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. I suggest opening another CfD if other alternatives (such as moving the subcats and/or parents) are to be considered. No consensus for Catholic/Roman Catholic alternative move. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 09:53, 20 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic church buildings in North America to Category:Roman Catholic churches in North America

Nominator's rationale: revert out-of-process move by user:Tahc in 2015. This category does not contain articles on individual church buildings, but only sub-categories named Roman Catholic churches in the Caribbean etc; all its sub-cats are "churches", "cathedrals" or "parishes and churches", and the siblings for all other continents within Category:Roman Catholic churches by continent use "Roman Catholic churches in Foo". The rationale stated in Tahc's edit summary was "to match parent & child cats", but it did not match the child cats either then or now. ([1]) After that move, many other categories were nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_1#Churches/Church_buildings, with a consensus to use "churches", but this one was overlooked in that nomination. – Fayenatic London 20:58, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to Fayenatic's comments above, Category:Roman Catholic church buildings in North America currently has parent-categories with mis-matching and with matching names. tahc ^chat 21:43, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per the cfd of 1 May 2015, which chose 'church' over 'church building'. Oculi (talk) 10:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Especially in this context, the preference for "church building" as opposed to more vague "church" should be obvious. PPEMES (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• But every single subcat uses 'churches'. Oculi (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I deem that better change as well. We can afford that accuracy by natural disambiguation in the category tree. PPEMES (talk) 11:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak support, just for procedural reasons, because it was an out-of-process move. However, substantively it is a poor idea to use "churches" for "church buildings" in cases of organizations that in itself are called "a church". This problem also occurs in the Anglican Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, the Lutheran Church in Sweden, etc. Using "church" for "church building" is too ambiguous in those instances. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The 'poor idea' was a well-attended cfd decision affecting dozens of categories. People ought to respect cfd decisions or get a new consensus. Oculi (talk) 07:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I know, therefore no oppose, but I am not changing my mind either. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose I will not support, weakly or otherwise, a proposal that is inferior to the status quo. The proposal offers less clarity than the status quo. I opposed in the citation offered and will continue to oppose it. That decision was just plain wrong and needs to be reversed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The building is the main meaning for the term "church". Dimadick (talk) 07:14, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As mentioned below, in Catholic context building is not the main meaning of the term Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Catholic church buildings in North America per our article Catholic Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't there seem to be a de facto convention about "Roman Catholic" inside Category:Latin Church category tree? Or you think that this category should include church buildings both Latin and Eastern Catholic? PPEMES (talk) 08:31, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert There are also plenty of Category:Eastern Catholic church buildings in North America, and the contrast with Roman Catholic church buildings is useful. Place Clichy (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - Discussion in previous CfDs has often found that church buildings is preferable to churches in denominational categories. This is especially true for branches of Christianity where the use of church in the meaning of church body is very prevalent (and therefore the confusion with church building more likely), such as Catholicism, Eastern & Oriental Orthodoxy and in general those which follow the episcopal polity. Place Clichy (talk) 18:02, 2 September 2019 (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. MER-C 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Famous Youtubers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: No clear definition of what makes a Youtuber "famous" other than POV. Otherwise, just over-categorisation of notable Youtubers already included in parent category:YouTubers. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 20:15, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Contents should already be in one or more other sub-cats of Youtubers by nationality, gender & genre, so no merge is needed. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Arbitrarily defined and adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia nor its category system. Geolodus (talk) 06:39, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:55, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete overcat, arbitrary subjective criteria of inclusion. – Ammarpad (talk) 07:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - redundant to parent category and its other subcategories. –Sonicwave ^talk 06:33, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV definition. Dimadick (talk) 07:15, 18 August 2019 (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. MER-C 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Vajiralongkorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: One eponymous article. Uncategorised. Rathfelder (talk) 20:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added this category to the parent Category:Thai monarchs, so it is no longer uncategorised. Presently no opinion on whether to keep or delete. Geolodus (talk) 06:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly there could be more related articles, but no obvious need for the category at present.Rathfelder (talk) 10:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OCEPON. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2019 (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. MER-C 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Cryonics pioneers to Category:Cryonicists

Nominator's rationale: The field of cryonics is a pseudoscience, yet we have two very small categories, one for cryonicists and one for cryonics "pioneers", arbitrarily defined. There is significant overlap: three of the 13 articles in this category (25%) are in both. The more general category has only 8 entries. Guy (Help!) 17:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• No objection (as category creator). I created this as a split from Category:Cryonics, see [3]. There is evidently no need for two categories for biographies. – Fayenatic London 18:54, 11 August 2019 (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: speedy delete (G5). MER-C 09:10, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kla Project albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT only has a single entry. AussieLegend (✉) 16:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, this nomination contradicts the instruction in the header of Category:Albums by artist. It may be more helpful to discuss this instruction as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 12 August 2019 (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. MER-C 09:14, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Domains (country subdivision) to Category:Domains of Japan

Nominator's rationale: Since Japan is the only country to have had domains as a subdivision, it seems unnecessary to have this as a parent category here. Geolodus (talk) 10:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Category:Domains of Japan should be given the parents of Category:Domains (country subdivision) as well. Oculi (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That's what I meant. Geolodus (talk) 17:19, 11 August 2019 (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: do not rename. MER-C 09:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Films directed by Christian Duguay (director) to Category:Films directed by Christian Duguay

Nominator's rationale: Department of redundancy (department). "Films directed by" already disambiguates this category as pertaining to the film director rather than the actor, so it's not necessary to double-disambiguate. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• very weak keep. If the other Christian Duguay was in a completely different field, I'd agree - but actors do often turn their hand to directing, and it wouldn't be out of the question for someone to think that these films were directed by the actor. Grutness...wha? 03:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - per simplicity - follow the article. Otherwise one has to keep an eye on all Christian Duguays. It's also WP:C2D. Oculi (talk) 10:28, 11 August 2019 (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. MER-C 09:12, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Vivaldi (web browser) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Too little content. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep: Seems big enough for a category of this type. Geolodus (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Three artiocles and two redirects. Guy (Help!) 17:14, 11 August 2019 (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: no consensus. MER-C 09:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mage Knight to Category:Miniature wargames and Category:WizKids games

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only three articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose as I'm not convinced that "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, ..." applies here. DexDor ^(talk) 14:00, 11 August 2019 (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. MER-C 09:13, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Accademia Musicale Chigiana International Prize winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCAWARD, most articles do not even mention the prize, besides article Accademia Musicale Chigiana International Prize does not exist, it is merely a redirect to a section that does not exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. DexDor ^(talk) 12:56, 11 August 2019 (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: rename to Category:Video games about robots. MER-C 09:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Robot video games to Category:Robots in video games

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CONSISTENCY with other, similar subcategories. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, "in video games" is not the standard format anyway and other categories with "in video games" should better be renamed in order to get "in" removed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Video games about robots, assuming that Marcocapelle's statement is accurate. This is not a standard way of naming this type of category, and a Google search suggests that "robot video game" is not a term that is in use. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:05, 29 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a fair possibility. Consistent with films about, books about. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:32, 1 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Some how Category: Robot video games doesn't make sense. Benjaminkirsc (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment: rename to what? MER-C 09:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd be fine with "Video games about robots" now that I am aware of the typical naming scheme._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:00, 31 August 2019 (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: rename as nominated. MER-C 09:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Skye to Category:Isle of Skye
• Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Skye to Category:Buildings and structures in the Isle of Skye
• Propose renaming Category:Brochs in Skye to Category:Brochs in the Isle of Skye
• Propose renaming Category:Castles in Skye to Category:Castles in the Isle of Skye
• Propose renaming Category:Landforms of Skye to Category:Landforms of the Isle of Skye
• Propose renaming Category:Lochs of Skye to Category:Lochs of the Isle of Skye
• Propose renaming Category:Mountains and hills of Skye to Category:Mountains and hills of the Isle of Skye
• Propose renaming Category:People from Skye to Category:People from the Isle of Skye
• Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Skye to Category:Populated places in the Isle of Skye

Nominator's rationale: This would fall within the spirit of WP:C2D but for the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 19#Category:Isle of Skye. Therefore a new CFD is need. "Isle of Skye" is used by the Ordnance Survey and thus isn't comparable to "London Town", a better comparison would be River Thames. Although there is Isle of Skye (bar) in the United States and 2 in Canada that don't even have WP articles the island in Scotland is clearly by far the primary topic for the term "Isle of Skye" while there are quite a few other articles at Skye (disambiguation). The primacy for "Isle of Skye" is probably clearer than London or Paris so while "Isle of Skye" might be slightly ambiguous still it should be at the base name. If it was though necessary to disambiguate then Category:Isle of Skye, Scotland could be used but unlike Category:Perth and Category:Plymouth this doesn't seem necessary. The Commons category is at Commons:Category:Isle of Skye and its sub categories also use "Isle of Skye" of which I renamed last year (Commons:Category:Skye is a DAB page). Even though the articles disambiguated by the island generally just use "Skye" (such as Stein, Skye) the Commons categories use "Isle of Skye" (such as Commons:Category:Stein, Isle of Skye). There was discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 31#Scottish islands for if "on" or "in" should be used but there was no consensus for that, thus the proposed titles here don't change the in>on (and vice versa such as Category:Castles in Skye to Category:Castles in the Isle of Skye) because the discussion here is just for including "Isle of" in the titles. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. This follows the very recent rename of the article from Skye to the far more harmonious Isle of Skye. Oculi (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I would also note that unlike the others in Category:Villages on Scottish islands that Category:Populated places in Skye uses "populated places" instead of "villages" because of Portree being a town but Tobermory and Rothesay are also towns. There was Category:Villages in Skye but that was deleted in October last year, see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 20#Category:Skye villages. I don't think that we need both "villages" and "populated places" categories per WP:OVERLAPCAT but again this is outside this CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support" but substituting "on" for "in" (and usually "of") but "Landforms of" seems best. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the nom explicitly states that the in/on difficulty is excluded from this nom, so IMO the nom has been supported by everyone and the change 'Skye' to 'Isle of Skye' should be made. If we include 'in/on' then I agree with Peterkingiron that it should be 'on'. Oculi (talk) 10:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, simply following the article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 12 August 2019 (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. MER-C 09:16, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Alabama Slammers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: One eponymous article. Uncategorised. Rathfelder (talk) 09:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. I added it to the parent Category:Ice hockey teams in the United States though, so it is not uncategorised anymore. Geolodus (talk) 17:46, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I changed the parent to Category:Ice hockey teams in Alabama now. Geolodus (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy merge per WP:C2F. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:51, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge per WP:C2F. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2019 (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. No predjudice for recreation if a desire for the category is demonstrated in the future. I am aware of the non-admin closure guidelines, but have decided to IAR and close as delete even though it's not recommended. Please tell me if you believe I should stop. (non-admin closure) --Trialpears (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Interlanguage link template link number to (1) Category:Pages with one interlanguage link template link,(2) Category:Pages with two interlanguage link template links, (3) Category:Pages with three interlanguage link template links, (4) Category:Pages with four interlanguage link template links, and (5) Category:Pages with five or more interlanguage link template links

Nominator's rationale: Note: this template is solely populated by Template:Interlanguage link.

With more than 58,013 members, this category is currently unusable. It has the most ridiculous system I have seen thus far of listing pages with 1 link as starting with "A", then for links under "B", etc. This should really just be five categories actually sorted alphabetically instead of one that is pretty much just broken.

The old system might have made sense at one point, but it doesn't now which is the only thing that really matters for a category. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:11, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, that sounds like a good idea. It might take some time for the old category to clear out, though. Jc86035 (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• While I am not against the proposal as such, I wonder how it can be useful to categorize this at all. In other words, could deletion perhaps also be an option? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:20, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless someone can point to a process that uses this category. Checking what-links-here on the category page doesn't show any such processes. DexDor ^(talk) 13:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete (having read the explanation below of how the category could be used). Afaics none of the relevant process pages (e.g. Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Requested articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red) point editors to this category so how are relevant editors supposed to know about it? Normally automated systems (as this is) are preferable to systems that rely on manual updating (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki/French/Buildings was last updated in 2015), but this doesn't appear very useful - e.g. if it tells me that there's an ILL on a page about a US Army unit I need to search that page to find whether it's a link about a French village, a German general, an Italian historian etc - and what's worse is that the ILL may itself be a redlink (i.e. there's no article in the other language anyway). DexDor ^(talk) 16:51, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support splitting, but I don't like the proposed names. It is about pages that include an interlanguage link template containing 1, 2, 3, etc. foreign language links, not about pages that include 1, 2, 3, etc. interlanguage link template links. (It does not count the links in total, but the links per template). The use for the higher categories is obvious: notable topics needing an article in English. If the category page is clear enough, there is no need for a formal process page. —Kusma (t·c) 19:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand the usefulness of the template, but not of the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Marcocapelle, the category Category:Pages with five or more interlanguage link template links (or whatever it will be called) will be on pages with a red link that corresponds to pages in five or more other languages. If many other language editions have an article on a topic, maybe so should we. Look at [4], where for example Bosmans tells you to consider writing about Phil Bosmans, which you can translate from a lot of languages. But I can't really see any point in Category:Pages with one interlanguage link template link (or whatever it will be called), which is no more interesting than the template's whatlinkshere. —Kusma (t·c) 20:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I had understood that. But I cannot envisage that any editor would take this category as a starting point for creating new articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• It is a bit like Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/de, but more up to date and not categorised by language. I don't know how Wikipedia:WikiProject Intertranswiki find their target articles, they might also benefit from this. —Kusma (t·c) 07:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Leaning delete. It's still unclear what's the use of this category. Please someone should give examples of how it's useful apart from categorizing for the sake of it.– Ammarpad (talk) 05:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have mentioned this discussion at Template talk:Interlanguage link. —Kusma (t·c) 06:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Also leaning delete. I can see a use for maintenance-categories for interlanguage links to specific languages, but I don't see how subcategorizing them by number of links is useful and unless/until we have per-language subcategories the parent category is too big to be useful. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. @Kusma: I wasn't aware that was how the category is populated. If that's the case, this template's documentation certainly needs updating to make that a bit more clear.
  I'd also support an alternative proposed name. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 12:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete because no practical use has been demonstrated. As for splitting: the template does that already, in a fashion. Inspecting the template code shows that it groups articles into the category via a sort key: if a single template invocation contains 1 foreign Wikilink, sort key=A, for 2 links it's B, ... to L for 12 links, but currently H (for 8) is the highest. However, the programming logic is flawed because it doesn't take into account that a local English link may already exist; see Adelaide, Abbess of Vilich which has 8 interwiki links for Beuel none of which is used because there's a local article. The template works as expected at Gerlind Reinshagen which points to Claus Peymann in 8 other Wikipedias. On the other hand, the Category:Interlanguage link template existing link is useful. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure pages with many interlanguage links probably present an issue, especially templates.

For the other items mentioned above we want to know how many times a page is redlinked, which the "Wanted pages" special page should help us with. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 11:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

• Late idea: how about splitting the category by language of the link? i.e. Category:Interlanguage link template to Russian Wikipedia or some such. I could envision that being useful to country wikiprojects. Renata (talk) 00:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC) Ping: MJL, Jc86035, Marcocapelle, DexDor, Kusma, David Eppstein, Michael Bednarek, Rich [reply]

• @Renata3: same as before: I can understand that a template is useful, but not a category. By the way your ping has not worked for me, I just passed here again by accident, maybe you can try again. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Seeing the lack of interest, I don't really mind the category ending up deleted, as long as we can agree that any interested WikiProject or group of editors could simply introduce new tracking categories. At the moment, no such groups seem to exist; anyway, I think the discussion of what could be done in the future should not happen at CFD, but at the template talk page (after all, it is about changing the template more than about anything else). —Kusma (t·c) 09:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Renata3: Ensure that the pings are followed by your signature rather than after per Help:Notifications. @Jc86035, David Eppstein, Michael Bednarek, Rich Farmbrough, and DexDor: Pinging remaining users per above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:08, 1 September 2019 (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.