Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 13

< January 12 January 14 >

January 13

Category:Laura Nyro tribute 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: no consensus. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, only one entry ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am going to take the liberty of pasting in here some comments I made previously for some comments I made in 2014 about Category:Dusty Springfield tribute albums. The rationale is the same, and I want to encourage other Wikipedians to give this some consideration.
Comments from similar discussion on Dusty Springfield tributes from 2014:

"I would not strongly object to this, but let me explain why I created that and numerous other single-entry subcategories within Category: Tribute albums. The Tribute album category was populated with many entries, some of which were easy to eyeball and identify with the artist or band to whom the tribute was being made, but many of which were not immediately clear. The Shelby Lynne album currently in the category in question, Just a Little Lovin', is an example of this. If users were not familiar with that song, they would not be able to at a glance tell who the artist was whose work was being covered. It seemed much more browsable and user-friendly to minimize the number of album articles directly in the category for Tribute albums, and categorize them by the artist or band (or other uniting theme, such as Category:Tribute albums to music-related organizations). This allowed them to be identifiable at a glance as to who the artist was that was the subject of the tribute, and it allowed alphabetical organization by the covered artist (in this case, under "S" for "Springfield".) Now, I understand that there are also concerns about over-categorizing, and I want to be respectful of that. Additionally, this is one of those jobs that I started a while ago, and meant to come back to sooner, but got sidetracked and so put off on to the back burner. However, I still think that the general approach has merit. If the consensus on the Dusty category is to keep it, then I would return to the Tribute album category and continue work on creating subcats for artists being tributed on the individual articles remaining in that category. Please let me know if I can expand on any of these comments... ...I don't know if there are additional relevant articles, but I do want to encourage my fellow Wikipedians to ask themselves if in this specific situation (that is, tribute albums) it is of greater service to WP users to use subcategories even when there is only one article. It is my belief that it is."

Thanks to all for their contributions and let's discuss further as appropriate, whether on this or another WP talk or discussion page. KConWiki (talk) 06:37, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and containerize Category:Tribute albums — per substantive rationale, and 2014 result of no consensus.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have left a note at WT:ALBUMS asking for comments on the principle. – Fayenatic London 12:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I like KConWiki's rationale a lot. If the whole purpose of categories is for increasing navigation/searchability throughout the site, and it is to my understanding that this is the case, then any little convenience like a subcategory with a name label certainly aids in that. I for one am not familiar with the Dusty Springfield song which is the namesake of that tribute album KCon mentioned (nor Springfield's discography in general), so being able to catch at a glance that it's a tribute to her rather than any old Joe can only be helpful. QuietHere (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a list of similar nominations over the past ten years in addition to the Dusty Springfield one noted above.
I have no opinion on the matter; however, a consensus on how to handle these would be beneficial and end the need for further nominations. Note that only the most recent one resulted in a consensus to "keep" suggesting consensus could be changing. For those wanting to upmerge, how many tribute albums would it take to warrant subcategorization by music act/artist? Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would keep it to the usual number of 5 articles per category. With a lower number, the other tribute albums can be linked to directly in the body text of an article, or else added in a "see also" section. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good morning and thanks for your comments and for your many contributions to WP. Regarding the idea of the five-article guideline for category creation mentioned above; I can understand that we need to exercise some caution with things like this, for instance if we started to categorize "U.S. Presidents from Virginia", and then "20th-Century U.S. Presidents from Virginia", and then "Right-handed 20th Century U.S. Presidents from Virginia", and so on. However, I want to encourage WP editors to consider this specific situation, and ask themselves how WP would be made better by eliminating the "xxxx tribute albums" categories that have few (or only one) articles included. I have noted above why I think WP would be improved (at least marginally) by having the articles containerized (I hope I am using that term correctly) by categories for the artist to whom the tribute is being made. Let me offer this scenario: A WP user (not necessarily an editor) happens to click on a link for one of the tribute album categories, and by serendipity is exposed to other artists that they are interested in as well -- "Oh, I didn't realize that there were tribute albums to Twisted Sister, Alabama, Petra, Taylor Swift, The Eagles, and The Shaggs - Those are some of my favorite bands!". That serendipity might not occur if we were to limit the categorization of Tribute albums to one general category if there is only one or a small number of tribute albums to those artists, and the album (article) names do not give a clear indication at a glance of which artist is being tributed. Now, I noticed in one of the comments on one of these discussions, someone raised the idea of doing a subcategory by genre. That is an interesting idea to work into this discussion as well; Perhaps we could do something like "Category:Tribute albums" with a subcategory of "Tribute albums to jazz musicians" which itself has subcategories of "Duke Ellington tribute albums", "Thelonious Monk tribute albums", "Dave Brubeck tribute albums", etc.
On my user page, I have posted a number of quotes that I have come across that relate in one way or another to what motivates me to contribute to Wikipedia. Here is one from the technology writer Nathan Shedroff that I think pertains to this discussion:

"It is also useful to include indexes that organize the same items in different ways. This is important for enabling people to find things in ways that are most appropriate for the things they know or the ways they learn. All people learn differently and have varying skills. Some may be comfortable with maps while others prefer lists. Some may not understand an alphabetical listing while others can’t relate to a continuum. Multiple organizations help everyone find things easier. In addition, even if people understand the organization, they may not have the correct information. For example, they may know the street they need to go to, but not where to find it on a map (this is where street indexes come in handy). They may know that they want a recipe for a low-calorie dessert, but don’t want to search through every recipe in their cookbooks to find one. It is precisely the ability to see the same set of things in different organizations that allows people to uncover the patterns in the relationships between these things. Ideally, people should be able to rearrange the organizations themselves or be provided with different arrangements so they can begin to understand these patterns for themselves."

I appreciate the discussion and I appreciate everyone's contributions to WP, regardless of opinion on this topic. Let's continue to discuss as appropriate. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good morning and thanks for your response - The article Twisted Forever is not listed under Category:Twisted Sister albums, because it is a not in fact a Twisted Sister album (in other words, the music was not performed by Twisted Sister). To your point, yes, if someone knows they are interested in Twisted Sister, they would likely go looking at Twisted Sister-related articles and categories. And, Twisted Forever is linked on the Twisted Sister template, as it should be. But if they are interested in tribute albums in general (that is, the reinterpretation of established musical works by different artists than had originally performed them) then it seems like the absence of a prominent identifier such as a tributed-artist named subcategory would hinder rather than help users to realize that yes, in fact there is a Twisted Sister cover album article that they can peruse if interested. (The fact that the word "Twisted" appears prominently in the names of both the band and the tribute album is not something that we can rely on; There is nothing about the album name Never Say Dinosaur that immediately shows it as being a tribute to the band Petra, unless the user also happened to know that they had a song called "Never Say Die". And also, if someone was looking for a tribute album to Lambert, Hendricks and Ross, then reliance on the use of the word "Twisted" as an identifier of tributes to Twisted Sister could prove a stumbling block.) So again, I don't see what it hurts to create the single-article subcategories, and I do see scenarios where it would be helpful to users. Thanks again. KConWiki (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Categories are cheap. Maintaining categories is expensive. Normally, I'm opposed to small categories, as proliferation of categories makes it harder for passing editors to choose the correct category. Here the naming of a category assists the editor in finding the correct placement. Heck, an artist with a single well known album deserves a category. Likewise, a single well known tribute album needs a category with both the artist plus tribute suffix to assist the editors in placement. Either way, document this decision as suggested by Fayenatic london in a prior 2014 decision. Thanks to Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars for the list of prior decisions.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:59, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Is it appropriate to leave this discussion as only pertaining to Laura Nyro, or is there a means of opening up this question to apply to all of the articles in the Tribute albums category? KConWiki (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If it were up to me, I'd close this as "no consensus", then encourage someone who was willing to take the more general discussion about the category tree to WT:ALBUMS or perhaps open an RFC. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:RFCNOT — all category discussions are here. Not WT:ALBUMS either. We often discuss one at a time. General discussions almost always close "no consensus". Focus. Long discourses about related categories are not helping. KISS. Also, it is currently 3:2 keep, with almost all the arguments on the keep side. Together with the recent Shaggs decision, it seems there is a new consensus about how to handle these small categories.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. After some thought, I just don't see the need to create another SMALLCAT exception for this. The earlier discussions over just one recent one still outweigh any need to overwrite that consensus. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:59, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – we categorise by defining attributes, and 'Laura Nyro tribute album' is a defining attribute of a Laura Nyro tribute album. And KConWiki makes a convincing case too, from a different angle. (This is what I said in 2014, and would have said in 2004, and will repeat in perpetuity.) Oculi (talk) 23:43, 13 January 2023 (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.

Historians of religion

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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:54, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only 1 or 2 articles in these categories and it does not concern a large established tree. Not all articles need to be merged to Category:Historians of religion because a number of them are already in Category:Historians of Christianity or Category:Historians of Islam. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think most of those have plenty of potential for growth, we just don't have many articles on non-English scholars. I mean, seriously, there are likely hundreds if not thousands Chinese historians of religion. Iraqi category has interwiki with 6 entries (our smallcat has just 2). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • partial merge only -- I have checked the Iraqi, Slovenian, (identical to Austrian), and Egyptian items. I do not think any merit inclusion in an amorphous historians of religion category. We have a local historian in Kabala, Iraq; a Kurd, whose main work is on language, but investigated the links between Mithraism and the Yazidis; two Austrian historians writing about church history; a Christian monk of Alexandria. I have no objection to adding them to the relevant fooish historians, but Category:Historians of religion seems to me a poor target, which should merely be a container for Category:Historians of Christianity. The Kurdish historian would need to be in that, since there is probably no other suitable merge target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Peterkingiron that articles should be put in Category:Historians of Christianity if possible, hence the proposal for manual merging. As for Piotrus' comment, of course en.wiki is biased towards western historians and towards English-speaking historians in particular, that is just something we have to live with. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:40, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Manually merge as nominated, to subcategories as possible.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:38, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:54, 13 January 2023 (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:Wives of the Beatles

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) Qwerfjkltalk 19:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a sensible grouping that meets Wikipedia:CATDEF. People here are geenrally notable for more than their marriage, perhaps with the sole exception of Cynthia Lennon. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:18, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We seem to have articles on most of them, some being most notable for who their husband was e.g. Heather Mills. Some have pursued independent careers; some not. If they are NN, they should have no article, but that requires a series of AFDs first. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:11, 31 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You're kidding? I'd barely remembered that Heather Mills had ever been married to a Beatle. Her lengthy article has a long history before marriage and after marriage. My first thought was Dancing with the Stars. (I'm a US person who enjoys ballroom dancing.)
William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:29, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think the basic CATDEF definition of "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently refer to" would apply to most if not all of these people. Many reliable sources talking about them will mention that they were married to one of the Beatles. Jahaza (talk) 18:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Merge to Category:Beatles — this is currently the only wives for a band. Usually, all family members are included in the primary family category itself. Notability is not heritable or transferable. Yes, some of these should be taken to AfD.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:53, 13 January 2023 (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:National Council of European Resistance

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: listify. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:National Council of European Resistance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, just membership of a council is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete — notable cases belong in the article (as below).
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2023 (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.
  • @Qwerfjkl: the people in the category are already mentioned in the article, I suppose the category can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Great Replacement conspiracy theorists

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: listify. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:47, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Great Replacement conspiracy theorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Notable cases likely belong in the relevant article; but I fail to see how this could be a defining characteristic used by reliable sources for practically anyone (as opposed to "white supremacist" or the like). DFlhb (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that the user who created the category was indeffed for "persistent POV pushing" and BLP violations in relation to this very topic (per the blocking admin, see here). Discussed at ANI: 1st, and 2nd discussions. DFlhb (talk) 20:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete — as above, its only subcategory.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:22, 21 January 2023 (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.
  • Post-closure update: a list has been added to the main article: [1]. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:01, 12 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

College baseball in early years

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:39, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:C2F. This was nominated for speedy merging (without the third target) and opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
    • Comment/Oppose I'm not sure that it's a good idea to combine professional and college baseball for a few years in the same category if the majority of years they are kept in separate categories. It looks like you selected the years where there was one article in the season category and skipped over categories for years when they held more content. That doesn't seem logical. There should be consistency in categories, if, for most years/seasons, college and professional sports are kept in separate categories, then they should for all seasons, even when there might be just one article in the category. Also, a lot of recategorization has occurred recently with college baseball categories without the participation of the editor who created all of these categories in the first place and I think a CFD disussion would be useful to assess the sweeping changes that have been occurring. Liz Read! Talk! 23:14, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Liz: C2F only applies if the category has only one article, the others you mention can’t be done speedily. Armbrust The Homunculus 04:10, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Liz: You can't just pick and choose when to enforce the guideline. This is clear C2F until other articles are included. Bring to full discussion please. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:27, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aidan721, Liz, and Armbrust: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 13 January 2023 (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:Characters played by Steve Carell

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Characters played by Steve Carell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not aware that we typically set up categories of this nature (though I'm willing to be proven wrong!), and at least in this case, this seems likely to be a WP:SMALLCAT. I'm not aware of Carell having played many characters likely to merit their own articles. DonIago (talk) 15:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, this is not a defining characteristic of these characters. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:33, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mean, I think it improves the 'pedia to have. WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply because it says unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs – this would clearly be under a scheme like "characters by portrayer". I also think the portrayer is pretty fundamental to a character. I also don't know crap about CfD, so if it gets deleted, no sweat :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is as bad as a PERF category, though perhaps actually its converse. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — 2 articles, no parent categories. This is not something to do. For other actors, would likely be only redirects to shows.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:27, 21 January 2023 (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:Sugar substitutes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 21#Category:Sugar substitutes

Category:Chicago Hounds players

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:41, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article has recently been moved to Chicago Hounds (ice hockey team). I initially nomminated as a C2D speedy rename but it fails this as a recently unilaterally moved article. Bcp67 (talk) 11:40, 13 January 2023 (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:South American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:South American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:South American sportspeople of Asian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:South American sportspeople of Chinese descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:South American sportspeople of European descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:South American sportspeople of Italian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:South American sportspeople of Spanish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:South American sportspeople of Latin American descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:South American sportspeople of Chilean descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
    • Propose deleting Category:South American sportspeople of South American descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
      • Propose deleting Category:Argentine sportspeople of South American descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT recent proliferation of tiny categories with unusual and irrelevant hierarchical organization. Wikipedia:Category naming does not provide for by continent encapsulating by country. Leads to abominations above, such as South Americans of South American descent.
Same progenitor as:
  1. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 3#Category:American sportspeople of European descent
  2. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 11#Category:American sportspeople of Asian descent
  3. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Category:North American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin
  4. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 12#Category:Latin American sportspeople by ethnic or national origin
William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:15, 13 January 2023 (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:Swedish International Stockholm

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Swedish International Stockholm (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:C2F. zoglophie 06:30, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
An administrator declined speedy so I came here as usual. zoglophie 07:46, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was just a procedural decline because it is not a case of WP:G6, rather a case of WP:CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, single entry so smallcat or C2F. --Mvqr (talk) 13:07, 19 January 2023 (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:Mississippi state consititutional officer elections

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: restore category. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:44, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Mississippi state consititutional officer elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Misspelling; correctly spelled category is Category:Mississippi state constitutional officer elections (all pages have been moved to the correct spelling). Elli (talk | contribs) 01:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move content back and rename in order to preserve page history. This could have been listed for speedy renaming per WP:C2A. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Yes, this category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 01:08, 14 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move content back, then rename — preserve history.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:46, 21 January 2023 (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/2023_January_13&oldid=1138954384"