexpectedly deleted and merged into some other category. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:15, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support I don't care about the category. - Sebbog13 (talk) 14:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sebbog13, you are the creator of this category, consider re-writing your reply as opposed to just simply saying "I don't care" and not much else. You didn't provide a substantial amount of information regarding a category that you created yourself. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:15, 14 November 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:MrBeast videos

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:56, 23 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only has three pages, one of which is a redirect, leaving you with just two articles (not redirects). Even though it has enough content (sort of) it doesn't really matter (at least to me). The redirect 1,000 Blind People See For The First Time has a draft that has been declined multiple times, so that will probably never come to be anyway. I also believe Category:People associated with MrBeast should be merged to the Mrbeast category if not just deleted entirely. Also, speaking of MrBeast, we currently have two MrBeast Navigational templates, both of which have the same content; one a side-bar template, and the other a regular navigational box. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:44, 14 November 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.
Quelle: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_November_14