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 03:28, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films set in Chamonix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. The only entry is only partially set there leading to WP:CATDEF problems as well. MarnetteD|Talk 21:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:11, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SMALLCAT and CATDEF. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SMALLCAT and logic (Chamonix is not at all a filming location of the indicated movie, but a fictive party location in that plot). --Just N. (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: listify. bibliomaniac15 03:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Convert Category:Google Doodles to article List of Google Doodles

Nominator's rationale: IMO these do not meet WP:CATDEF. The majority of the people who are honored with a doodle are deceased so it is not relevant to their lives. Many of the articles do not have any verification though that could be rectified. I just feel that this would work better as a list. That way mentions of doodles about items other than people (like the fun game they created for the 50th anniversary of Dr Who) could be included. A brief description of the doodle could be added as well. If there is a better title for the list than the one I chose I'd be happy to change it. Also, I know that this skirts WP:NOTDIRECTORY but I do think that these are a nice way to honor various people, places and things and that acknowledgement is worthy of a list article. MarnetteD|Talk 18:50, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. This would also help spin off some of the listings in the main Google Doodle article. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:21, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support WP:NONDEF for most, if not all of the people in the category. "Akira Kurosawa? You know, the guy who had a Google doodle once. But didn't he direct... Yeah, yeah, yeah, but he had a Google doodle!" Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:14, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• LOL, Lugnuts! Support per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:54, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, non-defining. I'm not convinced that google doodles are a fit topic for an encyclopaedia either, but that's a different conversation. SpinningSpark 19:43, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Perhaps Delete - I presume this is in fact people featured in Google doodles. This has the feel of OCVENUE or OCAWARD. I suppose we could have a list, as my regular vote on OCAWARD is "listify and delete", but it should be List of people featured in Google doodles. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. As the one who created the category, I should have looked at WP:NONDEF before creating it. My apologies. Anyway, I think the "List of people featured in Google doodles" article idea is better than a category full of people who never even saw their google doodles. --InPursuitOfAMorePerfectUnion (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:05, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: option B. bibliomaniac15 03:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Option A

• Propose renaming Category:10th-century rulers of Austria to Category:10th-century margraves of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:11th-century rulers of Austria to Category:11th-century margraves of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:12th-century rulers of Austria to Category:12th-century margraves and dukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:13th-century rulers of Austria to Category:13th-century dukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:14th-century rulers of Austria to Category:14th-century dukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:15th-century rulers of Austria to Category:15th-century dukes and archdukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:16th-century rulers of Austria to Category:16th-century archdukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:17th-century rulers of Austria to Category:17th-century archdukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:18th-century rulers of Austria to Category:18th-century archdukes of Austria

Option B

• Propose renaming Category:10th-century rulers of Austria to Category:10th-century margraves of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:11th-century rulers of Austria to Category:11th-century margraves of Austria
• Propose splitting Category:12th-century rulers of Austria to Category:12th-century margraves of Austria and Category:12th-century dukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:13th-century rulers of Austria to Category:13th-century dukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:14th-century rulers of Austria to Category:14th-century dukes of Austria
• Propose splitting Category:15th-century rulers of Austria to Category:15th-century dukes of Austria and Category:15th-century archdukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:16th-century rulers of Austria to Category:16th-century archdukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:17th-century rulers of Austria to Category:17th-century archdukes of Austria
• Propose renaming Category:18th-century rulers of Austria to Category:18th-century archdukes of Austria

Nominator's rationale: rename per WP:C2C: parent categories are Category:Margraves of Austria, Category:Dukes of Austria, Category:Archdukes of Austria and potentially parent categories should become Category:12th-century monarchs in Europe etc instead of rulers. "Rulers" is unnecessarily vague. This is follow-up on this earlier nomination, @Laurel Lodged, Dimadick, Johnpacklambert, RandomCanadian, Peterkingiron, and Rathfelder: pinging contributors to that discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Moving away from "rulers" seems a good idea. Rulers rather implies autonomy. Rathfelder (talk) 11:48, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Nearly Option A, but Keep rulers for 12th and 15th centuries when the title changed: the actual title and how it changed can be covered in a headnote. Do not change the parent. In practice the authority of the Holy Roman Emperor in other states of HRE was relatively limited, so that the states were largely autonomous. Some one said it was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  But as someone else says. Its complicated. Rathfelder (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Option B. Definitely prefer two categories each for 12th and 15th centuries to avoid confusion. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:58, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B, but retain Category:Rulers of Austria as a container category. Readers using the category system who are not so familiar with all the title changes would otherwise have no easy way of finding a continuous categorisation through time. This is analogous to Category:British monarchs containing Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom, [[:Category:Monarchs of Great Britain, and Category:English monarchs which follows expansion of the nation and title changes in one category. SpinningSpark 17:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Option B please. I do not think it necessary or desirable to retain Category:Rulers of Austria as a container category; such structures are unnecessary below the level of kingdom. There are too many petty titles for such a proposal to be tenable beyond a handful of exceptional cases. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Ruling Austria is not a "petty title" and it is an obvious thing readers might want to track. SpinningSpark 15:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Never said it was. I was referring to the myriad of other titles. Wiki is not an exercise in correcting perceived historical wrongs to particular nations by the way. We're just making navigation easier. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still not getting your point. The nominated cats should have a container cat. category:Rulers of Austria fits that. It should contain categories of people who have ruled Austria. If there are a "myriad of other titles" in there who weren't rulers of Austria they should be taken out. Deleting the category altogether is not the answer. SpinningSpark 16:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The point in this case is that, despite your continued assertions above and elsewhere, there is not a single "Austria"; there are multiple state or sub-state level entities that have, in part, borne the name of "Austria". To claim that each of these entities has a continuous link with the current republic is tenuous at best; Munich would certainly object to being part of Austria. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall having made the assertion that there is a single Austria. That was argued in the previous CFD, but I didn't take part in that at all. I really don't know enough to say how far back a continuous entity of Austria goes but I'm not following your point about Munich. Expanding or shrinking territory does not by itself stop a state being the same state. The Republic of Ireland wouldn't like to be called part of the UK any more than Munich, but the Irish leaving the UK didn't stop the UK from existing. It doesn't stop monarchs of the UK both before and after being included in Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom or that category being included in the container category:British monarchs. SpinningSpark 17:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't the desire to retain category:Rulers of Austria as a container cat tantamount to saying that there is and always was a single Austria? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. SpinningSpark 17:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Mythological populated places. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Mythical lost cities and towns to Category:Mythological populated places

Nominator's rationale: By definition, a mythical city has to be a lost city, otherwise it would no longer be mythical. A lot of entries in this category are also in the parent too. The two categories are redundant and should be merged per WP:OVERLAPCAT. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:28, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per Nominator's rationale. — ChannelSpider (talk) 11:04, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- We have long since merged towns and cities into populated places. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 10:59, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 01:29, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Waterloo campaign. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Battle of Ligny to Category:Waterloo campaign

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it only contains the eponymous article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge not enough content. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:23, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per WP:SMALLCAT. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Senior Wikipedians members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a "Wikipedians by age" category, which there is extensive precedent to delete, masquerading as a WikiProject category. Giving a category an inaccurate name should not save it from deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Especially as I must qualify. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is the membership category for WikiProject Wikipedians aged 70 and older. We are considering dropping the minimum membership age to 60, adding supporting membership for users under 60, renaming the project as WikiProject Senior Wikipedians, and actively working to increase participation of users over age 50 and to actively fight ageism and sexism in Wikimedia.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 14:30, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Use a consented (Opt in) list if really wanted but not the category system for that. That categroy IMHO would be an invitation to that "ageism". --Just N. (talk) 13:18, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can we be ageist? Ageism is discrimination against older people. Ageism and sexism are rampant on Wikipedia.  Buaidh  talk e-mail 15:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the WikiProject appears to be inactive. Besides if there were an active WikiProject it should be about a topic (e.g. WikiProject Elderly people), not about Wikipedians. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 03:30, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Beer former participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I fail to see the collaborative value of categorizing users based on a WikiProject they no longer participate in. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I don't drink beer any more, either. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:19, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 03:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Kumusha members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject U.S. cities members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Bug Squad participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: More "defunct WikiProject" categories, with the reasons for deletion being the same. These three are sufficiently unusual I though they warranted a separate discussion. Specifically:

1. Wikipedia:WikiProject Kumusha was deleted in 2018 per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Kumusha. The userbox that populates the category instead points to m:Kumusha Takes Wiki/en, which has the warning Closed project/Projet fermé — Pppery 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC) — continues after insertion below[reply]

   As creator of this category, I am fine with it being deleted. And I implement.... Anthere (talk) 13:18, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2. Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities was deleted in 2010 per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject U.S. cities. The userbox that populates the category points to Wikipedia:WikiProject Cities and Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. This weird hybridization of two projects does not constitute a viable project that can have members.
3. Wikipedia:WikiProject Bug Squad has never existed. The category instead refers to mw:Project:WikiProject Bug Squad, which has the warning Due to Wikimedia's move from Bugzilla to Phabricator this page is currently outdated and kept for historical reasons.

In short, all of these are functionally defunct, and should be deleted per precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 1#Wikipedians by defunct WikiProject and the discussions it links to. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Can't see any use for these, per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:08, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. bibliomaniac15 03:31, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Extrasolar planets members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:WikiProject Wikipedians for local history participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per numerous past discussions, Wikipedians are not categories by their participation in userspace projects. (User:Wer900/WikiProject_Extrasolar_planets) has always been in userspace, whereas Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for local history was deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for local history and then later restored to userspace. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 03:51, 12 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 12:30, 13 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 13:21, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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