< August 14	August 16 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Belgian people of Chaoui descent to Category:Belgian people of Algerian-Berber descent

Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 22:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge we do not need a category for one item. If we come later to have lots of articles on people who fit this description, we can reconsider the matter then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 20 August 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:French people of Chaoui descent to Category:French people of Algerian-Berber descent

Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles, and only one of them mentions Chaoui descent. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge we do not need a category for one item. If we come later to have lots of articles on people who fit this description, we can reconsider the matter then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 20 August 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.

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: reverse merge. – Fayenatic London 06:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sciences Po faculty to Category:Faculty of Sciences Po

Nominator's rationale: They seem to be the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge - convention in Category:Faculty by university or college in France. Oculi (talk) 20:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fine either way. But Category:Faculty by university or college in France is not uniform. Rathfelder (talk) 21:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Faculty by university or college in France is entirely consistent/uniform, with this exception. Oculi (talk) 22:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge I have argued multiple times there is no Engvar here, and all should use x institution y. British use is actually not different than American on this matter. There are 2 reasons we have the difference. 1-personal views of editors that they falsely presented as English variation issues but were really person preference issues. 2- the difference is that in the US people always call them University of Chicago, University of Michigan, Univeristy of Kansas etc, some have nicknames, but no one goes around calling them "Chicago University", "Michigan University" and "Kansas University" and if you do, people will look at you strange or be confused. In Britain "Oxford University" and "Cambridge University" are actually possible the common applied names, but for reasons that may or may not conform to our common name guidelines we have the articles at "University of Oxford" and "University of Cambridge", and this leads to see the category name as much more formal than any American views the name of the category of an American university as.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 19 August 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.

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) 04:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Lavtia navigational boxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: obvious typo, infopollution Estopedist1 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 19:40, 15 August 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.

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. I confirmed that all the current members are categorised within Lithuania stubs. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Extremely short Lithuania articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unique: no other "Category:Extremely short COUNTRY articles" exist. Category:Lithuania stubs does the job Estopedist1 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- DaxServer (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These are all populated by a parameter on the talkpage for articles tagged with "substub=yes" within WikiProject Lithuania. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is an unneeded alternative method of categorizing, we already have the stub scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:41, 20 August 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.

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: WP:SOFTDELETE. The only other member page is List of rulers of Safavid Georgia. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Safavid governors of Akhaltsikhe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and move Salim Khan Shams al-Dinlu manually to the parent categories. This concerns a short-lived Safavid governorate, from 1623 to 1639. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 15 August 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.

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) 04:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Kolkata Film Festival templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The category now has one page, which is a template, making it a WP:NONDEFining. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Ab207 (talk) 07:00, 17 August 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 13:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with bugs) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this separately from the below nomination since this one is populated by Template:Saved book directly when passed the |bug= parameter rather than being a populated by a broken bot, so the first reason for deletion below doesn't apply. However, the second one, that the entire point of user books is that they are not maintained by the community (and thus no action should to be taken based on a book's appearance in the category, continues to apply, and furthermore the |bug= parameter is in most pages reporting a bug in the way the book tool renders articles, which should have been reported on phabricator rather than here where it will be ignored. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my nomination at the other discussion. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 18 August 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.

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 all. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with errors)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with disambiguation pages)‎
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with duplicates)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with invalid colors)‎
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with redirects)‎
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books without titles)‎
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with internal links)‎
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with parenthesis)‎
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with redlinks)‎
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with section links)‎

Nominator's rationale: Per my comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 4#Category:Wikipedia books (books with errors), I also wonder whether Category:Wikipedia books (user books with errors) and its subcategories should be deleted, since they appear to have been populated by a bot that hasn't edited since 2014, and in any case the entire point of user books is that they are not maintained by the community (and thus no action should to be taken based on a book's appearance in the category). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC) (as a correction to the quoted comment, the bot task in question hasn't actually run since 2010, and I originally said since 2014 since the bot account did other things for the next four years). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also note that I reverted an out-of-process emptying of this category tree in Special:Diff/1038914373. While I agree that the tree should be deleted, it should be done after a proper discussion, not unilaterally and in a way that leaves a mess behind (since the subcats are tagged ((possibly empty category))) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The amount of issues in these categories, in my opinion, is part of the reason the Book namespace was deleted. It's just dead and no one cares, as evidenced by those users who have these book in their userpages. The community already confirmed they want nothing to do with the book namespace, going as far as deleting all books and the namespace itself. There is no reason to keep behind tracking categories for bugs which are only present on a single user's page. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I was the WP:BOLD category emptier, and appreciate the revert, though I think this discussion will show this is a completely non-controversial delete (I was also prepared to clean up all those tagged with ((possibly empty category))). There are really very few reasons to have maintenance categories that hold only user pages, and certainly not for this group of categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:01, 8 September 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.

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:People by populated place in France, which has majority support here, as well as precedents for siblings in Belgium, Israel & Netherlands and sub-cat Martinique. Only the US has both Category:People by populated place in the United States as well as "by city". The others have occupational subcats "by city", which are probably mostly correct in practice, so there may be no need to rename the subcats. – Fayenatic London 12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by city in France to Category:People by city or town in France

Nominator's rationale: Many of the settlements are not cities. Rathfelder (talk) 13:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom (or use "by populated place" instead). The siblings in Category:People by country and city have alternating formats, a mass nomination is desirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A mass nomination would be a lot of work, and it seems quite possible that different countries need different treatment. Rathfelder (talk) 21:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People by populated place in France, since this is a term that captures all the various names given to such localities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with this. By populated place could also be used consistently for the entire category. Gonnym (talk) 06:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this one-off change. Any one-off change would create an inconsistency with the categories for other countries, such as Category:People by city in the United States, others. WOuld support as part of a broader nom. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 8 September 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.

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) 04:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Rayne Rice Birds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry and one subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:35, 15 August 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.

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 the first three, keep the other two. – Fayenatic London 10:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Apricot to Category:Apricots
Propose renaming Category:Bird cherry to Category:Bird cherries
Propose renaming Category:Cashew to Category:Cashews
Propose renaming Category:Cherry blossom to Category:Cherry blossoms
Propose renaming Category:Songs about cherry blossom to Category:Songs about cherry blossoms

Nominator's rationale: Tree categories are more often plural than not. See Category:Plums, Category:Peaches, Category: Cherries, Category:Apples, and Category:Pears, among others.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support the first three, but not the cherry blossom ones - blossom is not a "pure" singular but often acts as a plural, and I think it suffices in this case. Grutness...wha? 06:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In the article cherry blossom, the phrase "cherry blossom" is only used as a singular, never even once as a plural.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet in the article blossom's gallery several multiple blossoms are described as blossom - as is the case in several of the photographs in the cherry blossom article. Grutness...wha? 10:50, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - In both cases, the use of "blossoms" considerably outnumbers the plural "blossom." I can find no dictionaries that support "blossom" as a plural of the tree. This is an error in the captions, not evidence of a thing real people do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's because it isn't about a tree - it's about the flowers of the tree, which is the flowering cherry. You're mixing up two different types of thing in these categories. The first three are about trees - the last two are about the blooms. Grutness...wha? 03:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, then see also Category:Roses, Category:Orchids, and Category:Peonies, all of which end in -s.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
        Yes, they are flowers with multiple varieties, usually considered as individual blooms - exactly the opposite of cherry blossom, which is one variety usually considered as a mass. Grutness...wha? 04:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support the first three only, but "blossom" is as Grutness states effectively a plural form; and the fact that usage in the article is not well written is absolutely no evidence at all ("Wikipedia is not a reliable source") to the contrary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 15 August 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.

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 19:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Tower Hamlets First (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only one article about it, so category not needed Joseph2302 (talk) 03:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Four articles and a subcat, but still thin on the ground. Weak keep. Grutness...wha? 03:24, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well 2 of those articles (Aspire (political party) and People's Alliance of Tower Hamlets) are other political parties, so not directly relevant to this category. Which leaves just the eponymously named article, and one other article (Erlam & Ors v Rahman & Anor). Joseph2302 (talk) 15:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per further explanation by nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Aspire is the clear successor party, and PATH was a splinter from Tower Hamlets First's immediate successor group (Tower Hamlets Independent Group), so the connection is defining for both. – Fayenatic London 10:42, 9 September 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.

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) 04:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Aspire (political party) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, as only the eponymously named article is in the category Joseph2302 (talk) 03:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per C2F. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 21:54, 16 August 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.

August 15

Category:Belgian people of Chaoui descent

Category:French people of Chaoui descent

Category:Sciences Po faculty

Category:Lavtia navigational boxes

Category:Extremely short Lithuania articles

Category:Safavid governors of Akhaltsikhe

Category:Kolkata Film Festival templates

Category:Wikipedia books (user books with bugs)

Wikipedia books (user books with errors)

Category:People by city in France

Category:Films scored by Amotz Plessner

Category:Rayne Rice Birds

Singular categories about trees

Category:Tower Hamlets First

Category:Aspire (political party)