The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 02:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Template:WikiProject Anti-war does not use a custom quality format or whatever it’s called so this category is useless. 48JCLTALK 19:02, 8 June 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: The reason why I'm deleting these categories are only for video games supported in a single language, and none of these categories are fully-populated either. More importantly many titles only available in a single language can alternatively be found in Category:Region-exclusive video gamesQuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I changed my mind, I am keeping other categories still, but may need something else to do. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are several multiregional languages, such as English, French (France, Canada, French Africa, French Polynesia, French Caribbean), Portuguese (Brazil, Portugal, Macao), Spanish (Spain, Latin America, Philippines), Russian (North Asia, Central Asia, Europe), Arabic (North Africa, West Asia, East Africa, Central Asia, Islamic World), Hebrew (Jewish World) -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is a container category. Its fate is conditional on what happens with the subcategories, which have also been nominated on this page. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Video games by language. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close. What will we do will other the other Categoires. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NONDEF. You cannot take back a nomination once others have voted otherwise, that would be a WP:SUPERVOTE withdrawal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 20 June 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: I am deleting this category along with other Video games by language categories, (expect Chinese-language-only video games, which will merge with China-exclusive video games). Reason: Many English-only titles are otherwise located in Category:North-America-exclusive video games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Australia is not a multilingual region, indigenously developed games would be in English, same with New Zealand. Both are not in North America. Elon Musk's game Blastar was developed in South Africa in English only. So English isn't a language that is restricted to North America. Many games for the Acorn or the BBC were developed only in English and were mostly released in Britain and Australia -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I will tag the category. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close. But will Rename parent cat to "Single-language video games." QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely overlapping with country(countries) of development for which we already have categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close. But will Rename parent cat to "Single-language video games." QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. I will also NOT rename the category to the new name. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:32, 19 June 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Some of these titles may be available be it digitally or physically outside of China. But I don't follow that logic. Merge. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, strong oppose merger You can’t just say “I don’t follow that logic, must be deleted” and expect it to work. But yes delete. 48JCLTALK 19:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This merger makes no sense. Taiwan exists. There have been vidoegames that were made for Taiwan or Hong Kong (pre-1997) that were only in Chinese. If this is properly populated, it should not contain just PRC-exclusive games. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I suppose I will withdraw my will the delete this category because of that logic. While Japanese, English, get deleted for some other reasons. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with parent (below) — Insufficiently specified. Which language? Mandarin? Cantonese? William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: "Chinese-language" here refers to the Chinese language as a whole, including all variations of Chinese such as Cantonese. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Written Chinese is the ostensibly the same, so if there is no spoken Chinese, then it's just Chinese -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 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) 18:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close. But will Rename parent cat to "Single-language video games." QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, largely overlapping with country of development for which we already have categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and close. But will Rename parent cat to "Single-language video games." QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. I will also NOT rename the category to the new name. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:32, 19 June 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 06:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. The combination of being a billionaire and being of African descent is non-defining. Aldij (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have Black billionaires and there are dozens of articles about this intersection. Per WP:EGRS, "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?"--User:Namiba 14:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a pretty poor article, only one source covering the grouping of black billionaires [1]. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, but there are many articles about this topic visible from a quick Google search.--User:Namiba 18:55, 31 May 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) 18:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The intersection isn't trivial there's a long academic interest in economic inequality in the African American community. Billionaires are a good indicator of progress in that regard because it indicates that African Americans have made progress and can break into the elite. If not kept, the categories should be merged, not deleted. Mason (talk) 22:09, 19 June 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 19:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We can clearly discern intent, and it absolutely matters. Intentionally cited retractions have been reviewed by humans as appropriate to cite for the context, e.g. [2]. Articles with unintentionally cited retracted papers need review and very likely an update of the content based on a retracted paper, e.g. [3]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 that it absolutely matters. Citing doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0 (the infamous Lancet MMR autism fraud paper) is fine if you are citing it as a primary source (with the usual caveats about citing primary sources), but citing it as a legitimate piece of research absolutely needs to be checked. This is a tracking category; intent is determined by |intentional= parameter. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as the botop here that's inconveniently finding stuff to go into this category, it is absolutely important to distinguish which categories have been tagged and which have been checked. I'm not going to guess if the tag I've just applied is intentional or now. Happy with the renaming proposal as long as it's kept consistant with all 3 of the template types, this won't affect the bot as long as it's done in the template correctly. Mdann52 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mdann52: you wrote "Happy with the renaming proposal" which I think overrides your first word "Keep" – did you just mean "Keep them separate", rather than "Keep current names"? – FayenaticLondon 07:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)w[reply]
@Fayenatic london: thanks for checking. Essentially, if this is just nominating one category, we should keep this as is. If we are changing the naming convention of all 3 categories, then I'm happy to support that. Mdann52 (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The categories are fine as is, let's close this pointless nitpicking. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me.HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 13:47, 23 June 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 14:47, 22 June 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.
Nominator's rationale: I don't see any reason to split this by gender. There's only 10 articles in it, so there's no reason based on size. I don't really think being a female really matters with me mechanics. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. Rervse merge also fine by me Mason (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are not exactly overlapping, one is a category of Indian people, the other of Nepalese people. The former is related to the Nepali language movement which was a movement specifically in India. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 19 May 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) 00:29, 27 May 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) 16:22, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A non-notable intersection of gender and occupation. User:Namiba 14:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sort the rules out Wikipedia's policy on this is far from clear. Category deletion should be based on a clearly agreed set of rules and until then such categories should be left alone. Why is a "Female United States senators" category OK when "women conservationists" is not. I can assure you that to become a conservationist in PNG is for a women in PNG a considerable achievement and far from "non-notable". Roundtheworld (talk) 20:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteMerge, trivial intersection with gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Shouldn't these be merged to Conservationists? These women are still conservationists. Mason (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on merging? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge with parent category. Asperger's syndrome is no longer an official diagnosis so there shouldn't be a category suggesting it is either. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the categories should be merged. Jarble (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I find it mildly licentious (maybe?) to request a merge of this Category, when the two main articles that are the subject matter of this proposal, namely Asperger syndrome and Autism, are currently being Considered for Merger with nounanimous clear consensus reachedagainst the adoption of said merge proposal.
However, if I am wrong (entirely possible) and this proposal is not precipitate in view of the on-going discussion mentioned further above, then I Oppose, since not all countries have adopted ICD-11, and it continues to be an official diagnosis in some jurisdictions. There is also the possibility that some people might, for whatever personal reasons, identify more with the Asperger’s label than they do with Autism. We should not be taking away a notably significant and not-yet-historic diagnosis because of ICD-11. -Konanen (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Konanen, I didn't know about the merger and I would be against it myself since the scope of articles and categories are very different. Categories have a more stricter rules. From everything on the matter, Asperger's is no longer an official diagnosis. I wouldn't have taken the step if I wasn't sure. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:20, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: Can you (or anyone else) please share what the rules on categories are? I have no idea where to find them, and I really enjoy not spewing nonsense, which I cannot do if I do not know the rules. Thank you in advance! –Konanen (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Konanen, hey there. You can read the rules at WP:CFD. Being completely honest, its fair complicated and I don't fully understand it myself. Still figuring it out. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lean oppose. The removal/subcategorization of Asperger's isn't really as clear cut. Many people were diagnosed with the disorder when it was in existence (which I think was as recently as 2019?), and they might very well still identify with that diagnosis, even if its been subsumed. I'd really like to get some more voiced from folks active in the Autism wikiproject as well as folks from the category itself. (I'm aware that we have have some good representation in CFDs, but... I'd rather have more voices on this rather than fewer). Mason (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, I would love for them to have a say, certainly. I'm personally still learning about it myself and I could very well be wrong here. Omnis Scientia (talk) 18:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was very confident that you would :) And I think that the tentative approach we're taking here is a good way to go about it. I could be convinced in either direction. Mason (talk) 21:48, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: I will drop a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Autism. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:19, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if the term does not exist anymore then the category should not exist, just got diagnosed with autism today. Sahaib (talk) 16:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there isn't consensus to do that then merge. The point isn't how I (or other members in the category) identify themselves, it's whether there is some value in grouping people who choose to identify in one way versus those who choose to identify in the other way on what modern science now says is the same issue. And I'm not seeing it.
Because of my longstanding position on user category CfDs I'm not a good representative of the autism/Asperger's community here, other than the principle that wanting ones view of the rules to be followed strictly is a common manifestation of the syndrome. * Pppery *it has begun... 23:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:NARROWCAT. Removed three entries where this was non-defining, leaving just the two films and the general topic (which isn't itself a film so maybe shouldn't be in here as an entry; perhaps {{catseealso}} would've made more sense). QuietHere (talk | contributions) 08:34, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I disagree that it's not defining on Postcard from Earth, where the 4-D aspect of the film is discussed substantially. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article only mentions the scent once in the lead and says nothing substantial about it in particular. If there's more to be written about that aspect then it should be added, at which point I would reconsider the category placement. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 17:39, 27 May 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) 16:17, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I missed that it was a merge request. Still, looking at the items in Category:Olfactory art, I feel like these are very different topics, and I don't see films that happen to be about scents to be olfactory art by any definition. It should be up-merged to a category "Scents in media" or "Films about senses", but neither exist. Still think deletion is ultimately best. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 00:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A split would lead to pairs of categories with almost 100% overlap. Shouldn't we just rename the categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. – FayenaticLondon 08:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Duplicate. ExRat (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge per C2A, obvious typo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:18, 13 June 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.
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 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.
Nominator's rationale: This distinction for people who attended the extension school seems like an arbitrary distinction and is likely not defining for any of the two members in the category Mason (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The UCLA Extension is one of the constituent colleges in the UCLA Systems, and one of the oldest at UCLA (it is a separate accredited college and not a designation for off campus students). Several other universities have extension colleges as can be seen here. These colleges, designed for working people, are becoming more popular, particularly post COVID. There are many links to the main article for people, which likely means the cat can be populated well beyond the 10 already in it (I added a few since the start of this CFD). Also, this cat provides an opportunity for subcategorization of an overpopulated upper level cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. While you are right that there are other extension schools, this is the only one with a category and there doesn't seem to be a big difference between normal alumni and extension school alumni. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would still say merge per my second reasoning. I don't think the Harvard Extension School teaches anything special anymore than UCLA Extension does. @Smasongarrison, I think you should nominate this category as well, in fact (and any other similar one). Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added to nom per @Omnis Scientia, pinging @FieldMarine. No one is saying that the extension school isn't notable, but that the distinction isn't defining for alumns. For example, Folks aren't introduced as UCLA Extension alumn, but they are as UCLA law school alumn. Mason (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Omnis Scientia: Like at UCLA, the Harvard Extension School is one of the oldest colleges at Harvard University and it is distinct, with its own graduation exercises. With respect to, "Folks aren’t introduced as…", a Google search of, "Graduated from Harvard Extension School" shows people are frequently "introduced" with that distinction. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, at least Harvard's. HES has separate degrees (ALB, ALM which aren't earned at other schools at Harvard), commencement ceremony, etc. for the extension school like the rest of the schools. There are unique classes at HES, that aren't offered at other schools. If UCLA, LaSalle, and any others are more like Harvard, keep them separate as well. Patken4 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: This is an interesting case. A WP:OTHERCATSEXIST argument was resolved by adding the other categories to the nomination, which seems to have produced a small WP:TRAINWRECK. I am going to relist (though I was about to close this as no consensus without prejudice against seperate but simultaneous nominations); comments are welcome, though I suspect that this is heading to a no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination result. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. – FayenaticLondon 08:45, 22 June 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.
Keep, as it is in effect a "former nationality" category. The article Western Regions refers to a historical period (up to 8th century CE) as well as a geographical range. All the current member pages are from that period, and renaming to "Central Asia" would lose this. "Western Regions" is named with reference to China, and its significance for Buddhism seems to be that Buddhist monks from this region took their texts into China during that period. – FayenaticLondon 08:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Convicted participants in the Canada convoy protest
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.
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for now. There's only one person in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Split / dual merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 05:53, 8 June 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 08:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the characteristic is defining enough to be covered by and discussed in reliable sources (often a multitude of reliable sources, such as for Zlatan Ibrahimović and Donald Trump). Besides, there is a body of scientific research on the various contexts and psychological meaning of illeism (see section "In everyday speech" in article Illeism). --HPfan4 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are available sources, so it is not trivial. Dimadick (talk) 05:25, 8 June 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories. The two first categories do not need another merge target, the articles are already in a subcategory of Category:4th-century works. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge One article each. For most works of this era, we do not even know the precise date of publication or creation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:21, 9 June 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.
Comment: I'll need to think this over, but right now I'm leaning toward oppose as there's no consensus in history-writing on the English-language term used to refer to such rulers, though rulers is commonly used. On a related note, I notice you've attempted a reorganization to match the category's scope with that of the Kingdom of Chiang Mai article, which I'm not sure was optimal. As raised at Talk:Lan Na, there was not a separate "Kingdom of Chiang Mai", rather the article just covers the a period in Lan Na's history when it was under suzerainty of Bangkok, so it's probably the articles that need to be re-structured. But the categories can be updated again when and if that does happen. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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. – FayenaticLondon 11:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 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.
Nominator's rationale:delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The characteristic appears to be a highly important ministerial post, overseeing the Court of Imperial Sacrifices under the Ministry of Rites. The linked zh:Category:明朝太常寺卿 (Category: Ming Dynasty Taichang Temple Ministers) and its 3 subcats hold over 200 biographies. However, if Huang Zicheng is the only one with an English wiki article, the category is not currently useful for navigation, so it can be deleted for now. Can anyone put together a PetScan to check if any more of the Chinese wiki articles have an English counterpart? – FayenaticLondon 17:51, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I highly doubt this could be considered WP:DEFINING for a majority of these characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on the description, it is likely to be WP:OCTRIVIA: This category is for characters in television who have made crossover appearances within other shows that are not their own. One appearance of a character does not make a defining trait. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: {{Infobox soap character}} has a "crossover" parameter for recording crossover series in the article's infobox, so I considered whether this info could be traced using that. However, {{Infobox character}} (which is used on many of the member pages) does not have that parameter. – FayenaticLondon 08:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, we had discussions about the category Category:East Bengal. You proposed to merge it into Category:East Pakistan (see here) saying they were actually same thing. The consensus was to merge the category. That's why these establishment categories are East Pakistan, not East Bengal. Now saying we have to rename them because it was East Bengal is contradictory because in 2022 you proposed the opposite showing different reason. If you want to rename establishment categories then I propose you to discuss to bring back East Bengal category first. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need separate trees just because of a name change, but the individual year categories should be named accurately. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Not sure how helpful this is for navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining characteristic except for the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The attacks seem to be connected to Islamist extremist opposition polio vaccination in Pakistan, although this is not explicitly stated in either of those articles. Maybe the attack articles should be linked to from the main article? Other than that, not very useful for navigation, so I also lean delete. NLeeuw (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good move. Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 08:43, 8 June 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.
Nominator's Rationale:InVox-ATypI classification#Classicals, Old style serif typefaces can be categorized into 3 subclasses. All of these 3 subclasses has their own categories in French Wikipedia. However, only 2 out of 3 of those French Wikipedia categories has a corresponding category in English Wikipedia:
@Blythwood: given your earlier contributions noted on the talk page, can you comment on this, please? I am not familiar with the topic, but I think your comment there implies that the nomination is correct. – FayenaticLondon 11:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – thanks for pinging me. Garalde and Venetian are sub-genres of old-style types, but they aren't all-encompassing. Designs like TrinitéorArno may not neatly fit into either genre (something the specimen comments on, see page 6). So I think "Old style serif typefaces" is worth retaining as a main category with Garalde and Venetian as subcategories. Blythwood (talk) 15:48, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we're keeping both Garalde and Venetian categories as subcategories of old-style serif typefaces, then I suggest that Category:Transitional serif typefaces be another subcategory of old-style serif typefaces as well. Jothefiredragon🐲talk🐉edits 17:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 21#Category:Fox Sports 1 people