Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 7

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 07:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Iran–United States proxy conflict (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No such conflict exists. Even the main article that was not created by the creator of this category, for the moment is currently tagged for PROD deletion by me, is an OR/Synth article. This category falls into that line. For actual proxy conflicts, Iran–Saudi Arabia proxy conflict and Iran–Israel proxy conflict have a mainspace category and those are real conflicts. This category doesn't have justification to exist. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 22:59, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I had disowned the category because right now, nothing important had happened yet between the two but when it does, the media will be watching and we can restore the category. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  SpinnerLaserzthe2nd, you can tag under it speedy deletion G7 since you're the creator. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 23:19, 7 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.

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 14:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ships of Red Funnel Ferries to Category:Ships of Red Funnel

Nominator's rationale: The name of the company is Red Funnel not "Red Funnel Ferries". Should be uncontroversial move/rename. Arem Seven (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree palmiped^Talk 12:13, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Abcmaxx (talk) 10:07, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Question can this be closed and moved now please? Elshad (talk) 09:40, 3 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.

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) Qwerfjkltalk 07:49, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Māori science (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Science is not specific to any culture. 101.98.39.246 (talk) 06:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Rationale does not make sense. Category contains relevant articles. AusLondonder (talk) 19:54, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but possibly as Category:Māori and science to match the article Māori and conservation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do some research you fools. Is there an Asian science page or category, an Eskimo science page or category? And read the Listener letter on science controversy article. It is a controversial topic. 101.98.39.246 (talk) 08:17, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Science and technology in New Zealand.Rathfelder (talk) 17:15, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the articles should surely remain part of the tree of Category:Māori. But the category contains three articles about Māori and conservation, it is questionable if that belongs under science and technology. Could Category:Māori and conservation be a way out here? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 08:02, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - don't see any problem with it. There is eg Category:Ancient Egyptian science and I expect there are plenty of similar such. Oculi (talk) 11:03, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the arguments put forward by Oculi, Peterkingiron, and AusLondonder. I don't understand the OP's logic that it is "science is not specific to any culture" as it is specific to Maori culture. Historyday01 (talk) 19:21, 13 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.

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 16:17, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fishing in Lithuania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Perhaps merge to Category:Fishing in Europe, not sure about that because the article is about a town (with angling tourism) rather than about fishing. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:44, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:01, 12 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.

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) Qwerfjkltalk 16:14, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Black-owned companies of the United States to Category:Black-owned businesses of the United States

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Black-owned businesses and Category:Black-owned businesses. --Another Believer _(Talk) 02:58, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, as creator. Sounds good. czar 04:14, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt Category:Black-owned businesses in the United States. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Not opposed, but I went with "of the United States" per the parent Category:Companies of the United States by ownership. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - there is no overall Category:Businesses scheme; it's a redirect to Category:Companies. Instead the few categories which include 'businesses' in their names should be renamed. Oculi (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 07:40, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Oculi. Also looks like Category:Black-owned businesses was created after Category:Black-owned companies of the United States and you were aware. All of the tagged companies were US-based so were diffused deeper. Open question of whether "in the United States" is needed to disambiguate, if the construction is only in reference to the US. czar 14:24, 7 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, but I created "Category:Black-owned businesses" because of the parent article Black-owned businesses, not to try to mess up a category tree. I don't feel strongly about any of this I'm just seeking consistency. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:44, 7 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.

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 14:24, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Internet people to Category:People related to the Internet

Nominator's rationale: The current name is rather strange. Since 'People in Internet' would likewise be weird, I suggest we use either the 'People related to' construction or 'Peole involved with', both exist in a number of other categories. If you agree, we should similarly rename Category:Wikimedia people and Category:Wikipedia people _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:30, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldnt this be better merged into Category:People in information technology? Rathfelder (talk) 16:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I don't think merging is a good idea. Information technology is a lot broader than internet. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:04, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, with no string opinion on whether to merge. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:01, 12 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.

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 16:15, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:NBC Sports Radio stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: NBC Sports Radio shut down two years ago; the network is not even mentioned in the five articles still in this category. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 18:50, 29 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:01, 12 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.