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, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia files with confilicted copyright information (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: unused, replaced by Category:Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information FASTILY 22:18, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Per WP:C1. If the category is empty and the maintenance function that populated has changed, it doesn't serve a purpose. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:14, 22 October 2017 (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: upmerge to Lok Sabha constituencies in [Foo], Constituencies disestablished in XXXX, XXXX disestablishments in India and Category:Defunct constituencies of the Lok Sabha. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Kerala abolished in 1956 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Andhra Pradesh abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Bihar abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Chhattisgarh abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Delhi abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Gujarat abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Haryana abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Karnataka abolished in 1956‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Karnataka abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Kerala abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Madhya Pradesh abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Maharashtra abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Odisha abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Punjab, India abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Rajasthan abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Tamil Nadu abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Uttar Pradesh abolished in 2008‎
• Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in West Bengal abolished in 2008‎

Nominator's rationale: These categories are too specific when e.g. Category:Defunct constituencies of the Lok Sabha and Category:Constituencies disestablished in 1956 exist. I am open to the creation of e.g. Category:Defunct constituencies of the Lok Sabha in Kerala as replacements. Number 57 19:50, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Triple merge, e.g. Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Kerala abolished in 1956 to Category:Lok Sabha constituencies in Kerala, Category:Constituencies disestablished in 1956 and Category:Defunct constituencies of the Lok Sabha, too narrow scope as already indicated by nominator. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Marcocapelle. I think this matches what we do in UK and other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
•  Question: @Number 57, Marcocapelle, and Peterkingiron: Should these categories also be upmerged to the appropriate XXXX disestablishments in India category? -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:19, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, good point. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Fine by me too. Number 57 13:15, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• No objection. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 29 October 2017 (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. A list of winners exists at List of Edinburgh Comedy Award winners. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Edinburgh Comedy Award Panel Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Edinburgh Comedy Award Best Newcomer nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Edinburgh Comedy Award Best Newcomer winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Edinburgh Comedy Award Main Prize nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Edinburgh Comedy Award Main Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEFINING characteristic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and WP:OCAWARD. Listifying the actual winners might be a sensible move. Grutness...wha? 23:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify the winners, then delete, as we usually do for OCAWARD; neutral as to whether the nominees should be listed too, but suspect better not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doesn't seem defining to the articles I clicked through. No objection to listing the contents. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2017 (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) 07:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians with way too much time on their hands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit us to group users by this characteristic. VegaDark (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as a joke/nonsense category that does not facilitate collaboration. A category is a grouping of users, not the equivalent of a personal userbox. Users are free to express their thoughts on their user page without generating a category in the process—it can even be made to look like the category bar using ((fmbox)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 19 October 2017 (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) 07:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who put coloured oblongs on their Userpage to advertise their awesomeness (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as a joke/nonsense category that does not facilitate collaboration. A category is a grouping of users, not the equivalent of a personal userbox. Users are free to express their thoughts on their user page without generating a category in the process—it can even be made to look like the category bar using ((fmbox)). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 19 October 2017 (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) 07:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia adults disgusted by The Wikipedia Adventure (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit us to group users by this characteristic. VegaDark (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, as a category that groups users by a dislike and, moreover, one that is provocative and could be divisive. It's one thing to express this opinion on a user page, but there is no value in or justification for creating a grouping of users based on shared disgust. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:28, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 19 October 2017 (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) 07:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who prefer minor edits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This single-user category (the sole member has been inactive since 2008) does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. A minor edit is one where "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions", so they are appropriate in some situations and not in others. Putting aside the question of whether it is even helpful to know if an individual user prefers minor edits, there is certainly no value in creating a grouping of users (i.e. a user category) who prefer minor edits. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:24, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I cannot think of how a grouping of users in this category would benefit the encyclopedia in any way. VegaDark (talk) 04:37, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:47, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We already have Category:Wikipedian WikiGnomes that expresses a similar idea. --Mark viking (talk) 21:56, 19 October 2017 (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. ℯxplicit 06:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who add interwiki links (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The use of "local" links for interlanguage linking was deprecated in February 2013, with this data being centralized on Wikidata. Therefore, this category has been superseded by Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikidata. I am not proposing to merge to avoid miscategorizing users who used to add local links but no longer do so through Wikidata. (Pinging User:OlEnglish as a potentially interested party.) -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 04:17, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. In addition, grouping users by the characteristic of them adding interwiki links stretches my imagination how it fosters encyclopedic collaboration or otherwise benefits the encyclopedia through said grouping. VegaDark (talk) 04:19, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doesn't help to build an encyclopedia. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:48, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Deprecated. -- œ^™ 07:30, 19 October 2017 (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, and rename where target without "by diocese" does not exist. That is:

• rename Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Austria to Category:Catholic archbishops in Austria, and merge its contents to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Europe by diocese (it is already in Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Austria and there is no Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Austria by diocese);
• merge Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Croatia to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Croatia, Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Croatia and Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Europe by diocese;
• rename Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Czechia to Category:Catholic archbishops in the Czech Republic and merge its contents to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Europe by diocese;
• rename Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Hungary to Category:Catholic archbishops in Hungary, and merge its contents to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Europe by diocese and Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Hungary);
• rename Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Sweden to Category:Catholic archbishops in Sweden, and merge its contents to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Europe by diocese and Category:Catholic bishops by diocese in Sweden);
• Bosnia and Herzegovina like Croatia; Ireland like Hungary; and Portugal like Croatia.

– Fayenatic London 11:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Austria to Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Austria

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Bosnia and Herzegovina

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Croatia to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Croatia

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Czechia to Category:Catholic bishops by diocese in the Czech Republic

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Hungary to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Hungary

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in the Republic of Ireland

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Portugal to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Portugal

Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Sweden to Category:Catholic bishops by diocese in Sweden

Nominator's rationale Most European countries are so small that only a couple of archbishops are present. Many only have a single archbishop. A handful have more than 4. Should be deleted per WP:Smallcat. A triple intersection of archbishop / diocese / country is excessive. The usual Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Foo is sufficient to contain them as all archbishops are just bishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind instead rephrasing the proposal so as to merge them with more relevant, respective categories, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to "Merge" as suggested. Laurel Lodged (talk)

@Laurel Lodged: Thank you. Looks more convenient a proposal. However, still not sure, though. Would have to consider more arguments. On a side note, why don't you consider dropping the largely deciprated "Roman" disambiguator for the merge destination while you're at it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Either do this for all countries or for none, to keep the category tree consistent. However if upmerged there must also be a second merge target, for example, it should also be merged to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Croatia. The latter would be a more important reason to merge, because every archbishops category contains hardly anything but the by-diocese subcategory. That is even the case in the larger countries, so this is a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm beginning to think that my original proposal to delete was more correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upon further checking, categories like Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Croatia appear not to exist in every of the above countries. @Laurel Lodged: Do I understand your last comment correctly that you prefer these categories (if existing) to be deleted instead of serving as a merge target? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Probably keep -- I agree that 2-4 per country is on the small side, according to the normal arguments; while archbishops are by their ordination merely a variety of bishop. Nevertheless, they are bishops in authority over other bishops. As such the numbers are inevitably small, but the normal solution would be to merge with a higher category, not a lower one, but there is nothing higher that is obvious to use until we get to continent, but that is too high. We might theoetically merge Spain and Portugal to Iberia; Ireland, England, etc to British Isles; Croatia, Bosnia, Roumania, etc to Balkans; etc, butthat would not be normal practice. Accordingly Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that for now (pending further discussion) we still have the possibility to merge the archbishops-by-diocese categories to the plain archbishops categories, so keeping them all within the same country. That is something we may well do. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. For now go with the merges. Later we'll talk about further deletions / upmerges. Will also need to rename to be rid of the deprecated "Roman" part. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if kept, the ...Czechia category should be renamed to ...Czech Republic. The term Czechia is, to the best of my knowledge, not used in WP's category trees. Grutness...wha? 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – not quite sure what the nom is trying to address. WP:Smallcat has no bearing on the number of subcats required in a subcat scheme, otherwise UK categories would not be split into England, Wales, Scotland and NI. Should perhaps be 'by archdiocese'. The question is: what are the most appropriate parents for Category:Archbishops of Zadar? Clearly it needs to be in both the archbishops tree (from which the present nom removes it) and the bishops tree, which it is already in. (It is a subcat scheme for archbishops, not a triple intersection.) One could sensibly merge Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Croatia up to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Croatia or to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Europe but not to any 'bishops' category. Oculi (talk) 14:29, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merging to a bishops category would not be totally wrong, an archbishop is not only archbishop of a province but also bishop of a diocese, similar to the fact that the pope is also bishop of Rome. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Further comment -- the "by diocese" level is certainly redundant. Category:Catholic archbishops in Croatia would be adequate. We can drop "Roman", because there are no other Catholics there. I would also support changing Czechia to Czech Republic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 18:00, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support this alternative. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• This confirms my earlier point of September 19, so I obviously support this too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 25 October 2017 (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.