Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 14

< May 13	May 15 >

May 14[edit]

Category:Royal Antwerp F.C. (women) players[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 for now (merging can be dealt with later if needed) (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Royal Antwerp F.C. (women) players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category has 1 article. And since the club doesn't have a women's section anymore no other players will be added. The player in there can go into Category:Royal Antwerp F.C. players Dutchy45 (talk) 20:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on a 1 minute check, I've added another article to the category, and am sure that other players from the team have articles, and so could be added. Deleting this and adding women to a category for the men's football team is incorrect, and inconsistent with all other women's football team categorisatoon. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joseph2302. Seany91 (talk) 15:31, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Giant Snowman 19:52, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Joseph. Giant Snowman 19:53, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Royal Antwerp F.C. (women) is tagged for merging with K Kontich FC (women), and if this article merge happens, then the category should be moved to Category:K Kontich FC (women) players and include players of the club's entire history (under all the team names they used). And then there'll definitely be some more players who can be added e.g. Sofie Van Houtven who played for the club when it was known as Beerschot AC (women). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Joseph, however merge if the article merge goes through.--Mvqr (talk) 10:00, 18 May 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:Soviet propaganda ministers of Ukraine[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) 05:24, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Soviet propaganda ministers of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There was no such office as propaganda minister in the Soviet Union or Ukraine and we have no by country parent category of that kind. Brandmeister^talk 20:03, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- The one article is well categorised already. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:43, 15 May 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:Soja[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: soft delete per WP:NOQUORUM. The category may be restored on request at WP:REFUND. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Soja (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic, it is not or hardly mentioned in any articles to which this might potentially apply. Note that this is not a smallcat nomination because the main article contains a list with quite a few bluelinks. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 07:29, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:15, 14 May 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:Sorbian-American culture[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) Qwerfjkl talk 22:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sorbian-American culture to Category:Sorbian American

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 07:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 16:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Not enough to justify a seperate category and not likely to grow. Rathfelder (talk) 08:55, 22 May 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:Military history of the Buyid dynasty[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 4#Category:Military history of the Buyid dynasty

Category:Ukraine userboxes[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ukraine userboxes to Category:Ukraine user templates

Nominator's rationale: Obvious duplicates. "User templates" is the standard name for userbox categories for whatever reason. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:40, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 04:20, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Because the creator of the category pre-emptively implemented this merge (by moving the sole member to the category I suggested) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:17, 16 May 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:Chinese Canadian Wikipedians[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. Based on the precedent, I think there's reasonable consensus to delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Chinese Canadian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We've generally deleted "dual ethnicity" categories in the past -- see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/Topical index#Wikipedians by ethnicity and nationality * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:38, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, if kept to Category:Canadian Wikipedians of Chinese descent, which is the normal format for dual ethnicity categories. This seems well enough populated to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:48, 15 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once you start adding "descent" to a category name you run right into Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 12#Category:Wikipedians by ancestry where we established consensus to delete all such categories (and the number of users in it was not a factor there). I also just realized that this exact category was previously deleted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/User/Archive/December 2008#Category:Chinese Canadian Wikipedians, but G4 would be a stretch at best since nobody other than the nominator commented at that discussion so in modern parlance it would be a "soft delete". * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per precedent in the 2021 discussion. A category of Wikipedians interested in ethnic minorities would be more useful, but we probably already have that. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ― Qwerfjkl talk 09:06, 5 June 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:Wikipedians who stands with Ukraine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted per author request (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:17, 16 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who stands with Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate advocacy user category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:34, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To all commenters: can we please not turn this discussion into a political slugfest? This nomination is in no way intended as an attack on Ukraine (which I support myself), but instead an attempt to enforce long-established rules relating to categorization of users, as I've been doing since 2020. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:44, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not helpful in developing an NPOV spirit among wp editors. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 15 May 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:Mayan chiefdoms of the Yucatán Peninsula[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkl talk 22:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Mayan chiefdoms of the Yucatán Peninsula to Category:Postclassic Mayan polities in the Yucatan peninsula

Nominator's rationale: The categorised entities were more properly polities or states rather than chiefdoms (eg see Sharer & Traxler 2006 [The ancient Maya (6th ed.)] p. 73, Rice 2004 [Maya Political Science (1st ed.)] pp. 4-7). In addition, these polities were not of the Yucatan peninsula, but rather in said peninsula. Finally, they were Postclassic states, rather than Classic city-states (which also existed in the Yucatan peninsula, and so should be distinguished from the polities in this category). (Asdfjrjjj (talk) 04:39, 19 April 2022 (UTC))[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 07:30, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 07:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Asdfjrjjj: quite a few articles use the words "chiefdom" or "province" (the former even in some article titles). It might be an idea to find consensus about the article titles and texts first. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 22 May 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:Bakery cafés[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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:58, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Bakery cafés to Category:Bakeries

Nominator's rationale: Since I've proposed merging List of bakery cafés into List of bakeries, I'll also propose upmerging Category:Bakery cafés into Category:Bakeries. Bakeries come in many forms... there's no need to separate out cafés specifically. Also, café redirects to coffeehouse; "cafe" is a vague term, at least in the United States. There's no bakery café. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:28, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If merged it should be a manual merge because articles may already be in e.g. Category:Bakeries of the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment shouldn't this merge into a restaurant category? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:49, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Or disperse among Category:Coffeehouses and cafés by country? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 07:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 07:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, not all of them are clearly bakeries. On the other hand, not all of them are clearly cafés either. If this category is going to be dissolved, recategorizing should take place manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 15 May 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:User TeX[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) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:User TeX to Category:User latex

Nominator's rationale: These seem to be the same thing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:46, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose LaTex is an expansion on TeX and not the reverse. If you are to merge them, you should merge them in the opposite direction. There are other expansions incompatible with LaTeX. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 06:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fine with reverse merging, but I'm still unconvinced there's actually a useful distinction between these. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:47, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 27 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Relisting comment, if reverse merged the following subcategories should be renamed in conjunction:

I will tag these categories too. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 07:45, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 07:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Not the same thing. LaTeX is built upon the TeX foundation, but not every LaTeX user is able to program in the underlying TeX and not every TeX user knows LaTeX.--Mvqr (talk) 10:05, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose As a LaTeX user, can confirm I do not know the underlying TeX very much if at all. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:24, 21 May 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:Historians of Ukrainian descent[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) Qwerfjkl talk 22:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Historians of Ukrainian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one article, about a person of mixed ethnic background who is already in Category:Ukrainianists. Do we want to classify historians by descent? Rathfelder (talk) 07:47, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl talk 07:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 12:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are now more articles. 08:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)Rathfelder (talk)
Delete, as a trivial intersection. The number of articles is irrelevant. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are 22 subcategories in Category:Historians by ethnicity, some well populated, some not. Do we need some sort of policy to decide which are worthwhile? I dont think I am alone in being wary of ethnic occupational categories as often being not defining and sometimes of being unverifiable. Rathfelder (talk) 20:11, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sceptical about those too. By the way Category:Historians of Ukrainian descent is not even about ethnicity, it is about the nationality of one's ancestors. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Many historians, maybe a majority of our articles, work on the history of their native land, whether or not they are still there. They could all be categorised ethnically but it doesnt seem very useful. Better to categorise by subject they study which is easier to define and verify. Rathfelder (talk) 08:52, 22 May 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.

Amarna letters by location[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 3#Amarna letters by location

Category:Amarna greeting letters[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 3#Category:Amarna greeting letters

Category:Figures in sexual harassment scandals[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) Qwerfjkl talk 09:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Figures in sexual harassment scandals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category creates compelling WP:BLP concerns. I think it's best to delete it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 02:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree completely. All the entries on the page have well-documented histories of involvement in sexual harassment scandals, all backed up by accredited sources. Treybien2 (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. It makes sense to keep the category and I believe it will help people using Wikipedia if it is kept. Historyday01 (talk) 13:56, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. There is some precedent at this 2021 RFC. Painting17 (talk) 03:25, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, we already have Category:Sex offenders which is a clearer title than this one anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sex offenses - such as rape, child molestation, indecent exposure, etc. - and sexual harassment are not the same thing. Treybien2 (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sexual harassment may be a sexual offense too, and only if it is a sexual offense it is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do figures in sexual harassment scandals include victims? I'd interpret the category name to include victims, but it seems unwise to categorise victims and perpetrators together. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really a defining characteristic unless the accused is convicted and there is proof. A lot of people accused of sexual harassment or misconduct don't get convicted due to a lack of evidence supporting claims. 2001:569:7F96:EE00:1552:AA4D:53B8:623B (talk) 22:37, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a defining characteristic, and a BLP issue given how vague "figures in" can be interpreted. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious BLP issues. There are categories for people convicted of crimes or people who were victims of crimes, which are far more appropriate. This is too vague in terms of the "figures" and what counts as a "scandal".LM2000 (talk) 06:44, 2 June 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:Television stations in Raleigh–Durham[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, as part of the hierarchy of categories which use the Research Triangle name. It might also be useful to create the categories suggested by Marcocapelle, as sub-cats rather than replacement categories, as these could fit better into some of the parent categories. – Fayenatic London 07:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Television stations in Raleigh–Durham to Category:Television stations in the Research Triangle

Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support speedy C2C aligning with parent cat Category:Mass media in the Research Triangle. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:05, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- "research triangle" is an obscure local term. It is the parent that should be renamed. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Split between Category:Television stations in Raleigh, North Carolina, Category:Television stations in Durham, North Carolina and Category:Television stations in North Carolina, the tree is mostly organized by city and that makes the most sense. Peterkingiron also has a fair point. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Research Triangle is the main article for the metro area, and the name is commonly used. Do not split, as the communities are in a single media market. - Eureka Lott 17:14, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ― Qwerfjkl talk 09:15, 5 June 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:Wonder Boy series[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 June 5#Category:Wonder Boy series

Category:Shaykhism[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) Qwerfjkl talk 09:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shaykhism to Category:Shaykhís

Nominator's rationale: rename, apart from the main article this is a set category with adherents of Shaykhism. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:53, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:30, 14 May 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:Songs about sexuality[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: containerize. ✗plicit 12:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose containerizing Category:Songs about sexuality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: containerize, articles that are not in the subcategories are often just vaguely related to sexuality, take e.g. Afternoon Delight containing sexually suggestive wordplay. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another receptacle for some editors to dump anything they think is 'about' sex/sexuality/human relations etc. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Containerize The difference between this and "romantic" songs is going to be hard to figure out exactly, the sub-cats are a little clearer, although some may have their own issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:27, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, while I am [Sexy and I Know It]], if one is unable to subcategorise these items then it is pretty much useless.--Mvqr (talk) 10:08, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. ― Qwerfjkl talk 09:20, 5 June 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:Days of the week with adjectives[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) 05:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Days of the week with adjectives (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not defining. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:13, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Also add to WP:DAFT. Painting17 (talk) 03:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fully agree with Painting17. --Bduke (talk) 01:55, 15 May 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.