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 - jc37 08:14, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in number words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Despite the "interested in" name, this appears to be a category populated entirely by userboxes expressing opposition to various (mis)uses of English words, which violates Wikipedia:User categories#advocacy, Wikipedia:User categories#by dislikes, and/or Wikipedia:User categories#irrelevant likes * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 23:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, this is wrong use of userboxes. Besides, number words is not an encyclopedic topic to be interested in. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Cute, but has nothing to do with fostering collaboration on a defined topic. Bearcat (talk) 20:45, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are many users who have expressed interest in this category and the frequent disjoint between language and mathematics. This is a substantive issue and not merely "cute". Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:57, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! A computer programmer who has a degree in Electrical Engineering supports keeping this category!--Dthomsen8 (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We have to use reasonable limits on how many such categories we have, and I do not think this falls within any reasonable limits.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:42, 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.

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 - jc37 21:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Washington County high points to Category:High points of Washington (state) counties

Nominator's rationale: The current name makes it sound like it is a category for high points in a county called "Washington County". I suggest renaming for clarity. Alternatively, we could delete, since this is the only county-level category of this type. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a list, and I don't really think there's a need for categorisation by second-level subnational area. By state, fine - but by county within state is overkill. Grutness...wha? 23:19, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Well covered by List of highest points in Washington by county. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a totally not needed category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename and Do not delete there's at least one book written about this subject. Not quite as arbitrary as it seems. Besides, many states are very large, and there are many tall peaks of note which require additional categorization besides just the state. WP:NOTDUPE.

Martin, Andy (1994). County high points: For all western and northeastern states. Old Adit Press. ISBN 0962876216. List maintained at Peakbagger.com.--Prisencolin (talk) 00:26, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• By all means add a reference to the book in the article List of highest points in Washington by county. It is not a reason to keep the category though. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:33, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. There is a list. --Just N. (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this category encourages the creation of articles on places that just plain are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:43, 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.

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 - jc37 08:38, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in skiing
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in alpine skiing
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians interested in nordic skiing

Nominator's rationale: These categories are populated by exactly the same userboxes that populated the categories deleted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020 August 7#Category:Wikipedian nordic skiers. These userboxes do not express a Wikipedia-relevant interest in the subject, as defined by Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories#by interest. The only member in any of the categories that is not in there via a userbox is the creator, who does not appear to have made any edits to articles related to skiing (and I question the value of a user category containing one user anyway per WP:SMALLCAT) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 19:12, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom. These are the start of a slippery slope... Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 20:18, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is wrong use of userboxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is nothing wrong with these categories. Yours aye,  Buaidh  talk contribs 18:50, 29 March 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) 09:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa
  • Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa members
  • Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa templates

Nominator's rationale: Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WP Khyber Pakhtunkhwa * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:WikiProject Khyber Pakhtunkhwa templates has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:53, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That's because its sole member was deleted at WP:G8, dependent on the deleted WikiProject. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No reason to keep the cats for an inactive project where other XfD have already ruled. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 17:57, 21 March 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 to delete. I suggest a fresh nomination to rename, perhaps to first/ oldest / earliest known written accounts of languages. – Fayenatic London 20:40, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Earliest known manuscripts by language (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:CATDEFINING. Earliest known manuscript is likely to change with new discoveries. The entries in this category, eg. Halmidi inscription, will not change even if new discoveries remove them from this category. In other words, even if we learn nothing new about Halmidi inscription, other information about the world may add or remove it from this category. That seems to me to prove that this category is not defining for Halmidi inscription. List of languages by first written accounts is the appropriate place for this information. Daask (talk) 15:55, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Arguments by future discoveries seem to be a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball: "Articles that present original research in the form of extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are inappropriate. Although scientific and cultural norms continually evolve, we must wait for this evolution to happen, rather than try to predict it." We can not assume that new discoveries will occur, or even that such discoveries are plausible to occur. We only know about the current status quo, and report as such. Dimadick (talk) 16:56, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as languages are constantly evolving. Take English for example. The OED has extensive background on when English usage of particular words began. Do WP:RS agree when Modern English began, and thus what the first written work is in Modern English? Is that issue unique to English? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is the parallel category to List of languages by first written accounts, they complement each other well per WP:CLN. Perhaps a rename to Category:First written accounts of languages?--Prisencolin (talk) 20:33, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • • The existance of a list is not a sufficient rationale for keeping a category, you are reading only half of WP:CLN. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also per WP:NOTTEMP, we shouldn't remove content just because it has the possibility of being out of date. In other words, if a manuscript is the earlier known account of a language now, even if an even older document were to be discovered, it doesn't erase the fact that the first document had been the "oldest known document" for a period of time.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NOTTEMP is about notability so it has nothing to do with categories. Keeping a manuscript in Category:Earliest known manuscripts by language while it is no longer the earliest known manuscript of a language will be incomprehensible for most editors, that is not maintainable. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's about deletion discussions in general, it's also a guideline so it's not strictly meant to apply to anything. We can apply the same principles (loosely of course) to category discussions.--Prisencolin (talk)
• Neutral - nominator, Dimadick and Carlossuarez46 all three have good points. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. No usability of cat evident do a clear decision. --Just N. (talk) 18:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. If a text is considered the earliest for a language, that's defining. Most of the texts would be of little interest otherwise. If the dating of some text is disputed, that is a problem with the text, not the category. However the current name leaves out inscriptions. Category:Earliest known written accounts of languages? --Error (talk) 09:15, 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Executive branch of the Slovenian government to Category:Executive branch of the government of Slovenia
• Propose renaming Category:Executive branch of the Serbian government to Category:Executive branch of the government of Serbia

Nominator's rationale: rename using "of country" per Wikipedia:Category_names#State-based_topics and turning "government" into lowercase. This was discussed at WP:CFDS before. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Oculi, Laurel Lodged, and William Allen Simpson: pinging contributors to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support  – C2D per Government of Slovenia and C2C per Category:Government of Slovenia. Oculi (talk) 13:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per precedent of the Republic of Artsakh. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:04, 21 March 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 to rename, but I find sufficient support to allow creation of new parent categories for subjects of the Crown. – Fayenatic London 13:10, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:13th-century people from the Kingdom of Aragon to Category:13th-century people from the Crown of Aragon
• Propose renaming Category:14th-century people from the Kingdom of Aragon to Category:14th-century people from the Crown of Aragon
• Propose renaming Category:15th-century people from the Kingdom of Aragon to Category:15th-century people from the Crown of Aragon

Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content. The Crown of Aragon was a composite monarchy with constituent parts Kingdom of Aragon, Principality of Catalonia, Kingdom of Valencia, Kingdom of Majorca and later also Italian kingdoms. In parallel User:Rathfelder nominated the bishops subcategories for renaming from Kingdom to Crown at WP:CFDS, per WP:C2E. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support this, as it misled me. Rathfelder (talk) 10:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose You can have people from a kingdom, but a crown is an object that a king wears. Category:13th-century subjects of the Crown of Aragon would be a feasible alternative, but it would be better to Keep and explain in the headnote that it includes the other constituents of the wider Aragon state. This should preferably (after the Italian possessions were acquired) be limited to Iberian constituents, with Italian ones being dealt with through subcategories for the individual polities (including Kingdom of Naples). Peterkingiron (talk) 14:58, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Alt of @Peterkingiron: i.e. Category:13th-century subjects of the Crown of Aragon etc. They are not really from the Crown. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, "of" instead of "from" makes more sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support alternative proposal of Peterkingiron to rename to Category:Subjects of the Crown of Aragon etc. That said, I think distributing items into subcategories of Category:People from the Principality of Catalonia etc. would be better. Category:People from the Kingdom of Aragon is a legitimate category title, but doesn't seem to reflect the current contents of this category and should be a subcategory of Category:Subjects of the Crown of Aragon. Daask (talk) 01:39, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Then also apply that to the Kingdom of Valencia and the Kingdom of Majorca? That would lead to huge fragmentation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The suggested rename completely changes the scope of the categories. The Crown of Aragon extended to "southern France, and a Mediterranean "empire" which included the Balearic Islands, Sicily, Corsica, Sardinia, Malta, Southern Italy (from 1442) and parts of Greece (until 1388)." In effect both the Kingdom of Sicily and the Kingdom of Naples were parts of the Crown of Aragon. Do we need to merge all these areas in a single category? Dimadick (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Southern France only concerned a tiny bit (current Roussillon) which then belonged to Catalonia anyway. The Italian kingdoms were of later stage and should be kept as subcategories (per Peterkingiron). So the discussion is really about Catalonia, Valencia and Majorca. As said before, it we would keep those separate and split by century it would lead to huge fragmentation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is very difficult categorising mediaeval people by the concurrent countries, but I think we should persist and if necessary operate on the principle of successive approximation. Rathfelder (talk) 15:21, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The Kingdom of Aragon was a defined unit. The areas under its control were only in personal union, so we should not treat them as a unified whole.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• In the Middle Ages everything revolved around the monarch. A personal union for an indefinite period of time, as between Aragon and Catalonia, meant in practice that it functioned as one country with local self-governance. The same happened when Aragon and Castile merged to Spain, it was officially just a personal union. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and add articles as appropriate with the expanded scope. We should categorize people by the country of the time they lived. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Dimadick. The suggested rename completely changes the scope of the categories. --Just N. (talk) 18:07, 21 March 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, and remove Category:Victims of anti-Catholic violence from Category:Victims of anti-Christian violence – those two should have "see also" links instead. – Fayenatic London 09:52, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Victims of anti-Protestantism to Category:Anti-Protestantism

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge instead with Category:Protestant martyrs. More closely matching target. That said Category:Victims of anti-Christian violence should not be a parent category of any of these, as many Protestant martyrs in this category were killed by other Christians and can hardly be regarded as victims of anti-Christian sentiments. Daask (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Then Category:Victims of anti-Catholic violence should be removed from Category:Victims of anti-Christian violence too. Downmerging or upmerging does not matter a lot, in this case the impact is the same, but with downmerging the parent categories have to be re-added manually. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The down-merge cat sets a very different point of view. I'd suppose there is untapped potential of entries. --Just N. (talk) 18:14, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal is to upmerge, not to downmerge. Apart from that, where can we find the untapped potential? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Just for clarity, the only entry in the nominated cat is Category:Protestant martyrs. It's already in Category:Christian martyrs, which is a subcat of Category:Victims of anti-Christian violence. So probably no need to add the nominated cat to either of those. So with that in mind, one could keep these as is or upmerge to remove an unneeded step, I suppose. It just appears to be a matter of preference. - jc37 21:17, 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.

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:Peranakan people in Malaysia and Category:Peranakan people in Singapore. This does for with the parent Category:Ethnic groups in Malaysia. – Fayenatic London 15:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Malaysian people of Peranakan descent to Category:Malaysian Peranakan people
• Propose renaming Category:Singaporean people of Peranakan descent to Category:Singaporean Peranakan people

Nominator's rationale: rename, Peranakans are an ethnic group in Malaysia and Indonesia as their home countries. A descent category would only make sense (hypothetically) in e.g. Category:American people of Peranakan descent but not in their home countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Better Category:Peranakan people of Malaysia . According to the article, this is already a people with multiple descents, principally where Chinese immigrants (typically from southern China, I think) married Malay women. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• (as nom) I am perfectly alright with this alt rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • I am more willing to support a category name with a preposition, because it may mislead readers into thinking the name of the ethnicity is "Malaysian Peranakan" where I hardly see this name in literature.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment getting rid of the "descent" categories is good, but how do we defining Peranakan? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:41, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I am assuming these people are referred to as being of Peranakan ethnicity in reliable sources, but I have not actually checked that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• • @Carlossuarez46: I've told you about this about but your assertion on every discussion that "descent is invalid" or some variation thereof is bordering on disrupting Wikipedia to prove a WP:POINT. Not only that but your own question can be found by reading the article, you have nothing to add and it's not even a vote.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Prisencolin: my view is consistent - it's neither disruptive. What's disruptive is your berating everyone with whom you disagree. Am I to think you intend to suppress my opinion as part of your on-going harassment? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You're the only person who uses fringe logic to justify deleting under established guidelines, i.e. you're the only editor who regularly participates who argues that all descent categories should be deleted regardless of whether they are well-attested or not. I'm inclined to say this is kind of a violation of WP:SOAPBOX principles but I'm not entirely sure. In any case this creates kind of a misleading record which could possibly be used in the future as evidence that there is community consensus to delete all descent categories, where it was just you.--Prisencolin (talk) 20:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• This is close to WP:PA. It is obvious that Carlossuarez46 is the only one who argues here and in other discussions that all descent categories should be deleted so the jump to "misleading' does not make any sense. He has some valid points and it is completely alright to express them. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • He should take it to some other project or talk page on this site and link to that discussion instead of using WP:ATAs, (to his credit he's only said "getting rid of the "descent" categories is good," in this category), but the language he uses in other discussions echo the sentiment. Addition, he usually just cut pastes the same userspace essay and WP:VAGUEWAVES into discussions, which I don't think is very helpful. One of the few times Carlos has actually tried to engage in dialogue was to read the description of the page Shanghainese people, which I will give him credit (I believe the way it was read was misleading, but that's not for here). -Prisencolin (talk) 21:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternative rename Category:Singaporean people of Peranakan descent to Category:Peranakan people in Singapore
  Category:Singaporean people of Peranakan descent to Category:Peranakan people in Malaysia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prisencolin (talk • contribs)

• "in" (per Prisencolin) instead of "of" (per Peterkingiron) is also fine with me. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Alt Rename per above and original nom. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt Rename per Marcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 18:18, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @RevelationDirect and Justus Nussbaum: just to be sure, do you support Peterkingiron's alt or Prisencolin's alt? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lean toward Prisencolin's "in" with Category:Peranakan people in Singapore and Category:Peranakan people in Malaysia, but not opposed to PKI's "of". - RevelationDirect (talk) 20:35, 21 March 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) 13:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan
  • Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan members

Nominator's rationale: Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject Gilgit-Baltistan * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Daask (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just cleanup after other XfD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:19, 21 March 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) 13:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Islamabad
  • Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Islamabad members
  • Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Islamabad templates

Nominator's rationale: Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WP Islamabad * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:57, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Daask (talk) 01:44, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just cleanup after other XfD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:20, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both members and templates categories have been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the userbox that was in the templates category and populated the members category was deleted per the linked MfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:13, 22 March 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) 13:29, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Lahore
  • Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Lahore templates
  • Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Lahore members
  • Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Lahore articles
    • Propose deleting Category:Lahore articles by quality
    • Propose deleting Category:B-Class Lahore articles
    • Propose deleting Category:C-Class Lahore articles
    • Propose deleting Category:Category-Class Lahore articles
    • Propose deleting Category:Stub-Class Lahore articles
    • Propose deleting Category:Start-Class Lahore articles
    • Propose deleting Category:Disambig-Class Lahore articles
    • Propose deleting Category:Unassessed Lahore articles

Nominator's rationale: Project was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects. See also Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Template:User WikiProject Lahore‎ and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2021 March 14#Template:WikiProject Lahore Invitation * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:43, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Daask (talk) 01:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Just cleanup after other XfD. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Both members and templates categories have been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Because the userbox that was in the templates category and populated the members category was deleted per the linked MfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 02:13, 22 March 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 10:43, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Military Order of St. Henry

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Crosses of the Military Order of St. Henry
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders of the Military Order of St. Henry

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders 1st Class of the Military Order of St. Henry‎
• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders 2nd Class of the Military Order of St. Henry

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING (WP:PERFCAT, WP:OVERLAPCAT, WP:OCAWARD)

The German Kingdom of Saxony gave out the Military Order of St. Henry. The recipients fall into three categories:

• 1 Leaders of Other States/Countries: Prince Eitel Friedrich of Prussia, Franz Joseph I of Austria, and Charles XIV John are not remotely defined by this award.
• 2 Local Leaders: The articles for Albert of Saxony, Frederick Augustus III of Saxony and George, King of Saxony are already somewhere under Category:Saxon nobility.
• 3 Actual Soldiers: This one seemed the most likely to be defining since it's the stated purpose of the award but General Fritz von Loßberg, General Oskar von Hutier and Staff Officer Max Hoffmann just mention it in passing with other honours.

There wasn't a list so I created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Thanks @RevelationDirect: for thorough review and consideration shown in your nomination! Daask (talk) 01:51, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:21, 21 March 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 10:40, 6 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of the Rokel

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)

Order of the Rokel is a general purpose Sierra Leonean award "in the areas of to the public service, arts and sciences, and philanthropy". The recipients are as diverse as those reasons: a British General, a Mauritian mining executive, and, from Sierra Leone, a footballer, a Catholic biship, and a chief justice so there's no common thread. The articles generally mention the award in passing with other honours. The category contents are already listified right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:29, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, obvious case of WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 18:21, 21 March 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.