Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 14

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 13
February 15 >

February 14

Category:Uruguayan theatrical dancer-actresses

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:38, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual merge. This is a non-defining intersection. Mason (talk) 23:59, 14 February 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.

Category:Hebrew gods

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 22#Category:Hebrew gods

Category:English triplets

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 February 22#Category:English triplets

Category:African-American women lawyers

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:42, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:EGRS. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:37, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
A simple Google search does reveal whether sources exist which discuss the intersection in detail. This is necessary because, per
WP:EGRS, "At all times, the bottom line remains can a valid, encyclopedic main article be written for this grouping?" Obviously, there are plenty of sources which discuss this intersection and a valid encyclopedic main article could be written about this topic.--User:Namiba 03:35, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
So are you not going to make the case for why this intersection for a specific occupation is defining? You seem to be really focused on discussing that sources exist, but not what the sources say that you find convincing. I had read thru several sources before I madesupported the nomination. My impression from the literature was that there was not a defining intersection between occupation + race + gender for law. My impression was that law was like many other professions where being black and female were both disadvantageous. I did not come away with the impression that their were specific disadvantages at the intersection for the occupation itself. It seems that you have come to the conclusion that the intersection of being black, female, and a lawyer is distinct. Can you give specific examples? I am happy to change my mind, but I did not find any that were. Mason (talk) 02:42, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: There are a number of previous Cfds which have deleted or merged categories by both gender and ethnicity. A few recent ones: this one and this one, and this one. Omnis Scientia (talk) 14:43, 31 January 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) 02:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I originally closed this as "merge", and am reopening and relisting following complaints on my talk page.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, * Pppery * it has begun... 21:21, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per other recent examples, I think EGRS applies here, and both up-merges are valid. SportingFlyer T·C 21:36, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge because of the triple (or quadruple?) intersection. The target categories underline the specificity of these lawyers due to their being African American, and women. Place Clichy (talk) 14:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I started Black women in American law given the overwhelming number of sources, which I'd invite you to help improve. Mason, you asked how is this intersection defining and I'd say that the sources PROVE it is defining. The sources show that African-American women face unique circumstances and "dual discrimination" that have been written about repeatedly. This is no different than the other 17 categories at Category:African-American women by occupation. As a reminder, it is a sign of Wikipedia's systemic bias that this category is even being questioned.--User:Namiba 14:45, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, you still keep saying that the sources prove it, but don't say how or why the intersection for lawyer, african american, and being a woman is notable. No one is disputing that "African-American women face unique circumstances and "dual discrimination"". But those experiences aren't specific to being a lawyer, indeed you note that "This is no different than the other 17 categories". However, what I would need to see and have been asking for is evidence that there are unique occupation specific things at the intersection. Can you give specific law related examples? I am happy to change my mind, but I did not find any lawyer specific examples. I have been asking for specific examples because I would like to have my mind changed. Like if I were to provide examples for a similar profession, such as being a black woman scientist, I would say: women of color are even less likely to receive R01 awards than white women [https://journals.lww.com/academicmedicine/fulltext/2016/08000/gender,_race_ethnicity,_and_national_institutes_of.23.aspx], and scientists of color are less likely to receive grant funding than white scientists [https://elifesciences.org/articles/83071]. This is a occupation specific example. Mason (talk) 20:32, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You continue to ignore the most essential principle of
WP:EGRS, which I've stated over and over again. But to be more direct: Black women were denied the right to practice law in most place well past several and have faced immense legal and social pressure to not practice law ever since. Can a head article be written about the subject? Well, I've started one that has half a dozen sources so perhaps you can address that?--User:Namiba 22:16, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Again, I don't understand why you were so unwilling to answer the question when I asked it. I understand that EGRS says that the intersection" itself [is] recognized as a
defining topic that has already been established in sources as academically or culturally significant in its own right." I was not ignoring it. My reading of EGRS is that it requires more than just sources exist. It is that the topic is established in sources as being academically or culturally significant. I was effectively asking you to explain HOW it has been established, because I hadn't found works that discussed the mechanisms in law specifically. Mason (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Anyway, I appreciate you being direct. I think that this conversation could have been much less drawn out, as your answer was helpful. Mason (talk) 00:42, 16 February 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.

Category:Schools in Yarmouth, Maine

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NARROWCAT. User:Namiba 19:00, 14 February 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.

Category:21st-century professional wrestlers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename.
(non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:35, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: This category, containing 1,630 at the time of nomination, treats male as the unnamed default. Category:21st-century female professional wrestlers is split off. Either the contents need to be merged or the entire category renamed. User:Namiba 16:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We can just make a child category. Mason (talk) 19:49, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Support rename per marco Mason (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smasongarrison, Marcocapelle, and Namiba: what exactly are you supporting? It looks like Mason created Category:21st-century male professional wrestlers in the interim. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:44, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the idea is that we'll overwrite the category I made via the rename, and after the pages are moved to the rename, we'll recreate the parent category. I think the idea is that then the bot will do the heavy lifting. Mason (talk) 02:23, 22 February 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.

Category:2007 FIBA Americas Championship

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: procedural keep with no prejudice against renomination alongside its siblings.
(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:52, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NARROWCAT. Contains only 2 articles, both of which are in the appropriate subcategories already. User:Namiba 16:46, 14 February 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.

Category:American tennis coaches by state

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.
(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
tennis coaches by state
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCLOCATION and previous Cfd. Many of these people happenned to coach one season of college tennis (in which case, they should be in Category:College tennis coaches in the United States or one of its subcats). I purged a lot of people who weren't coaches as well and some are not from the state they are sorted into. Additionally, there are not enough notable coaches to justify spliting by state. From WP:OCLOCATION: "Location may also be used as a way to diffuse a large category into subcategories, for example, Category:American writers by state." Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
@Marcocapelle, @Smasongarrison, courtesy ping since you were part of the previous Cfd.. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it is widely understood that the location from which one is from impacts their notability. That is why by state or territory is widely used across Wikipedia. There is no reason to believe that the same is not true for coaches. Indeed, coaches are sorted by location in virtually all other sports as well. Lastly, you say that the categories are too small to be justified but 10/10 have 5 or more articles in them, which is the accepted the standard for size. Moreover, since you insisted on deleting American tennis people by state, this would also remove them from any connection to tennis in their particular location. Lastly, the parent, Category:American tennis coaches, has 148 articles which have not been sorted by state or territory yet and this will increase the number of articles in each category.--User:Namiba 14:39, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Not every single sport played in the United States needs to have a "Coaches by state" category. Omnis Scientia (talk) 20:24, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that tennis coaches shouldn't be sorted by state despite their being more than enough articles to do so, you should make that case.--User:Namiba 20:28, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't see the need for dividing tennis coaches into "state" categories when there are very few notable coaches. And by notable coaches I mean the ones who made their career AS coaches (whether college - who have their own categories as noted above - or professional), not those who were better known as players and then went on have a brief but forgetable coaching career after their playing career ended. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:03, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are approximately 200 articles in Category:American tennis coaches. Whether you think their career as a coach was forgettable or not is not relevant here.--User:Namiba 03:36, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And those are too few to warrent splitting the category by states. Again, coaches of every sport played in the United States don't need such categories. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:50, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What does "too few" mean here? There are 10 categories with 5 or more articles in them already and more will be created. How do you decide what is "too few"?--User:Namiba 12:07, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've given my reasons: that these are against
WP:OCLOCATION because, IMO, there aren't enough coaches to divide by state and I don't know how likely it is that a notable tennis coach comes out of Conneticut or one of the smaller states in the near future. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Why do you hold these categories to a different standard than all of the other categories? You're trying to delete some categories with over 20 articles because they're too small. 5 is the accepted standard for size. Category:Tennis coaches from California has 30 articles in it. Category:Tennis coaches from Florida has 23. Why are these too small? There is no need to create categories for states which do not yet have a sufficient number of articles like Connecticut.--User:Namiba 16:57, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only two have over twenty. Except for Illinois which has 13, the rest have less than ten. I should also point out a few articles appear in multiple states.
As for why I hold these tennis categories differently (and why I objected to them being created in the first place) to, say, baseball: baseball has different types of coaches - first base, third base, pitching, hitting, bench, bullpen (and more) - and there are many pro teams in a lot of cities, which means there are a LOT of non-player coaches. Far more than tennis which has only one type of coach. And that coach's notability depends on the success of the player they are coaching OR if they were players once themselves. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm won't argue with you further on this. I've made my case. I get where you are coming from but I don't see a PRESSING need for dividing coaches by states. The parent category isn't overflowing. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:17, 30 January 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) 02:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete and purge—I checked and agree that a lot of the tennis coach articles are not defined by it, as noted above. (t · c) buidhe 00:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are currently 46 articles in Category:Tennis coaches from California. You don't think there are 5 people defined by coaching? Being a coach after having a professional career is always defining. It is an extension of their success in the field.--User:Namiba 15:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't defining. And I honestly don't understand why you keep on adding people who had incredibly brief coaching careers (in some cases they would not even been considered proper tennis coaches) and are clearly better known for other things. I'm sorry but this is an odd thing to become so defensive over. There just aren't enough tennis coaches - like ACTUAL tennis coaches - to fill like even half the U.S. states. Not everything needs to be divided by states. Omnis Scientia (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you believe we should delete Category:Tennis coaches and its subcategories as non-defining, then being a professional or collegiate tennis coach IS a defining characteristic.--User:Namiba 16:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think tennis coaches in non-defining. It is the intersection between state and tennis coaches. As far as I can see, it is only done when the nationality-only category is too big. It is not in this case. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:50, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is whether the coaching career defines the person itself to justify adding them to Category:American tennis coaches. Are they notable tennis coaches AT ALL? Are they known for being tennis coaches? If not, then they shouldn't be there. Omnis Scientia (talk) 08:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, your view of "defining" is incorrect. And it is not fair to say or imply even that "if these categories are non-defining then none of them should exist" because that is not the point here. "Foo by state" are used in cases where diffusion is desperately needed.
And before you say so, college coaches are well diffused by colleges and universities already. They are not defined by states but by the institutions they are working in. Hence why they weren't in Category:American tennis coaches before which is for tennis coaches who train professional players. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:04, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, I would be in favor of purging college tennis coaches. They are, like faculty and other sports coaches, defined by the insitution and not the state they are from. Omnis Scientia (talk) 09:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have enough information to say that being a tennis coach isn't defining for a significant number of these articles. I just looked at the first 25 articles in Category:Tennis coaches from California and found that coaching is a prominent part of the article in 20 of the articles. Some of them are primarily known as coaches. There are 46 articles in the category.--User:Namiba 19:29, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This nomination doesn't make sense - it seeks to extrapolate a precedent that was primarily based on size to cases where it doesn't apply. If some people aren't defined by their role as coaches, then purge them, and Namiba seems to imply there still is no reason to merge. * Pppery * it has begun... 05:13, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery, its more that I don't see why tennis coaches have to divided by states. Like I understand "Foo by state" categories exist in cases where the parent category is/would be too big and HAS to be diffused but that isn't the case here. And there would be even fewer articles if you did purge those whose careers aren't defined by coaching in tennis or who had very brief post-playing careers as coaches. Hope I've cleared it up. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:22, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. It is perfectly fine to primarily define people by the couple of nationality plus occupation. Place Clichy (talk) 10:44, 13 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Merge per nom and Marco Mason (talk) 02:40, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep valid part of a larger sub-categorisation scheme. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @
    WP:OCLOCATION
    ). It is not very big in this case since very few tennis coaches reach notability.
    We should purge all the "coaches" who are better known as players - the norm in other sports categories is that ex-players-turned-coaches are not categorized in "Coaches by state" categories (if those exist for that sport) since they are already in "Players by state" categories - and the college coaches since they are defined by the instititon they coach in and not by the state they are from - that is also the norm in other sports. Omnis Scientia (talk) 23:06, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't mind if there's a re-organisation of who is in what category but I still do think this is a valid category since the parent category would otherwise be too large. SportingFlyer T·C 09:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the proposal goes through, there will be more than 250 articles in Category:American tennis coaches so I don't see how anyone can argue that category doesn't need to be diffused. Diffusing by location is the standard and preferred method of doing so.--User:Namiba 17:23, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we differ on what is a considered a large category. I think 250 articles is a small enough to easily navigate compared to if it was like around 1000 articles. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteThere is no justification to split these people by state. None of the keep arguments provide actual guideline or policy justification. They are rarely referred to through their state by the media so there is no reason for us to so either.Tvx1 19:33, 20 February 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.

Category:Wars in the Land of Israel

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:43, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bringing it here for other opinions. This 30 day old category seems perhaps political, ambiguous and unnecessary. Doug Weller talk 11:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definite delete, there is no definition to what even constitutes the "Land of Israel" or whether this definition existed consistently if at all. Makeandtoss (talk) 16:30, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and its not even close, Land of Israel has never been a common English name for any region and this ngram will make that abundantly clear. It is a religious phrase, not a historical one. nableezy - 16:43, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. A mergeback is not needed because the creator of the category just added this category to articles without replacing any. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete propaganda category. Bishonen | tålk 09:58, 15 February 2024 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-hidden POV. Very strange that the name you chose for a land selects part of its history, showing very clearly that this category is not about the _L_and. The omission of categories relative to e.g. the Crusades, Napoleon's Syria campaign, WWI, Byzantine wars or Ramessid campaigns which all happened in the same place says a lot. Place Clichy (talk) 13:35, 20 February 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.

Category:2010s Indian superhero films

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: procedural keep with no prejudice against renominating all four decade subcategories of
(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Extremely redundant, as the categories "2010s superhero films" and "Indian superhero films" exist. We don't have "2010s American superhero films", even though there are so many since Iron Man 2 (2010). Kailash29792 (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that the four sibling categories are subject of four different nominations. It would be helpful to bring them together. I would not mind deletion if they are all deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, and I haven't found a way to do so. If this gets closed without consensus, you could help nominate them together? Kailash29792 (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps begin by giving Wikipedia:Categories for discussion a read? –Aidan721 (talk) 01:18, 21 February 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.

Category:1990s Indian superhero films

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: procedural keep with no prejudice against renominating all four decade subcategories of
(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:48, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Content exists in separate categories "1990s superhero films" and "Indian superhero films". Kailash29792 (talk) 10:49, 14 February 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.

Category:Hindu mythological films

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: The subject is
Puranic film. Also, many staunch Hindus/non secularists keep erasing the term "Hindu mythology" from articles to replace with Puranas which they feel is more neutral and accurate. Kailash29792 (talk) 10:43, 14 February 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.

Category:Films condemned by the Legion of Decency

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I really don't believe that this is a
WP:DEFINING characteristic of a film. --woodensuperman 10:36, 14 February 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.

Category:Early photographers in Egypt

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to align with parent Category:Pioneers of photography. Also apply the same cut-off as the parent category (by 1880). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom Mason (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:36, 18 February 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.

Category:Hokkien writing system

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:NATURAL Remsense诉 05:04, 14 February 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.

Category:South Bend Commercial-Athletic Club football seasons

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 04:05, 14 February 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.

Category:Newton Athletic Association football seasons

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in category. Let'srun (talk) 04:04, 14 February 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.

Category:Cortland Red Dragons football seasons

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category. Let'srun (talk) 04:00, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for now, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per Marcocapelle. SportingFlyer T·C 21:32, 14 February 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.

Category:Parsons Wildcats football seasons

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one redirect. Let'srun (talk) 03:56, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Can possibly be re-created if a number of other seasons get created. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 14 February 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.

Category:Nova albums

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:51, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Not about nova, Space Metal (UFO album) says the label is "Nova Records". Alternately just delete. * Pppery * it has begun... 03:10, 14 February 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.

Category:American LGBT people by identity

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: speedy merge per
WP:G4, and record a formal warning to Giovanni 0331 not to disrupt the implementation of consensus again. – Fayenatic London 12:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Why was this just made? The consensus was against this rename https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_2#LGBT_people_by_sexual_orientation_and_nationality Mason (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As far as I can tell, most of which, if not all, were recently re-created by the same user. Omnis Scientia (talk) 10:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Support the proposed G4 merge of all above, and would add the following, also recently created by the same user contrary to another recent CfD:
Agree to this merger as well. Omnis Scientia (talk) 15:21, 14 February 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.


Category:Geneseo Knights men's soccer

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow up to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_6#Category:Geneseo_Knights_football Only one page in category for a long defunct program Mason (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Let'srun (talk) 03:57, 14 February 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.

Category:Tamil-language LGBT-related television shows

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category for just two TV shows. This would be fine if there were a lot of shows to categorize here, but isn't necessary for just two, and we don't have a comprehensive scheme of categorizing all LGBT-related television shows for primary language across the board. Even the proposed target category only has 15 shows in it, none of which are subbed out for language besides these, so it isn't large enough to need this either. Bearcat (talk) 01:03, 14 February 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.

Category:Tidewater Boats

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. If someone wishes to write an article, the sole content of this category is
(non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 01:46, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply
]
Convert Category:Tidewater Boats to article Tidewater Boats
Nominator's rationale: Merge somewhere, this category only has a lone category in it. IT could be converted into a stub, but right now it is just a category with some serious overcategorization. Mason (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete category, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. If anyone would like to write an article about it, by all means go ahead. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 14 February 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.

Category:21st century in photography

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:41, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm proposing we rename this category to match the older sibling (Category:19th-century photography). That format seemed to be based on a CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_20#Category:19th-century_in_photography. I'm fine with either format as long as both categories have it. Mason (talk) 00:45, 14 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_February_14&oldid=1209681547"