Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 June 8

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) 02:21, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:SIA-Class Anti-war articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Template:WikiProject Anti-war does not use a custom quality format or whatever it’s called so this category is useless. 48JCL TALK 19:02, 8 June 2024 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Video games by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The reason why I'm deleting these categories are only for video games supported in a single language, and none of these categories are fully-populated either. More importantly many titles only available in a single language can alternatively be found in Category:Region-exclusive video games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: I changed my mind, I am keeping other categories still, but may need something else to do. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:01, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There are several multiregional languages, such as English, French (France, Canada, French Africa, French Polynesia, French Caribbean), Portuguese (Brazil, Portugal, Macao), Spanish (Spain, Latin America, Philippines), Russian (North Asia, Central Asia, Europe), Arabic (North Africa, West Asia, East Africa, Central Asia, Islamic World), Hebrew (Jewish World) -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 06:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, this is a container category. Its fate is conditional on what happens with the subcategories, which have also been nominated on this page. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag Category:Video games by language.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:13, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NONDEF. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and close. What will we do will other the other Categoires. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per WP:NONDEF. You cannot take back a nomination once others have voted otherwise, that would be a WP:SUPERVOTE withdrawal. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:13, 20 June 2024 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:English-language-only video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I am deleting this category along with other Video games by language categories, (expect Chinese-language-only video games, which will merge with China-exclusive video games). Reason: Many English-only titles are otherwise located in Category:North-America-exclusive video games QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NONDEFINING. NLeeuw (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this category can still stay anyway. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:00, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose QuantumFoam66 (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Australia is not a multilingual region, indigenously developed games would be in English, same with New Zealand. Both are not in North America. Elon Musk's game Blastar was developed in South Africa in English only. So English isn't a language that is restricted to North America. Many games for the Acorn or the BBC were developed only in English and were mostly released in Britain and Australia -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 06:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NONDEF. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and close. But will Rename parent cat to "Single-language video games." QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, largely overlapping with country(countries) of development for which we already have categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose and close. But will Rename parent cat to "Single-language video games." QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy close. I will also NOT rename the category to the new name. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Chinese-language-only video games to Category:China-exclusive video games

Nominator's rationale: Some of these titles may be available be it digitally or physically outside of China. But I don't follow that logic. Merge. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete, strong oppose merger You can’t just say “I don’t follow that logic, must be deleted” and expect it to work. But yes delete. 48JCL TALK 19:28, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This merger makes no sense. Taiwan exists. There have been vidoegames that were made for Taiwan or Hong Kong (pre-1997) that were only in Chinese. If this is properly populated, it should not contain just PRC-exclusive games. -- 65.92.244.237 (talk) 06:16, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Keep: I suppose I will withdraw my will the delete this category because of that logic. While Japanese, English, get deleted for some other reasons. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete with parent (below) — Insufficiently specified. Which language? Mandarin? Cantonese?
  William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose: "Chinese-language" here refers to the Chinese language as a whole, including all variations of Chinese such as Cantonese. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 21:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Written Chinese is the ostensibly the same, so if there is no spoken Chinese, then it's just Chinese -- 65.92.244.143 (talk) 22:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:10, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NONDEF Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and close. But will Rename parent cat to "Single-language video games." QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, largely overlapping with country of development for which we already have categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Oppose and close. But will Rename parent cat to "Single-language video games." QuantumFoam66 (talk) 19:22, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Speedy close. I will also NOT rename the category to the new name. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 03:32, 19 June 2024 (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. – Fayenatic London 06:58, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Billionaires of African descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:African-American billionaires (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorization by non-defining characteristics should be avoided. The combination of being a billionaire and being of African descent is non-defining. Aldij (talk) 12:39, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, trivial intersections. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep We have Black billionaires and there are dozens of articles about this intersection. Per WP:EGRS, "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?"--User:Namiba 14:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a pretty poor article, only one source covering the grouping of black billionaires [1]. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's true, but there are many articles about this topic visible from a quick Google search.--User:Namiba 18:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 18:07, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The intersection isn't trivial there's a long academic interest in economic inequality in the African American community. Billionaires are a good indicator of progress in that regard because it indicates that African Americans have made progress and can break into the elite. If not kept, the categories should be merged, not deleted. Mason (talk) 22:09, 19 June 2024 (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. – Fayenatic London 19:44, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Articles citing retracted publications
• Propose renaming Category:Articles citing retracted publications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Articles intentionally citing retracted publications

Nominator's rationale: (I am coming here from the recent Signpost article about RetractionBot.)

Category:Articles unintentionally citing retracted publications‎ is for articles which have been tagged as {{retracted}} by RetractionBot, with no additional parameters. These might be intentional: we don't know until a human comes along to verify. Equally, they also might be unintentional, in which case they need fixing. Therefore, {{retracted}} should use the "neutral" category name which makes no assumptions on the intentionality of the citation (i.e. Category:Articles citing retracted publications). To accommodate the move, Category:Articles citing retracted publications (which currently holds articles containing {{retracted|intentional=yes}}) should be moved to the more specific Category:Articles intentionally citing retracted publications. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:52, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Articles citing retractions is the general category containing reviewed articles (unreviewed being the subcategory). Articles unintentionally citing all retractions are those that need human review. This name scheme matches all other similar categories Category:Articles citing publications with errata and Category:Articles unintentionally citing publications with errata, as well as Category:Articles citing publications with expressions of concern and Category:Articles unintentionally citing publications with expressions of concern. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:14, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that those should be renamed, too. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They could be. They just shouldn't be left out of this nomination. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Articles citing retracted publications. We cannot discern intent, and it doesn't matter here. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:45, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We can clearly discern intent, and it absolutely matters. Intentionally cited retractions have been reviewed by humans as appropriate to cite for the context, e.g. [2]. Articles with unintentionally cited retracted papers need review and very likely an update of the content based on a retracted paper, e.g. [3]. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 03:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 that it absolutely matters. Citing doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(97)11096-0 (the infamous Lancet MMR autism fraud paper) is fine if you are citing it as a primary source (with the usual caveats about citing primary sources), but citing it as a legitimate piece of research absolutely needs to be checked. This is a tracking category; intent is determined by |intentional= parameter. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as the botop here that's inconveniently finding stuff to go into this category, it is absolutely important to distinguish which categories have been tagged and which have been checked. I'm not going to guess if the tag I've just applied is intentional or now. Happy with the renaming proposal as long as it's kept consistant with all 3 of the template types, this won't affect the bot as long as it's done in the template correctly. Mdann52 (talk) 13:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdann52: you wrote "Happy with the renaming proposal" which I think overrides your first word "Keep" – did you just mean "Keep them separate", rather than "Keep current names"? – Fayenatic London 07:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)w[reply]

@Fayenatic london: thanks for checking. Essentially, if this is just nominating one category, we should keep this as is. If we are changing the naming convention of all 3 categories, then I'm happy to support that. Mdann52 (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @HouseBlaster: Would Category:Articles citing retracted publications awaiting review be better for the unreviewed cases? (or "Articles awaiting review for citing retracted publications", but that precision is probably unnecessary.) – Fayenatic London 07:17, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The categories are fine as is, let's close this pointless nitpicking. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That would work for me. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 13:47, 23 June 2024 (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. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Teen Titans Go! (TV series) images to Category:Teen Titans Go! images

Nominator's rationale: The same thing for Category:Teen Titans Go! and Category:Teen Titans Go! episode redirects to lists, to match the same title for the Teen Titans Go! article. ApuNahasapeemapetilon1989 (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this could be a WP:C2D. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per C2D. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close. QuantumFoam66 (talk) 04:27, 9 June 2024 (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: merge HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:19, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional female mechanics to Category:Fictional mechanics

Nominator's rationale: I don't see any reason to split this by gender. There's only 10 articles in it, so there's no reason based on size. I don't really think being a female really matters with me mechanics. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:37, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If this is kept, it should become a {{non-diffusing subcategory}}, per WP:GHETTO. jlwoodwa (talk) 19:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:OCEGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Marcocapelle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:OCEGRS. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:17, 12 June 2024 (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: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Nepali language movement activists to Category:Nepali language activists

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. Rervse merge also fine by me Mason (talk) 20:21, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• They are not exactly overlapping, one is a category of Indian people, the other of Nepalese people. The former is related to the Nepali language movement which was a movement specifically in India. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 00:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:22, 8 June 2024 (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 to Fooian-language novelists and purge. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Bengali novelists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Bengali novelists and Category:Bengali-language novelists
• Propose splitting Category:Malayalam novelists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Malayali novelists and Category:Malayalam-language novelists
• Propose splitting Category:Marathi novelists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Marathi novelists and Category:Marathi-language novelists
• Propose splitting Category:Odia novelists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Odia novelists and Category:Odia-language novelists

Nominator's rationale: The contents of the category nominated in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_May_27#Category:Indian_novelists_by_language; seems to juxtapose ethnicity and language, having the naming convention of the former but parent categories more appropriate for the latter. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• A split would lead to pairs of categories with almost 100% overlap. Shouldn't we just rename the categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on renaming?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @LaundryPizza03: what do you think about renaming? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rename per Marco. Omnis Scientia (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: By language or by ethnicity? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:32, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @LaundryPizza03: renaming to language. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:13, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't care whether we rename to language or ethnicity, as long as your intent is clear. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 14:18, 9 June 2024 (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: merge. – Fayenatic London 08:52, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Kinda Municipality, to Category:People from Kinda Municipality

Nominator's rationale: Not sure of the reason why this was created, but it looks like a duplicate. Solidest (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per WP:C2A. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Duplicate. ExRat (talk) 22:02, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge per C2A, obvious typo. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:18, 13 June 2024 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:18, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Historical geography of Fars to Category:Historical geography of Fars (territory)

Nominator's rationale: This is either for Fars (territory) or Fars province which is why title clarity is important. Gonnym (talk) 11:36, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Just delete, the articles are already in the tree of Category:History of Fars Province if applicable (to be speedily renamed to Category:History of Fars province). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2024 (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: no consensus. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:28, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:UCLA Extension alumni to Category:University of California, Los Angeles alumni

• Propose merging Category:Harvard Extension School alumni to Category:Harvard University alumni added on 23:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
• Propose merging Category:La Salle Extension University alumni to Category:La Salle University alumni added on 23:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: This distinction for people who attended the extension school seems like an arbitrary distinction and is likely not defining for any of the two members in the category Mason (talk) 01:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The UCLA Extension is one of the constituent colleges in the UCLA Systems, and one of the oldest at UCLA (it is a separate accredited college and not a designation for off campus students). Several other universities have extension colleges as can be seen here. These colleges, designed for working people, are becoming more popular, particularly post COVID. There are many links to the main article for people, which likely means the cat can be populated well beyond the 10 already in it (I added a few since the start of this CFD). Also, this cat provides an opportunity for subcategorization of an overpopulated upper level cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 02:39, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Merge per nom. While you are right that there are other extension schools, this is the only one with a category and there doesn't seem to be a big difference between normal alumni and extension school alumni. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Omnis Scientia: Hi Omnis Scienta, please see Category:Harvard Extension School alumni. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 20:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I would still say merge per my second reasoning. I don't think the Harvard Extension School teaches anything special anymore than UCLA Extension does. @Smasongarrison, I think you should nominate this category as well, in fact (and any other similar one). Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I've added to nom per @Omnis Scientia, pinging @FieldMarine. No one is saying that the extension school isn't notable, but that the distinction isn't defining for alumns. For example, Folks aren't introduced as UCLA Extension alumn, but they are as UCLA law school alumn. Mason (talk) 23:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: Like at UCLA, the Harvard Extension School is one of the oldest colleges at Harvard University and it is distinct, with its own graduation exercises. With respect to, "Folks aren’t introduced as…", a Google search of, "Graduated from Harvard Extension School" shows people are frequently "introduced" with that distinction. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, at least Harvard's. HES has separate degrees (ALB, ALM which aren't earned at other schools at Harvard), commencement ceremony, etc. for the extension school like the rest of the schools. There are unique classes at HES, that aren't offered at other schools. If UCLA, LaSalle, and any others are more like Harvard, keep them separate as well. Patken4 (talk) 13:01, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This is an interesting case. A WP:OTHERCATSEXIST argument was resolved by adding the other categories to the nomination, which seems to have produced a small WP:TRAINWRECK. I am going to relist (though I was about to close this as no consensus without prejudice against seperate but simultaneous nominations); comments are welcome, though I suspect that this is heading to a no consensus with no prejudice against speedy renomination result.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep La Salle no opinion on the others. La Salle Extension University was a private distance learning university and a very different institution from La Salle University. The two only shared part of a name. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2024 (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. – Fayenatic London 08:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Protesters to Category:Activists

Nominator's rationale: Overlapping categories. Mason (talk) 04:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose We don't have a Category:Massacres of activists or even Category:Murder of activists. Dimadick (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2024 (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: merge (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:23, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Convicted participants in the Canada convoy protest to Category:Protesters involved in the Canada convoy protest and Category:21st-century Canadian criminals

Nominator's rationale: Dual merge for now. There's only one person in here, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 04:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Split / dual merge per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 05:53, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per nom. Partofthemachine (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2024 (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. – Fayenatic London 08:29, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Trivial association, non-defining. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:46, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this may be added as a perfect example in WP:TRIVIALCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, the characteristic is defining enough to be covered by and discussed in reliable sources (often a multitude of reliable sources, such as for Zlatan Ibrahimović and Donald Trump). Besides, there is a body of scientific research on the various contexts and psychological meaning of illeism (see section "In everyday speech" in article Illeism). --HPfan4 (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are available sources, so it is not trivial. Dimadick (talk) 05:25, 8 June 2024 (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: merge, also deleting Category:520s works and Category:390s works which would be isolated. – Fayenatic London 11:06, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:390 works to Category:390
• Propose merging Category:394 works to Category:394‎
• Propose merging Category:525 works to Category:525 and Category:6th-century works

Nominator's rationale: merge, isolated year categories. The two first categories do not need another merge target, the articles are already in a subcategory of Category:4th-century works. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge One article each. For most works of this era, we do not even know the precise date of publication or creation. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:21, 9 June 2024 (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. – Fayenatic London 11:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. Move the eponymous article to Category:History of Nakhon Si Thammarat. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:20, 9 June 2024 (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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 21:29, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ming dynasty overseer of rituals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 05:55, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• The characteristic appears to be a highly important ministerial post, overseeing the Court of Imperial Sacrifices under the Ministry of Rites. The linked zh:Category:明朝太常寺卿 (Category: Ming Dynasty Taichang Temple Ministers) and its 3 subcats hold over 200 biographies. However, if Huang Zicheng is the only one with an English wiki article, the category is not currently useful for navigation, so it can be deleted for now. Can anyone put together a PetScan to check if any more of the Chinese wiki articles have an English counterpart? – Fayenatic London 17:51, 20 June 2024 (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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Crossover characters in television (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I highly doubt this could be considered WP:DEFINING for a majority of these characters. (Oinkers42) (talk) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 04:29, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on the description, it is likely to be WP:OCTRIVIA:This category is for characters in television who have made crossover appearances within other shows that are not their own. One appearance of a character does not make a defining trait. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Given the large extent of Category:Crossover television, this would be much larger if fully populated, and would then be unlikely to be useful for navigation. In contrast, I would keep Category:Television crossover episodes. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Note: {{Infobox soap character}} has a "crossover" parameter for recording crossover series in the article's infobox, so I considered whether this info could be traced using that. However, {{Infobox character}} (which is used on many of the member pages) does not have that parameter. – Fayenatic London 08:28, 21 June 2024 (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. HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:23, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:1940s in East Pakistan to Category:1940s in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1940s establishments in East Pakistan to Category:1940s establishments in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1947 in East Pakistan to Category:1947 in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1947 establishments in East Pakistan to Category:1947 establishments in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1948 in East Pakistan to Category:1948 in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1948 establishments in East Pakistan to Category:1948 establishments in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1949 in East Pakistan to Category:1949 in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1950 in East Pakistan to Category:1950 in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1950 establishments in East Pakistan to Category:1950 establishments in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1951 in East Pakistan to Category:1951 in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1951 establishments in East Pakistan to Category:1951 establishments in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1952 in East Pakistan to Category:1952 in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1952 establishments in East Pakistan to Category:1952 establishments in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1953 in East Pakistan to Category:1953 in East Bengal
• Propose renaming Category:1953 establishments in East Pakistan to Category:1953 establishments in East Bengal

Nominator's rationale: rename, until 1955 the name of East Pakistan was East Bengal. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:24, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Indirect WP:C2D. NLeeuw (talk) 06:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  For your information, the category Category:East Bengal was merged into Category:East Pakistan and that's why WP:C2C makes sense here. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 10:04, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, we had discussions about the category Category:East Bengal. You proposed to merge it into Category:East Pakistan (see here) saying they were actually same thing. The consensus was to merge the category. That's why these establishment categories are East Pakistan, not East Bengal. Now saying we have to rename them because it was East Bengal is contradictory because in 2022 you proposed the opposite showing different reason. If you want to rename establishment categories then I propose you to discuss to bring back East Bengal category first. Mehedi Abedin (talk) 10:01, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We do not need separate trees just because of a name change, but the individual year categories should be named accurately. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and redirect, tagging with {{R from category navigation}}. We usually avoid anachronisms at the lowest level. Using redirects will facilitate links using {{category series navigation}}. Also redirect Category:1950s in East Bengal to Category:1950s in East Pakistan and Category:1950s establishments in East Bengal to Category:1950s establishments in East Pakistan, tagging with {{R from template-generated category}}. – Fayenatic London 13:33, 8 June 2024 (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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 13:26, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Polio in Pakistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not sure how helpful this is for navigation. Omnis Scientia (talk) 00:21, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic except for the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:12, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The attacks seem to be connected to Islamist extremist opposition polio vaccination in Pakistan, although this is not explicitly stated in either of those articles. Maybe the attack articles should be linked to from the main article? Other than that, not very useful for navigation, so I also lean delete. NLeeuw (talk) 05:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nederlandse Leeuw, I've added the main article link in "See also" of both pages. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:42, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Good move. Delete per nom. NLeeuw (talk) 08:43, 8 June 2024 (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.