Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 10

< August 9	August 11 >

August 10

Category:Manukau City Centre

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:29, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Manukau City Centre (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a thing that doesn't have enough spinoff content to warrant an eponymous category. There's only one entry here, but there would have to be at least five articles that could be filed here before an eponymous category was warranted. Bearcat (talk) 11:26, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, meanwhile there are five articles in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area. I can't find any other Auckland categories at the level of Category:Manukau City Centre. However, there are categories for the Auckland local board areas. Some, such as "Category:Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area", are currently very sparsely populated, while others, such as the neighbouring Category:Māngere-Ōtāhuhu Local Board Area, are well populated. Merging "Category:Manukau City Centre" into "Category:Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area" would be a start to more fully populating that category. Nurg (talk) 08:22, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is not kept, it should certainly merged instead of deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:38, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:02, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my merge comment above. Category:Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area is now populated with 34 pages, including the 6 that are in the subcategory Category:Manukau City Centre. Unless 34 is too many pages for one category, just take the 6 out of the subcat and turn it into a redirect to Category:Ōtara-Papatoetoe Local Board Area. Nurg (talk) 08:21, 11 August 2022 (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:Economic history of the Soviet Union

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/merge/keep (respectively). (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Economic history of the Soviet Union to Category:Economy of the Soviet Union
Propose merging Category:Legal history of the Soviet Union to Category:Soviet law
Propose merging Category:Military history of the Soviet Union to Category:Military of the Soviet Union

Nominator's rationale: merge, it is not useful to diffuse to a history subcategory, because all of it is history. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination.Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:54, 2 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support manual merge of Category:Legal history of the Soviet Union – the sub-cats are already deeper in the hierarchy, so only the article needs to be added. Oppose merge of military history as a distinct sub-topic; there is a lead article Military history of the Soviet Union which IMHO clearly means something different from Military of the Soviet Union. I am less bothered about keeping Economic history, but IMHO it could usefully be kept too, and I have populated it more with event- and period-related articles from the parent. – Fayenatic London 20:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:39, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Support per nom. These make sense. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:07, 3 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
merge. After merge a more meaningful diffusion may be possible Loew Galitz (talk) 06:04, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I still strongly Oppose merging Military history. Note that there is an extensive hierarchy Category:Military history of former countries. The others have no siblings in Category:History by topic and former country, so can be merged. – Fayenatic London 07:08, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(as nom) I am withdrawing my support for the merge of the Military one, agreeing with Fayenatic london to not single out one category from a whole tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 4 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Military history, which is not just bout the military. Manually merge Legal history, as most of the content is actually penal history. Keep Economic history, which seems to be about movements and plans, and more specific than the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Category:Economic history of the Soviet Union needs more discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:01, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Reacting to User:Peterkingiron regarding Economic history: the economic plans are already in a separate subcategory so that is not a reason not to merge, and very few of the articles are about "movements". Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with Peterkingiron. Dimadick (talk) 06:12, 13 August 2022 (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:Digi-TV affiliates

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Digi-TV affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete: Network ceased operations on 8/1/2022 Mvcg66b3r (talk) 18:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 20:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, all of these stattions have moved on from Digi-TV. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 02:05, 11 August 2022 (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:Bengali-language newspapers by country

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 18#Category:Bengali-language newspapers by country

Category:Diene complexes

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: Do not merge, but instead make the latter a sub-cat and purge the overlap. – Fayenatic London 13:49, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Diene complexes to Category:Cyclooctadiene complexes

Nominator's rationale: As all but two of these comounds has 1,5-cyclooctadiene as a ligand; the others should be merged to Category:Alkene complexes. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There appear to be two same-named different "diene" types here:

Conjugated (η⁴): butadi-1,3-ene; cyclohexa-1,3-diene is also mentioned in other articles and I think neutral cyclopentadiene or its analogs are known in this mode
Non-conjugated (κ⁴ composed of two η²): COD and norbornadiene

There seem to be enough COD to have their own category; I don't think the whole set with "diene" in their name are chemically unified enough to have a category. I think that's what the nom is proposing? Summary seems to be different than the rationale). Waiting for User:Smokefoot's input...he's wise in the ways of transition-metal complexes. DMacks (talk) 20:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose respectfully. 1,5-cyclooctadiene is just one of many popular diene ligands. So maybe you want to run the merge in the opposite direction: cyclooctadiene complexes merge into diene complexes. Its possible that some articles that discuss diene complexes could use additional catagories. (xylylene)Fe(CO)3 will eventually get its own article. And then we have (cyclobutadiene)Fe(CO)3. 1,3-Cyclooctadiene (not 1,5-) forms a Fe(CO)3 deriv. Dicyclopentadiene is another semi-popular diene ligand. (Norbornadiene)molybdenum tetracarbonyl is an example of many norbornadiene complexes. Some polyenes only coordinate through two double bonds, so they might be considered diene complexes, e.g. Bis(cyclooctatetraene)iron. Flyover complex are one many related dienone derivatives. Sorry to pile on, but these complexes are one of my loves.--Smokefoot (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flyovers look neat--hadn't seen those before! Vaguely reminiscent of alkyne–bis(iron) complexes, with which I have passing experience? Smokefoot, how do you feel about the distinction between conjugated vs unconjugated as a defining characteristic? That is, should we specifically categorize every page in the Category:Alkene complexes tree into eta-2, eta-4, eta-6 subcats? Independent of that, it there some chemically relevant thing that unifies about "butadiene and norbornadiene" and distinguishes from "ethylene"? That is, should we specifically categorize every page in the Category:Alkene complexes tree as mono-ene, di-ene, tri-ene subcats? DMacks (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:23, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: as the nominator, do you have something to add to the above comments? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I'd say make the latter a subcat of the former, then at least (Butadiene)iron tricarbonyl and (Norbornadiene)molybdenum tetracarbonyl won't be subcategorized. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 05:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:52, 10 August 2022 (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:People from Ashburnham and Penhurst

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:People from Ashburnham, East Sussex. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:48, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Ashburnham and Penhurst to Category:People from Rother District

Nominator's rationale: Per Talk:Ashburnham and Penhurst#Splitting the article "Ashburnham and Penhurst" is not a village or civil parish but only the name of a joint parish council for the separate CPs, I'm also fine with renaming to Category:People from Ashburnham, East Sussex as all entries appear to be for Ashburnham. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, while the village is small the category seems large enough to be kept (albeit renamed). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- See Parish council website. This is effectively a single civil parish, with enough articles for it to be kept. If it has changed it should be to Category:People from Ashburnham, East Sussex. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a single CP[1][2] its 2 CPs that share a council. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:31, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary -- it is a single merged parish. This is a not-uncommon phenomenon. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my rename vote which was meant to oppose the nominated merge, but the merge is no longer on the table. I have no opinion on the issue of renaming versus keeping. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:51, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said "civil parish". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Ashburnham, East Sussex. Being from a village is more defining than being from a joint parish council area. – Fayenatic London 15:10, 17 August 2022 (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.

Architecture by country and style

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 22#Architecture by country and style

Category:Theaters in Dagestan

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 WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. with permission to re-create when there are more articles to put in it. – Fayenatic London 12:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Theaters in Dagestan to Category:Culture of Dagestan

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. A dual merge is not needed, the article is already in Category:Theatres in Russia. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - another misuse of WP:SMALLCAT, the full heading of which is 'Small with no potential for growth'. In addition to the existing article, there are at least seven other theatres in Dagestan waiting for articles: ru:Даргинский драматический театр имени О. Батырая, ru:Кумыкский музыкально-драматический театр имени А. П. Салаватова, ru:Аварский музыкально-драматический театр имени Гамзата Цадасы, ru:Лакский музыкально-драматический театр имени Э. Капиева, ru:Дагестанский театр кукол, ru:Дагестанский театр оперы и балета, ru:Государственный республиканский русский драматический театр им. М. Горького. Develop into a category scheme dividing theatres by federal subject when appropriate. Spokoyni (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a matter of a crystal ball whether equivalent articles in English will be written and whether they will meet guidelines of en.wiki. It becomes especially questionable as you are implictly discouraging a direct translation of the Russian articles to English in the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not discouraging direct translations from Russian, and please don't suggest I am. I'd certainly encourage them to expand beyond those existing articles though to cover all encyclopedic details. Please don't nominate under smallcat without doing prior research into whether "no potential for growth" is met. Spokoyni (talk) 12:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if kept rename to Category:Theatres in Dagestan per Category:Theatres in Russia and everything in Category:Theatres by country. Spokoyni is correct: ru:Категория:Театры Дагестана is well-populated. Oculi (talk) 10:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Kumyk Theater, Avar Music and Drama Theater named after Gamzat Tsadasa Avar Theater, Lak Music and Drama Theater/State Republican Russian Drama Theatre (both at same address) are easily notable for the English Wikipedia, even with English sources so this isn't a SMALLCAT, the article just haven't been written yet because Wikipedia is work in progress. Some of the other Russian Wikipedia articles may be notable as well. This is part of an existing tree in Category:Theatres in Russia. We have a Category:Theatres in Idaho which is part of Category:Theatres in the United States by state and Idaho has half the population of Dagestan and apparently fewer notable theatres.--Mvqr (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename if Kept to Category:Theatres in Dagestan, per WP:C2C. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:47, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge There's no misuse here; anyone wishing to populate this category has already had a month to do so and will have until this discussion is closed. If nobody does so, then the lack of potential for growth will have been demonstrated by the passage of time. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:47, 10 August 2022 (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:Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric

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:Macedonian Orthodox Church. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:51, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric to Category:Macedonian Orthodox Church – Archdiocese of Ohrid

Nominator's rationale: It is the current name of the main article, Macedonian Orthodox Church – Archdiocese of Ohrid, which is the official English name. Veverve (talk) 13:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a speedy nomination was opposed at WP:CFDS, see category talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per WP:C2D, Consistency with main article's name. Not sure why it was opposed in speedy but the main article naming appears stable. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pinging @Armbrust who objected to the speedy.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 18:50, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural oppose pending the result of the requested move of the main article. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 22:34, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The main article is now at Macedonian Orthodox Church.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Now speedy rename to Category:Macedonian Orthodox Church per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2022 (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.

Sri Lankan businesspeople by ethnicity

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 18#Sri Lankan businesspeople by ethnicity

Category:Breton journalists

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:54, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Breton journalists to Category:French journalists

Nominator's rationale: merge, only one article in the category. Merging to Category:Breton writers is not needed, the article is already lower in that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No objection per SMALLCAT. The one article has another Breton category, so that we do not need to upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 14 August 2022 (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:Bioimaging software

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) Qwerfjkl talk 18:56, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bioimaging software to Category:Bioinformatics software, Category:Image processing software and Category:Image viewers

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as Wikipedia has no other content for bioimaging except a redirect to microscopy. I'm disambiguating that redirect to include medical imaging. For info, both the subcats here are already within Category:Medical imaging too. I can't find any other subcats in there to build a more useful Category:Medical imaging software. – Fayenatic London 07:38, 18 August 2022 (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:Free biosimulation software

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 per Fayenatic London. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 18:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Free biosimulation software to Category:Biosimulation software and Category:Free bioinformatics software

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, this category and its parent Category:Biosimulation software together have only five articles now. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OpenWorm, the only direct member of Category:Biosimulation software, is also free, so should we merge and redirect that one for now to its subcat? – Fayenatic London 06:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a good suggestion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 18 August 2022 (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:Academics from Africa

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:African academics. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 19:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Academics from Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, "from Africa" is not a nationality. There aren't any similar categories for other continents. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be a reasonable diffusion of about 40 countries, and is associated with other such as Category:Academia in Africa. Instead, the other continents should have their own categories. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 03:10, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see such continent based categories as helpful for biographies. Rathfelder (talk) 08:48, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ -- This is a container category. I would not want to see any articles placed directly in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:African academics per convention in Category:African people by occupation. As we have Category:European people by occupation it would seem reasonable to create Category:European academics etc. Oculi (talk) 20:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Oculi. I would also note the existence of Category:Veterinarians from Africa and Category:Lawyers from Africa.--User:Namiba 15:55, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Oculi. Crowsus (talk) 13:38, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Oculi. This is better than my previous vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 14 August 2022 (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:Finnish professors

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. – Fayenatic London 08:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Finnish professors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, academic personnel is diffused by subject and by university, not by rank. Other countries do not have a professors category.Marcocapelle (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- The category contains some people who are (or were) clearly a full professor, but purge of those that are merely lecturers or even ballet teachers. If not kept, merge to Category:Finnish academics, which also exists, without being diffused by institution. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, there being no Category:Professors. Marcocapelle has probably made sure that all are already in a subcat of Category:Finnish academics. Oculi (talk) 22:27, 10 August 2022 (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.

Western New Guinea geography stubs

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 18#Western New Guinea geography stubs

Category:Meitei transgender and transsexual people

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 Meitei people and transgender categories specified below. – Fayenatic London 11:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Meitei transgender and transsexual people to Category:Meitei transgender people

Nominator's rationale: per w:Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 5#Transgender and transsexual categories — Tazuco

01:56, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Redirect to Category:Meitei transgender people. Mahesh Sty (talk) 07:04, 18 June 2022 (UTC) ( Blocked sockpuppet of Jomontgeorge, see investigation)[reply]
Move articles to Category:Transgender actresses and Category:Transgender women respectively, then delete per WP:OCEGRS and WP:SMALLCAT. Note that we do not even have Category:Indian transgender people. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:10, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle but why actresses? Beoncy Laishram doesn't seem to be an actress. I'd support moving to Category:Transgender women (since both are trans women) and Category:Meitei people if we are to move these — Tazuco 18:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is what I meant with "respectively": one article to Category:Transgender actresses, the other to Category:Transgender women. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SMALLCAT Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 21:59, 30 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move articles per Marcocapelle. We are yet they develop a better standard about it. ArvindPalaskar (talk) 08:47, 9 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 17:33, 10 August 2022 (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:Hindustanilanguage/userboxes

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) Qwerfjkl talk 19:10, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Hindustanilanguage/userboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate personal userspace category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:09, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Since is majorly related to the usage or non-usage of social media, the category can be renamed differently. Admins may explore renaming to some category such as "users not active on social media" or "userboxes pertaining to social media inactivity", if these are available, or create a similar category, if its unavailable. --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 09:02, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the category does not contribute anything to user collaboration on Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2022 (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:Segunda División Pro (women)

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Segunda División Pro (women) to Category:Segunda Federación (women)

Nominator's rationale: League was created as second tier and named Segunda Pro in 2019, then became the third tier and renamed to Segunda Federación in 2022. Could this and its subcategories be renamed please - these would still be valid on articles relating to those 3 years, and the clubs/players who are involved in the new second tier (Primera Federación (women) ) can have the appropriate additional Category added when the season begins Crowsus (talk) 05:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just so @BrazilianDude70: and @Crowsus: are aware of the correct process in future - move the article using WP:RM, and them simply re-name the categories using WP:CFDS (ground C2D). Saves everybody an awful lot of hassle. Giant Snowman 18:56, 10 August 2022 (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:Tercera División RFEF

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:12, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tercera División RFEF to Category:Tercera Federación

Nominator's rationale: League was created as Tercera División RFEF in 2021 then renamed as Tercera Federación a year later. Could this and subcategories be re-named please Crowsus (talk) 05:44, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and move the subcats Category:Tercera División RFEF managers‎, Category:Tercera División RFEF play-offs‎, Category:Tercera División RFEF players‎ and Category:Tercera División RFEF seasons‎ to Category:Tercera Federación managers‎, Category:Tercera Federación play-offs‎, Category:Tercera Federación players‎ and Category:Tercera Federación seasons‎, respectively. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 05:46, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BrazilianDude70: those category pages need to be tagged for CfD too. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also added Category:2022–23 Tercera División RFEF to Category:2022–23 Tercera Federación. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 06:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just so @BrazilianDude70: and @Crowsus: are aware of the correct process in future - move the article using WP:RM, and them simply re-name the categories using WP:CFDS (ground C2D). Saves everybody an awful lot of hassle. Giant Snowman 18:56, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GiantSnowman: OK thanks. The articles are already renamed, sooooo could these requests get binned/withdrawn and I'll just do the noms on speedy? Or does this longer process have to play out to a conclusion? Crowsus (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A category won't get moved by CFDS if the parent article has been recently moved without discussion - hence why RM should be used first. Giant Snowman 20:57, 10 August 2022 (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:Segunda División RFEF

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Segunda División RFEF to Category:Segunda Federación

Nominator's rationale: League was created as Segunda División RFEF in 2021 then renamed as Segunda Federación a year later. Could this and subcategories be re-named please Crowsus (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and move the subcats Category:Segunda División RFEF managers‎, Category:Segunda División RFEF play-offs‎, Category:Segunda División RFEF players‎ and Category:Segunda División RFEF seasons‎ to Category:Segunda Federación managers‎, Category:Segunda Federación play-offs‎, Category:Segunda Federación players‎ and Category:Segunda Federación seasons‎, respectively. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just so @BrazilianDude70: and @Crowsus: are aware of the correct process in future - move the article using WP:RM, and them simply re-name the categories using WP:CFDS (ground C2D). Saves everybody an awful lot of hassle. Giant Snowman 18:56, 10 August 2022 (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:Primera División RFEF

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:25, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Primera División RFEF to Category:Primera Federación

Nominator's rationale: League was created as Primera División RFEF in 2021 then renamed as Primera Federación a year later. Could this and subcategories be re-named please (I already did Seasons manually, not the best idea as I knew I would need to do this request for the others, apologies) Crowsus (talk) 05:39, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support and move the subcats Category:Primera División RFEF managers‎, Category:Primera División RFEF play-offs‎, Category:Primera División RFEF players‎ and Category:Primera División RFEF seasons‎ to Category:Primera Federación managers‎, Category:Primera Federación play-offs‎, Category:Primera Federación players‎ and Category:Primera Federación seasons‎, respectively. BRDude⁷⁰ (talk) 05:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 18:52, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just so @BrazilianDude70: and @Crowsus: are aware of the correct process in future - move the article using WP:RM, and them simply re-name the categories using WP:CFDS (ground C2D). Saves everybody an awful lot of hassle. Giant Snowman 18:56, 10 August 2022 (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:Hand-controlled rhythm games

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 18#Category:Hand-controlled rhythm games

Rename all Madonna-related 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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 20:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME#Name of the artist: The name used should match the name of the biography article about the person, including any disambiguator. Madonna's biography doesn't have a disambiguator in more than two years, and there have been two consensuses established regarding the singer's primary use for the name. Currently the Category:Madonna says that it "is located at Category:Madonna (entertainer)", which is absolutely useless because there's no other categories of the same title to be confused of (even Category:Madonna (art) does not exist). Mary, mother of Jesus has her own Category:Mary, mother of Jesus. Mary didn't write songs, didn't produce albums, didn't direct films, didn't do concerts (etc etc) which are all of the above categories are about. There is clearly no ambiguity at all. Regards. Bluesatellite (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support: It could be an exceptional case if we keep maintaining the category as such because in authority control, Mary means Madonna, of course. But I give my support to the move request starting from the sense that the contemporary usage of the word and relation to the mind of most humans, is more likely to be the singer, as testifies numerous of corollaries. Mary is semantically related to the meaning, but visually the word isn't for most humans, and as Bluesatellite pointed out, she has her own category. And in this latter aspect, its correct that she doesn't write, produce, or do concerts. If the move is effective, it can be also notice another usage regarding Mary (not sure if there is an specific template for that, I assume we have). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 02:53, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Seems like a no-brainer. - FlightTime (open channel) 05:40, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support (while I may have opposed in the past), also since Mary the mother of Jesus is often referred to as "the" Madonna so I agree the chance of confusion is fairly limited. I still disagree with the general statement that no disambiguator in article space necessarily leads to no disambiguator in category space. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment its very odd that after failing over and over again in various move requests, that when Madonna has become much much less popular, she somehow becomes the primary topic, as she wasn't before when she was actually relevant to the entertainment industry. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 06:28, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this analogy its more applicable to Mary, and the Catholicism as a whole, because the practice is losing popularity in each new generation according to various statistics. There are Catholics in every nation, but then later exists more Lapsed Catholics. And the term "Madonna" isn't of the official canon in Christianity, nor included in the Bible. Also religious art/Renaissance Western art is something that can't be "read" easily by an average human.

Mary of course, as a cultural figure is present in media, but what about the term? That's less obvious. In most major worldwide outlets inside/outside music, the Madonna mention is because the singer. Even if a student is using a popular searching tool, like Google or a platform like YouTube, the results will be the singer. Google Scholars perhaps is more dominated by Mary or by other related things with the term, but the singer isn't absent. Wikipedia statistics can testify of this, as Madonna (art) receives lesser compared to the singer. Even, singer's page has always stayed in the first 1,000 pages with most visits in every single month, every year from +6 million articles. All of these is happening at the time of writing along your perception of an aging singer, and would likely to happen in our next decades; unless, we have a crystal ball and we will know that Catholicism/Mary will triumph above anything else in the digital era. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 07:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With the decline in the popularity of both, neither would be seem would become the primary topic. There would be no primary topic, which is why it seems odd the entertainer becomes primary. Many Gen-Z and Millennials do not know the entertainer at all, even in the U.S. Give one a picture of her, and many can't identify her. -- 64.229.88.43 (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. Popularity is subjective. I've my doubts with millennials, perhaps that's more a problem of Gen-Z but maybe not so extended. I'm from that latter generation and raised Catholic. I can say you're forgetting something: singer's ADN is still perpetual to the mainstream more than "Mary as Madonna". Alone in the 2020s, young artists have featured the singer to their younger audiences, such as Dua Lipa or Beyonce. Music still generating more headlines, and space than any religious art (the popular culture during the Renaissance). And you're forgetting the perennial scope that singer has when someone enters that word in accessible websites for anyone, for example all of the most used search engines worldwide. Let's imagine a student access to YouTube doing his/her homework with a visual media, and if for any chance typing "Madonna", of course, is the singer that will appears. Old, super-old or "dinosaur", the singer still generating news in influential media outlets outside music, like The New York Times (results) or CNN. Even in this site her traffic views speaks a lot. All of these things are not a matter to be singer's fans, its a "system" that you or me can't change. And it can't change overnight. Mary will also be known for Christians and no Christians as the Jesus' mother, that's her universality as a figure, but is not the word "Mary as Madonna", which is less obvious, starting from the sense that visually the word isn't the same as Mary. We can't also assume education is the same in all countries, but indeed culturally speaking she is better known in some many regards as the Virgin/Our Lady rather than Madonna (art). -Apoxyomenus (talk) 00:13, 11 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per the reasons given in the latest in a long line of cfds to which the nominator should have linked: 2021 October 27#Category:Madonna (entertainer). The singer becomes less relevant as the years pass, unlike the actual Madonna. Note also that WP:CATNAME#Name of the artist cited in the nom applies to (visual) artists, not to musicians. Oculi (talk) 11:27, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, WP:CATNAME#Name of the artist literally cite Peter Carey (novelist) as the example, since when is novelist considered visual artist? And flash news: Musicians are "artists"! Anyway, what do you mean with "actual Madonna"? There's no such thing as the "actual" one because that was a generic Italian term from the 16th century and not an original invention for Mary. I also remind you that this is not the place to argue which one is more "relevant" because the community has decided that it is the singer for this specific name case. Bluesatellite (talk) 14:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied to Canadian IP, popularity is subjective, as Mary/Catholicism are no longer to be relevant for most generations living in the current period of the 3rd millennium. Ironically, almost every conduct directs to the singer. In Wikipedia alone (a signs of our times) the singer always appears in the first 1,000 pages in traffic views every month and every year, while Mary is no where, nor even her term associated —Madonna (art). --Apoxyomenus (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support The singer has more lasting notability than the minor character from the gospels. Dimadick (talk) 06:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per precedence of the artist's article being renamed, community consensus applies here. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 09:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Madonna primarily refers to Blessed Virgin Mary, whose significance is far greater than the entertainer. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Only to religious readers. - FlightTime (open channel) 23:10, 14 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FlightTime its more applicable to some Catholics (and other groups), rather than religious readers as a whole. With Madonna Ciccone, is not a matter to be her fans, these are changes of the usage/perception generalized since the singer is present and despite the term still used for Mary in our days in some corners. As one of our policies advises that "historical age is not determinative" WP:DPT. Professor Maury Dean (2003, pag 524) said that "Madonna" meant Jesus' Mother, but that time changes while referring singer's influence. Anthologist Bruce Lansky (verified profile) asserted that "Madonna Ciccone already has out stripped the Virgin Mother as the archetype for her name" and there are other similar endorsements of art museums/semioticians/academics about the singer. The science of statistics means also a lot, including the traffic views in this site. The analogy could be compared with Google and other search engines in market share about the usage of the word/extension/audience in present culture between singer/Mary. --Apoxyomenus (talk) 01:19, 15 August 2022 (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:Brookfield Properties Retail Group people

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brookfield Properties Retail Group people to Category:Brookfield Properties people

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:12, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Per nom. Epicgenius (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2022 (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:Brookfield Properties Retail Group

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) Qwerfjkl talk 20:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brookfield Properties Retail Group to Category:Brookfield Properties

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:11, 10 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - Per nom. Epicgenius (talk) 05:55, 10 August 2022 (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.

August 10

Category:Manukau City Centre

Category:Economic history of the Soviet Union

Category:Confucian thought

People of Breton descent‎

Category:Greater León

Category:Basketball players at the 2022 NCAA Division I Men's Final Four

Category:Digi-TV affiliates

Category:Bengali-language newspapers by country

Category:Diene complexes

Category:People from Ashburnham and Penhurst

Architecture by country and style

Category:Theaters in Dagestan

Category:Macedonian Orthodox Church – Ohrid Archbishopric

Sri Lankan businesspeople by ethnicity

Category:Breton journalists

Category:Bioimaging software

Category:Free biosimulation software

Category:Academics from Africa

Category:Finnish professors

Western New Guinea geography stubs

Category:Meitei transgender and transsexual people

Category:Hindustanilanguage/userboxes

Category:Segunda División Pro (women)

Category:Tercera División RFEF

Category:Segunda División RFEF

Category:Primera División RFEF

Category:Hand-controlled rhythm games

Rename all Madonna-related categories

Category:Brookfield Properties Retail Group people

Category:Brookfield Properties Retail Group