Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 31
June 2 >

June 1[edit]

Category:Italian football clubs established in 1960[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intersection per WP:NARROWCAT. No other similar categories exist, such subdivision is excessive. S.A. Julio (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Crowsus (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2023 (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.

College hockey conference seasons[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge and rename. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:50, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many conferences are split into two categories for whatever reason. So merge to one category per WP:OVERLAPCAT. I've also nominated renaming many of the season categories since many of the conferences only sponsor ice hockey so it's redundant to add "men's ice hockey". Many of the other college sports that only sponsor one sport follow this convention. Note that ECAC Hockey was affiliated with ECAC until 2004 hence the change in season names. –Aidan721 (talk) 14:42, 1 June 2023 (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:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent[edit]

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) Qwerfjkltalk 17:30, 28 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF. If these people, as the description says, have no proof of their heritage, it is very unlikely to be a defining characteristic. Anyone for whom it is should be moved to the parent, Category:Native American-related controversies. User:Namiba 14:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It can't be merged to Category:American people of Native American descent because the whole point is that most of them have been shown to have no ancestry; they are not of Native American descent. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing this, the phrase "who self-identify as being" is the key to this category not being subjective. It's very easy to verify an individual's self-identification through published, secondary sources. Yuchitown (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
If a source merely says that he/she self-identifies as Native American without evidence, then it's still WP:SUBJECTIVECAT - such a source merely repeats one's own claim. But if the source has actual proofs, then it should go to Category:American people of Native American descent. Brandmeistertalk 08:27, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is the broadest category. If someone self-identifies as being of Native American ancestry, then it can absolutely be verified that that person has made that self-identification, for instance in public spoken or written statements that are published in books or newspapers. Absolutely nothing subjective about this. If further can be proven through reliable published sourced, the person would be placed in more specific categories (say if they were enrolled in the Zuni Pueblo, they would be moved to Category:Zuni people). If the person is an unenrolled direct descendant of a tribe (usually because they don't meet minimum quantum requirements) then they could be moved into the appropriate subcat. For example, Ivy Vainio is an unenrolled, direct descendant of the Grand Portage Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe. So if someone made an article for Ivy Vainio, she would be moved into Category:American people of Ojibwe descent. Yuchitown (talk) 18:49, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Comment: if I remember the previous discussion, a major issue was that there are people who are actually able to trace descent from Native American ancestors, but not enough to be considered tribal members i.e. citizens. Proponents of this category explained, for instance in this edit, they say it is for people who have neither tribal membership or only distant ancestors, which is different that no ancestors at all. It seems the category description was recently changed (13 May 2023) to alter its scope, but it's not obvious that the content was changed. It is relatively easy to find articles that clearly mention actual Native American descent, such as Louisiana Creole people. Take as an example the case of John Randolph of Roanoke, an early-19th century US Congressman from Virginia and a descendant of Pocahontas. Place Clichy (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You just altered the description of the cat and, though I know you meant well, I have reverted you. We have categories for people who have documented descent from tribal nations but just don't meet the enrollment criteria. These people are known as "descendants". This cat is different: It's for people who have no ancestry, but claim to be Native anyway. Some in this category have what they personally consider proof - such as family stories, aka "blood myths", or a photo of a non-Native ancestor they think "looks Indian", or a DNA test that they think has Indigenous markers (but that other scientists say could be Central Asian markers) but the tribe in question does not agree that the test results show heritage. No one with legitimate ancestry is put in the cat. If someone is there by mistake, they should be removed, or ask at the Indigenous wikiproject and we can help with research. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:35, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just not true that articles in this category have "no ancestry", if you read my comment above. You have yourself altered the definition of the category, however it seems without changing its contents. There is also quite a stretch between "claim[ing] to be Native" and being of (partial) Native American descent. Place Clichy (talk) 01:31, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Seems like this particular conversation should be taking place at Category talk:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent. The current text says "no proof of this heritage"; it does not say "no ancestry." Yuchitown (talk) 01:58, 5 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Keep: This category may be confusing but it serves a specific purpose, because Native American ancestry is complicated. There are many Americans who claim Native American ancestry but have no belonging to a specific tribe or proof of their ancestry. For individuals with tribal citizenship or documented recognition from a tribe, it's quite cut-and-dry, but this category exists when there are sources saying an individual claims Native American ancestry, but has no confirmed connection to a specific tribe. Merging this into a different Native American ancestry category does everyone a disservice as there are very clearly two tracks of Native American descent: close ancestry with tribal recognition versus distant ancestry without tribal recognition (not to mention the many Americans who believe they have Native American ancestry but do not actually), and deleting it entirely and leaving these individuals uncategorized would eliminate a piece of their ancestry that reliable sources have reported on. This category was created through means of discussion and is, in my view, the best way of handling a situation that is more complex than having ancestry from other countries. Kelsey Asbille is a perfect example of how this "claimed" ancestry can be quite a significant distinction from genuine ancestry: claiming unproven Cherokee ancestry and using this claim to star as a Native American character in a TV series despite the tribe she claims to descend from stating they have no record of her, and this is just one example. I think keeping them in this category makes more sense than moving them into a "controversies" category, as not all of them have actually resulted in controversy. Cher is another one with claimed unproven Cherokee ancestry and has used this claimed unproven ancestry as a motif in her music, not leading to controversy but still being notable, however. The key is that the Native American ancestry is sometimes strongly relevant to the individual, but identifying them as "of Native American ancestry" can be disrespectful to tribes who do not view them as actual Native Americans or their ancestry legitimate. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 11:12, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would individuals in American people of Native American descent necessarily have to "[belong] to a specific tribe"? Invididuals who belong to a specific tribe are Native American themselves, and therefore belong in Category:Native American people by tribe and its children, not the descent category. Place Clichy (talk) 15:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Native American" is not one undifferentiated group of people. There's no language called "Native American." The Indigenous peoples of the contiguous United States and Alaska are a social, historical, and political classification that stems from being acknowledged by an American Indian tribe or Alaska Native village. There is a difference between being Native American and having Native American ancestry but not knowing the tribe (which does happen; hence categories like Category:American people of Native American descent. The phenomenon of falsely (whether knowingly or unknowingly) claiming to have Native American ancestry is so widespread, that scholars have written entire books about the subject. Yuchitown (talk) 21:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Before we had this cat, false claimants would be put in the tribal categories. We would cite sources and remove them, but due to the claim, well-meaning fans would put them back. Wash rinse repeat. It was misleading and frustrating and wasted people's time. This cat has really helped save Wikipedians time and energy, so is a net gain to the project. No one is placed in the cat unless they have insisted on identifying in spite of there being zero evidence they are Native. In most cases, it's been clearly shown they are not, but still they persist, often in ways that are offensive to Native tribes. The category includes people who have made false claims for career advancement in film, academia, and even offensively to excuse their bad behaviour, such as Johnny Depp claiming he was violent towards others because he was "a drunk Indian" (he may have been drunk, but he's not an Indian). We at the Indigenous Wikiproject monitor these bios and stay on top of it pretty well, and cats like this are a great deal of help with this work. For those who think it's difficult to tell who is and is not Native, we wrote this essay to help: Determining Native American and Indigenous Canadian identities. Best wishes, - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. A category the keeps individuals who are actually of Indigenous descent and those who base their claims on family myths etc separate is specific and necessary. Indigenous girl (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we should keep what international law considers self claims. Should not follow American view on native identity.... should be more progressive as the rest of the world is as defined by the United Nations.Moxy- 20:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per CorbieVreccan, et al. I recall when this cat was created. It is intended to weed out the celebs and other WP notables who claim they are Native American with zero reliable sources to confirm it. I know a case where someone claimed NA identity just so they would be at the front of the line when COVID vaccines were first available. This is a pretty useful cat. Cheers, Mark Ironie (talk) 20:41, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, as per CorbieVreccan, Indigenous girl et al. The fact that this is so populated demonstrates its usefulness. This category title is neutral and verifiable. The subject is not a Native American controversy. It's about non-Native people making claims that other non-Native people think it's somehow unacceptable or inappropriate to discuss in public. And I'll vote strong keep again when another user unfamiliar with Indian law or Native issues nominates it down the road. Yuchitown (talk) 21:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Keep but Convert to Hidden This feels like a valid Wikipedia category for editors working on articles but doesn't feel defining enough to navigate by and may present WP:BLP issues. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no reason to hide it because people are only added to the category if they have made public claims in reliable sources, usually repeatedly over many years. In many cases, the claim is part of their notability. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    But what those reliable sources have is a contested claim, not something defining for readers to navigate by. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:36, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The claims are not necessarily contested by anyone; there is just no independent verification of the claims or reciprocal claims by the tribes in question of the individual as a descendant. No reason to hide the cat. Yuchitown (talk) 02:12, 11 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
  • Keep Self-identification is all that counts when it comes to ethnicity and matters of identity. "Proof" is neither required, nor desirable. Dimadick (talk) 05:47, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to hidden per RevelationDirect. As said earlier, it is a sort of maintenance category to prevent pollution of Category:American people of Native American descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding the "hidden" suggestions, all the material needs to be backed up by verifiable, published secondary sources. These are all public. Anything that isn't public record does not belong on Wikipedia. Yuchitown (talk) 18:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
    • For a category, it also needs to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an article. For example with Nadema Agard or Jhené Aiko that is not the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I have no idea who Jhené Aiko is, but for Nadema Agard, her self-identification of Native American descent is absolutely defining; however, there's no "needs to be". WP:DEFINING says: "It is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but rather intends to describe some aspect(s) of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices. It may reflect varying levels of consensus and vetting." Yuchitown (talk) 23:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
      • Well, that WP:DEFINING page in itself is not a guideline but it is a further explanation of WP:NONDEF which is the key component of the WP:OCAT guideline. About Nadema Agard, the article does not mention a controversy about whether or not she has proof of ancestry. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
        Okay, that's the crux of the matter (and I don't know if you've read WP:NATIVE-IDENTITY, which is also just general discussion) is published sources say that Nadema Agard self-identifies as being "Cherokee/Lakota/Powhatan," but that's as far as it goes. I view the situation as concentric category circles; we can all verify her self-identification, but there are no sources out there that would move her into a smaller category that explain who her Cherokee, Lakota, Powhatan relatives are, how she relates to these groups, and/or which tribes within these groups she descends from. So one can't move her into a smaller circle. Then to move her into an even smaller circle of being a Native American, there would have to be reliable sources that explain how a tribal community claims her. For Native Americans, this is fairly straightforward; many tribal newspapers are online and they write about their members extensively. Being of Native American and even being of Native American descent are group identities, not individual identities. The category is neutral; it is just based on the extent of what can be verified. As an aside, most bio articles of lesser-known people are not fully fleshed out. Yuchitown (talk) 15:46, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
After reading the comments, it seems as though the goal of this category is to distinguish between members of Native American nations and people of Native American descent. To do that, I would suggest renaming Category:Native American people to Members of Native American nations. Whether editors like it or not, many of the people in this category claim Native American descent and sources identify them as such. I still believe that this category must be deleted and that the articles in this category should be manually merged into Category:People of Native American descent. If the identification is controversial, then the article belongs in Category:Native American-related controversies or a sub-category created for people with disputed identity.--User:Namiba 14:48, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make that suggestion, feel free to initiate a new proposal on that Category:Native American people. This conversation is already so verbose without straying off the topic of the category proposed for deletion. Since you initiation the deletion process, you don't need to reiterate that you support deletion. Yuchitown (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
That's really not what it's about. Please read it again more carefully if that's what you think. I think this discussion has run it's course and needs to be closed. I think we have consensus for Keep. - CorbieVreccan ☊ ☼ 19:15, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Namiba: both categories are about people who are not members of Native American nations. The difference is whether they can prove their claim that one of their ancestors was a member of Native American nations. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 10 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete lying or exaggerating about one's ethnic background is not life-defining, not even for liz warren. ValarianB (talk) 12:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Could an administrator please end this discussion, even as no consensus? It's been 18 days. The majority of users, the ones who contribute to Native topics on Wikipedia, have voted to keep. Far fewer has voted to delete, merge, or hide the category. As with other Native identity topics, people will discuss it ad infinitum, whether they know anything about the subject or contribute to it on Wikipedia or not. 22:31, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Yuchitown
  • Strongly oppose due to the ubiquity of "I'm Native, I just have no proof of it". It's quite surprising how many people say they're Native without being able to prove it, and this category remains noteworthy because it really showcases that number. (I apologize sincerely if that sounded repetitive/redundant.) —theMainLogan (talk) 14:11, 24 June 2023 (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:2023 sports events in Dublin[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:49, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The entire category structure for Dublin (city) doesn't have any other subcategories coming close to matching this format. It is therefore unlikely that it will be populated with a meaningful number of articles (it had one article but that was easily recategorized). -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. You did empty the category beforehand, but it seems like it had only 1 item anyway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 13:52, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If a category is empty, you can just tag it CSD C1, it doesn't need a week-long discussion. Also, this is a category that could very well be used later in 2023, with a C1 deletion it can be easily restored while that is not as easy if it has been deleted through a CFD discussion. Liz Read! Talk! 21:50, 5 June 2023 (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.

Olympic venues[edit]

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. ✗plicit 01:07, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCVENUE. The vast majority of the articles are multi-purpose venues and do not regularly host Olympic events. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, If hosting an Olympic Games event isn't a defining characteristic of a venue, I'm struggling to think what is. If someone was to ask "what is this place known for", being an Olympic venue would be in the top 3 in the vast majority of cases. In my opinion, its very different to the insignificant and mostly annual examples at OCVENUE like Democratic Party Convention venues. At the very least, some effort should be to have all the years listified (some for the Summer Games are redirects) prior to being purged. Crowsus (talk) 22:26, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The years have already been listified. See Fayenatic London's comment. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I note a nice list in Venues of the 2022 Winter Olympics and Paralympics; it would be nice if the others had similar. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:57, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I would generally support this but these venues are overwhelmingly purpose-built for the Olympics itself. Thus, their Olympic connection is very defining.--User:Namiba 14:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At first glance, it seems that Olympic venues and stadiums are defined by the Olympics which they hosted. Place Clichy (talk) 10:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - hosting an Olympics is defining (and very infrequent); the articles I looked at all mention it in the first paragraph. Oculi (talk) 15:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is one of the rare exceptions to WP:OCVENUE. Many of these venues are precisely known only for hosting the Olympics, and then being abandoned afterwards, if there were no plans in place or developed for repurposing them. One of the recurrent criticisms of the Olympics is precisely that these venues are used only once and are then abandoned, an enormous waste of money, space and needless environmental destruction. E.g. the Sarajevo Olympic Bobsleigh and Luge Track and other Venues of the 1984 Winter Olympics became infamous as not only being abandoned and overgrown, but the sites of battles during the Yugoslav Wars of the 1990s, even more emphasising how much these former Olympic venues had lost their former Olympic glory. (I've seen that on television and in newspapers countless times, documentary makers and journalists love pointing it out, and lamenting it). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:40, 2 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'd be open to purging a few pre-existing places used for the Olympics, but these are often purpose built which is definitely defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per RevelationDirect. Many many Olympic venues exist only because they were built for the Olympics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:17, 3 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Crowsus, Namiba, Place Clichy, Oculi, Nederlandse Leeuw, RevelationDirect, and BrownHairedGirl: My issue is that so many are not purpose-built for the Olympics are non-defining for many venues. Perhaps mimicking Category:Organizations established for the COVID-19 pandemic with Category:Sports venues created for the Olympic Games? This, in my opinion, would capture the defining aspect. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:07, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      Could you cite examples of this? For example, venues that were already built before it was decided they would be used to host the Olympics in a given year, and being notable independent of the Olympics being hosted there? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:11, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      PS: I can imagine this was especially the case in the early decades of the Olympics, but I would be surprised if many venues' main claim to fame was other than hosting the Olympics (with millions of people watching, listening to radio or reading newspaper reports about it, while the Games were happening). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Nederlandse Leeuw: I'm not sure that either reuse or early Olympics make a difference. Stade Yves-du-Manoir near Paris existed before becoming a venue of the 1924 Summer Olympics (and the 1938 FIFA World Cup), but it is still primarily known for that a century afterwards. It remains a (the) stade olympique. Place Clichy (talk) 23:25, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm inclined to agree; the Olympics nearly always leave an indelible mark, and even pre-existing venues want to remind people that they hosted the Olympics at one point. BrownHairGirl made a more comprehensive argument which I think nails it, and is sufficient for this nomination to end in a Keep. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:32, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Aidan721, that's better than outright deletion, but but ...
      1. Some pre-existing venues were massively rebuilt and/or expanded for the Olympics, which makes their Olympic role defining. But by definition they would be excluded from Category:Sports venues created for the Olympic Games, which is unhelpful.
      2. Even for pre-existing venues with great notabiity for other reasons, becoming an Olympic venue turns local or national notability into global recognition. So I don't accept your premise of non-definingness.
      BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We agree with #1 but not so sure on #2; I would need to see some examples per Nederlandse Leeuw's request to see how such articles are treated in practice. I assume reused facilities were mostly with the early Olympics? - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think BrownHairedGirl nailed it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Hosting an Olympics is a defining category Velociraptor888 14:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for most of the venues in the category, hosting the Olympics is a defining characteristic of the venue, not least because lots of them were built/renovated for the Olympics. It's true that it's non-defining for some venues in the categories e.g. Lord's hosting the 2012 archery events is not defining for The Home of Cricket. That being said, there is enough venues for which this is a clearly defining characteristic, so the categories should be kept, and possibly refined slightly to remove the non-defining locations. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 9 June 2023 (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:Ichinomiya (Region)[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:47, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of the articles in the category. The first article can perhaps be moved to the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 1 June 2023 (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:Ichinomiya categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Ichinomiya. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the two categories have overlapping scope. If kept they should be renamed in order to clarify the distinction better. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Appears to be a misunderstanding on naming format. - 00:38, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
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:Recipients of the United Nations Service Medal Korea[edit]

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:46, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD
United Nations Service Medal Korea is a United Nations award for soldiers from the United Nations coalition who fought in the Korean War. It is a participatory award and already there is Category:Military personnel of the Korean War, which has the articles of military personnel from the coalition member states. Toadboy123 (talk) 05:18, 1 June 2023 (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:Draft articles on comics and anime[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 28#Category:Draft articles on comics and anime

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_1&oldid=1162367802"