Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 February 18

< February 17 February 19 >

February 18

Category:Streaming-only albums

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Streaming-only albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Album format type was removed from the inbox as there are many different types and it becomes confusing and unclear. Not sure what the purpose is. Previously similar category "Internet album was deleted" and Category:Digital-only albums is also up for deletion. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 22:43, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, and especially half the entries here are non-notable Spotify exclusives. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:28, 20 February 2021 (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:ATSC-M/H stations

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:ATSC-M/H stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I cannot find sources indicating stations that continue to broadcast in Mobile DTV, which never really took off as a standard. The television repack in the US and the launch of ATSC 3.0 on some of the stations in this category means this list is outdated and this is no longer a defining characteristic of the stations in this page, as Mobile DTV has likely been dropped to add subchannels, convert to ATSC 3.0, or conduct ATSC 1.0 simulcasts for ATSC 3.0 stations. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was originally thinking of a list but, clicking through the articles, none of the 10 I clicked on even mentioned it so clearly non-defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People from Indiana in World War I

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining what state a soldier comes from. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - upmerge should also be to Category:Military personnel from Indiana (we do often subcat by state). Note that Category:Military personnel from Indiana has several such subcats by war, unlike other states. Oculi (talk) 02:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No reason to have people by every state in the parent category. It is large enough for subcategorization. Dimadick (talk) 07:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge — Currently, Indiana is the only one. That category shouldn't have any states, and is supposed to be diffused to the subcategories, Army, Marines, etc.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:30, 26 February 2021 (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:.NET Framework

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:.NET. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:.NET Framework to Category:NEW CATEGORY
Nominator's rationale: ".NET" should now be the main category with ".NET Framework" as sub-category referring only to the specific (legacy) implementation next to ".NET Core", ".NET Compact Framework", and ".NET Micro Framework" Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment. Ghettoblaster, could you clarify a bit what is being proposed here? It's unclear from your nominating statement. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:.NET Framework to Category:.NET because many/most articles in this category are available for/compatible with/part of .NET Core, Mono (software), and .NET Framework. I think therefore .NET should be the main category. The current structure is from a time when there was no .NET Core etc. Ghettoblaster (talk) 21:55, 3 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that clarification. If no one objects soon, I will make the change (or, someone else could close this). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 3 March 2021 (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:Women's Engineering Society

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. Side point: The category is categorizing bio articles, so it should probably be renamed to something like Category:Women's Engineering Society members, but I'm not doing that with this close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, people in this category were merely members or even more loosely associated with the organization. Move the subcategory with presidents to Category:Women in engineering. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Do we do speedy keeps here? In any case, the category clearly serves a purpose and merging it with the much more broader 'women in engineering' would not be appropriate. It is standard practice to have categories for people affiliated with organisations. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not at all standard practice to have categories for people affiliated with organisations, it should only be done with presidents and the like for whom it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to link Category:Alumni of the University of Bristol? - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly useful, deleting would set up an unpleasant situation where equivalent categories were available for male engineers and and their societies but not for women. John Cummings (talk) 22:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you tell which male category exists as a counterpart of the nominated category, I will co-nominate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The solution then to the guidance you reference is not to delete the category but clarify on the page how it should be used. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:34, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I referenced the wrong editing guideline. Thanks! - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a British professional association for women in a prfession in which women are underrepresented. There ought at least to be a merge target for female British engineers. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because this is different to women engineers. It is a women's rights organisation not just an engineering society. There were notable male supporters of women in engineering who were members and honorary fellows and it would be a bit misleading to categorise them as British Women Engineers but their support for this cause was noteworthy. I am happy to make improvements to the category and add more to it in time, but currently very busy with a small baby and unable to do as much wiki-editing as before. Zeromonk (talk) 10:41, 21 February 2021 (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:List of Grand Sultans of the Isaaq Sultanate

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contents aren't lists but sultans, name should reflect that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, per current category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:34, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom Categories are not lists. Dimadick (talk) 07:11, 24 February 2021 (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.

People from Karditsa (regional unit)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
* Propose merging Category:People from Karditsa to Category:People from Karditsa (regional unit)
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Karditsa (39,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a good start — This is another that could benefit from going one level higher, Category:People from Thessaly, because there are so few candidates. Should be categorizing from the top down, not the bottom up. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These categories are for small villages and settlements (most with only a small number of residents) and are unlikely to ever have many articles within them. They can be recreated on an as needed basis if there ends up being "enough" articles to populate them. Until then, this merger makes sense to me. Grk1011 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2021 (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.

People from Kastoria (regional unit)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Kastoria (17,000 people) and Argos Orestiko (7,500 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a good start — This is another that could benefit from going one level higher, Category:People from Western Macedonia, because there are so few candidates. Should be categorizing from the top down, not the bottom up. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These categories are for small villages and settlements (most with only a small number of residents) and are unlikely to ever have many articles within them. They can be recreated on an as needed basis if there ends up being "enough" articles to populate them. Until then, this merger makes sense to me. Grk1011 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2021 (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.

People from Kavala (regional unit)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this concerns categorization by 3rd and 4th level administrative divisions of Greece, leading to a endless series of single-article or 2-article categories. The proposal is to merge to 2nd level administrative division, except cities and larger towns, in this case except Kavala (56,000 people). This is follow-up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as a good start — This is another that could benefit from going one level higher, Category:People from Eastern Macedonia and Thrace, because there are so few candidates. Should be categorizing from the top down, not the bottom up. Most of these aren't notable for having been anywhere other than Category:Greek people by occupation, but we can prune.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:53, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These categories are for small villages and settlements (most with only a small number of residents) and are unlikely to ever have many articles within them. They can be recreated on an as needed basis if there ends up being "enough" articles to populate them. Until then, this merger makes sense to me. Grk1011 (talk) 15:02, 23 February 2021 (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:Members of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan by term

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. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan by term (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 3rd Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 4th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 5th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 6th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 7th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 8th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 9th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 10th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 11th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 12th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 13th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 14th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 15th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 16th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 17th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 18th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 19th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 20th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 21st Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 22nd Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 23rd Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 24th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 25th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 26th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 27th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 28th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Members of the 29th Saskatchewan Legislature (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Canadian provincial politicians by legislative term (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Canada does not have a practice of categorizing its federal MPs or provincial MLAs for each individual term of the legislature that they sat in, and Saskatchewan has no unique need for special treatment that Canada's other nine provinces, three territories and federal Parliament aren't getting. This results in significant category bloat, since any MLA who serves for more than just one term has to get added to another new category each time they get reelected (for example, Buckley Belanger and Deakin Hall are each in seven of these, Lorne Calvert and Pat Atkinson are in six, John Nilson is in five and Roy Romanow is in nine) — and it violates WP:OVERLAPCAT, since each individual session of the legislature sees only a small to modest turnover of membership from the previous one, rather than a wholesale replacement of the entire body. Accordingly, WikiProject Canada has had a longstanding consensus to use lists, not categories, to group the members of each individual session of the legislature — see Category:Terms of the Saskatchewan Legislature, where the relevant lists already exist — and there's no pressing reason to break that practice just for Saskatchewan in particular.
(Note as well that the MLAs are already appropriately categorized in other ways (i.e. by political party caucus) for their membership in the legislature, so no context will be lost by deleting these instead of upmerging them to a parent category.) Bearcat (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I created all of these categories and was wonder why the practice isn't used. I had almost finished categorising them all, and merely started it because I noticed that the articles for MLAs from Saskatchewan were neglected. No reason why the province is unique. I also noticed that Canada was the exception to the rule as a lot of countries do have categories for legislative terms; see Category:Legislators by term. I started the category to keep track of all the MLAs similar to Category:Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly by term as categorising only by party affiliation alone seemed lacking. I didn't know that Canada is unique to this; by not having categories for legislative term; like the UK Parliament (Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament), Mexican Congress (Category:Deputies of the LXIV Legislature of Mexico), French Parliament (Category:Members of the National Assembly of the French Fifth Republic), German Bundestag (Category:Members of the Bundestag by term), Irish Dáil Éireann (Category:Teachtaí Dála by term), Israel (Knesset, Turkish Parliament (Category:Members of the Grand National Assembly of Turkey by term), Pakistan (Category:Members of the National Assembly of Pakistan by term), European Parliament (Category:Members of the European Parliament by country and term) etc. Do all those categories violate WP:OVERLAPCAT too? And a only a "small to modest turnover of membership" is not unique to Saskatchewan. Regularly held elections rarely don't. The categorisation of MLAs by legislative term also made it easier for me to see which MLAs were missing from the lists. It would be good to find a consensus here as to whether categorisation of legislators by legislative term is a a rule for all legislators or not. PS i can't link to the referenced categories. Moondragon21 (talk) 02:51, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody said that "small to modest turnover of membership" was unique to Saskatchewan — it's a fundamental and universal reason why categorizing legislators this way anywhere is a fundamentally and universally bad idea, not a uniquely Saskatchewanian issue. There's definitely never been a universal international consensus that it's warranted across the board in all countries — some countries' editor contingents have implemented a local consensus that they wanted to do it, but it's still an inherently bad idea that leads to category bloat and violates OVERLAP, Canada has never been one of the countries where it's been desired, and there's absolutely no sitewide rule that requires it. Bearcat (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the countries mentioned (UK, Mexico etc.) a merge should take place as well, for the same reason as for the nominated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:53, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Not in the sense that coverage of them is likely to actually single out which specific sessions of the legislature they served in, it's not. On whatever future day Justin Trudeau dies, for example, his obituaries are certainly going to contain the words "Member of Parliament" and "Prime Minister" — but they're certainly not going to mention the ordinal numbers 40th, 41st, 42nd or 43rd at all. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — this wasn't thought through in the contentious 2011 Parliamentarians by term. Applied to all politicians for the whole world, this might be on the order of 5-10 times the number of all the currently existing political categories, a massive maintenance task. Unlike England's 5 years or Saskatchewan's 4 years, US Members of Congress and most state legislators are elected to 2-year terms over a decade or so, and often elected to a dozen or more terms. John Dingell alone was elected to 30 terms. As Bearcat mentioned in the nomination, there is modest turnover from term to term. This will become a huge block of categories on each article.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:42, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Plus people don't necessarily only serve in one elected body; US congresspeople and Canadian parliamentarians, for example, have frequently also served in state or provincial legislatures at other times in their careers, meaning that a person would have to be categorized for each individual term in the national legislature and each individual term in the state/provincial legislature (and thus making their profusion of categories even worse). And while this is less of an issue in Canada with its unicameral provincial legislatures and appointed senate, a US figure could potentially have served in a state house and a state senate and the US House and the US Senate, meaning they would have to be bloat-categorized for their membership in four legislative bodies. It's just...not helpful, and is much better handled with lists. Bearcat (talk) 14:16, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, but rename -- It is clear that there are article on all Saskatchewan legislators in recent times. The 28th should be remained to Category:Saskatchewan MLAs 2016-20. This conforms to the category for UK MPs and developed legislatures. It is important to use an abbrovation in this case to limit the space occupied by categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Categorizing Canadian legislators by individual term is not wanted, and I have given several reasons why it is in explicit violation of WP:OCAT to do this: if a person has to be readded to another new category every time they get reaffirmed to another stint in the same job, then our rules against category bloat are being flouted, and if there's only a modest turnover from session to session, such that each category will comprise primarily the same people as the categories before and after it in sequence, then WP:OVERLAPCAT comes into play. Category bloat is not about the amount of character space being occupied by categories, such that it can be mitigated just by shortening the category names — if it takes nine categories to encompass Roy Romanow's stint as a Saskatchewan MLA, because he's being added to another new category each individual time he wins reelection to the same office, then it's still category bloat regardless of whether the categories are named "Members of the xxth Saskatchewan Legislature" or "Saskatchewan MLAs YYYY-YY". But the bottom line here is that (a) Canada does not do this for any of our other federal, provincial or territorial legislatures at present, (b) Canada does not want to start doing this for any of our other federal, provincial or territorial legislatures going forward, and (c) Saskatchewan does not have any uniquely Saskatchewanian need for this if the rest of Canada isn't getting it. Canada uses lists of the legislative sessions, not overlapping category bloatstorms, to convey information about the sessional memberships in our legislatures — and the fact that the UK does something different is not a reason why UK-based editors should get a special right to force Canada to do the same, when Canadian-based editors have a longstanding consensus not to. Bearcat (talk) 02:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Before Canadian legislators are categorized by term, there should be some sort of consensus develop that this is a good idea. I personally think that it's a bad idea. This is an ideal example of something that is great for lists, but bad for categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 14:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete By term categories are a really bad idea, they too quickly lead to lots and lots of categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 9 March 2021 (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:Articles using E without any arguments

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 (no consensus to delete). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:14, 2 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The associated template has been renamed. Also, parameter is more widely used than argument in the context of Wikipedia. JsfasdF252 (talk) 22:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue. This should be a discussion on the template's talk page, since the category is assigned by the template. Once a consensus new name is being assigned by the template, the old category can be speedy-deleted. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Theoretically the wrong venue, but who monitors template talk pages? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to include the word "exponential". E or e is misleading. In French is indicates an ordinal 3rd is 3e. In computing E is used as 10-exponential for large numbers, but in maths e is a number where x=ex. The present name is ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Since the template is now Template:X10^ after an RM, the category should move too based on WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagged with a neutral notice at Template talk:X10^. While that's not procedurally required for CFD, implementing this change will require a template change and I hope that at least partially addresses @Jonesey95:'s venue concerns. - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the one article in the category Renée Dupuis is misusing the template:e to try to achieve an exponented e like an exponented "st" or "nd" or "rd" to make an ordinal number in a reference. That article should be fixed, but doing so will empty the category which will no doubt lead to kerfluffle. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:17, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might suggest emending Renée Dupuis by replacing {{e}} with <sup>e</sup> . Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole point of the category is to fix such mistakes and thereby empty the category. Done.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — this is to catch Template:E (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) from the French. Instead, should replace {{e}} with <sup>e</sup> , Template:E^ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), Template:10^ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), or Template:X10^ (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) everywhere. Don't need a category, what links here works.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I think the nomination has been changed since I voted about. I might have preferred "x10^ " . Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2021 (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:Works based on Street Fighter

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. As noted, per the guideline WP:RELIST, discussions should generally only be relisted twice. A relist should also not be used in place of a "no consensus" result. It was my mistake to relist it a third time, so I am closing it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Street Fighter is not a single work which most of these other works are based on, its a large franchise which has many instalments in different media. ★Trekker (talk) 22:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The new category would effectively be a parent to the whole franchise, and would be indistinguishable from parent category Category:Street Fighter. Dimadick (talk) 17:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Dimadick: No it wouldn't.★Trekker (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main category also contains players and characters, which would not belong in a mass media category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would like to see some discussion on the questions that Fayenatic london has posed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 22:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 18 February 2021 (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:Sanai Researchers from Iran

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. I have also made a list at Sanai#See_also. – Fayenatic London 09:39, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Sanai Researchers from Iran to Category:Sanai researchers
Nominator's rationale: There are only three articles in this category. I suggest broadening it to open it to Sanai researchers of any nationality. (Even if we do this, I don't think there are any more articles to be added, but at least it opens it up a bit for potential expansion.) If renamed, the category should be removed from Category:Iranian people by occupation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Researchers of Persian literature per WP:SMALLCAT and borderline WP:NONDEF. They are all three professors of literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- If kept (or renamed) a headnote explaining who Sanai was would be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 20 February 2021 (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:MFA of Ukraine Spokesperson

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. – Fayenatic London 09:32, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:MFA of Ukraine Spokesperson to option A Category:Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ukraine) spokespersons or option B Category:Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ukraine spokespersons.
Nominator's rationale: (1) Expand abbreviation of MFA; the article about it is Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Ukraine), so there are two possible naming formats for the category, one with the parentheses and one without; (2) pluralize; (3) capitalization fix. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 18 February 2021 (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:Order of Saint George and Reunion

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Order of Saint George and Reunion
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Order of Saint George and Reunion‎
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Knights of the Order of Saint George and Reunion‎
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Order of Saint George and Reunion was an award from the former Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. The recipients were already very prominent before winning the award and the 6 articles are evenly split between those that mention the award in passing with other honours and those that don't mention it at all. There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2021 (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:Recipients of the Supreme Order of the Renaissance

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Supreme Order of the Renaissance
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT-1, WP:OVERLAPCAT-2 and WP:OCAWARD-3)
The Supreme Order of the Renaissance is an award that given out in 6 classes but I identified 3 groups of recipients:
1: Foreign Leaders: When high ranking visitors came to Jordan, or vice versa, this was given out as souvenir to commemorate the visit. About half the category contents are to foreign officials like Sarah Crown Princess of Brunei and Prince Joachim of Denmark who are not remotely defined by this award.
2: Local Royals and Prime Ministers: About half the category are local royals and Jordanian prime ministers who are well categorized under Category:House of Hashim or Category:Prime Ministers of Jordan.
4: Other Jordanians: I would have thought this group might be defined by the award but the articles sure don't treat it that way and either mention it in passing or not at all: Ali Ghandour, Tareq Suheimat, Amer Khammash, Daoud Hanania.
There wasn't a list so I created a collapsible one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 18 February 2021 (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/2021_February_18&oldid=1073192868"