The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:People from Bandipora district to Category:People from Bandipore district

Nominator's rationale: C2D: Bandipore district Elli (talk | contribs) 19:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2021 (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.

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:Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger. bibliomaniac15 04:59, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Railway accidents involving a disregarded signal to Category:Railway accidents involving a signal passed at red

Nominator's rationale: "Disregarded" has been suggested to mean intent. Renaming the category means it is solely concerned with what actually happened, whether due to driver actions, as at Wootton Bassett, or completely beyond the control of the driver, as at Stonegate. Mjroots (talk) 18:27, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest instead making the new name "Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger" instead. Not all red signals mean the train must stop (and not necessarily all stop signals are red), and some allow for "stop and proceed" so I think this suggested wording is better. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Support per nom. Thryduulf (talk) 18:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 4#Category:Railway accidents involving a SPAD (which resulted in the current name) it was argued (by Mangoe) that not all stop signals are red. Accordingly I would support replacing "red" with either "stop" or "danger" as well. Thryduulf (talk) 18:50, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per my comments on the relevant article talk page (Talk:2021 Salisbury rail crash) with preference for the alternative "involving a signal passed at danger" as explained by the above. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - but my preference would be to Category:Railway accidents involving signal passed at danger. Rationale:: totally agree with nom's need to remove disregarded but agree with Trainsandotherthings's suggestion. The signal passed at danger corresponds to the SPAD acronym which is in common use the the UK for such incidents. I don't believe the "a" is necessary.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Without the "a" it doesn't feel grammatical to me - either "involving a signal" or "involving signals". Given that there may only be one signal passed at danger, I prefer the former. Thryduulf (talk) 19:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "... passed at danger" is acceptable to me. Mjroots (talk) 19:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as per Djm-leighpark, my preference would also be for Category:Railway accidents involving signal passed at danger. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - as per Thryduulf to include "a", preferring Category:Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger. -- DeFacto (talk). 19:55, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger", as not all danger signals are red and vice versa. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger" - there are some old signals that do not even have coloured lights e.g. semaphores, and so this would be more accurate. Difficultly north (talk) The artist formerly known as Simply south 14:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger", which is clearly the appropriate expansion of SPAD. "disregarded" implies fault by the driver, but there may be (rarely) reasons why the driver was unable to prevent the accident, despite his best efforts. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support "Railway accidents involving a signal passed at danger". Even if people who are not native speakers won't understand "at danger" at first sight. --Just N. (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2021 (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.

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. However, Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates for the Canadian House of Commons contains overview articles and therefore has no consensus to delete. bibliomaniac15 05:05, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-close note: In the initial closure, Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates for the Canadian House of Commons was deleted on account of not having any overview articles. However, it emerged that there were in fact overview articles that had never been placed in that category. To keep the closure consistent, the category was restored and populated in the same manner as Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates for the Canadian House of Commons (which was also purged of non-overview articles). bibliomaniac15 23:19, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates in the 1988 Canadian federal election to Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates in the 1993 Canadian federal election to Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates in the 1997 Canadian federal election to Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates in the 2004 Canadian federal election to Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates in the 2006 Canadian federal election to Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates in the 2008 Canadian federal election to Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates in the 1935 Canadian federal election to Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates in the 1940 Canadian federal election to Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates in the 1945 Canadian federal election to Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates in the 1949 Canadian federal election to Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates in the 1953 Canadian federal election to Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates in the 1957 Canadian federal election to Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates for the Canadian House of Commons
• Propose merging Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates in the 1958 Canadian federal election to Category:Co-operative Commonwealth Federation candidates for the Canadian House of Commons

Nominator's rationale: Several past CFD's on similar categories for other political parties (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4) established a consensus that it is not desirable to categorize election candidates this specifically. Firstly, we don't even categorize sitting MPs for each individual session of Parliament they sat in, and there's no compelling reason to categorize non-winning candidates more specifically and narrowly than MPs. Secondly, unelected candidates for political office aren't notable for that at all, so a person will only have an article to file in any of these categories if they had preexisting notability for other reasons independently of a political candidacy (e.g. having previously served as a provincial MLA or mayor of a major city), meaning that they aren't defined by each individual election they may have run in and lost. Thirdly, since people often run for office more than just once, this results in significant category bloat since each individual candidacy occasions another new category. Simply put, candidacy isn't significant enough to warrant subcategorizing them this granularly. (And yes, similar categories do still exist for some other political parties as well — but getting rid of them is an extended process, because there are too many to just batch them all together in one go.) Bearcat (talk) 16:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all including targets -- In UK we do categorise MPs for each Parliament. Those elected should be categorised as MPs. It is well established that failed political candidates are NN (unless notable for other reasons) and should not have articles. It follows that we should not have categories for candidates. Possibly, unelected candidates who might be merged into Category:Christian Heritage Party of Canada politicians etc, but we should certainly not have candidate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all including targets per Peterkingiron. --Just N. (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per Peterkingiron, excluding target because the target also contains overview articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 10 November 2021 (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.

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. As most of the pages were already in the "American women/male singers" trees (mostly through the 20th century categories suggested by Fayenatic london), the remaining six were manually merged accordingly. ✗plicit 10:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:American women radio singers to Category:American women singers
• Propose merging Category:American male radio singers to Category:American male singers

Nominator's rationale: Two categories for a distinction that isn't useful and is highly vulnerable to being very misunderstood. The categories were clearly intended to comprise people who performed live singing on old-time radio shows in the 1920s and 1930s and 1940s, as they mainly feature people like Roy Acuff and Dolly Dawn — however, under these names they're extremely likely to mistakenly collect every singer who gets songs onto pop radio in 2021. But it's not worth renaming them to make the intentions clearer, either, because singers aren't really defined by the individual venues or platforms on which they have performed — by comparison, we do not have a parallel Category:American television singers for singers who were known for appearing on television variety shows or performing TV theme songs, nor do we have an established Category:Radio singers tree to parent these. It's essentially WP:PERFCAT: the people are defined by the genre of music they sang, not by the fact that they were sometimes standing in radio studios when they did it. (Not to mention that even in 2021, pop music promotion still sometimes entails doing live performances on radio shows like World Cafe or Q or Mountain Stage during the tour, meaning that even contemporary pop singers could still technically have to be added to the category even if it had a "live radio performance" clarifier added to it.) Bearcat (talk) 12:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this - and other radio singers categories. There was a time when singers appeared live on the radio, but that was long ago. Now they dont have any control over whether their songs are broadcast. Rathfelder (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_October_28#Category:Turkish_female_radio_singers. – Fayenatic London 21:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose for historical reasons. Yes, "airplay" (radio) importance has diminished. Bu was of enormous influece historically for several decades. --Just N. (talk) 16:29, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Then how exactly do you propose keeping the stated purpose clear, so that people don't muddy it up with the Nicki Minajes and Maren Morrises and Billie Eilishes of 2021? Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Airplay was important but was it defining?Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but directly to C20 e.g. Category:20th-century American male singers. Note: I have just added several member articles to Category:American radio personalities (or a sub-cat) where this was justified from the article content. – Fayenatic London 21:54, 10 December 2021 (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.