Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 3

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

July 3[edit]

Transgender people by occupation[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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge for consistency, the LGBT parent categories are not otherwise diffused by Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The intersection is not important. Their transiness is not inherent to their field of work. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In the case of some of the media personalities it might well be inherent to their field of work. That is not to disagree with your point in general, just to say that that one might merit a closer look. DanielRigal (talk) 14:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I accept that that may be a legitimate exception. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:26, 11 July 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:Conductors (music)[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 20:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NATURALDISAMBIGUATION is available, so we shouldn't need to disambiguate in parentheses. Will affect a bunch of subcategories, which should be renamed along with the parent. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:25, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Edited 14:32, 4 July 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:Roman Catholic prince-bishops in the Holy Roman Empire[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) Qwerfjkltalk 20:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is safe to assume that almost all prince-bishops in the Holy Roman Empire were Catholic. Only a few were Lutheran. Even for them, the title of "prince-bishop" was more colloquial than offical since they were hardly ever, with rare exceptions, conferred with the regalia by the Emperor. Lutherans were usually called "administrartors" in these rare cases. In any case, they have their own category: Category:Lutheran bishops and administrators of German prince-bishoprics. A dichotomy in categorisation is usually discouraged. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this proposal seems to result in the Catholic prince-bishops no longer being part of the Catholic bishops tree, at least not via this navigation route. Isn't that a problem? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I don't see this being a problem. Where a Lutheran prince-bishop category exists, it is paired with a Catholic category with both having the same parent. See for example Category:Prince-Archbishops of Bremen. So the Catholic child gets routed back to the Catholic tree by another path. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok. While that does not apply to the articles that are directly in the category, they are in the Catholic tree anyway, e.g. via century trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this. I dont think we need to specify Roman Catholic in situations where there was no other denomination. Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 5 July 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:Roman Catholic archbishops in the Prince-Archbishopric of Salzburg[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 20:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion. No need to disambiguate for Catholic as there were never any Protestant price-archbishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, Salzburg has always been Catholic. It can remain in a Catholic tree even when Catholic is no longer part of the name. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:18, 12 July 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:Transgender clergy[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) JBchrch talk 19:52, 21 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete for consistency, Category:LGBT clergy is not otherwise diffused by Lesbian, Gay or Bisexual. There is no need to merge because all articles are already in an LGBT Christian or Jewish clergy subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 3 July 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:Generalbezirk Litauen[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Category:Generalbezirk Litauen

Category:History in fiction[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 20:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to clarify the actual purpose of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both have a pretty large number of subcategories, so after merging it would become quite messy. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:17, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I support making it a subcategory of historical fiction and renaming, per nom. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:01, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It matches the contents of the category more closely. Dimadick (talk) 03:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support suggestion is a little wordy but it's overall an improvement. Opposed to the current name as it is unclear and has no purpose. Jontesta (talk) 15:08, 7 July 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:Historical letters[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 meaning of the category is ambiguous, with even editors that !voted keep varying in interpretation. The category is also poorly defined (how far back is history?) - any cut-off becomes an ARBITRARYCAT. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:00, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Historical letters is either not very useful or an active attractive nuisance.
The category's name has two possible interpretations: (a) letters written in the past, and (b) letters about history. Interpretation (a) is not useful - the vast majority of letters with Wikipedia articles will have already been written; if this is the intended interpretation, just about all of Category:Letters (message) should go in to it. Interpretation (b) could be useful, and it's supported by the cat being a subcat of Category:Works about history... but it's not actually how it's being used: not one single article is covering a letter about history (at most, they're primary sources relaying then-current events); hence, if interpretation (b) is intended, it's being entirely misused.
It should be deleted and upmerged into Category:Letters (message). If a 'letters about history' category is needed, it should be created with an unambiguous name, so that 'letters within history' don't get miscategorised into it - but, considering that there's no (e.g.) 'letters about art' or 'letters about politics' category, I am suspicious of the desirability of such a category absent a broader initiative around topicalisation. FrankSpheres (talk) 17:47, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the contrary, by century categories are very useful in finding content from the same period. This category is all over the place ranging from antiquity to 19th century which isn't useful at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:20, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, so the article Correspondence of the Kings of Ur, just as one example, doesn't make it worthwhile to have a category like this? that is just one example of some highly useful materials on this topic.--Sm8900 (talk) 17:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Letters are an important class of historical document. At some periods chronicles are another. Much of my research was based on title deeds, accounts and litigation records, which are more classes of historical documents. It may be that some letters do not deserve to be included or should be split into new subcategories, but I see no valid reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:21, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- All epistolary content is related to each other thematically and epistemologically; while the current category may serve as a sort of waste-paper basket, it is clear that most editors have interpreted it as meaning 'letters with historical notability/content'. That is a perfectly sensible category—I would not be opposed to renaming on these lines, but deletion is too far.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:37, 9 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:42, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • All letters can serve as sources for historical works, there is no point in distinguishing "historical" and "non-historical" letters. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly wordy category title since Wikipedia doesn't have articles on letters with no historical significance. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:39, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • (voted above) -- It might be useful to have a headnote clarifying the scope, that these are generally letters (or collections of letters) written before 1900. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as ill-defined. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:08, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as lacking a clear definition, and lacking any way to give a clear definition that is not at some level arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As overly vague, borderline WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. Interestingly, the discussion above shows that we still can't decide between interpretation (a) and interpretation (b). JBchrch talk 11:45, 22 July 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:Investigations[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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:02, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category that references a catmain of Investigation which is a pretty good hint that this isn't a "natural" category. It's a mishmash, mostly Category:Criminal investigation with a few random ones like investigations of the paranormal. A good clue is that it was created without categories, I'm not sure where in the category hierarchy it would go. Le Deluge (talk) 22:59, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was to have a category for all article dedicated to specific investigations, such as Special Counsel investigation (2017–2019), Investigation into the 2012 Benghazi attack, etc. If some articles and/or subcategories are removed so that it only lists specific investigations then would you still be opposed to it?  selfwormTalk) 23:16, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've made the changes that I suggested above. What do you think?  selfwormTalk) 23:27, 13 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The current contents actually group together subcategories about investigations of various types. The grouping seems relevant and defining. Dimadick (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 15:32, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep -- This is a high level category, whose contents are inevitably vague. I am puzzled by "Coroner's investigations". I suspect that each of the articles needs to be merged to the equivalent Coroner's Inquests category, which is the usual term (in UK and probably Australia - do not know about US. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Overly broad and it cannot be fixated like other mentioned alternatives can be. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Completely pointless category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overbroad and unworkable. JBchrch talk 14:55, 16 July 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:Fictional councillors[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:Fictional politicians. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:47, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per precedent in this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge since the current category isn't just local politicians anyway. These are small categories and it's hard to get specific in any useful way. Jontesta (talk) 15:17, 7 July 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.

1918-1922 in the Soviet Union[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/rename all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:03, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge anachronistic categories, the Soviet Union was established 30 December 1922. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. As someone who created at least one of these (hence it coming up on my watchlist) I should have really paid closer attention to the years! Dan Carkner (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Are there any non Russian articles in any of the nominated cats? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There is no such thing as a 1910s Soviet Union. Dimadick (talk) 13:05, 6 July 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:Fiction about observances honoring the dead[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:Death in fiction. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT considering there are only two such observances currently here. Should be merged into Category:Death in fiction and Category:Fiction about observances. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:47, 3 July 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:Death in fiction[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 all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(added later)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, make the category's name defining. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:36, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. The subcategories should be renamed too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per rationale, and supporting Marco's motion as well. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 15:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as clearer and less vague. Also support Marcocapelle's suggestion. Jontesta (talk) 15:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have added the subcategories to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not the same thing. "Fiction about" implies only fiction that is specifically set in the genre. "In fiction", on the other hand, is a catch-all for any article that might be about fictional things vaguely connected to the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoiding vague connections is exactly what the nomination is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    "Catch-all" categories go against WP:NONDEF Wikipedia policy. Categories must not contain literally every work with even a vague mention of such things as cemeteries or suicide, etc. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 15:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I entirely agree. However, this requires a root and branch rethinking of all these "vague mention" categories which have been allowed to proliferate, not piecemeal nominations with no apparent thought as to where the categories will go if they continue to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:20, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are not going anywhere else, this is just a rename nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 19 July 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:Crime in fiction[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 01:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEF, make the category's name defining. Alternatively, could be merged with Category:Crime fiction, I'm not really sure what the difference is. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoiding vague connections is exactly what the nomination is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that these "vague mention" categories need a complete overhaul, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:21, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
 Support per nom. ― Qwerfjkltalk 21:11, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if entries in the category are specifically crime stories rather than fiction books that mention or contain a crime. >> Lil-unique1 (talk) — 23:11, 4 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:Cameras in fiction[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:Fiction about photography. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:12, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories overlap as far as I can tell, but this category is not defining while the merge target is. I suggest merging the categories, while removing anything that is not "about" cameras but simply features them. Alternatively, could be renamed Category:Fiction about photography and made a subcategory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:24, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prefer renaming to Category:Fiction about photography, thus keeping fiction apart, but merging is at least better than keeping as is. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename and slightly prefer Marcocapelle's suggestion. Jontesta (talk) 15:24, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are not the same thing. "Fiction about" implies only fiction that is specifically set in the genre. "In fiction", on the other hand, is a catch-all for any article that might be about fictional things vaguely connected to the subject. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Avoiding vague connections is exactly what the nomination is about. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:23, 12 July 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:Tamil psychological thriller 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: Keep & rename to 'Tamil-language'. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:14, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not create genre categories on the basis of language. That is why I cannot find "Category:English-language psychological thriller films" or "Category:Psychological thriller films by language". Kailash29792 (talk) 09:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- . There is no need to merge the category:"Tamil psychological thriller films" into the Category:"Indian psychological thriller films" because 1) Tamil category is placed under the Category:"Indian psychological thriller films" as a sub-category; 2) It is easy for Tamil readers to search for Tamil film pages under this category instead of looking through all the Indian films, so it will be less time consuming for Tamil readers; 3) Tamil films are not only released from India but also from other countries. This Tamil category will help in the future to collect those film details as well. So, the major point is this: Tamil films are produced all over the world and no need to put them under Indian film category alone. Thanks for asking me to give my comments.--Nan (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle:, I do not have privilege to rename the category or move to a new title as you have suggested to include "Tamil-language" in the title. May be an admin can help with this renaming work? Thanks.--Nan (talk) 12:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is exactly what the closer of this discussion should do, if there is consensus for it. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep but as "Tamil-language". Tamil is a completely different language from Hindi (or Urdu) the normal languages for most Indian films. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 7 July 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:West Prussia[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 2#Category:West Prussia

Category:Green Bay Packers broadcast stations[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/selectively upmerge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:18, 2 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User:Mrschimpf says it's a "pointless category" Mvcg66b3r (talk) 07:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I should have elaborated further on my removal of television stations only from this category; every commercial TV station in Milwaukee and Green Bay has carried a Packer game at least once, be it regular season or pre-season, so for that the category should be removed from those articles, as the category would just end up as a carbon copy of Category:Television stations in Milwaukee and Category:Television stations in Green Bay, Wisconsin. But it should be retained for radio stations and the team and radio network articles, as there can only be one affiliate per market and it's more of a differentiator in that case. Nate • (chatter) 18:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Also I would advise a rename to Category:Green Bay Packers radio stations so it's clearly delineated. Nate • (chatter) 22:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But List of Green Bay Packers broadcasters includes both radio and tv. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 05:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete/selectively upmerge per RevelationDirect. Surely we are not going to categorize stations by everything they broadcast. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 3 July 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:Judeo-Tat theatre[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 July 16#Category:Judeo-Tat theatre

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2022_July_3&oldid=1109731579"