Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 3
June 5 >

June 4[edit]

Category:German chronicles[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Category:German chronicles

Category:Sport Clubs Boca Raton[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. ✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Were clearly created without knowledge of how categories should be named. Merge as categories are small and unlikely to grow in near future. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:54, 4 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:Philosophers of Judaism[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Category:Philosophers of Judaism

Category:Baseball leagues in North America by country[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. ✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary by country category. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:43, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. It is unnecessary because there is no multinational leagues for example. I was thinking of harmonizing it with the larger sports category tree when I created this cat but I forgot to check for this. Merge Danielsltt (talk) 05:48, 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.

Category:Video games set in forests[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. ✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a WP:CATDEF whatsoever, so many games are (partially) set in forests. Unnecessary. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 19:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who made this category page last year, and I suggest we should still keep it and not deleting it. Ali17082001 (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Criteria should be games that are mostly or entirely set in a forest (like, for example, I assume, Firewatch), not just featuring it as one of numerous settings (i.e. a JRPG with a single forest area). If it's reduced to games that the setting is defining for, it works perfectly fine. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:02, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Otherstuff, hypothetical category: "video games set in villages", "video games set on beaches", "video games set in deserts", "video games set on plains", "video games set in meadows", or any other geographical location or landscape. How's that a catdef? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 10:42, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If a desert is the main setting, like Journey, it can totally be defining for a game. Just not "random desert level #15". I think the problem is with overcategorizing articles that don't have it as their defining trait. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:11, 14 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:De Francisco family[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) (t · c) buidhe 04:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT of unclear utility. The only two articles filed here are one biography of a person in this family and an overview article about the concept of Colombian comedy as a whole -- but the family is a subtopic of Colombian comedy, not a parent topic, so that article doesn't belong here at all, and there would still have to be at least four other notable De Franciscos with Wikipedia articles before a category for them was warranted anyway. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 4 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:Israeli expatriate football managers in Cyprus[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: dual upmerge. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:50, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT; should be upmerged to parent categories. Unnecessary intersection of nationality, occupation and location. No other similar categories exist, as such subdivision is excessive. S.A. Julio (talk) 18:14, 4 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:SVG stubs[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: ALREADY DELETED. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unpopulated stub category with no evidence of approval by WikiProject stub sorting. As always, stub categories are not free for just any user to create on a whim -- there have to be 60 articles to file in a stub category before its creation is warranted, and for that very reason stub categories have to be approved by the WikiProject before they're allowed to be created.
But the only content here is the stub template itself, which has not actually been added to even one article. Further, Category:Scalable Vector Graphics has just 14 articles in it, of which only one is a stub and is already appropriately stub-tagged as graphics software -- so even the SVG-stub template is not clearly needed at all, because there isn't even one article that needs it let alone 60 articles that need it. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 4 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:Films set in Inyo County, California[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. Category is now populated. ✗plicit 04:24, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just one film. As always, every county does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one film to file in it -- there would need to be at least five or six films to file here before a dedicated category for this was warranted, and it does not aid navigation at all to obsessively funnel everything down into an exhaustive smorgasbord of one-article microcategories. Bearcat (talk) 17:29, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
23 films so far. Nicholas0 (talk) 20:59, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Films set in Death Valley which is the far more defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Lone Pine, Big Pine, and Manzanar are not in Death Valley, yet they are in Inyo County. Several of the films in this category are in it because they are set in Lone Pine, Big Pine, or Manzanar, not specifically in Death Valley. If anything, Category:Films set in Death Valley would have to be a subcategory of Category:Films set in Inyo County, California, which just goes to show you how necessary this category was in the first place. Nicholas0 (talk) 13:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, dependent on how many films are set in Lone Pine, Big Pine, or Manzanar, the county category may be kept after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd certainly be willing to withdraw this now that you've populated the category properly, but since there's been a "rename" option placed on the table I can't withdraw it without a wider consensus. But for future reference, Nicholas0, it's not okay to create a category and add just one film to it, and then sweep back and start populating it only after you've been notified the next day that it was put up for a deletion discussion as a WP:SMALLCAT — if there were 23 films to file in it, then all 23 of them should have already been filed in it the moment I saw it in the first place (which was well over 24 hours after you created it). That is, if you want to create the category, then you need to add it to all of the articles that belong in it right away, rather than only doing it days after the fact. Bearcat (talk) 18:39, 8 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:Indian Paintbrush (production company) films[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: rename, already done through speedy renaming. ✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Matches the new article name, which had "production" removed for WP:CONCISE reasons as there is no other company on Wikipedia with the same name. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, following the article move, unless objections are raised to the latter. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 8 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.

Replicas of specific things[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: rename. ✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no consistency in the naming of subcategories of Category:Replicas. This CfD attempts to harmonize the scheme under "Replicas of X" or "Replicas and derivatives of X", with the exception of categories where replica is used as an adjective. In particular, Category:Replica constructions in China cannot be placed in the proposed format without a misplaced modifier. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:21, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Brings consistency and, more importantly, handles objects inspired by Solomon's Temple and the like, that may not technically be replicas. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:18, 11 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:Australian Leaders of the Opposition[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:Leaders of the Opposition (Australia). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 02:18, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Naming scheme as per Category:Opposition leaders Gjs238 (talk) 11:50, 4 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:Muslim princely states of India[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. ✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING. 'historic princely states of India that had Muslim rulers' means nothing for the state as a whole if it is just the head of state's personal religion. So unless these states were actually Islamic Category:Former theocracies or otherwise had sharia as the law of the land, making them Category:Islamic states (in which case an Alt rename to Category:Islamic princely states of India is due), the ruler's religion is WP:NONDEFINING for the state as a whole. Note that there is no Category:Hindu princely states of India either, otherwise I would have co-nominated it. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:19, 4 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:People eucated at St John's College, Morpeth[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) (t · c) buidhe 05:52, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless redirect from an obvious typo. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:47, 4 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:Murdered socialists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Category:Murdered socialists

Category:European nobility[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: rename to Category:Nobility in Europe. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 05:53, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C parent Category:Upper class culture in Europe, per category description "Nobility in Europe", and per host of recent precedents such as Category:European monarchs > Category:Monarchs in Europe. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:22, 4 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:Kievan Rus' royalty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Category:Kievan Rus' royalty

Paintings by collection[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: rename. ✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More nominations
Nominator's rationale: These categories were given their current names, using the style "Paintings in the collection of [Foo]", in this CfD of 15 May 2021. However, when I set up another CfD on 24 July that year to apply that naming convention to categories with the style "Paintings in [Foo]", it was unsuccessful as the new style was considered too verbose. An RfC on 24 October '21, although poorly attended, showed a preference for "Paintings in [Foo]" out of the available options.
Please see that last RfC for the main arguments for "Paintings in [Foo]" over "Paintings in the collection of [Foo]". I would also add that collections with the word "Collection" in their names have already used the proposed style since this CfD of 25 June 2021. Ham II (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, "in the collection of" is entirely obvious, hence unneeded. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Thanks for bringing this back for discussion. - Eureka Lott 14:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per Marcocapelle. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 18:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename All more succinct. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If renamed, should we change the categories of the articles when a painting is on loan to another museum? Christian75 (talk) 11:53, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, temporarily being on loan somewhere else is not a defining characteristic of a painting. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:02, 18 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:Princes of Peresopnitsa[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. ✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 0 C, 1 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:24, 4 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:Fundamental theology[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. ✗plicit 06:44, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with one article and one subcategory. I have added a link to the article in the header of the subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 4 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:Welsh YouTubers[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:British YouTubers and Category:Welsh entertainers. ✗plicit 04:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: SMALLCAT. Had a look but only managed to add one more than was already in there. Move 'em both to Category:British YouTubers and Category:Welsh entertainers. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:32, 4 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.

Drama films by year[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 June 29#Drama films by year

Category:32nd-century BC rulers[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: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More WP:CATSPECIFIC. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:12, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rationale: WP:SMALLCAT 1 C, 0 P. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Downmerging would be less appropriate because we would then miss one from a complete series. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's the last member of a series, so that wouldn't be much of a miss, but yes, that's why renaming is my first choice. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:14, 27 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Definitely favor keeping the set by century. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Downmerge as alt nom. We are never going to get any other content for 32nd century rulers. There is thus no reason why 32nd-century Pharoahs should not be directly under rulers by century. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:35, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Unresolved dispute over the applicability of WP:SMALLCAT.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Further comment: both the rename proposal and the alt merge proposal are to be preferred over the status quo. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does my nomination as nominator count as a 'vote'? A while back I made these 'Balance so far' comments to make it easier for people to close nominations that may look complicated, but have a clear majority in favour of a particular option. In those cases I counted myself, but I'm not sure if it works that way? In this case my preference is Rename, so that would be 3 Rename v. 1 Downmerge, but I don't know if my nomination itself counts as a vote? Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course the opinion of the nominator matters, but don't bother too much about the exact numbers. Better entirely stop with the "balance so far" comments as they may come across as too patronizing. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      @Marcocapelle Alright, thanks. I've seen in several cases such as the Category:Biblical rulers by century that closers seem to have difficulty understanding what the balance is, and so these discussions just never get closed. In one such case I was asked to provide that balance, and the closer appreciated it, so that's how it started. But as an involved party I may not be the most neutral person to summarise the balance. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 07:38, 4 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.

Years in Massachusetts[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: rename, merge, split as nominated. ✗plicit 04:40, 21 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More nominations
Nominator's rationale: Massachusetts was preceded by the Massachusetts Bay Colony (1628–1686, 1689–1691), Plymouth Colony (1620–1686, 1689–1691), the Dominion of New England (1686–1689) and the Province of Massachusetts Bay (1691–1780) during the colonial era. The Massachusetts Bay Colony, Dominion of New England, and the Province of Massachusetts Bay included parts of New England beyond the present-day Massachusetts borders. This better aligns the category naming structure with Category:Years in the Province of New York. Also, the territories of present-day Maine were a part of the Province of Massachusetts Bay and were formally the District of Maine from 1790–1820 before statehood. Lastly, merge 1787/1788 categories for territories that were merged into the Dominion of New England. –Aidan721 (talk) 20:33, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (Yes, I know this puts my comments in the incorrect order, but this is how the reply tool works on CfD). Gonnym (talk) 07:33, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally but Dominion of New England was a short-lived affair and I would suggest that the categories for 1686-9 should be left according to preceding boundaries. I assume that the provincial boundaries reverted to those of the time of Charles II at the Glorious Revolution, because James II's amalgamation of provinces was opposed locallky. Category:1687 in the Dominion of New England might be created as a parent but it should be Category:1687 in New England, its status as a dominion being left for a headnote. Why do I see no nominations relating to Plymouth colony? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now with no objection to recreation if any ever grown to 5+ articles. (Support whichever merge targets make sense, per the above conversation.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:27, 28 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: WP:SMALLCAT concerns have been raised, which complicates the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:20, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RevelationDirect: in principle I agree with smallcat, but the nomination does not contain merge targets, so a merge will be impossible to process by anyone who closes this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A valid point. (I obviously did not read the nom closely enough.) Rename for now. - RevelationDirect (talk) 05:43, 4 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:Catholic doctrines[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. ✗plicit 06:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having both categories is redundant. Veverve (talk) 00:17, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, in theory we could make a split between a set category and a topic category, but in practice that seems too confusing here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 4 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:Celebrities who have won professional wrestling championships[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. ✗plicit 06:33, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NONDEF. User:Namiba 00:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Well-established consensus to delete "celebrities" categories due to WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:23, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:37, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think the intent here is celebrities knowns for something other than wrestling who then wrestled. But that sounds like either WP:PERFCAT or WP:TRIVIALCAT for the intersection. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 11 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:TNA Gut Check contestants[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) (t · c) buidhe 04:35, 13 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TRIVIALCAT. User:Namiba 00:08, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. QuietHere (talk | contributions) 03:37, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_June_4&oldid=1162518913"