Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2 January 4 >

January 3[edit]

Category:Wikipedian images[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:Userspace files. ✗plicit 02:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename for clarity. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 3 January 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:Chefs from Asturias[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just delete -- The one article is already sufficiently categorised, including a more specific locational one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 7 January 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:SDZeroBot database report subscriptions[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: speedy delete. CSD G7 at page creator's request. Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC) Liz Read! Talk! 22:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The template that populated this category was userfied per Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 25#Template:Database report. It's impossible to userfy categories, so the category it populates now should be deleted as effectively a personal category for a defunct project per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 18. The only reason I didn't nominate this for deletion on December 18 was that I was hoping that the template would be deleted at TfD, whereupon I could have {{db-templatecat}}ed the category without the need for a separate discussion. @WikiCleanerMan, Plastikspork, Frietjes, and Izno:. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:04, 3 January 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:International airports[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: speedy delete. Author has requested WP:G7 deletion. Primefac (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:56, 3 January 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:Medieval Dutch physicians[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. The contents comprised only one sub-cat which was merged elsewhere, see link below. – Fayenatic London 22:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Empty. Netherlands did not exist before 1579. Rathfelder (talk) 16:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think we agreed some time ago that Medieval Dutch categories were inappropriate. Rathfelder (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That does not matter, we are not only here to discuss what is inappropriate but also to find the best alternative solution. When there is nothing left in the category it is very difficult to discuss alternative solutions. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or full upmerge). This seems to be an unnecessary level, as it is covered by Category:Burgundian Netherlands physicians, but we should be eliminating all or most of the medieval Dutch categories in a similar way. The Duchy of Burgundy was big enough for us to have categories for it, but where the category relates to a Duchy that was not yet part of Burgundy, the merge target should be a HRE one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an ahistoric application of a nationality term to a time that it did not really exist, at least not in a way that we can consider it the same enough to group people together under one term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 13 January 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 Byram Township, New Jersey[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. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Small one-county community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:35, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The category already has four entries, with the addition of an article that had already been listed Byram Township, New Jersey, but that hadn't yet had the category added (or noticed by the nominator). Does four meet the legally mandated minimum, or do we need to add more to stave off deletion? Alansohn (talk) 15:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alansohn: if there are more then please add them (regardless of this deletion discussion). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle, apparently, some imaginary Wikipedia policy forbids a category with three entries. I've updated the article and increased the size. How many entries are adequate to justify retention of a category? Alansohn (talk) 13:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Alansohn: the point of categories is not securing their existance but their being as fully populated as possible. If you know 10 more articles then why wouldn't you add them? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle, I keep on adding entries to categories; I must have added tens of thousands. Unfortunately, time that I could have used to populate categories and making them "as fully populated as possible" is wasted by those who seem to believe that the point of categories is to delete them. The absence of any clear answer to the question of how many entries is enough only wastes even more time. Alansohn (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alansohn I see what you mean. The most often mentioned cut off on this platform is 5 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 4 entries seems enuf for this cat. Djflem (talk) 17:10, 6 January 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:Unregistered public associations listed as a Russian foreign agent[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: no consensus to merge, so rename to Category:Unregistered public associations listed in Russia as foreign agents and Category:Non-profit organizations listed in Russia as foreign agents (following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 8#Category:Organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent). – Fayenatic London 22:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: What is an "unregistered public association"? Also, the listed merge target should not be a redirect to Category:Non-profit organizations listed as a Russian foreign agent, especially one that is included in categories; any organizations that aren't nonprofits could go here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 07:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support per nom, it looks like a case of WP:OCMISC. In addition it is questionable whether "listed as a Russian foreign agent" is a defining characteristic at all - but that applies to the whole tree of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 3 January 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:Presidential Spokespersons of the Philippines[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. – Fayenatic London 08:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Parent article has been renamed to Presidential spokesperson (Philippines) Howard the Duck (talk) 01:35, 3 January 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_January_3&oldid=1076039768"