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. bibliomaniac15 04:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Localities in Madurai (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, 'locality' is a rather vague term and the category seems to coincide with Category:Neighbourhoods and suburbs of Madurai for which we already have a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:28, 17 July 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. bibliomaniac15 04:18, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs covered by Tiny Tim (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for "songs covered by artist" (e.g. Twist and Shout is categorized in Category:The Beatles songs not Category:Songs covered by the Beatles), and I believe only one song in this category is notable and/or defining enough to be placed in Category:Tiny Tim (musician) songs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:42, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Doing a cover is not defining to the song; if this artist does really define a song. Feels similar to WP:PERFCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:29, 17 July 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) 05:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People acquitted of domestic violence to Category:People acquitted of crimes
• Propose merging Category:People acquitted of drug trafficking to Category:People acquitted of crimes added 13 July

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:32, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom, and you might also want to take a look at the similarly tiny Category:People acquitted of drug trafficking. Personally I see little point in ctegorising people by things they (purportedly) didn't do, but that's another matter - these two categories, however, are decidedly too tiny. Grutness...wha? 14:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Procedural comment, I have added Category:People acquitted of drug trafficking to the nomination and tagged the category page. @WilliamJE: I hope that you, as the nominator, are okay with that. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I do not think we should categorize people by things they were acquitted of. This essentially undermines the aquittal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Eventually Delete/Merge for Now I tend to agree with JPL, but as long as the parent exists, upmerging is an interim solution. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:35, 17 July 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: speedy rename WP:C2D. There is an older page Category:SSC Farul Constanța which should be moved rather than the nominated one; the nominated one will be redirected for now. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:FC Farul Constanța to Category:FCV Farul Constanța

Nominator's rationale: Official name change 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and source which confirm new name, such as this. GiantSnowman 14:29, 13 July 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) 05:27, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:FC Farul Constanța templates to Category:FCV Farul Constanța templates

Nominator's rationale: Official name change 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:34, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and source which confirm new name, such as this. GiantSnowman 14:29, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Romania football club templates as WP:SMALLCAT containing only one template. If not merged, rename as above. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Romania football club templates as WP:SMALLCAT per Fayenatic. --Just N. (talk) 10:37, 17 July 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: speedy rename WP:C2D. There is an older page Category:SSC Farul Constanța managers which should be moved rather than the nominated one; both will be redirected. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:FC Farul Constanța managers to Category:FCV Farul Constanța managers

Nominator's rationale: Official name change. (https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/viitorul-farul-nume-frf-gica-hagi-marica-636563.html) 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:31, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and source which confirm new name, such as this. GiantSnowman 14:29, 13 July 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: speedy rename WP:C2D. There is an older page Category:SSC Farul Constanța players which should be moved rather than the nominated one; both will be redirected. – Fayenatic London 22:21, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:FC Farul Constanța players to Category:FCV Farul Constanța players

Nominator's rationale: Official name change (https://www.gsp.ro/fotbal/liga-1/viitorul-farul-nume-frf-gica-hagi-marica-636563.html) 8Dodo8 (talk · contribs) 15:30, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 14:27, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom and source which confirm new name, such as this. GiantSnowman 14:30, 13 July 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 Category:Mitre 10 Cup to Category:National Provincial Championship. bibliomaniac15 04:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:National Provincial Championship to Category:National Provincial Championship (1976–2005)
• Propose renaming Category:Mitre 10 Cup to Category:National Provincial Championship (2006–present)

Nominator's rationale: Tidyup following page move, and to avoid confusion Rugbyfan22 (talk) 19:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Question, wouldn't it be more obvious to merge Category:Mitre 10 Cup to Category:National Provincial Championship? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle:, Potentially, although they are separate Wikipedia pages. The competition was reformed in 2006 under a different name (originally Air New Zealand Cup before becoming Mitre 10 Cup), but ahead of this season has reverted to the National Provincial Championship moniker. The competition now has far fewer teams than it did from 1976–2005, but I'm not opposed to merging. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 09:04, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Category:Mitre 10 Cup to Category:National Provincial Championship per Marcocapelle. Technically, they were different competitions, but largely in name only - there have been far more changes to other sports competitions - along with name changes - without having separate categories (Category:National League (English football) would be a good example). Also (though it's hardly a persuasive argument here) almost everyone here in New Zealand continued to call it "The NPC" throughout its time as the Mitre 10 Cup. Grutness...wha? 14:02, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nominator comment Happy for these to be merged. Seems to be some previous precedent of merging categories despite the article being split. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Mitre 10 Cup to Category:National Provincial Championship per Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 10:40, 17 July 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 18:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Active Wikipedia database reports

Nominator's rationale: Unworkable category due to applying only to pages that get overwritten by bots, see User talk:JPxG/Archive6#Active Wikipedia database reports. The pages currently in this category are almost exclusively those that haven't been overwritten by a bot since the category was added on May 17, and thus are not active. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:02, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This category is kind of a dog as it stands. Pppery is correct – I applied these to all of the reports that were active in May, but since the category isn't in the template used by bots to generate the pages, it perversely only includes the reports that haven't been updated since then (currently, one day less than a month). If there's a way to add this category to the bots' templates, I think this would obviously make it useful. Otherwise, yes, all of the things in here can be moved to the category for inactive reports (with the inactive tag) and it can be deleted. jp×g 02:18, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not quite all of them: some of the pages in this category are ((DBR index))es, which only transclude or link to other pages and don't themselves get overwritten, or ((wikidata list))s, where the bot is smart enough to not overwrite the category addition. Any merger to the inactive category needs to be done manually. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:30, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure about all of the pages in this category but Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories updates every week which seems to be "active' to me. I'm not sure why it matters whether it is updated by a bot or a human editor. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  The original reason I nominated was because the bots weren't including the category when they updated the page. It appears that this has been remedied for some reports, and the bot is now including the category, so my original rationale no longer applies. I still think this should be deleted, since shares the same problem as all "Current/Active foo" categories (that it's likely nobody will remove reports from the category if they stop being updated) and there's already a more complete list of all reports including the time they last ran at Wikipedia:Database reports, but it's at least no longer serving a purpose directly opposite to its name. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:16, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete There needs to be some plausible claim that this category is helpful to keep and I don't see how it could be. (If anyone uses it, tag me and I'll gladly reverse my !vote.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:41, 17 July 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 18:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia database reports needing attention (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per the description, These pages need attention from a developer or bot operator because they are either not producing useful output, or they are not being updated at all. In every case I checked, the problem was the latter (not being updated), making the category redundant to Category:Inactive Wikipedia database reports, and in no cases I can find has any attention been given as a result of this category being added. Also, not producing useful output is subjective (a report can be useful to one person but not another person). I'm proposing deletion rather than a merge because this category went on the talk page whereas the inactive category goes on the subject page, and this category was added by one person in 2016, making it too out of date to be a good merge candidate. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom's rationale. -RevelationDirect (talk) 23:57, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:42, 17 July 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. bibliomaniac15 03:13, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Islamic studies scholars by nationality to Category:Islamic studies scholars

Nominator's rationale: redundant category layer, this is the only subcategory of its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure, as it has three "by nationality/country" parents. Also, this hierarchy is only just being developed following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 28#Scholars of Islam, or Islamic studies scholars, and there is scope to also split the parent by century. – Fayenatic London 19:23, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The latter is not needed, Islamic studies is a recent academic subject. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. It seems like it's already being used and has room for growth as coverage of those academics is added to Wikipedia over time. --Dan Carkner (talk) 16:25, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- the result will not be to delete something useful but to make the national categories directly sub-cats of the target, which is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support We do not need the by nationality holder to have the sub-cats. There is no reason to have a by-type of division sub-cat when we only have one division. Thus we should not have Category:Islamic studies scholars by nationality as a sub-cat unless we have one sister cat such as maybe Category:Islamic studies scholars by century or Cateogry:Islamic studies scholars by field of expertise, or Category:Ismamic studies scholars by branch of Islam studied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, I was going to give the anoalogy of how we treat Category:Christian Studies scholars, but I just realized we lack such a category. We have Category:Mormon studies scholars which I think we should rename to Category:Latter Day Saints studies scholars, but we do not even seem to have Cateogry:Catholic studies scholars, Category:Protestantism studies scholars etc. There may be a reflection here that groups subjected to a religious studies approach have tended to be those outside what is considered the mainstream of Western Culture (those subject to be covered by people who Edward Said defined as "Orientalists"), and this may back up my theory that much of the approach to studying members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been informaed by the views and techniques of othering in Orientalism. It also goes back to the clear defining as Asiactic and thus outside any protection and fully punishable of Plural Marriage at the heart of the Reynolds Decision and even more the often ignored upholding of the Idaho Test Oath. Also, members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Idaho were denied the vote not because they were viewed as non-Christians, Idaho was the first state to elect a Jew as governor, but because they were viewed as non-White, Idaho at the time excluded Native Americans from voting, even the substantial numbers of Native Americans in the state that were members of the Catholic Church or other Christian Churches.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 29 July 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'm not sure if a sub-template of ((DYKT)) may have been changed since the nomination, but the current contents are category talk pages, template talk pages and WT pages; i did not find any that are redirects, so the purpose expressed by John Cline does not seem to be in operation. – Fayenatic London 12:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:DYK/Pages/Soft redirects (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All pages in this category are talk pages which instead of being tagged as a "soft redirect" should actually be a full redirect with the following:

#REDIRECT [[Wikipedia talk:Did you know]] ((Redirect category shell| ((R from remote talk page)) )) There is no reason for either the category nor for not directly leading the users to the talk page. Gonnym (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:43, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The category serves its purpose for tracking these talk pages and the reader is better served leaving them as soft redirects because it allows them to choose their destination depending on whether their question is subject related or technical in nature. ----John Cline (talk) 18:05, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No, readers are not being served by this distinction because I cannot find a single post related to the did you know process at Help talk:Template or it's most recent archive (dating back to 2017). Given that, it's clear that these soft redirects get in the way without accomplishing anything. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:33, 18 July 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. bibliomaniac15 04:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:People with developmental coordination disorder

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT, WP:COP and WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)

I certainly can't argue WP:SMALLCAT here because, according to the Developmental coordination disorder article:

This disorder affects 5 to 6 percent of school-aged children.

I'm gonna stop right there. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not defining at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Are these sixteen biography articles probably pillories or else courage inducing? Well, this category exposes people who coped with that severe handicap and somehow achieved a succesful career. --Just N. (talk) 07:39, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I tend to keep because it is indeed DEFINING for these 16 biographies that they successfully coped with a hard handicap and made it to have a career and therefor a Wikipedia article. --Just N. (talk) 07:43, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• It is not defining because the articles do not spend a significant amount of attention to it. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per the articles this is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:COPDEF and WP:NONDEFINING. Possibly more appropriate as a list, or limited to a handful of notable people with the disorder, as at Developmental_coordination_disorder#Notable_cases. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:44, 17 July 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. bibliomaniac15 04:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:People born with cleft palate

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NOT, WP:COP and WP:NONDEFINING (WP:TRIVIALCAT)

I certainly can't argue WP:SMALLCAT here because, according to the Cleft lip and cleft palate article, it occurs "in about 1 to 2 per 1000 births in the developed world" and these biographies are from the developed world. Comedian Cheech Marin, racing executive Charles Jeter, and singer Richard Hawley are not remotely defined by this medical condition and the articles give it a passing mention in the "early life" sections. Wikipedia is not a medical history of every diseases or ailment of notable people. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, not defining at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep AFAIK this handicap is healable. So the examples easily found by category are positive courage empowering and not the pillory for unhealable handicapped people that we can't wish to expose. --Just N. (talk) 07:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• That exposure can also happen by means of a list. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If we decide to go with a list, I just copied all the current category contents right here so no work is lost. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete we already have way too much category clutter, we do not need this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as non-defining.--User:Namiba 18:55, 15 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 10:45, 17 July 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: keep. bibliomaniac15 03:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Zincblende crystal structure to Category:Materials with the sphalerite crystal stucture

Nominator's rationale: The article about the structure and titular mineral is Sphalerite. Also, this is mainly about materials, so the title should clearly state this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:17, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The name of the category is taken from Cubic crystal system#Zincblende structure. Doing a quick search, zincblende also seems to be the more common name. All crystal structures refer to materials, so I don't think this adds any new information. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 19:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does this mean that the Sphalerite article should be moved? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:52, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I can see that redirect is confusing. I don't think that's necessary. "Sphalerite" is a more common name than "Zincblende" when referring to a mineral, but "zincblende/zinc blende" is apparently the preferred name when referring to the crystal structure. (just going by search engine hits here) Sphalerite concerns the mineral; the place for a discussion of the crystal structure is the section in cubic crystal system. I do think it would be better to have zincblende redirect to Cubic crystal system#Zincblende structure though. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 22:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Semiconductors with xxx structure, per actual category content: it is a set category with articles about semiconductors. It should also become a subcategory of Category:Semiconductor materials. I do not have a strong opinion what xxx should become. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Most of them are semiconductors, yes, but zincblende Mercury sulfide is a topological insulator and zincblende Chromium(II) selenide and Mercury telluride are better described as half-metals. There's at least a half dozen other similar exceptions that might come up later, but don't have articles at the moment. What do you suggest here? 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 22:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Then it should become Chemical compounds like the category above, possibly subcatted by Semiconductors. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- I am not an expert (my chemistry degree being nearly 50 years old), but this is a classification of crystal types. I am not sure that all are semiconductors. Zinc blende is a crystalline mineral, rather than a chemical compound as such. We cannot redirect a category to an article: that does not work. The main article should be Cubic crystal system#Zincblende structure. I understand sphalerite to be a more geological name for the same mineral. The appropriate rename would be to Category:Zinc blende-type crystal structure or Category:sphalerite-type crystal structure or Category:Structurbericht designation B3 or an English translation of the latter.
• Keep Are we designing Wikipedia in preference for specialists like crystallographers or for the use of all of us who don't understand sophisticated specialist vocabulary? Zincblende e.g. is a word you find in a crystallography museum or bestowments shop and - just as I do - even remember but "sphalerite crystal stucture" is beyond the understanding of most all of us! -- Just N. (talk) 06:50, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- best to use the common name for the mineral, rather than the geological name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 18 July 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:Rock salt crystal structure. bibliomaniac15 03:12, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:NaCl structure to Category:Materials with the halite structure

Nominator's rationale: Should not use an abbreviation, but am uncertain whether it should instead refer to "sodium chloride", "halite", or "rock salt". –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Rock salt crystal structure. I agree the abbreviation was a mistake. Out of the three names, rock salt seems to be the most popular. However, specifying "materials" doesn't provide any new information. 〈 Forbes₇₂ | Talk 〉 19:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Sodium Chloride structure, using the correct chemical name. --Bduke (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Chemical compounds with xxx structure, per actual category content: it is a set category with articles about compounds. It should also become a subcategory of Category:Chemical compounds. I do not have a strong opinion what xxx should become. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggest Category:Halite-type crystal structure. Some materials will be capable of having more than one crystal structure. Prefix that with "compounds with ...", if you will. I would prefer halite to rock salt, as the standard geological name. Using NaCl or Sodium Chloride may be correct but fails to indicate that this is about crystal structure. Atoms can be close-packed in crystals in various ways, as I think I was taught in my first year B.Sc. in chemistry nearly 50 years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! It should better remain in layman's terms. Almost everybody (except completely uneducated) knows NaCl and very few "xy" structure. Don't crush Wikipedia's usability by making it unnecessarily complicated in its wordings. --Just N. (talk) 06:31, 20 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Rock salt structure or Category:Rock salt crystal structure. My initial instinct was to agree with Bduke that it should be Category:Sodium Chloride structure but this wouldn't work out for compounds like zinc sulfide. It is very common to refer to structures with names like zincblende, würtzite, fluorite or perovskite. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 14:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to anything that gets rid of the abbreviation. Category:Rock salt crystal structures seems the most intuitive. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename preferably to the "rock salt" alternative, using its common name rather than its geological name. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 18 July 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: not split. bibliomaniac15 04:23, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Children to Category:People notable for their childhood and Category:People notable due to their parents

Nominator's rationale: This category is a mixture of 2 unrelated groups: people who gained their notability at least partially through their parents (e.g John Quincy Adams, born 1767, clearly unnotable prior to his father becoming Vice President in 1789 when he was 21) and people notable as children who were born to non-notable parents (e.g Daniel Radcliff, known as the actor who played Harry Potter). Animal lover 666 (talk) 06:08, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural comment: if we would split this, we should also split all subcategories by nationality, for consistency. Splitting can only be done manually. Is it worth the effort? Is nominator volunteering for this task? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose John Quincy Adams is not a good example because in his teens he was serving as a secretary to various American diplomats. Yes, we have some mess here, but I do not think the work to split it is justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think a bigger problem is that we have categories like Category:Foreign Service brats the subjects were not notable as children, and they are not notable in part because of their parentage (John Quincy Adams is a bad example of that phenomenon as well, he is clearly notable indepdent of his parentage) but are groups based on the occupation of their parents when they were children. I think we used to have Category:Military brats but deleted it because we decided it was non-defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Overly long titles, and "notable" is a subjective trait. Dimadick (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • True, but in the cases involved here, we have categories limited either to people who made significant contributions to a field while a child (although I am not sure we have made sure that Category:Child actors and its huge number of sub-cats avoid all cases of people who had non-notable acting roles as children and then later went on to become notable for some other reason) or people grouped in categories by parent. These are holding categories and the argument at hand is that they are grouping people in unlike way. One problem is that while Category:Children has no direct biographical articles (It has direct articles such as Teachings of Jesus about little children and Juvenile life insurance, Child health and nutrition in Africa etc, a category like Category:American children has mainly biographical entries including McCaughey septuplets, on people in their 20s who are only notable because they were born in a large group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 29 July 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 Category:Islands of South Georgia to Category:Islands of South Georgia (island), keep Category:Islands of the South Sandwich Islands. bibliomaniac15 04:27, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Currently ALT-2 is the one alternative being discussed. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Islands of South Georgia to Category:Islands of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
• Propose merging Category:Islands of the South Sandwich Islands to Category:Islands of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

Nominator's rationale: South Georgia, and the South Sandwich Islands, are islands themselves, and neither of the two are a separate administrative region containing the surrounding islands, as far as I can see. So "islands of" does not make too much sense in this case and they can can better be merged to the broader category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination originates from an earlier CFDS discussion (still open at WP:CFDS) with a different aim, @Good Olfactory and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, these are distinct archipelagoes, and the existing categories are useful for navigation. (On Wikipedia, I mean!) The article South Georgia (island) identifies its Archipelago as "South Georgia group", so I propose ALT rename: Category:Islands of South Georgia to Category:Islands of the South Georgia group. Similarly, Category:Rock formations of South Georgia should be renamed to Category:Rock formations of the South Georgia group. The word "group" would not be necessary for the rest of the hierarchy in Category:Geography of South Georgia, so for those I would accept the original Speedy proposal to Category:Geography of South Georgia (island) etc. Thanks, Marcocapelle, for bringing a proposal forward. – Fayenatic London 09:29, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The question really is: should they be treated as two distinct archipelagoes? The number of google hits that I have for a "South Georgia group" is pretty negligible, and (as a matter of OR) South Georgia is close enough to the South Sandwich Islands. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. They are two distinct archipelagoes, which are administered as a single British territory. For islands, considering the two archipelagoes separately makes sense. Place Clichy (talk) 14:09, 21 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It may not be politically distinct, bit it is geographically, as are the Category:Islands of the South Sandwich Islands. Similar categories exist for many island groups which are not politically distinct (e.g., Category:Islands of the Marquesas Islands, Category:Islands of the Inner Hebrides, Category:Islands of the Florida Keys). Grutness...wha? 02:00, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Grutness and Place Clichy: would you support Fayenatic london's alternative instead? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle and Fayenatic london: not really. I believe that the common (and clearer) practice for smaller islands around a major Foo island is Islands of Foo, not Islands in the Foo group: Category:Islands of Crete, Category:Islands of Corsica, Category:Islands of Ireland, Category:Islands of Bantayan etc. An alternative may be Category:Islets of South Georgia, per Category:Islets of Menorca or Category:Islets of Ibiza. Place Clichy (talk) 07:27, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree with Place Clichy, though I'm not as opposed to FL's suggestion as I would be to the original suggestion of a merge. Grutness...wha? 07:56, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, then at least I'm withdrawing my original proposal. If, possibly, User:Fayenatic london withdraws their alternative as well we can speedily close this discussion and return to the original discussion about adding a disambiguator. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The original discussion was on the Speedy page. I support Place Clichy's suggestion of "Islets", and Category:Islets of South Georgia (island) is better than "Islands of South Georgia (island)". But if we take this back to the Speedy page, I fear that there may be insufficient precedent for speedy renaming to "Islets". How about seeking consensus for that here? I'd drop the alt re Rocks. – Fayenatic London 10:23, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, I am neutral between islands and islets and I support the (island) disambiguation for the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • The above is a half support for ALT-2 even before that was officially published. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• ALT-2: rename Category:Islands of South Georgia to Category:Islets of South Georgia (island); keep Category:Islands of the South Sandwich Islands. I have struck my earlier proposal, and withdraw my nomination of the Rock formations category. – Fayenatic London 20:38, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: Do all entries there fit the definition of Islet? Bird Island, South Georgia for example does not seem to be an islet. --Gonnym (talk) 10:51, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gonnym: Thanks for checking. The page Islet does acknowledge prominently that "Most definitions are not precise". This category is for small islands around a big island, and I was content to support the use of "Islets" with that implied meaning. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Why not Category:Islets of South Georgia? it is simpler and clear. Even Category:Islets off South Georgia. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Peterkingiron: for clarification: the reason for the disambiguator (island) is that South Georgia can also mean the south of the country Georgia or the south of the American state Georgia. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 24 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• rename Category:Islands of South Georgia to Category:Islands of South Georgia (island) and do nothing else. Anything else would just confuse readers here. Hmains (talk) 00:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Renaming Category:Islands of South Georgia to Category:Islands of South Georgia (island) (which is what I had originally proposed in the speedy nomination) might be the best choice here. It's not great, but it's probably the most in line with other similar categories for islands of islands. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Islands of South Georgia to Category:Islands of South Georgia (island). This should indeed be a speedy from the parents, and the fact that Category:Islets doesn't exist. Oculi (talk) 11:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Rock formations of South Georgia is tagged for full discussion but is not listed here or anywhere else. I can't see any problem with Category:Rock formations of South Georgia (island). Oculi (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Islands of South Georgia to Category:Islands of South Georgia (island). No change to the Sandwich cat. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- Any ambiguity (with Georgia (state) and Georgia (country)) can be dealt with by means of capnotes. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 18 July 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. ✗plicit 02:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Victims of the 2012 Aurora shooting (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Victims of the Charleston church shooting
• Propose deleting Category:Victims of the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting
• Propose deleting Category:Victims of the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting
• Propose deleting Category:Victims of the Virginia Tech shooting

This is my first time submitting a bundled deletion nomination for categories. Forgive me if I botched anything in the process. Love of Corey (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I have taken the liberty to slightly re-format the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :) Love of Corey (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominator's rationale: Very few, if any of the articles featured in the nominated categories are actually articles and not redirect links to the events themselves. As such, the categories should be deleted, per the deletion discussion for the now-deleted "Victims of the Columbine High School massacre" category, which concluded there should be no need for categories for redirects. Love of Corey (talk) 04:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support for the first four, weak support for the Virginia tech one. The first four are virtually nothing but redirects (only two actual articles between the four cats). This is understandable, as, no offence intended to them, the victims were almost all only notable because they were killed (and therefore WP:BIO1E applies). I'm pretty sure the victims' names are listed in the articles about the attacks anyway. The last one actually has several real articles, so it may be more viable. Grutness...wha? 05:53, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom, but add the real articles to Category:Mass murder victims. There is no reason to remove the articles from that tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom as well as Marcoapelle's proposal.--User:Namiba 14:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom as well as Marcoapelle's proposal.--Just N. (talk) 10:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - So, what's the status on this discussion? Given the unanimous consent, will the deletions be moving forward? Or are we waiting for more votes? Love of Corey (talk) 03:23, 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.