Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 26: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 19: Line 19:
* '''Keep''' for categorising under the dependent territory and the continent category trees. (Otherwise combine with the counterparts for other territoires d'outre-mer, collectivités d'outre-mer, pays d'outre-mer and collectivités sui generis.) [[Special:Contributions/61.244.93.97|61.244.93.97]] ([[User talk:61.244.93.97|talk]]) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
* '''Keep''' for categorising under the dependent territory and the continent category trees. (Otherwise combine with the counterparts for other territoires d'outre-mer, collectivités d'outre-mer, pays d'outre-mer and collectivités sui generis.) [[Special:Contributions/61.244.93.97|61.244.93.97]] ([[User talk:61.244.93.97|talk]]) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:* Both the rename and the merge proposal are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory, so this is not a reason to oppose. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
:* Both the rename and the merge proposal are keeping the content in the tree of the the dependent territory, so this is not a reason to oppose. [[User:Marcocapelle|Marcocapelle]] ([[User talk:Marcocapelle|talk]]) 20:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
::* In that case either keep as it is, or, less preferably, keep a big tent category for all collectivités d'outre-mer along with the sole pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. [[Special:Contributions/61.244.93.97|61.244.93.97]] ([[User talk:61.244.93.97|talk]]) 09:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
::* In that case either keep as it is, or, less preferably, keep a big tent category for Roman Catholic churches of all collectivités d'outre-mer along with the sole pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. [[Special:Contributions/61.244.93.97|61.244.93.97]] ([[User talk:61.244.93.97|talk]]) 09:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


==== Category:Pre-1900 Pacific hurricane seasons ====
==== Category:Pre-1900 Pacific hurricane seasons ====

Revision as of 09:28, 28 March 2024

< March 25
March 27 >

March 26

Category:19th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in New Caledonia

Nominator's rationale: Broaden this category to include 19th-century churches of all denominations. There are only two pages in here, and 4 total in the entire Roman Catholic churches in New Caledonia Mason (talk) 23:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for categorising under the dependent territory and the continent category trees. (Otherwise combine with the counterparts for other territoires d'outre-mer, collectivités d'outre-mer, pays d'outre-mer and collectivités sui generis.) 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case either keep as it is, or, less preferably, keep a big tent category for Roman Catholic churches of all collectivités d'outre-mer along with the sole pays d'outre-mer and the collectivité sui generis. 61.244.93.97 (talk) 09:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Pre-1900 Pacific hurricane seasons

Nominator's rationale: Pre-1900 isn't very helpful or clear. I'm very open for alternative same. Mason (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tems

Nominator's rationale: Insufficient content for WP:EPONYMOUSCAT. – Fayenatic London 22:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Janów Podlaski

Nominator's rationale: This category is a mixture of the Janów Podlaski farm and the village which bears the same name (Janów Podlaski). Pretty much nothing in here is defined by the village OR the farm, and does not help with navigation Mason (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created this when I was researching the area, just to save anyone else the trouble and also hopefully so that others would add further articles to the category. It didn't seem any different from other geographic categories, but I have no particular view on whether it stays or goes.--Northernhenge (talk) 21:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion: Correcting nom, the category is not a mixture, though the article mentions both village and stud. There are no members of this category that are not related to the stud farm; they are all articles about horses born at the stud, or stallions breeding there, or related articles. I suggest renaming the category to Category:Janów Podlaski Stud, and putting it under Category:Horse farms. The Janów Podlaski Stud is well known, more so than the village. The stud is a Historic Monument of Poland. Search google scholar for "Janów Podlaski Stud" and you get hundreds of results. I'm not sure why no one has yet created a wiki article for the Janów Podlaski stud, but there's one in Polish-wiki, pl:Stadnina Koni Janów Podlaski.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 09:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Okay, okay, you twisted my arm... I'm working on translating the article here: Draft:Janów Podlaski Stud Farm.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per I am Grorp. There is enough regional distinction in this area and enough articles to justify a category. Montanabw(talk) 15:28, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: rename?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Horse farms in Spain

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's not need to diffuse horse farms to this degree (as in every country gets a farm). Upmerge categories with one or two members Mason (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Oppose: Note that most of the category members are nation-owned stud farms for breeds of horse originating in those countries, or are facilities of historical interest. These aren't just "farms". The word "splitting" made no sense to me because I checked each one of the articles, and all but maybe two are already in their second "farm" categories. As long as you change them from [Category:Horse farms in _______] to Category:Horse farms (so they are not lost), then I'm okay with the change.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 08:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC) Changing 'comment' to opposed' based on Montanabw's rationale as well as my own reading since I wrote the above.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The stud farms in these European nations are quite distinct entities from mere “farms.” The historic importance of these places was often linked to training animals for military purposes. It would be sort of like merging “military contractors” into “factories.” Montanabw(talk) 15:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Though someone named these categories "horse farms" in English Wikipedia, the correct term in English is "stud farm". Our word "farm" connotes agriculture related to food production. However, stud farms were the genetic source for transportation and other elite activities, never a food source, which puts them in an entirely different category to other types of "farming". I'm not sure how other [non-English] languages handle it and whether there is a common word like "farm" tying together two different types of concepts (food versus transport) or if there is a clear distinction in those languages, but a quick skip through google translation tells me they don't. (en:stud farm/farm, sp: ganadería/granja, fr:haras/ferme, de:Gestüt/Bauernhof, hu:ménesbirtok/Farm, pl:stadnina koni/gospodarstwo rolne)   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 18:14, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Facepalm Facepalm. For breeding (genetics), not raising as agricultural commodities. From Farm: with the primary objective of producing food and other crops; it is the basic facility in food production. The WP:WikiProject Transport editors would argue that horses were primarily "power"; transportation machines for riding, or pulling objects. Also, cats, dogs, tigers, and many other animal species are "bred" but not "farmed". "Breeding" is not identical to "farming", though farming livestock certainly involves breeding. I don't know why you are arguing this.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 23:04, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Reports of puppy farms (on Wikipedia as Puppy mill) use the term "farm" in a negative way, whereas the term dog breeder (can't quickly find an article other than Dog breeding) has more of a "stud" connotation. In the UK, I've never heard anyone say "horse farm" but if they did, I'd assume either they were being negative, so equivalent to puppy farm, or neutral about food production in countries where they eat horses. Regarding transport, there must have been a term used to describe mass production of horses when they were used in enormous numbers for transport, but I don't know what that term would have been. Farm might have made sense then. I agree that stud is a much better term than farm for specialist horse breeding as distinct from mass production. --Northernhenge (talk) 11:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Grorp Do you have an alternative target for merging? Mason (talk) 18:31, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison: I don't see why it needs merging at all. Is there some policy requiring there to be 2 entries before you can create a category similar to other categories on the subject? For those of us who work in the "horse breed" topic, we know our breeds by their place of origin. If you remove each country category that only has 1 or 2 entries, and lump them all together under Category:Horse farms, then we would have to click on every single one of them to find, say, stud farms in Russia. I don't think removing any of these subcategories improves anything, and you will instead lose what I would consider valuable information. It's not like these stud farm articles are overcategorized. I don't think there's anything in WP:Categorization or WP:Overcategorization that says we can't have subcategories with a single entry in them. I consider the subcategorization by country valuable information. You may not be interested in horse breeds, history/origin of horse breeds, or breeding in various countries, but some people are and this is not fancruft... it's history. I went through every article and made sure they weren't categorized in both Farm and Horse farms (unless they were both).   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 01:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the purpose of categories is to help navigation. But I would like to know where you thing these categories should belogn. If these categories do not belong in farms, where should they be nested? @Grorp Mason (talk) 01:35, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like how they are currently done. But maybe we're not not talking the same language? I understand H:CATS. There is nothing in WP:CFD that explains "splitting". WP:CI was zero help. And I read through WP:CAT. There just doesn't seem to be any explanation of "splitting".
My interpretation of your original suggestion was to remove/delete the [Category:Horse farms in countryX] if the category has only 1 entry, and recategorize its article with [Category:Horse farms] plus [Category:Farms in countryX]. If that's not what the proposal meant, then please explain "propose splitting". If I understood you correctly, then no... don't do it.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 04:46, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) The nomination is to "upmerge for now". There is a problem with how one of the tools works, that it labeling as spilt instead of merge.
2) I don't understand why you aren't answering my question. It seems like much of your argument is that Horse farms aren't farms. I am trying to understand where the category should be nested if does not belong in farms. Hence I have asked: "If these categories do not belong in farms, where should they be nested?" You saying that you like it as is, is not helpful. I am trying to understand your perspective on the category. This is a sperate issue than whether the category gets upmerged or not. If the current structure is wrong, then I would like to understand what is the problem. Mason (talk) 01:48, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Well that's messed up; split and merge are opposites. But thanks for explaining that.
(2) Stud farm articles belong more to Category:Horse breeding and studs than they ever would to Category:Farms, but Category:Horse farms is already under both. And I'm not sure why it's important to not also have them under Category:Farms. Maybe the solution is with diffusing/nondiffusing subcategories (a concept which is still hard to wrap my head around but seems to be related to this issue), making Category:Horse breeding and studs the primary 'parent' category of Category:Horse farms, and Category:Farms one of those alternative 'parent' categories of Category:Horse farms.   ▶ I am Grorp ◀ 07:10, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all no compelling reason in the nom. As the above discussion shows, the naming here is dubious. "Horse farm" is just not a thing in British English, and has no article. A search on the term shows many places that were "horse farms" in the US & elsewhere in the 19th century or before, when mass-breeding of working horse was a thing. Current places that are notable tend not to use "horse farm", even in the US, and can be divided into stud farms or racing stables, with some overlap. Probably our categories should be re-arranged this way. Johnbod (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My experience in this area is not significant, but my impression was that a horse farm usually (but not quite always, especially in terms of simple searches; see "one-horse farm") means a stud farm, and horse farming means that you have an ordinary old-fashioned farm with a horse to pull the plow (as contrasted with tractor farming). This is sufficiently confusing that I could wish for completely different names in these categories. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:41, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Warren Spector

Nominator's rationale: More useful than an eponymous category. If the new name is agreed, only Warren Spector should be removed, but he and the category should remain linked. – Fayenatic London 21:15, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Both categories could be useful. For example there is Category:Hideo Kojima and multiple sub-categories for video games and other article types. Category:Video games designed by Hideo Kojima is a sub-category with game pages. So we could use both for Warren Spector too. -22:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Artanisen (talk) 22:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crusader video games

Nominator's rationale: Only 2 games so not really a franchise. Both articles are interlinked and in plenty of other categories already. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 00:06, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Upscale areas of Dhaka

Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. May be suitable for a list if it can be supported with citations from WP:RS. – Fayenatic London 21:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Super Bowl halftime show sponsors

Nominator's rationale: Not WP:DEFINING. – Fayenatic London 21:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Super Bowl halftime show performers

Nominator's rationale: Is this a defining quality of these acts? Overcategorization per WP:PERFCAT. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We put readers first over editors in Wikipedia. This is not overcategorization. They list the performers who performed in the Super Bowl Halftime Show. Abhiramakella (talk) 22:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"We put readers first over editors in Wikipedia. " I don't understand what you mean by this. Mason (talk) 22:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People from Ghardaïa

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. only one person in this category, which is unhelpful from navigation Mason (talk) 05:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Three members as of relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 16:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drum Corps Associates corps

Nominator's rationale: The organization was dissolved and the members moved to the All-Age classification of Drum Corps International. I wish to rename it to Former Drum Corps Associates corps for maintaining the grouping for its historicity. Why? I Ask (talk) 06:05, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:27, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American expatriate male actors in England

Nominator's rationale: New category, intersection of where someone is from and where they live and what they do and what their gender is. WP:NONDEF or WP:NARROWCAT or at least some form of WP:OVERCAT? I just realized there are others like these, I may go searching for them and add them later, or others are welcome to. Largoplazo (talk) 11:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:51, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are they really "largeish"? EGRS's examples are categories that would have over a thousand entries if unsplit, not a mere hundred or so. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American female winemakers

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I don't think this meets the criteria under EGRS at the intersection of gender, occupation, and nationality. I've already added everyone to an American women category. Mason (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep as defining, a Google books search for female winemakers finds four books that look like reliable sources, all from 2000 or later.
  • Crushed by Women: Women and Wine (Jeni Port, 2000)
  • Women of Wine: The Rise of Women in the Global Wine Industry (Ann B. Matasar, 2006)
  • Women Winemakers: Personal Odysseys (Lucia Albino Gilbert, ‎John C. Gilbert, 2020)
  • Women of the Vine: Inside the World of Women Who Make, Taste, and Enjoy Wine (Deborah Brenner, 2007) TSventon (talk) 03:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And do those sources refer specifically to American women?
The conundrum here is that, per Johnbod, we don't actually have a generic "female winemakers" category, and we need to establish whether that is an oversight first. Because it's difficult to establish that being a woman in the winemaking industry is a particularly notable thing in the United States relative to the wider world. And even then, the reason that we don't have a blanket "women in occupation X" exception is because the main reason for most of those categories to be small is the historical tendency for society to discourage women from running businesses, which is more a society thing than a women thing. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not really; once we have "a generic "female winemakers" category", as we now do, whether a diffusion to a US national category is viable is simply a matter of numbers. No special sources for US examples are needed, though it is utterly unsurprising that WhatamIdoing has very kindly been able to find some (see below). And no doubt US women figure largely in the non-specific books TSventon found above, for which also thanks. I think our work here is done. Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the main issue is whether there should be a generic "female winemakers" category, so I have created Category:Women winemakers. American women winemakers are likely to be most numerous as the US has the largest wine industry in an English speaking country and there are a lot of American editors on en Wikipedia. TSventon (talk) 14:42, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It is easy to see they are the most numerous, & at present no other national sub-cats seem likely to survive the Cfd Eye of Mordor. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, at least for now. There are books like Wine Country Women of Napa Valley (ISBN 978-1944903183) and journal articles like doi:10.1111/1468-0424 "Donne in the Vineyards: Italian‐American Women in the California Wine Industry" that are exclusively about women making wine in the US. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:23, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Napoleonic looting of art

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge these categories are extremely overlapping Mason (talk) 03:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Assassinated Burundian monarchs

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one monard in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Did you check PetScan to see if there are more? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 22:06, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not check petscan in this case. But I did look through all the assassinated Burundian people to see if there were any other monarchs I had missed. Mason (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Traditionally some "by nationality" categories only have one entry. This is because the full by nationality tree is intended to contain all nationalities intersecting with the topic. I think leaving out categories from the parent Category:Assassinated monarchs by nationality only because they have one or few entries provides for incomplete information regarding the topic of assassinated monarchs.
The intention is to build it up collaboratively in time to include all nations where at least one monarch was assassinated. I do think that having a separate category with only one or few entries in a parent category "by nationality" aids in navigation because the reader can simply browse through the nationality category looking for relevant assassinated monarchs. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual merge, also because it is odd to ghettoize monarchs of a nationality in an assassinated subcategory and separate them from non-assassinated monarchs. This is more something for lists. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Honestly, it makes me think we should mark assassinated categories as non-diffusing so that assassinated folks aren't ghettoized. Mason (talk) 01:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with this drive to limit diffusion of categories so much. There are niche interests of readers for a variety of reasons. From specialized researchers to specific interests or intellectual needs. Although I understand NotEverything, I also understand that diffusing assassinated monarchs by nationality is reasonable because assassination of monarchs is of historical interest and the assassination of monarchs in their nations is something notable in its own. Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 00:29, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Thinker78 What do you think about marking the assassination categories as non-diffusing for monarchs of that nationality? Mason (talk) 00:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Example? Sincerely, Thinker78 (talk) 02:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century European male musicians

Nominator's rationale: We don't need to diffuse male musicians by continent Mason (talk) 20:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti-Zionism by former country

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Words and phrases by language

Nominator's rationale: Many subcategories in it have the 'statute', like, ""This category is not for articles about concepts and things but only for articles about the words themselves. Please keep this category purged of everything that is not actually an article about a word or phrase". However I checked a couple and see that people dont care and put there items that are just about subjects that have title in foreingn language, such as e.g. Goralenvolk, Gokenin, Gradonachalnik.
  • Shall we undertake a really massive cleanup (and put these cats on watchlist to prevent from "contamination", since it will most surely happen )
  • or change the 'statutes' to reflect the status quo? I do feet that catigories, like, category:Russian terms to describe Russian culture are of value.- Altenmann >talk 19:33, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. While we are at that, it will make sense to double-check the ledes for proper "XXX is a term for YYY" vs. "XXX is YYY". For example two articles about basically same concept but in different cultures introduced dirfferently:
    • Mazhory (from majors; roughly translates as "the superior ones"[1]) is a slang term used in the Soviet Union and post-Soviet countries for children of privileged people,
  • vs:
    • Princelings (Chinese: 太子党), also translated as the Party's Crown Princes, are the descendants of prominent and influential senior communist officials in the People's Republic of China.
- Altenmann >talk 20:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vandalism on Wikipedia

Category:Vandalism on Wikipedia has only one page on it. What's the point in keeping it around? TheTechie (formerly Mseingth2133444) (t/c) 15:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina jujutsuka

adding to bundle per (@Marcocapelle:) Mason (talk) 00:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. only one person in here, which isn't helpful for navigation Mason (talk) 13:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dyne Foundation

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. Even if this is an organization Dyne Foundation, there's no need to add software to the category. Mason (talk) 13:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Camping World

Nominator's rationale: Insufficient content for eponymous category, containing only one company and an example of its sponsorship. – Fayenatic London 13:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honored Science and Technology Figure of Ukraine

Nominator's rationale: Non-notable award category. Merited Science and Technology Functionary of Ukraine, piped as "Honored Science and Technology Functionary of Ukraine", is one of many redlinked entries listed at Honorary_titles_of_Ukraine#Merited_titles. – Fayenatic London 12:51, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Portland Duffs

Nominator's rationale: Per NARROWCAT. User:Namiba 12:36, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Webtoon webcomic stubs

Nominator's rationale: Delete template and category, both unused. – Fayenatic London 12:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:TV3 (Norway)

Nominator's rationale: Moved article per WP:NCBC without RM so can't speedy. Category should move for the same reason. Gonnym (talk) 11:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Islamic State – Khorasan Province activities

Nominator's rationale: Redundant and WP:OVERLAPCAT, I suspect nearly all activities would fit into Category:ISIS (K) terrorist incidents. Brandmeistertalk 10:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People convicted of attempted voluntary manslaughter

Nominator's rationale: Only one person in this category, upmerge for now. Mason (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:21st-century Danish pharmacists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There is only one person in this category, which is unhelpful for navigation Mason (talk) 01:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why are pharmacists sorted by century at all? I'm inclined to suggest deleting entirely.--User:Namiba 00:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Paleontology portal

Nominator's rationale: These seem to effectively be a duplicate category. I'm bringing the category here in case I'm missing something obvious Mason (talk) 01:39, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Lázaro, Agapito Ojosnegros (11 February 2024). "Fallece a los 81 años Isabel Mijares, enóloga pionera y exponente del sector del vino". El Norte de Castilla (in Spanish). Retrieved 11 February 2024.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_26&oldid=1215979559"