Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) at 03:12, 25 April 2022 (→Category:Psychoanalytic terminology: Closed as no consensus (XFDcloser)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< March 8 March 10 >

March 9

[edit]

Category:Morgan le Fay

[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. bibliomaniac15 04:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, with very few exceptions these are works generally based on Arthurian legend. Of course Morgan le Fay plays a role, but usually not a bigger role than king Arthur himself. The articles are already in the tree of Category:Works based on Arthurian legend and that seems sufficient. The few exceptions that really evolve around Morgan le Fay can be interlinked directly in the article, e.g. in a See also section. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The character has been depicted in works that have nothing to do with Arthur, including several set in the modern era. Dimadick (talk) 23:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- It is not an exact fit, but this has something of the feel of a PERF category, though this is about a character represented rather than a performer. Are we to have categories Category:Sir Lancelot and Category:Sir Gawain or any one else in a host of characters of Arthurian romance? The Arthurian cycle is essentially medieval legend. We may threat this in a similar way to SciFi universes, where the tendency is to merge everything into a single category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If these are not based upon the character from Arthurian legend, then this is WP:SHAREDNAME. Even if the other characters may be "inspired by". Listify if wanted, so each entry can be explained, which cannot be done in categorisation. - jc37 02:12, 26 March 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:Heads of state of Slovakia

[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: manual merge to Category:Heads of state by country, Category:Heads of state in Europe. Kbdank71 01:16, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Manual merge to parents as needed. This is a follow-up to the similar Czech category just deleted per consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 21#Category:Heads of state of the Czech Republic. – Fayenatic London 11:29, 9 March 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:Himachali people

[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. bibliomaniac15 05:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category when we already have Category:People from Himachal Pradesh as a large parent category with enough sub-cats based on region and occupation. 'Himachali' is not an 'ethnic identifier' either, but a demonym for the people residing in the state, for which the Category:People from Himachal Pradesh is enough. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But the category People from Himachal Pradesh does not imply the ethnic Himachali people as some people of the category are of the Punjabi ethnicity. GujaratiHistoryinDNA (talk) 13:21, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is unnecessary since we already have a mega category titled Category:People from Himachal Pradesh, which includes all the necessary sub categories. Himachal Pradesh was not created on ethno-linguistic lines like Punjab, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, so it cannot and should not have an ethnic category like Category:Punjabi people. Himachal Pradesh was created as a union territory in 1956 merging hilly regions of then British ruled Punjab Province. Himachal Pradesh is similar to the states of Uttarakhand, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Arunachal Pradesh, etc that are NOT created on ethnic lines. Thus the categories for those states are similar to that of Category:People from Himachal Pradesh, etc. These states have multiple ethnic groups, for some of which ethnic categories are there. - Fylindfotberserk (talk) 17:12, 9 March 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:Black-and-white music videos

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 17#Category:Black-and-white music videos

Category:Former or old logos

[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:Non-free former or old logos. bibliomaniac15 05:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category describes the use to be restricted to non-free content. This should be specified in the title (or changed in the description). ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Davidwr (talk · contribs)'s edit comment is enlightening This includes 1) non-free old logos with a valid fair use rationale, 2) non-free old logos which should be deleted, 3) free old logos which belong on the Commons, 4) free old logos that for whatever reason need to be here. Ideally it will only have #1 and #4 -- thus where did the "#4" content go? There would likely be some free logos that are "free" in the US, and thus available for EN.wiki, but not free somewhere else, so cannot be moved to Commons. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 13:44, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was the user who began categorizing files in this category. The purpose of the category is to collect all files that might not meet WP:NFCCP and nominate them for deletion, which I already did. The request however was closed because batch nominations wasn't deemed appropriate.Jonteemil (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Jonteemil: for the reocrd, it appears that you were referring to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 September 5 – not that we are here to reopen that discussion. But if I understand correctly, you are in effect confirming that the member files are non-free, which means this nomination should go ahead; is that correct? – Fayenatic London 21:07, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 07:16, 9 March 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:Invasive agricultural pests

[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. bibliomaniac15 05:54, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A type of invasiveness is being an agricultural pest. These categories appear to be largely synonymous other than the definition of invasive typically specifying the species must be introduced to the area of study. See some previous CfDs on invasive species categories here: Template:Invasive_species_category/doc#Background (note: I don't currently have a strong opinion as to whether "Agricultural pests" itself should be a category or if it would be better as a list article for example.) Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 00:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't think I was aware that dingoes are regarded as invasive anywhere. Dingo did not have it either so I added it. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Marcocapelle: precisely so. Both are invasive species. Neither are agricultural pests. They are not synonyms. Category:Invasive species in Africa ( 1 ) could include agricultural pests in it, but I doubt many members would be. --awkwafaba (📥) 02:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (I have been notified as creator) - On this specific nomination this is not correct: A type of invasiveness is being an agricultural pest. I am not entirely certain but I think you mean that agricultural pests are always said to be "invasive" in a particular plant, livestock animal's body, or field. That is in fact never said. That term is never used that way. On the general question of Invasive categories I oppose the status quo: Ongoing invasions can and should be determined by declaration by a government body currently/formerly hunting that species or by a RS saying the same. This would be as appropriate as any other [[Category:Current events ...]] Category. Invasive Spices (talk) 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I oppose the status quo: Ongoing invasions can and should be determined by declaration ... or by a RS saying the same: Would you be in favor of alternatively of a category system such as Category:Agricultural pests in the Global Invasive Species Database[1] or Category:State-listed noxious weeds of Nevada,[2]? Personally those seem a bit trivial as WP categories and might be better as "list" articles if present on Wikipedia at all. I agree if a species is going to be called invasive on WP, it needs to be specifically called invasive in a RS, e.g. 100 of the World's Worst Invasive Alien Species (which, sidenote, people looove to add species to even though it is very clear that it is a specific, narrow, cited list).
By A type of invasiveness is being an agricultural pest I'm referring to the most broadly accepted definition of invasive species, e.g. "An invasive species is a non-native species ... whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic harm, environmental harm, or harm to human health. "[3] Since economic harm alone is a type of invasiveness, and economic harm can take the form of being an agricultural pest, under that definition, being an agricultural pest is a type of invasiveness when that species is not native to the area where it is causing harm. So, under most broadly accepted definitions, "invasive agricultural pest" is exactly synonymous with "non-native agricultural pest", and past CfDs have been pretty clear that introduced/non-native status itself isn't worthy of categorization for individual taxon pages. Or, are you saying that an agricultural pest may not cause economic, environmental, or human harm? I think that is tautological per the definition of "pest", so I am coming up short on examples. I'm not totally sure what you believe was incorrect about the statement and would appreciate any clarification! —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
[[Category:Agricultural pests in the Global Invasive Species Database]] or [[Category:State-listed noxious weeds of Nevada]] I agree those are trivial. I am suggesting combined categories of any invasive listed by any RS. A Nevada category made up of Nevada's state government or any other authority saying a problem exists. Since economic harm alone is a type of invasiveness Misunderstanding. That term is never used that way. past CfDs Yes I am aware. I simply don't like that and want to change it. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Merge. All agricultural pests are native in their original range and invasive when they reach new lands. Invasive is entirely meaningless when not defined by geography. An invasive species in North America may be native in Europe and vice versa. For example, the European chafer is not an invasive species in Europe, it is only invasive in North America.--Mvqr (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
All agricultural pests are native in their original range and invasive when they reach new lands. Some are invasive natives. Many pests are not in an ongoing invasion, having a stable range but eating things we would rather they did not. Invasive Spices (talk) 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to that newly created redirect ("invasive native"); I have nominated it for deletion/retargeting if people are interested in discussing it there. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 18:36, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 07:10, 9 March 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.
[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) 07:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated version of, but identical in scope to Category:Swedish military-related lists. The latter is in the form consistent with Category:Military lists by country. The category's lone article List of Swedish field marshals is already properly subcategorized under Swedish military-related lists via Category:Lists of Swedish military personnel. -- DB1729 (talk) 03:40, 9 March 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:Kasautii Zindagii Kay

[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. bibliomaniac15 04:55, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Why we need category for TV Series? 42774 (talk) 08:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:52, 9 March 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:Kumkum Bhagya

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. (non-admin closure) JBchrch talk 23:37, 21 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Why we need category for TV Series? 42774 (talk) 08:56, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:52, 9 March 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:Water supply in Western Australia

[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:Water supply and sanitation in Western Australia. Category:Water management in Western Australia and Category:Water supply in Western Australia into Category:Water supply and sanitation in Western Australia Kbdank71 01:37, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The two categories appear to have the same scope, and Water supply in Western Australia has only recently been created. (Strictly speaking "management" could include sewerage whereas "supply" would not, but there appears to be no such entries in Water management in Western Australia.) Mitch Ames (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:38, 9 March 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:Thedwastre Hundred

[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. Kbdank71 02:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Its not likely appropriate to have a category for a long abolished unit. As with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 21#Category:Armidale Dumaresq Shire its likely that there won't be many other articles for the hundred its self. I emptied this category a few days ago but the author re added pages to I bring this to CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: This is presentism, see Wikipedia:Presentism#Shifting_country_names_and_boundaries. These administrative boundaries were in operation for over 700 years. This a completely different kettle of fish to Armidale Dumaresq Shire, the example quoted here, which existed for less than 17 years. As such, they became a useful term by historians, antiquarians and topographers. For example, see John Kirby (topographer), whose pioneering 1735 book The Suffolk Traveller; or, a Journey through Suffolk] uses hundreds as an analytical category. As more and more such historical studies become available on line, there will be a steady increase in the need for such categories as an aid for understanding the historical development of those geographic spaces which were governed by such administrative areas.Leutha (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If names of villages are considered to refer to modern appearances shorn of historical antecedents, then we would need to create separate pages referring to the [[Civil parish of xxx]] of each location, or perhaps a [[History of xxx]] if this information could be merged with other historical aspects of the location. Or even with the parish church? All of these approaches have their merits, however they also involve a lot of work. Reliable secondary sources on these early periods of history are becoming increasingly available, as well as lively local websites collating their local history, so this area has a promising future. Separate pages, each generating its own wikidata entry, would be great, I think. But how would we attract sufficient editors to make this happen? So, I feel it would be premature to delete this category at this stage.Leutha (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Information on what former units a place was in can be discussed in the article its self, Drinkstone for example already mentions that it was in the hundred of Thedwastre. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I certainly agree with you. But the role of categories is not to provide a location for information but to facilitate navigation from the article to article. I note that Beyton does not enjoy the same sort of linkage in the article as Drinkstone. That's why it is important to retain this category.Leutha (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have categories for defining characteristics only, otherwise the article would get loads of category links so that you no longer see the wood for the trees. Defining in this case means that they are English villages. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well:
Parish No. of categories Stub
Ampton 5 yes
Beyton 4 no
Bradfield Combust 4 no
Bradfield St Clare 5 yes
Bradfield St George 5 yes
Drinkstone 5 yes
Felsham 5 yes
Fornham St Genevieve 4 no
Fornham St Martin 5 yes
Gedding 5 yes
Great Barton 4 no
Great Welnetham 5 yes
Hessett 4 no
Little Welnetham 5 yes
Livermere Magna 4 no
Pakenham 4 no
Rattlesden 4 no
Rougham 4 no
Rushbrooke 4 no
Stanningfield 4 no
Thurston 4 no
Timworth 4 no
Tostock 4 no
Woolpit 8 no

So Aside from Woolpit, all the parishes have only 4 or 5 categories, and in each of these cases presence of a stub category is what makes the difference between 4 or 5. If we do more work on those stubs, we can soon get the number of categories down to 2. As for Woolpit, well, perhaps @Marcocapelle would like to make their opinions known as they have clearly already given this some thought. My view is that perhaps they may have a case with pages like Abraham Lincoln, with over 40 categories, but none of our villages, not even a lively place like Woolpit, have anything like that many categories. Perhaps if we start having pages with a couple of dozen categories we can revisit the issue then.Leutha (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See the rule of thumb a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. As stated previously such reliable sources as John Kirby (topographer), to which we might add Frederic Shoberl, Augustine Page (See his A Supplement to the Suffolk Traveller, Or, Topographical and Genealogical Collections Concerning that County (1844) each use the hundreds as an organising principal, defining each village as being within its respective Hundred. I do not find the introduction of an erroneous [Reductio ad absurdum] as helpful. A sensible comparison would be having first level administrative divisions included, i.e. the Okrugs of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, which are 10 in number. This would be just like having the category:Villages in Suffolk which includes our villages, which in turn is part of category:Villages in England by county, and then category:Villages in England.Leutha (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is reasonable to have the former okrugs of the Soviet era in a category about the Soviet era. That is incompatible with English villages that still exist today. The comparison would only have been ok if the villages would have ceased to exist when the concept of Thedwastre Hundred was no longer relevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, largely on the basis that there's no convincing argument put forward for deletion. Thedwastre Hundred existed for centuries and any directory or history book prior to the 20th century would have described the contents of the Hundred (e.g. the parishes within it). Sionk (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are numerous categories that exist for geographical, political and adminstrative areas that no longer exist. Your rationale doesn't make any sense. Why would sources "consistently" refer to the villages as part of a hundred that is no longer adminstratively (or otherwise) used. Sionk (talk) 00:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 02:12, 9 March 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.

World conquest games

[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. Kbdank71 02:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 22#Category:World conquest games. There was consensus to merge that parent to Wargames, and a suggestion to likewise nominate Category:Grand strategy wargames & subcats. However, there is a lead article for grand strategy game with citations for the term, e.g. [4], so I have not nominated those siblings. – Fayenatic London 22:37, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am perfectly happy with Fayenatic london's alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - There's got to be a way to sub-cat so that we can differentiate tabletop board wargames which are continental/world-wide, and those just based upon individual local wars/battles. Lumping them all together reduces navigation in this case. Lookig over Category:Grand strategy wargames, maybe merging to that, is the solution. (though its subcats prolly need a speedy rename from "X games" to "X wargames" to match Grand strategy wargame.) - jc37 02:30, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Well hmm, looking at [[5]], "World conquest" would appear to be the common term for these. Also, checking google, I'm not finding much that calls these "grand strategy" that doesn't use our Wikipedia article as a source. Seems we're in WP:NEOLOGISM territory with that. So maybe the rename needs to start there. I now strongly Oppose the proposal. These are clearly World conquest games/wargames. - jc37 02:40, 26 March 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:Woolen clothing

[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. Kbdank71 02:24, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: the word "woolen" can be spelled "woollen" and the idiom "Wool clothing" is more exact. ChanziP (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: I came across this malformed nomination on the category page with no discussion linked to it, so I moved the rationale here. – Fayenatic London 17:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Option B

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:35, 9 March 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:Psychoanalytic terminology

[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. Kbdank71 03:12, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: manually merge, the category is not about terminology (i.e. a language category) but rather contains a hodgepodge of unrelated terms. Many of the articles are already in a more specific subcategory of Category:Psychoanalysis so they can just be purged here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • No, 24 non-diffused articles is enough populated to get to a limit where it becomes unoverseeable and unclear. AND you forgot to mention the sizable number of subcategories. AND by merging two big categories we would get a huge one. Not a good idea at all! Usability for our users should rule IMHO! --Just N. (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How exactly is a vague word like "terminology" being used as a category increasing usability? This categorisation has actively made locate articles harder for me, because currently I have to check through 2 categories rather than one. --Xurizuri (talk) 16:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 05:28, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:17, 9 March 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:Resovia Rzeszów coaches

[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:Resovia (volleyball) coaches. bibliomaniac15 05:00, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The siblings were recently renamed following the main article's move from Asseco Resovia Rzeszów to Resovia (volleyball). However, the target name was opposed on the Speedy page by User:Dicklyon, stating "Coaches for Resovia (volleyball) and Players for Resovia (volleyball) would seem appropriate. I don't think the parenthetical disambiguator in the middle of a title is a good thing". – Fayenatic London 10:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Option A or B?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 01:13, 9 March 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_March_9&oldid=1084541592"