Battles of Cabin Creek

Add links
< April 22
April 24 >

April 23

Category:Drum Corps Associates corps

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 both about whether this should exist and what it should be named. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The organization was dissolved and the members moved to the All-Age classification of Drum Corps International. I wish to rename it to Former Drum Corps Associates corps for maintaining the grouping for its historicity. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete or rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 13:45, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This will be the last relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 21:58, 23 April 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:Slavic-American history

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 7#Category:Eastern European diaspora in the United States, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic Americans (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Slavic diaspora, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 26#Language family diasporas, and many more. This is a classic example of an inappropriate intersection of the Category:People by nationality tree and the Category:People by ethnicity tree. There is no country in the world whose nationals are all native speakers of a language of the same language family. NLeeuw (talk) 21:15, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, trivial intersection as is obvious from the very small amount of overarching topic articles. Funnily enough, Hunky (ethnic slur) is derived from Hungarian, who are not Slavic at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 24 April 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:Archaeological organizations based in the Republic of Ireland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy rename as WP:C2E. (non-admin closure) Queen of ♡ | speak 20:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wires got crossed while doing large-scale category organiz(s)ation; move needed to comply with naming conventions for this country's categories – TCMemoire 19:30, 23 April 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:Tigers in Meitei culture

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 20:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT PepperBeast (talk) 02:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:16, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep This seems to be about fictional or mythical tigers in Meitei culture, which would not exist if not for the Meitei culture, so this seems to be WP:DEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 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:Mohave tribe

Nominator's rationle: The Mohave people belong to two tribes, the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Colorado River Indian Tribes. The current name implies that the Mohave people belong to a single tribe. Rename for accuracy. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 20:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments I guess the proposed move is an improvement, although the fact that people belong to two different federally recognized tribes does not prevent them belonging to a single (non federally recognized) tribe. It is best to forestall readers drawing the inference, even if it is an invalid inference, hence deleting "peopletribe"† from the name is an improvement. OTOH article Mohave is currently a dab, so the shorter name may be ambiguous. I ask whether Wikipedia:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America has (or ought to have) any standard/guideline for category (and corresponding article) names —— e.g. capitalization; legal name vs common name; and group taxonomy labels (e.g. "people" vs "nation" vs "tribe" vs nothing; always vs disambiguation vs never). From browsing, I infer that "Category:Foo people" is the standard for subcats of Category:Native American people by tribe, so Category:Mohave people is about individuals (plural "people") whereas Mohave people is about the group (singular "people"). (The fact that Category:Mohave people is a subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe also seems to imply, contra the nomination, that that the Mohave people are in some sense a tribe.) jnestorius(talk) 23:55, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • † corrected myself: current name is "Mohave tribe", not "Mohave people" jnestorius(talk) 22:24, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regardless whether it is renamed or not, shouldn't we convert the category page to a disambiguation page just like in article space? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jnestorius Being a people is not the same as being a tribe. EG, the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes; the Cherokee Nation, the Eastern Band, and the United Keetoowah Band. Mohave peoplehood doesn't imply being a single tribe. Bohemian Baltimore (talk) 11:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the article for Cherokee refers to them as an Indigenous people belonging to three tribes No, it says "three Cherokee tribes are federally recognized", not the same thing. It also says 'By the 19th century, White American settlers had classified the Cherokee of the Southeast as one of the "Five Civilized Tribes"'. Five Civilized Tribes says "The term Five Civilized Tribes was applied ... to the five major Native American nations in the Southeast". Category:Cherokee people is a direct subcat of Category:Native American people by tribe. Article Tribe (Native American) says "In the United States, an American Indian tribe, Native American tribe, Alaska Native village, Indigenous tribe or Tribal nation may be any current or historical tribe, band, nation, or community of Native Americans in the United States. ... Many terms used to describe Indigenous peoples of the United States are contested but have legal definitions that are not always understood by the general public." We have a variety of words (tribe, band, nation, community, people, ...) used variously across different articles and categories, sometimes in accordance with a US federal legal definition, sometimes in a different sense used by ethnologists or historians; sometimes meaning an ethnic group, sometimes a subcomponent of an ethnic group split out by geography, administration, or something else. Are you implying that Wikipedia article/category titles should always used words in the sense given to them by U.S. federal law? That is certainly not true in general; it may be the consensus for WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America but I have not seen evidence of that yet. jnestorius(talk) 13:36, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for simiplicity's sake, although Category:Mojave would be even better. "tribe" lowercased isn't a problem, so not enthusiastic about massive renaming of all Foo tribe categories. Yuchitown (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2024 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Comments in general would be appreciated, but in particular input on whether this should be a {{category disambiguation}} and the precise new name – if it is to be renamed – whether the new name should be "Mohave" or "Mojave".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:26, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dutch cookies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Category:Dutch cookies

Category:Film controversies in Spain

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 on behalf of NL. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All 4 items are articles about the films themselves. Follow-up to previous CfDs finding that the controversy should be the subject of a stand-alone article, and not just a (sub)section in the article about the film itself.
Precedents:
That also applies here. Should a sufficient number of stand-alone articles about film controversies in Spain be written, this category can be re-created without prejudice. NLeeuw (talk) 14:20, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:34, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. I would note that there are 59 other sibling categories in Category:Film controversies by country, and all of them are populated almost entirely by "the films themselves" rather than "stand-alone" articles about the controversies as separate topics. So I'm unclear on why this would be different than all of the others — either they're all problematic for the same reasons and need to be collectively considered together, or this is as valid as the others, and there's no legitimate reason to single this one out for different treatment than the others.
    As well, most of the "precedents" listed above aren't particularly relevant here — Christmas, adventure and animation didn't get deleted on the grounds that it was fundamentally improper to categorize films as "controversial", they got deleted on the grounds that the intersection of controversy with genre wasn't defining. So I'm not at all wedded to the need for this, but those categories have nothing to do with it because they're not the same issue in the slightest. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair points. In my defence, I didn't intend to single out Spain and spare all other countries in the world; I was just busy improving the Category:Culture of Spain tree, as you can see.
    Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, feel free to follow-up nominate all other categories populated only by articles about the films and not stand-alone articles on the controversies they created. I did not intend setting a higher standard for Spain; if we conclude this category is improper, or at least improperly populated at the moment, that should evidently apply to all children of Category:Film controversies by country. NLeeuw (talk) 19:42, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 18:25, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I understand that we cannot single out one country, I would encourage a broader nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nederlandse Leeuw: would you be willing to close this nomination as withdrawn, in favor of a more broad discussion? HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 20:20, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, although I would rather not play the role of nominator of the follow-up discussion. Unless someone knows of a way to easily tag 61 categories for discussion, and not make lots of people angry and confused? ;) NLeeuw (talk) 22:12, 2 May 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:Food gods

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERLAPCAT PepperBeast (talk) 11:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging Category:Harvest deities to Category:Agricultural deities, but keep Category:Food deities instead of merging it, I think the Food gods/goddesses are related but not the exact same thing as Agricultural gods/goddesses. AHI-3000 (talk) 21:23, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, I agree with you, but all the deities I checked that are currently categorized as food gods/goddesses/deities are actually harvest/agriculture gods. PepperBeast (talk) 00:20, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge for Food deities agree with @AHI-3000, The Hindu goddess Annapurna (goddess) is the goddess of food, but is unrelated to Agriculture. Phosop is the goddess of rice, not agriculture in general. Mellona is the goddess of apples. Redtigerxyz Talk 16:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per this request at my talk page (previously closed as "merge").
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 17:57, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose merging food god(esse)s/deities. Not all food is derived from agriculture, which is why we have Category:Hunting deities -- there are other ways to get food. Hunter-gatherers don't do agriculture. -- 65.92.247.66 (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:USA for Africa songs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 1#Category:USA for Africa songs

Category:Canadian military personnel from Kelowna

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by location. While a few Canadian cities do have "Military personnel from City" categories (but not "Canadian military personnel from City"), there's no comprehensive scheme in place of doing this across the board for all cities — they otherwise exist only for the major megacities with populations of half a million or more, whose base "People from City" categories were overpopulated into the hundreds or thousands and needed diffusion for size control, and not for every city across the board. But with just 67 articles in Category:Canadian military personnel from British Columbia and just six in Category:People from Kelowna, neither of the parent categories are large enough to need this for diffusability. There's no particularly unique relationship between military service and being from Kelowna per se, so this isn't needed for just three people if other Canadian cities in Kelowna's weight class (Lethbridge, Regina, Saskatoon, Thunder Bay, Sudbury, Gatineau, Sherbrooke, Moncton, etc.) don't have the same. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree Kelowna is the third largest locality in BC. Uncontroversial categories exist for the two largest localities (Vancouver and Victoria). It already has three entries which is often considered the criterion for a category, and is likely to gain more in the future as more biographies are created. ☆ Bri (talk) 15:11, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the standard minimum size for a category is normally five, not three, and even then size alone doesn't automatically trump other considerations. A category that is failing or violating other rules isn't exempted from those other rules just because you can get its size to five per se.
Secondly, "(Canadian) military personnel" categories don't exist for either Vancouver or Victoria at all yet, so I don't know what you even think you're talking about with that argument.
Thirdly, it's not "ordinal size rank within province" that determines whether such a category is warranted in this tree, but "is the base people-from category large enough to need diffusion or not" — which with just six people in it now and only nine even if these get upmerged to it (well, actually eight, because one of these three people is already in a different occupational subcategory as it is), Kelowna's is not. At present, these categories exist only for big cities where an undifferentiated "People from" category without occupational subcategories would be populated past the 500-article or 1,000-article marks, which is not where Kelowna is sitting, and they do not automatically exist as a matter of course for every small or medium city that had one, two or three military people come from there.
My mistake on thinking there was a category for military personnel from Victoria and Vancouver. It is actually Category:Writers from British Columbia that includes those two cities, and now (since I created it) Kelowna. Which is a good reason to think maybe they should all be in a category, rather than ruling out Kelowna because the other two haven't been created yet.
I could add Trevor Cadieu from Vernon, which is on the same lake as Kelowna and with city limits separated by ~10 km, possibly considered a suburb. Also since this nom, I discovered that George Randolph Pearkes served with the BC Dragoons which is a Kelowna reserve unit (Okanagan Military Museum). I don't want to change the categories of either bio right now in case this is an error and would be perceived as gaming this nom. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Found one more notable definitely described as "from Kelowna" by Okanagan Military Museum: Rodney Frederick Leopold Keller. ☆ Bri (talk) 17:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The smallest other city with a sibling category is both (a) four times Kelowna's size, and (b) about 80 years older than Kelowna, both adding up to the fact it has several hundred more articles in its "People from" tree than Kelowna does, and thus needs to be diffused more than Kelowna's does. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT-related music

Nominator's rationale: An odd entry in Category:LGBT arts, because of the "-related" adjective not shared by any parent category (but shared by some subcategories that may need to be renamed as well). Sister categories at that level (in LGBT arts) are just LGBT dance, LGBT literature, LGBT arts organizations, LGBT theatre, and LGBT art‎. No "-related" anywhere there. Another option would be to rename everything to the form of 'X about Y", although I am not sure if "about LGBT" sounds best (ex. "Music about LGBT"?). For now, removing "-related" from that tree might be easiest in terms of standardization. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I guess it is called "-related" because it also contains LGBT musicians and LGBT musical groups subcategories with artists who do not all create LGBT content. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would note that the category is named the way it is because CFD previously renamed it from the proposed new name to the existing one on the grounds that the music itself doesn't have its own innate sexual orientation, but is merely contextually related to the sexual orientations of people. I would further note things like Category:LGBT-related films, Category:LGBT-related television shows and Category:LGBT-related books, which are also categorized as "LGBT-related", and not just as "LGBT", for the same reason, which means there's a mixture of "LGBT" vs. "LGBT-related" among its siblings rather than this being a one-off outlier. It's a complicated question, for sure, but the reason it's named this way is because of a prior CFD discussion on it, so it's not nearly as clearcut as the nominator makes it out to be. Bearcat (talk) 15:13, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Weak keep based on the names of the sibling categories that Bearcat mentions. Mason (talk) 03:40, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:23, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs against capitalism

Nominator's rationale: Generally, our songs by topic categories are 'about' not 'against'. Ex. Category:Songs about poverty. This is also subcat to Category:Songs about consumerism, not Category:Songs against consumerism... Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:27, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean to delete, it is quite a stretch to say that these songs are about capitalism. I found several that are just critical of modern society in general, some others about the labour movement. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps could be saved after pruning, if anyone can indeed show a song about capitalism. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:49, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I can understand why one ould argue that should be deleted because of the nebulous nature, but it is pretty clear that many of these songs have lyrics that are anti-capitalist. Velociraptor888 (talk) 23:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not clear at all. It relies very much on subjective judgement. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 19 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:22, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dos Santos family (Angolan business family)

Nominator's rationale: No need for disambiguation. User:Namiba 00:22, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No opposition to deletion or, alternatively, renaming for the family patriarch and Angolan president José Eduardo dos Santos category:José Eduardo dos Santos. Do you have a preference Marcocapelle?--User:Namiba 18:24, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense if we create category:José Eduardo dos Santos.--User:Namiba 11:30, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education

Convert Category:Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature & education to article List of Recipients of the Padma Shri in literature and education
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF. Should probably be listified. PepperBeast (talk) 19:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAWARD. Lists already exist, starting with List of Padma Shri award recipients (1954–1959). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as this awards are defining characteristic of recipients and they are frequently labelled as Padma Awardee in references. Another reason is lists of Padma awardees are not by their fields but by year. Each list contains all awardee of all field in a year. So field-wise categories help to find awardees in perticular field too like above literature and education.-Nizil (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:51, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ToadetteEdit! 17:16, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burials in Quito

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, we normally categorize burials only by place of burial e.g. by cemetery, not by geographic places. A geographic place is either where the person lived, in that case they should just be in a "Peoples from" category. Or else it is a random place, e.g. the place of the hospital where they died, which is not defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 23 April 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:Atari 8-bit family games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 May 2#Category:Atari 8-bit family games

Category:Screwball pitchers

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In baseball, unlike knuckleball pitchers who are utterly unique and stand apart from all other pitchers, its actually hard to tell screwball pitchers apart from someone throwing a circle changeup so people who never threw one are in here. And while throwing a real screwball is uncommon, they aren't so rare as to warrant a category of their own - certainly not as rare as knuckleball pitchers. Omnis Scientia (talk) 12:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Unlike knuckleball pitchers, throwing a screwball is not a defining characteristic. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:11, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As category creator, no objection to this discussion. It was a BOLD idea on a whim. --Jprg1966 (talk) 03:14, 25 April 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:MIT Engineers seasons

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one subcategory. Let'srun (talk) 11:47, 23 April 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:Feminist historians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:49, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge to clarify that this is about women's history rather than a category of historians who happen to support feminism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't this one be more specific to Historians of feminism? Mason (talk) 22:18, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think these are the same scope. I'm leaning Keep. NLeeuw (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 04:45, 23 April 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:Flemish sinologists

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defning intersection between ethnicity (flemish) and subspecialization. Single merge because the only person in the category is already in the French sinologists category. Mason (talk) 04:00, 23 April 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:Algerian Berber feminists

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:43, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection between ethnicity, political orientation, and nationality. If not merged, rename to Berber Algerian feminists. to match parent Berber Algerians Mason (talk) 03:28, 23 April 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:Czech-Polish translators

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) Mason (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining intersection, we don't categorize by the two languages translators know. We categorize by their nationality Mason (talk) 01:59, 23 April 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:Russian meat dishes

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. (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 12:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant layer. Upmerge Russian chicken dishes to Russian cuisine. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 00:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:49, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Why is it redundant? It includes 5 articles and clearly has a scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Because those article weren't in there when I nominated it, just the subcategory. But now that they are, my position has changed. Withdrawn. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 07:36, 27 April 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_April_23