Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 9

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< March 8
March 10 >

March 9

edit

Category:1325 establishments in Norway

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/delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Isolated category. Not useful for navigation. WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2025 (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:Opposite-sex twins

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:50, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining feature and overlapping SMasonGarrison 19:51, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This is supposed to be different and distinct from Category:Male twins and Category:Female twins. AHI-3000 (talk) 20:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning merge I'd say it is non-defining. I'd also do away with male and female twins category and stick the "Identical twins" and "Fraternal twins" categorization since they have a scientific basis and is the more defining feature of twins. Omnis Scientia (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2025 (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:Ophir Award Winners

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalization. --Altenmann >talk 19:45, 9 March 2025 (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:Archive boxes with unusual parameters

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:52, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not seeing how this category is helpful or necessary. Since this category is categorized as a maintenance category, the purpose of it seems to be to get the category empty, but that also does not seem to be necessary. Look at the history of this category, seems this category was created prior to the merging of Template:Archive box into Template:Archives, which I'm guessing resulted in the parameter box-width being removed? Either way, it's unclear what problem this category is meant to solve. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No comment on the proposal, but the description provided here sure sounds like a maintenance category for "unusual" (i.e. invalid) parameters. Primefac (talk) 12:05, 14 March 2025 (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.

Early establishments in Guatemala

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/delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Guatemala was a part of the Maya civilization and did not exist during this period. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:00, 9 March 2025 (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:Six-day events

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, trivial commonality between otherwise unrelated events. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 9 March 2025 (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.


In fiction

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and re-parent, in principle the "Fiction" tree consists of "Works" and "Fictional elements" (e.g. "Fictional characters") but in practice the above categories only contain "Works". Re-parent to the trees of Category:Works by ___location of setting or Category:Works by city of setting, which are established trees though not very well populated yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: FYI, Category:Area 51 in fiction is already a subcategory of Category:Works about Area 51. AHI-3000 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2025 (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:Entertainers from Berkeley, California

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategory with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2025 (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:Cantonese philosophers

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, largely overlapping scope and we do not have any other Category:Cantonese people by occupation categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 9 March 2025 (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:American bankers by populated place

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 to Category:Bankers from New York (state). HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. underpopulated category SMasonGarrison 01:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:50, 9 March 2025 (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 philosophers by ___location

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: split. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:19, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: parents is Philosophers by populated place, and contents are populated places SMasonGarrison 01:32, 9 March 2025 (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.

Years in the Mongol Empire

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/delete. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:24, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation. Mostly 1-3 articles with gaps (some outliers). WP:NARROW/WP:OCYEAR. –Aidan721 (talk) 01:02, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*As the creator of a few of these categories, I am open to supporting this merge proposal as long as it simplifies these categories and all information goes into the categories proposed. J390 (talk) 05:05, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
*Like a likewise creator, I am also fine with merging the category to create simplification. It seems like decades are more appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:08, 9 March 2025 (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:American people by century and ethnicity

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). –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category layer. upmerge for now SMasonGarrison 00:51, 9 March 2025 (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/2025_March_9&oldid=1282393326"