< March 31 April 2 >

April 1

Category:AfC pending submissions by age/2 days' time

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. Deleted as a CSD G7 request by page creator. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obviously April Fools Creation CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator: Was created to avoid clogging the redlinked categories list. —moonytheuser (Braden N.) 20:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:AfC pending submissions by age/1 day's time

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. Deleted as a CSD G7 request by page creator. Liz Read! Talk! 02:33, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Obviously April Fools Creation CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as creator: Was created to avoid clogging the redlinked categories list. —moonythedwarf (Braden N.) 20:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Indian films without songs

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: convert to list. There is a consensus that the category should not exist, but no consensus on whether to listify or delete outright, so I'm defaulting to listify in order to retain the information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Indian films without songs to article List of Indian films without songs
Nominator's rationale: And that way, sources can be added. Kailash29792 (talk) 18:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia magic links

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) 07:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Magic linking has been disabled, so the only page that would be left in this category (from the current 3 pages) is the historical Help:Magic links. See T275951 and today's other magic link category nominations. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pages using RFC magic links

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, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was automatically assigned by the MediaWiki software to track magic link usage until magic linking was disabled. The category has been removed from en.WP now that magic links have been disabled. See T275951. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pages using ISBN magic links

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, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was automatically assigned by the MediaWiki software to track magic link usage until magic linking was disabled. The category has been removed from en.WP now that magic links have been disabled. See T275951. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:05, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pages using PMID magic links

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) 07:12, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was automatically assigned by the MediaWiki software to track magic link usage until magic linking was disabled. The category has been removed from en.WP now that magic links have been disabled. See T275951. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Lutheran priests by nationality

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 as originally nominated; no consensus to merge Category:Swedish Lutheran priests into Category:Swedish Lutheran clergy, but it could be addressed in a follow-up nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Lutheran churches of Denmark, Finland and Norway (Church of Denmark, Evangelical Lutheran Church of Finland and Church of Norway) use the word pastor rather than priest. The Church of Sweden does use the word priest.

https://www.lutheranchurch.dk/who-we-are/who-works-in-the-church

https://evl.fi/the-church/organisation/parishes

https://evl.fi/current-issues/women-ordained-for-thirty-years

https://kirken.no/nb-NO/church-of-norway/about/basics-and-statistics/

https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/english

This follows this discussion: Wikipedia_talk:Categories_for_discussion#Category:Lutheran_priests_by_nationality. TSventon (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

--Espoo (talk) 06:49, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Espoo:, I have moved the rationale as you suggested. TSventon (talk) 09:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.svenskakyrkan.se/ministry-and-ministries
According to the webpages quoted the other Nordic churches now use the English words bishop and pastor for their clergy, but the local word for pastor is the same as for priest (dk præst, fi pappi, no prest, sw präst). TSventon (talk) 23:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally our articles seem to prefer priest as a search for "fooish priest " and "fooish pastor" (not necessarily Lutheran) gives
Danish 63 priest to 19 pastor
Finnish 23 priest to 4 pastor
Norwegian priest 290 to 10 pastor
Swedish 50 priest to 14 pastor TSventon (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1899 establishments in Austria

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No such state in 1899. There are too many unlinked articles for a straight delete. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming to Year in Austrian Empire is definitely an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

(dis)establishments in Austria

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Austria did not exist as a state until the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. Various archduchies and duchies existed within that empire that contained the word "Austria", but none was a sovereign state by that exact name. They can only be duplicates of Category:1902 establishments in Austria-Hungary and Category:1903 disestablishments in Austria-Hungary and the various Hapsburg Empire and Holy Roman Empire (dis)establishment categories. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just to note that in the above noms, I have triple parented the articles so they are not orphans. For cats with too many articles, I put them into the "merge" noms above. But I may have missed an article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Marcocapelle and Dimadick: By "Austrian Empire", do you mean just those lands in Cisleithania, as distinct from Transleithania (aka Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen)? If so, then your objection is more like a renaming proposal. At the moment, the Austrian categories are at national (sovereign) level (i.e. the entire Holy Roman Empire or the entire Austro-Hungarian Empire). We could of course create new establishment trees for sub-national levels (i.e. the various archduchies and petty kingdoms) much like the UK example of Wales, Scotland & England. But that's a different discussion surely. This nomination is all about fixing a chronological inaccuracy at the sovereign level whereby the modern Republic of Austria apparently established things in the 19th century. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:52, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renaming to Year in Austrian Empire is definitely an option for years after 1804. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle and Dimadick: That option has existed for a long time. See Category:Establishments in the Austrian Empire. The point of these deletion nominations is that they are not needed because their equivalents all exist in the "Establishments in the Austrian Empire" tree and each article in each of the nominated categories is already parented to the appropriate category. Unlike the nominations above which are merges. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are currently in the tree of Austria-Hungary but I am advocating keeping (the empire of) Austria and (the kingdom of) Hungary apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:38, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that we may be talking about different things. Please define "Empire of Austria" by land holdings and by time period. Please define "Kingdom of Hungary" by land holdings and by time period. Would "Empire of Austria" be a child of "Austro-Hungarian Empire"? Would "Kingdom of Hungary" be a child of "Austro-Hungarian Empire"? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:49, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Austrian Empire would be a child of Austria-Hungary since 1867. (Kingdom of) Hungary would be a child of Austrian Empire from 1804 to 1867 and a child of Austria-Hungary since 1867. Both Austria and Hungary would be children of the Habsburg Monarchy before 1804. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Peterkingiron: If you want to create some categories for Category:Establishments in the Archduchy of Austria, go right ahead. I have no objection. I fail to see why this would induce an "oppose" vote to the current proposals that have nothing to do with the Archduchy of Austria. They are about getting rid of a chronological aberration while leaving the contents in their correct parent category. It is possible to break that parent into child categories of the parent that are chronologically accurate and consistent. But that is something that can be done outside of this discussion. First fix the error, then create new structures if desired. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:25, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Royal Norwegian Order of Merit

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Royal Norwegian Order of Merit
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders with Star of the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit‎
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders of the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit‎
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Knights of the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT & WP:OCAWARD) and WP:C2F
When high ranking foreign visitors come to Norway or vice versa, the Royal Norwegian Order of Merit is given out as souvenir. Prince Ali bin Hussein of Jordan, Princess Claire of Belgium, and Brian Bell (businessman) of Australia are not remotely defined by this award. Norwegian diplomats like Kjell H. Halvorsen, Haakon Baardsøn Hjelde, and Ingvard Havnen also receive the award but are already somewhere under Category:Ambassadors of Norway. Neither group seems especially defined by the award, which the articles tend to mention in passing. (The parent category only contains the main article.) There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even if we were to assume the Norwegian recipients were defined by the award, that would leave us with 14 of the 84 current articles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. That's only 17% while WP:OCAWARD is looking for a "large majority". - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recipients of the Order of Sukhbaatar

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of Sukhbaatar
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT & WP:OCAWARD)
When high ranking foreign visitors met with the People's Republic of Mongolia, the Order of Sukhbaatar was given out as souvenir. Joseph Stalin, Kim Il-sung, and Ho Chi Minh are not remotely defined by this award. There are also a lot of Soviet cosmonauts in the category like Vladimir Lyakhov, Valentina Tereshkova, Vladimir Dzhanibekov but they are already under Category:Soviet cosmonauts. I expanded the main article so all category contents are now listified right here for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who served in the Great April Fools' Day Edit War

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who served in the Great April Fools' Day Edit War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who served in the Great April Fools' Day Edit War II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A category listing users who participated in behavior that was deemed sufficiently disruptive that it had to be shut down by consensus is the exact opposite of what user categories should be used for. (This is a serious nomination and not an April Fools' joke) * Pppery * it has begun... 00:06, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

April Fools' Day nominations

It has been suggested that this list of joke nominations should be split into a new page titled Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/April Fools' Day 2021. (discuss) (3 April 2021)

Category:Category:Computational fluid dynamics

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: April fools is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conflicts with WP:CFD [April Fools!] (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Recursion

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: The result of the discussion was The result of the discussion was The result of the discussion was ... (non-admin closure) * Pppery * it has begun... 23:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is not recursive enough. April fool's! Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 04:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia April Fools' Day 2021

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: April fools is over. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:

Category needs to be merged with itself per WP:APRIL Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:23, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Smerge need to be selective about this one. 2A03:F80:32:194:71:227:81:1 (talk) 14:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Contents

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: Listified. Now you have a list of all Wikipedia pages. (non-admin closure) Aasim (talk) 00:31, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Contents to article List of Wikipedia pages
Nominator's rationale: The category does not provide an overview of Wikipedia's contents. JsfasdF252 (talk) 00:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More