Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 18

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Redirects to animals to Category:Animal redirects

Nominator's rationale: These categories cover the same topic.— Qwerfjkltalk 20:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• no merge - @Qwerfjkl: isn’t this the counterpoint to Category:Redirects from animals ( 32 )? --awkwafaba (📥) 04:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The categories are similar, but Redirects to animals contains redirects, and Animal redirects has more subcategories. ― Qwerfjkltalk 09:26, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the category tree as a whole, it seems that foo redirect categories are supposed to contain subcategories for both redirects to foo and redirects from foo. See for example Category:Amphibian redirects.Marcocapelle (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think
  Oculi (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I've struck my proposal, it appears incorrect. ― Qwerfjkltalk 10:08, 20 December 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.

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 as empty (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:United States smooth jazz radio stations by state templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The two templates in this category have insufficient links to merit a navbox and have been nominated at TfD. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:30, 26 December 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.

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 as empty (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:United States adult hits radio stations by state templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There was only one template of this kind for the format, in New Mexico. It links 2 stations. I have sent it to TfD (Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 December 18#Template:Adult Hits Radio Stations in New Mexico). As a result, this category will not be necessary if the template is deleted. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:31, 26 December 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.

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) 07:04, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pages archived by Werdnabot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Werdnabot has not edited since 2009. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:55, 18 December 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.

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, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:ListasBot Test Articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: ListasBot has not edited since 2010. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:55, 18 December 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.

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:

WP:SOFTDELETE due to lack of participation. – Fayenatic London 17:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:Articles tagged by WildBot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Articles tagged by WildBot (dab) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Articles tagged by WildBot (MOSHEAD) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Articles tagged by WildBot (section) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Pages listing pages WildBot should monitor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WildBot has not edited since 2014. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:55, 18 December 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.

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 16:36, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:16th-century Byzantine people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Byzantium ceased to exist in 1453 (1461 at the latest). These are post-Byzantine nobles, of Greek ethnicity and diverse nationalities, but not 'Byzantines'. Constantine ✍ 15:35, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The state may have ceased to exist, but its people survived well into the next century. Dimadick (talk) 15:42, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, these people lived only a short while in the 16th century and by that time they were stateless rather than Byzantine. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- All four articles are about relatives of the last Byzantine Emperor; in one case the relationship is unclear, but the surname was the same. They survived until 1502, 1503, 1508 and c.1512, but mostly by then in poverty, so that by that time they were NN. Possibly merge to Category:16th-century Greek people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which was their ethnicity. In one case, the person was pretender to be Despot of Morea, part of Greece. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The Category:16th-century Greek people is adequate to contain them. Byzantium was but a memory by then. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:45, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Laurel Lodged: you presumably mean, the Category:15th-century Byzantine people is adequate to contain them. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:20, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant to write Greek. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete All these people lived mostly in the 15th-century, so there is no good reason to categorize them for being alive in the 16th-century, especially the one who died in 1502, so they lived less than 2 years in the 16th-century (since 1500 is in the 15th-century).John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 28 December 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.

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) (t · c) buidhe 06:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deleting Category:List of Institutions using TCS BaNCS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete: Misnamed category that is a borderline violator of

• Delete per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:55, 18 December 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.

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:Psychometrics. – Fayenatic London 23:16, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Educational psychology research methods to Category:Psychometrics

Nominator's rationale: All but one of the articles is already in Category:Psychometrics or in one of its children. Basically, educational psychology is a form of psychology, and as such it uses the same methods as other forms of psychology. The only one that isn't there already is Grounded theory, which can and should be under psychometrics anyway. There's a solid chance that this category should instead be just deleted, but I'm not entirely across categorisation policy. -- Xurizuri (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, the content of the category is unrelated to Educational psychology so it is not a valid intersection category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 18 December 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.

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 all. – Fayenatic London 11:49, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Burial sites of European royal dynasties to Category:Burial sites of European royal families
• Propose merging Category:Burial sites of African dynasties to Category:Burial sites of African royal families added 19 December
• Propose merging Category:Burial sites of Asian dynasties to Category:Burial sites of Asian royal families added 19 December
• Propose merging Category:Burial sites by dynasties to Category:Burial sites of royal families added 19 December

Nominator's rationale: merge, obviously the same thing. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support but a closer look at the wider dynasty/royal family tree structure is needed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support but take a closer look, perhaps with a view to deleting all this tree. Johnbod (talk) 11:53, 28 December 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.

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 11:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Burial sites of Austrian royal houses to Category:Burial sites of European royal families and Category:Burial sites of Austrian noble families

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• just delete -- The one subcat is already well-categorised, or rather, it is far too well categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree the Habsburgs are overcategorized but it makes sense to keep them at least in the Austrian and Spanish categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 19 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support & see above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:04, 21 December 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.

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 12:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Propose deletion Category:Government of Bangalore

Nominator's rationale: Category:Government of Bangalore should be deleted since it is named after a an entity which never existed. Usage of terms Government of Karnataka and Government of India should be entertained but there is (or was) nothing by the name Government of Bangalore. If you want to categorize agencies associated with Bangalore, then we can use Category:Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike for Pages dedicated to Agencies associated with Municipal Corporation. Similarly other Pages which are using Category:Government of Bangalore can use Category:Bangalore. If we want to bring all government agencies on Bangalore, then a this category can be moved to Category:Government agencies of Bangalore or Category:Government agencies based at Bangalore. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 10:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, standard naming convention in the tree of Category:Government by city in India. If not kept, the category should be renamed instead of deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• See also this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Marcocapelle, and the previous discussion. Whether or not there was ever a 'Government of Bangalore' is immaterial.
  Oculi (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep -- per previous discussion. "Category:Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike" is not English. We might have had "Bangalore Municipal Corporation", but this would require changes to all the siblings for other cities. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 19 December 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.