Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1

Category:AfC pending submissions by age/2 days' time

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. Deleted as a CSD G7 request by page creator. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obviously April Fools Creation
talk) 20:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete as creator: Was created to avoid clogging the redlinked categories list. —moonytheuser (Braden N.) 20:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:AfC pending submissions by age/1 day's time

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. Deleted as a CSD G7 request by page creator. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obviously April Fools Creation
talk) 20:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete as creator: Was created to avoid clogging the redlinked categories list. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian films without songs

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: convert to list. There is a consensus that the category should not exist, but no consensus on whether to listify or delete outright, so I'm defaulting to listify in order to retain the information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Indian films without songs to article List of Indian films without songs
Nominator's rationale: And that way, sources can be added. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should not be categorizing by things that are not included and therefore not defining. No objection to a list but I don't make it a precondition to deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move The vast majority of popular Indian films are those with songs. Therefore, I support moving it to its own list like
    List of black-and-white films produced since 1970. Per the nom, sources will be added. Yoshiman6464 ♫🥚 19:14, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete We should not categorize by lack.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It's very much defining in this case. Just like contemporary western films without color or speech which is very rare, Indian films most all follow the Bollywood conventions and present songs and dance. If listify is really needed I'd support Yoshiman6464's proposal. --Just N. (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia magic links

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Magic linking has been disabled, so the only page that would be left in this category (from the current 3 pages) is the historical Help:Magic links. See T275951 and today's other magic link category nominations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pages using RFC magic links

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was automatically assigned by the MediaWiki software to track magic link usage until magic linking was disabled. The category has been removed from en.WP now that magic links have been disabled. See T275951. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pages using ISBN magic links

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was automatically assigned by the MediaWiki software to track magic link usage until magic linking was disabled. The category has been removed from en.WP now that magic links have been disabled. See T275951. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pages using PMID magic links

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) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was automatically assigned by the MediaWiki software to track magic link usage until magic linking was disabled. The category has been removed from en.WP now that magic links have been disabled. See T275951. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lutheran priests by nationality

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 as originally nominated; no consensus to merge Category:Swedish Lutheran priests into Category:Swedish Lutheran clergy, but it could be addressed in a follow-up nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Lutheran churches of Denmark, Finland and Norway (Church of Denmark, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and Church of Norway) use the word pastor rather than priest. The Church of Sweden does use the word priest.

https://www.lutheranchurch.dk/who-we-are/who-works-in-the-church

https://evl.fi/the-church/organisation/parishes

https://evl.fi/current-issues/women-ordained-for-thirty-years

https://kirken.no/nb-NO/church-of-norway/about/basics-and-statistics/

https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/english

This follows this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Lutheran_priests_by_nationality. TSventon (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom, whose rationale apparently applies to all the above proposals despite being in between them. In addition, there is no need for the Category:Swedish Lutheran priests, which should therefore be merged into Category:Swedish Lutheran clergy. In addition, the name of Category:Lutheran priests is bad, confusing English used only by non-native speakers, and its individual pages are all there erroneously and should be removed and moved elsewhere if they aren't in a correct category yet. So:

--Espoo (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Espoo:, I have moved the rationale as you suggested. TSventon (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Espoo:, I don't support your further nominations as the Church of Sweden does use the word priests so I believe that the Swedish category is useful for navigating between articles. However I have tagged them with links to this article as required. I notice you have emptied Category:Lutheran priests of articles but agree that they were all miscategorised. TSventon (talk) 13:12, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge - The rationale, at least for The Church of Denmark is wrong. Pastor is only used occasionally nowadays, whereas the common used words are præst (priest) and sognepræst (parish priest). As for now, we have a category for Danish lutheran priests and another for Danish lutheran bishops and that seems fine. That way, you can find what you are looking for, to mix it all up in the category Danish Lutheran clergy is somewhat strange. Oleryhlolsson (talk) 13:47, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see in the link provided above and here, the Church of Denmark does not blindly translate the Danish word præst as priest in English just because it looks similar. The correct translation of the Danish word præst when applied to Lutheran clergy in English is minister or pastor, not priest.
    In addition, concerning Sweden: Wikipedia follows reliable sources in articles, which may or may not be the same as normal English usage of native speakers, but WP should follow native English usage in general terminology and especially categories. Modern English dictionaries report usage based on huge databases (with a bias towards the kind of language and sources used in encyclopedias but also report major popular usage when different) and no longer prescribe usage. Therefore the time and energy wasted in most long terminology discussions on WP could be saved by more awareness that modern dictionaries provide scientific descriptions, not prescriptive definitions; we should also follow usage in encyclopedias: https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/holy+orders and https://encyclopedia2.thefreedictionary.com/ministry and https://www.lexico.com/definition/priest and https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/priest and https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/priest --Espoo (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename clergy is a better, more neutral term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' per nom and Espoo. And indeed: clergy is a better, more neutral term. --Just N. (talk) 12:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Pack Lambert, Just N., please can you confirm whether you support merging Swedish Lutheran priests to Swedish Lutheran clergy, as added by Espoo, where the church does use the term priest in English. TSventon (talk) 12:34, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a distinction in the Lutheran church between clergy and priests? Rathfelder (talk) 22:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rathfelder Lutheran churches all have different histories. I am most familiar with the church of Sweden, which like the Church of England has bishops, priests and, since the 19th century, deacons, who could all be described as clergy.
https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/ministry-and-ministries
    • As I understand it in other churches deacons count as clergy, but not as priests. There are very few articles about deacons as that is a junior position. Do we need to think about this?Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
According to the webpages quoted the other Nordic churches now use the English words bishop and pastor for their clergy, but the local word for pastor is the same as for priest (dk præst, fi pappi, no prest, sw präst). TSventon (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally our articles seem to prefer priest as a search for "fooish priest " and "fooish pastor" (not necessarily Lutheran) gives
Danish 63 priest to 19 pastor
Finnish 23 priest to 4 pastor
Norwegian priest 290 to 10 pastor
Swedish 50 priest to 14 pastor TSventon (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think we should try to use whatever term is used within a denomination if we can, but I dont think we should get too hung up on terms which are translated differently in different places. Rathfelder (talk) 09:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think we should use clergy wherever possible, except in cases where the people holding the office never refer to themselves as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1899 establishments in Austria

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No such state in 1899. There are too many unlinked articles for a straight delete. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Was there really a Croatia in 1889 though? I really think based on actual size it makes no sense to subdivide the Austria-Hungary category, especially since we want to emphasize we are using boundaries for the time in question and linking to articles on the modern states that often have different boundaries does not make that clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, there certainly was an Austrian Empire as one of the constituent parts of Austria-Hungary. As we allow year categories for constituent parts in general (e.g. for Wales) there is no reason why we should not do that for Austria as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree with Marcocapelle. The Austrian Empire was a constituent part of Austria-Hungary. Dimadick (talk) 19:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming to Year in Austrian Empire is definitely an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- One of the constituent parts of the Austrian Empire was the Archduchy of Austria. I do not see why we should not have categories dealing with this sub-national polity, but it should be defined by reference to its boundaries, not those of post-1918 Austria. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment See Category:Cisleithania for the Austrian Empire after the compromise of 1867. It contains no "established / disestablished" categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

(dis)establishments in Austria

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Austria did not exist as a state until the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Various archduchies and duchies existed within that empire that contained the word "Austria", but none was a sovereign state by that exact name. They can only be duplicates of Category:1902 establishments in Austria-Hungary and Category:1903 disestablishments in Austria-Hungary and the various Hapsburg Empire and Holy Roman Empire (dis)establishment categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just to note that in the above noms, I have triple parented the articles so they are not orphans. For cats with too many articles, I put them into the "merge" noms above. But I may have missed an article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Marcocapelle and Dimadick: By "Austrian Empire", do you mean just those lands in Cisleithania, as distinct from Transleithania (aka Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen)? If so, then your objection is more like a renaming proposal. At the moment, the Austrian categories are at national (sovereign) level (i.e. the entire Holy Roman Empire or the entire Austro-Hungarian Empire). We could of course create new establishment trees for sub-national levels (i.e. the various archduchies and petty kingdoms) much like the UK example of Wales, Scotland & England. But that's a different discussion surely. This nomination is all about fixing a chronological inaccuracy at the sovereign level whereby the modern Republic of Austria apparently established things in the 19th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming to Year in Austrian Empire is definitely an option for years after 1804. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle and Dimadick: That option has existed for a long time. See Category:Establishments in the Austrian Empire. The point of these deletion nominations is that they are not needed because their equivalents all exist in the "Establishments in the Austrian Empire" tree and each article in each of the nominated categories is already parented to the appropriate category. Unlike the nominations above which are merges. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are currently in the tree of Austria-Hungary but I am advocating keeping (the empire of) Austria and (the kingdom of) Hungary apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we may be talking about different things. Please define "Empire of Austria" by land holdings and by time period. Please define "Kingdom of Hungary" by land holdings and by time period. Would "Empire of Austria" be a child of "Austro-Hungarian Empire"? Would "Kingdom of Hungary" be a child of "Austro-Hungarian Empire"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austrian Empire would be a child of Austria-Hungary since 1867. (Kingdom of) Hungary would be a child of Austrian Empire from 1804 to 1867 and a child of Austria-Hungary since 1867. Both Austria and Hungary would be children of the Habsburg Monarchy before 1804. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- One of the constituent parts of the Austrian Empire was the Archduchy of Austria. I do not see why we should not have categories dealing with this sub-national polity, but it should be defined by reference to its boundaries, not those of post-1918 Austria. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 4 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Peterkingiron: If you want to create some categories for Category:Establishments in the Archduchy of Austria, go right ahead. I have no objection. I fail to see why this would induce an "oppose" vote to the current proposals that have nothing to do with the Archduchy of Austria. They are about getting rid of a chronological aberration while leaving the contents in their correct parent category. It is possible to break that parent into child categories of the parent that are chronologically accurate and consistent. But that is something that can be done outside of this discussion. First fix the error, then create new structures if desired. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Royal Norwegian Order of Merit

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:C2F
When high ranking foreign visitors come to Norway or vice versa, the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit is given out as souvenir. Prince Ali bin Hussein of Jordan, Princess Claire of Belgium, and Brian Bell (businessman) of Australia are not remotely defined by this award. Norwegian diplomats like Kjell H. Halvorsen, Haakon Baardsøn Hjelde, and Ingvard Havnen also receive the award but are already somewhere under Category:Ambassadors of Norway. Neither group seems especially defined by the award, which the articles tend to mention in passing. (The parent category only contains the main article.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were to assume the Norwegian recipients were defined by the award, that would leave us with 14 of the 84 current articles:
WP:OCAWARD is looking for a "large majority". - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Sukhbaatar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCAWARD
)
When high ranking foreign visitors met with the People's Republic of Mongolia, the
Kim Il-sung, and Ho Chi Minh are not remotely defined by this award. There are also a lot of Soviet cosmonauts in the category like Vladimir Lyakhov, Valentina Tereshkova, Vladimir Dzhanibekov but they are already under Category:Soviet cosmonauts. I expanded the main article so all category contents are now listified right here for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who served in the Great April Fools' Day Edit War

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A category listing users who participated in behavior that was deemed sufficiently disruptive that it had to be shut down by consensus is the exact opposite of what user categories should be used for. (This is a serious nomination and not an April Fools' joke) * Pppery * it has begun... 00:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Clicked on a couple talk pages and was seeing a few warnings for these edits. Whether this was disruptive or harmless fun, either way it doesn't seem like it improves the encyclopedia. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:06, 12 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete
    WP:UCAT user categories are meant to "aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." The two nominations plainly fail this category. I fully support archiving the so-called Great Edit Wars to serve as a demonstration of why joke edit wars should be banned, but we don't need active user categories to do this. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

April Fools' Day nominations

Category:Category:Computational fluid dynamics

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: April fools is over.
(non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Conflicts with
WP:CFD [April Fools!] (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recursion

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: The result of the discussion was The result of the discussion was The result of the discussion was ... (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is not recursive enough. April fool's! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia April Fools' Day 2021

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: April fools is over.
(non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale:

Category needs to be merged with itself per

WP:APRIL Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]

Smerge need to be selective about this one. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Contents

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: Listified. Now you have a list of all Wikipedia
(non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Convert Category:Contents to article List of Wikipedia pages
Nominator's rationale: The category does not provide an overview of Wikipedia's contents. JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If you're serious, you should move this nomination out of this "April Fools' Day nominations" section (to just under the "NEW NOMINATIONS" section heading above). If you're not serious, forget I said anything. - dcljr (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stop this altogethor and start editing like normal. If people weren't awake being funny I would've been in bed a while back. Panini📚 03:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think being funny is a joke? Do you think being sarcastic using text is easy? Millions of people go to and rely on Wikipedia every day, which means that having fun should be banned. Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nom 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 14:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_April_1&oldid=1017864516"