View text source at Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 17

< November 16
November 18 >

November 17

[edit]

Category:Universities in South Papua

[edit]
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) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated category with only one page in it SMasonGarrison 23:39, 17 November 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:Fooian-century Fooian male/women classical pianists

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Category:Fooian-century Fooian male/women classical pianists

Category:Cape Verde–United Kingdom relations

[edit]
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) 00:08, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category containing no main article and no articles at all. Subcategories already exist in sufficient category trees. Empty category is unhelpful for navigation. AusLondonder (talk) 09:41, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More participation needed to form consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:58, 8 November 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) 23:18, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • When trying to populate a new category with subcategories you would look for how the siblings are populated. That isn't any different in this particular case. So I don't understand FL's objection either. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, the fact that there is no article on the topic does not mean the category should not exist. Clearly the expatriate subcats are an aspect of bilateral relations between the countries so that is why the category was created. Or if that's deemed not to be sufficient, its a very half-hearted nomination given that there are 63 entries in Category:Bilateral relations of Cape Verde, 53 of which contain only subcategories, 40 of which are only 1 subcategory. Deleting one category achieves little unless it is being treated as a test case for others, but it hasn't been stated as such and ideally should have more participation to act as a credible precedent. But personally I feel they're mildly useful for navigation - alternatively, does the existence of a Foo-Bar relations article make a category for that subject more valid and useful? Maybe the whole Bilateral relations of Foo intersections should be looked at - are they needed at all? Crowsus (talk) 13:13, 19 November 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:Family of William Jennings Bryan

[edit]
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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:02, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: William Jennings Bryan was one of many notable family members so I think centering him is not the best way forward. It is Category:Bryan family (William Jennings Bryan family) in Wikimedia Commons. User:Namiba 15:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Question: are other categories on Wikipedia named like you're proposing? SMasonGarrison 00:01, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are some. See Category:Eliot family (United States) and Category:Morton family (United States).--User:Namiba 19:41, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This appears to be a fairly common formulation for categories relating to relatives or other topics concerning famous individuals, such as presidents of the United States, industrialists, etc. The proposed alternative, "Bryan family", would tend to attract unrelated persons named "Bryan" unless formulated as in Wikimedia Commons. However, that formulation seems rather pedantic—though it may well have a good reason for being so in that case, since there are probably quite a lot of photographs relating to William Jennings Bryan and his family, and it might be the product of a merger between related categories. There is no compelling reason why the corresponding category at Wikipedia needs to use the same formulation, though it may be advantageous to link the categories. The current title here is clear, concise, and logical. Let's keep it where it is. P Aculeius (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on P Aculeius's objection?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:14, 17 November 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:Chemical looping technologies

[edit]
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:Chemical processes. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: From previous discussions and new research (from article), these specific technologies look to be chemical processes meant to act as a method of carbon capture. @DMacks I would appreciate input regarding the chemistry side — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChemicalBear (talk • contribs) 21:45, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was some pre-discussion on my talk page about procedural stuff. Pinging participants from the previous discussion: @Marcocapelle, DMacks, and Smasongarrison. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 21:52, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will tag the category. Comments on merge target would be appreciated. ChemicalBear suggests Category:Chemical processes; does that work for folks?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:13, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds fine as a merge target for me SMasonGarrison 23:32, 17 November 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:Evil child films

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Category:Evil child films

Category:Writers from Pasco, Washington

[edit]
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) 00:07, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 21:46, 17 November 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:Travelers

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Category:Travelers

Category:Viking Age slave trade

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Category:Viking Age slave trade


Category:James Bond articles up for deletion

[edit]
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) 00:10, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category isn't helpful anymore as it doesn't track current issues relevant to the project but anything that was ever sent to AfD. For current issues, we have Article Alerts which notifies projects about pages sent to AfD. Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 17 November 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:Fictional kenjutsuka

[edit]
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 Category:Swordfighters in Japanese fiction and purge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 23:19, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is unclear how the page creator arrived at the conclusion that these characters practice "Japanese swordsmanship" beyond the fact that they use a katana. It seems to be original research. That they use swords is not as up for debate, however. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 11:24, 17 November 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:Landsverk

[edit]
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) 23:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge, the category only contains the main article and a very broad topic article, not specifically about Landsverk. The subcategory suffices and can be moved to Category:Economic history of Landskrona. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 17 November 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:History of transport in Landskrona

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 26#Category:History of transport in Landskrona

Category:People by paranormal abilities

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Category:People by paranormal abilities

Category:Individual heroes and heroines

[edit]
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. There was some discussion about whether or not WP:SUBJECTIVECAT needs to be revised, but that proposer expressed being fine with ending this discussion and the conversation over at WT:Categorization has entirely stalled. No prejudice towards recreation if revisions to policy are eventually made. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me! 15:00, 24 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category with obvious WP:POV issues. Declaring real people to be "heroes" in general (not just recipients of some subjective award from a national POV) is inherently controversial. Will Armenians be OK with this being a parent to Category:National Heroes of Azerbaijan? Will Palestinians be OK with recipients of the Hero of Israel being here? Will the recipients of the Knight's Cross of the Iron Cross or Hero of the Soviet Union be included? The previously existing Category:Heroes is limited to fiction and legend to avoid this problem. See also the comments in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heroes by country and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of heroes. RL0919 (talk) 06:57, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Second, its supercategory is Category:People by behavior which is huge. It has for instance Category:Misers and Category:Imposters which, is a person who just lies about their education an imposter? It's subjective, well that is how reality works. Category:Rebels by nationality. "Rebel" is a real English word, yes, but who is a "rebel"? My rebel is your terrorist is the next guy's traitor. Who is an Outlaw? Gunslingers? Political prisoners? Serial killers? Subjective, and fine. That doesn't mean we should pretend the English term "Rebel" has no meaning and isn't an important characteristic of some people.
"Skeptics by nationality". Subjective. "Whistleblowers by nationality". Subjective. "Bibliophiles by nationality", which what does that even mean -- people with big book collections? People who read, write, or review lots of books? Literary people who are just neck deep in the world of books? Subjective. I think these categories are very good myself, but if you don't agree then clean up Category:People by behavior with a big well-attended discussion (and good luck with that). But let's not take the gaptoothed-smile approach and pick out this category and that category at random. That would be sujective. But if you really want to, this category is surely not the place to start.
Yes of course there are marginal cases for all these categories, very very many categories. Figuring out who should be in the categories is why we have knowledge, judgment, intelligence, and experience. Is that bad. Should we not have and use those things. Yes editors will disagree. Oh well that is the Wikipedia isn't it. If we had a professional executive editor to decide that'd be different. But we don't. We have to rely on our wits instead. "People who have received an actual Medal of Honor" as opposed to people who haven't is tidy and easy, but being tidy and easy for editors is not our main goal, and if that's that the only card one has describe people maybe that is not a great virtue.
Third of all, there are people whose defining characteristic is being heroic. In my mind that's super important. How the heck are you going to define, whose article reads

Joseph Lumpkin Merrell (1862 – 1939)[1] was an American sheriff. He was sheriff of Carroll County, Georgia at the turn of the 20th century who gained nationwide fame for stopping a lynching.[2] Articles about his bravery appeared in [many national papers][3] He is also mentioned by Mark Twain in his 1901 essay The United States of Lyncherdom.[4]

He's categorized as a sheriff. Well lots of people are sheriffs. Lots of people were born in 1862. The only important category he has is Category:Lynching in the United States. But was he a perpetrator? Victim? Defense attorney? Activist? No he wasn't, he was a brave hero and that is why he has an article and "being a hero" is more of a shared than "being an accountant"
Gabriele von Lutzau is in Category:Flight attendants. Is that why she has an article? Did she set a record for most miles flown or something? No, she was a heroine at Mogadishu. She is in Category:Hijacking survivors and Category:German people taken hostage but she was no passive survivor or hostage like say Theo Albrecht etc. etc. Very different things.
Von Lutzau has an article because she was a heroine. She just was, is all. And so forth. That is why I made the category, to serve the reader who is using categories for navigation or definition. "Serve the reader" is important. If you can't put people in the category which is the reason the person has an article... you are basically misleading the reader. "Oh OK he was a lyncher, I'm looking for heroes." Let's not do this. And let's not grasp at straws such as subjectivity (which I think I've refuted pretty well) or set up strawmen (since when do Palestinians or Russians or whomever have veto power over us? Armenians and Azerbaijani heroes would be handled the same as Armenian and Azerbaijani poets etc, whatever we are doing now. Right? POV can be put into a whole lot of our material, are we ruled by fear of that now?) These are really weak arguments, to delete material which is probably helpful to the reader. Herostratus (talk) 05:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Is the Namor a hero or a villain" Is this a trick question? That particular characters is known for constanty switching sides between heroic and villainous affiliations, and for his near-constant mood swings. Dimadick (talk) 16:10, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah taking out the categories would be justified I suppose, if you all want to. It's something that could be discussed on the talk page Unless the category is, I don't know, deleted. Then it can't.
I looked it up, and WP:NONDEFINING starts with "One of the central goals of the categorization system is to categorize articles by their defining characteristics" and there's more in that vein. Enh, we have lots of WP:RULES that conflict with WP:OTHER_RULES that we can WP:SHOUT at each in WP:ALL_CAPS. But I wouldn't overvalorize that.
Without this category, people like Joseph Merrill (sheriff) won't have a category with their defining characteristic, even tho the article says "Articles about his bravery appeared in the New York Evening Post, the Atlanta Constitution, the Louisville Courier Journal, the Washington Star, and the Boston Herald". That is why I made the category. For people like him. I looked at Harriet Tubman and it has "Frederic Douglas wrote 'The midnight sky and the silent stars have been the witnesses of your devotion to freedom and of your heroism'." Kate Larson (historian) wrote a book "Bound for the promised land : Harriet Tubman, portrait of an American hero". Granted Tubman has a couple-few other defining categories, so that's not the only defining category. But for Gabriele von Lutzau, Joseph Merrill (sheriff), and Thomas Beloat (Thomas Beloat (February 6, 1855 – February 23, 1946) was an American sheriff of Gibson County, Indiana at the turn of the 20th century noted for stopping a lynching... Beloat was one of two law enforcement officials whose bravery in preventing lynchings...), and Abraham Zelmanowitz (Has President Bush saying "And we have seen our national character in eloquent acts of sacrifice. Inside the World Trade Center, one man, who could have saved himself, stayed until the end at the side of his quadriplegic friend." That's four and and I'm sure there are at least a few more.
So... if we can't have this category, these persons don't have a defining category, and the article should maybe be deleted, which is not unreasonable for the four cases I've found so far. That's not my call. But that's a weird reason to delete articles IMO.
I think the best way forward here is to ask of all these types of categories (there are quite a few, I mentioned a couple above) should all be deleted. That's a reasonable position, maybe they should. IMO individual things of a set being deleted cos somebody random came across it is messy and not excellent. I'll set up a thread in say [[Talk:WP:CATEGORIES]]. Until then, I'd like to request relisting until that's talked thru. Herostratus (talk) 09:42, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not. It's a big global question. I posted just where people might be interested, WP:Categorization, I have no idea what there would think either way, and I deliberately avoided mentioning this thread or even the exact category name just so that people would have to dig to find us here, so it's as non-forumshopping as I could possibly do. The thread is Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Tension between WP:NONDEFINING vs. WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:CATDEF which I think describes the root issue, after some digging and thinking about it. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(Made a minor fix to the link so it goes to the right section.) RevelationDirect (talk) 20:38, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who worked to change several WP:OC editing guidelines and still has concerns with one, I'm willing to engage over the application of the guildine here and the underlying wording there.
Unless broader editor interest in revising WP:SUBJECTIVECAT emerges, I wouldn't support delaying this nomination though. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK that's fine. Herostratus (talk) 08:10, 21 November 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:Fictional Ninjutsu practitioners

[edit]
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) 23:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Can this really be separated from ninja in an obvious way? Due to extreme WP:OVERLAPCAT, I suggest selectively merging and any who do not apply should be upmerged to Category:Fictional practitioners of Japanese martial arts instead. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:47, 17 November 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:Tyrant flycatcher stubs

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 26#Category:Tyrant flycatcher stubs

Category:Melee weapons

[edit]
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) 00:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Given melee weapon was deleted, this category in itself is facing a crisis. I suggest a merge for any applicable articles, as it is no longer a viable means to categorize things. This also includes any subcategories reading "melee weapons" to be merged into their respective nation subcategory. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:44, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I will add the countries to the nomination.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:43, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the nomination; no opinion on the merits. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:50, 17 November 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:Languages written in Latin script

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 26#Category:Languages written in Latin script

Category:Fictional males by franchise

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Category:Fictional males by franchise

Category:Demon superheroes

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 November 25#Category:Demon superheroes

Category:Serious games

[edit]
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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining/overlapping SMasonGarrison 12:39, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on zxcvbnm's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:15, 17 November 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:Tiziano Ferro redirects

[edit]
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 * Pppery * it has begun... 19:01, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no album or song redirect schemes such as there is for television episodes (e.g. Category:Episode redirects to lists). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:29, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then there are tens of thousands of these redirects in Category:Redirects from songs that really should be further organized in some way, for maintenance purposes if nothing else. I have been working with the songs, albums and redirects of this artist and have found it helpful to organize the dozens of related redirects. I don't see the need for deletion, and actually I'm encouraged to create a scheme.— TAnthonyTalk 23:42, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But assuming this idea will horrify the music redirect community, I can accept a consolidation to Category:Tiziano Ferro redirects.— TAnthonyTalk 23:50, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Find it helpful for what? What are you looking for by categorizing variations on the title of L'amore è una cosa semplice created as redirects? Any actual redirects (not misspellings, miscapitalizations, etc.) for albums or songs that are listed in the discography or track listing can be merged to the parent albums/songs category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I admit I do not understand what Marcocapelle means by a "maintenance process" – what would you like to see in order to support keeping/merging the categories? If you support keeping/merging the category, is that something that can happen?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:30, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Is there an answer to Marcocapelle's question?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:57, 17 November 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:Restaurants in Hoboken, New Jersey

[edit]
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) 00:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just two entries. Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Five entries (one of which is a redirect) as of relisting. Is that enough to keep the category?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 01:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes...Djflem (talk) 20:37, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See above relisting comment
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:55, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Lost in Quebec and Marcocapelle: thoughts? HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:56, 17 November 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:Celtic stone heads

[edit]
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) 00:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Move to Celtic stone idols, as per recently created article that widens scope. Ceoil (talk) 02:38, 17 November 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 slave trade

[edit]
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:Slave trade. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:03, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to cover the same scope BaduFerreira (talk) 20:41, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Thoughts on Marcocapelle's comment?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 00:28, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lean oppose. Per Marco Procedurally, the merge target is too broad. SMasonGarrison 02:01, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, charlotte 👸♥ 00:50, 17 November 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.