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) 08:26, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:David Crockett Graham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category with only image files. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Author's reply/question: Not sure how to add to the discussion here. Before you start removing this category and the images it contains, could you please explain the proper way of putting those images into Wikipedia and then using them in the biography page? I'm dealing with a book deadline and don't have time to dive into this. choogendyk (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• They are two unrelated issues. With the nomination, the images are not deleted, only the category is deleted. Deleting the category has no consequences for having the images in the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Then I suppose I have no objection. What would be the proper function of a category? choogendyk (talk) 00:35, 15 November 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 all. bibliomaniac15 03:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Defunct restaurants based in California to Category:Defunct restaurants in California
• Propose renaming Category:Defunct restaurants based in New York (state) to Category:Defunct restaurants in New York (state)
• Propose renaming Category:Defunct restaurants based in Oregon to Category:Defunct restaurants in Oregon
• Propose renaming Category:Defunct restaurants based in the San Francisco Bay Area to Category:Defunct restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area

Nominator's rationale: To make entry consistent with most subcategories of Category:Defunct restaurants in the United States. Please also rename Category:Defunct restaurants based in New York (state) and Category:Defunct restaurants based in Oregon. "Based in" implies a chain, and there's a separate category for Category:Defunct restaurant chains in the United States. --Another Believer _(Talk) 17:58, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom. Consistency is needed and "based" is unnecessary. No Great Shaker (talk) 18:17, 13 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• cmt Not all the categories mentioned here have been tagged. Also, Category:Defunct restaurants based in the San Francisco Bay Area has not been nominated for change but it seems that it should also be changed. Hmains (talk) 00:54, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Can we be sure that always solitary restaurants are meant? AFAIK quite a lot of top restaurants have offshoots some even under the same name (the crowned chef mostly). --Just N. (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:43, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Another Believer: you still need to tag the category pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 20 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I have now tagged the category pages. @Another Believer: please accept a WP:TROUT. In future, if you need help, please ask, rather than ignoring a request, which is what seemed to happen here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 14:32, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename all per nom, and per the parents Category:Restaurants in California, Category:Restaurants in New York (state), Category:Restaurants in Oregon, Category:Restaurants in the San Francisco Bay Area. Oculi (talk) 16:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom to make the names uniform Hmains (talk) 18:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Aren't most restaurants in America nowadays restaurant chains? Even the expensive and noble ones? Is it always possible to locate those to one location? Really open questions IMHO! --Just N. (talk) 20:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• rename from one of the category creators. housekeeping. problems with chains can be dealt with individually as needed. mercurywoodrose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.193.19.66 (talk) 22:14, 1 December 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. bibliomaniac15 03:58, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose manually merging Category:Indian cuisine outside India to Category:Indian diaspora cuisine

Nominator's rationale: it is not clear what distinction was intended. This is a follow-up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 13#Category:Overseas Indian restaurants, where the nominated category was merged. The category will need to be merged manually, as the target is a sub-cat, and the bot does not handle parent categories correctly in such cases. – Fayenatic London 14:17, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- The target seems to be a mixture of Indian-style dishes (perhaps developed elsewhere) and restaurants. Both the subject and the target need sorting out. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge (or else merge as nominated), prefer reverse merge because it is Indian cuisine, not diaspora cuisine. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Reverse Merge -- This is the better option. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree Reverse Merge Diaspora cuisine would sound pejorative for my ears. --Just N. (talk) 20:27, 18 November 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:High Elves (Middle-earth). bibliomaniac15 03:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:High Elves to Category:High Elves (Middle-earth)

Nominator's rationale: The category states that its scope is only for High elves from Tolkien works, which means that characters such as Sylvanas Windrunner shouldn't be included. If that is the case, the category should be disambiguated with standard "(Middle-earth)" (see Elf (Middle-earth)) Gonnym (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- It appears this is a case where a disambiguator is needed to exclude content that does not belong. Classically the categories for Birmingham are at "Birmingham, West Midlands". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:41, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Current name can be misleading. VdSV9•♫ 13:53, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:01, 14 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:28, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:59, 22 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. If only Tolkien's characters are intended for this category, we should not mix them with elves from other works. Dimadick (talk) 19:03, 28 November 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 03:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose converting to a container category Category:Deaths in North West England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose converting to a container category Category:Deaths in Manchester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Following precedents e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 15#Category:Deaths in Greater London. Alternatively, just delete both, as (unlike London) there is not a hierarchy of sub-cats by cause of death, but only burials by county and people murdered in Manchester & Merseyside. – Fayenatic London 10:53, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (or containerize) per nom. Prefer deletion because Burials is not a proper subcategory and keeping it just as a parent of Murders is meaningless. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 08:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Where someone dies is not very notable. Thepharoah17 (talk) 13:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:31, 18 November 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Filipino women to Category:Filipina women

Nominator's rationale: Isnt that the grammatically correct form? Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: it seems there is no clear standard for this; these news articles use "Filipino women" [1] [2], while this one and this organization use "Filipina women" [3] [4]. Curbon7 (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• If renamed, the current name should be redirected (ideally by doing a WP:ROUNDROBIN swap). – Fayenatic London 10:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. In Spanish, the women would be "Filipina(s)", as –a is a feminine ending in Spanish. English has no such rule. If you change this then you've also got to rename the categories Filipino women of color, Executed Filipino women, Filipino women by century, and so on. Look at how many other categories begin with "Filipino women". Also, how many times it is used within the articles in question? They would have to be corrected too. deisenbe (talk) 11:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I believe "Filipino" is the correct wording in English. Heythereimaguy (talk) 16:06, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - seems a similar situation to 'alumni/alumnae' where it was decided to use 'alumni' throughout for simplicity. Oculi (talk) 17:16, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Quite a lot of the articles describe the women as Filipina. Of course if we changed this there would be a load of subsidiary categories to follow, but that could be done speedily. Rathfelder (talk) 23:18, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Category:Philippine women ? That sidesteps the Filipino/Filipina issue -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Exactly. If we use the local language Filipinas are women and Filipinos are men - we dont need the noun.Rathfelder (talk) 23:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Rathfelder, here's MOS Relevant to the discussion. Anyways, I prefer Filipina women if we're going for Philippine English. I'm not sure about other types of English languages though. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:07, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that makes it pretty clear that we should use Filipina women.Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a post at WP:PINOY to get their opinion on the matter. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:24, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - we also have Category:Nigerien women (rather than Nigerienne), Category:Seychellois women (rather than Seychelloise), and Category:Martiniquais women (rather than Martiniquaise). I'm not sure whether Burkina Faso uses "Burkinabée" for women - if it does, you can add Category:Burkinabé women, too. It seems that using the male demonymic is standard when there is a male/female difference in term. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – For consistency. "Filipino" is an acceptable adjective for Filipino women. On the suggestion to use "Philippine women", "Philippine" as an adjective for people is rarely used (except for a role, e.g. Philippine President) so it would come across as unnatural unfortunately.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 01:51, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Consistency with what? Rathfelder (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with the other categories as per Grutness, Filipino women and Filipina women are both correct. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as "Filipino", even in Philippine English can refer to women as well. Howard the Duck (talk) 13:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  It can, but clearly Filipina is preferred in the Philippines. Why would we not follow local usage? Rathfelder (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm a local who uses Philippine English to the point call centers in the Philippines tell us to stop using it when talking to Caucasians. A group of women who are citizens of the Philippines are called Filipinos. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:19, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  To emphasize the point, the Philippine Super Liga, an all-women volleyball league, calls one its tournaments the "All-Filipino Conference". Howard the Duck (talk) 20:16, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - "Filipino women" and "Filipina women" are both correct. This JICA and United Nations on Women's issue uses "Filipino women". Local national news site "BusinessWorld, Rappler likewise use "Filipino women". "Filipina women" is an acceptable alternative, but "Filipino women" isn't exactly wrong either. Others assert that "Filipino" is a male demonym but this is not absolute and has long been use to refer to any person regardless of gender although some argue it is a male demonym hence the emergence of the term "Filipina" (and more recently the neologism "Filipinx") in the first place (See InterAksyon) So in the absence of clear usage, I think it would be better to retain the status quo Hariboneagle927 (talk) 04:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – For consistency. --Just N. (talk) 20:33, 18 November 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) 08:48, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Albums produced by Whethan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ALBUMSTYLEGUIDE#Categorization, "Consensus is that "Albums produced by X" categories should not be included unless that particular producer worked on a significant portion of the album." In this case, Whethan appears to have only co-produced one track for the one album in this category and not a significant portion. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 05:51, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:39, 18 November 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.