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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:20, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Objects with holes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I feel like this really isn't a purposeful category, as describing things by geometry in this broad a manner seems rather odd, and something I suspect we shouldn't do. I think in most situations this is either non-defining, or otherwise trivial. Perryprog (talk) 21:27, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete I came across this cat being added to several articles on my watchlist and thought it was someone trolling, I was surprised to find that it was not in fact a troll and that the cat actually exists - it's patently ridiculous and useless. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Keep Not trolling... just adding to the existing category. Thanks for your insight on what is or isn't an object with a hole, though. ~ AntisocialRyan (talk) 21:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  I still think it's a useless, overly broad category and not defining, as it would need to be. PICKLEDICAE🥒 21:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  A more precise definition could be added to the page, or it could be renamed. I think it's a good reference. Not necessary to undo all my additions anyway, I think they all fit fine. (Foods are definitely objects) ~ AntisocialRyan (talk) 22:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, trivial characteristic, there is no point in being able to navigate e.g. from Golf course to Compact disc. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:04, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Why delete instead of improve? It is a nice reference. And categories show the connection between articles, which is the hole. If my additions weren't undone it would look a lot more appealing. If the category survives this, I'll redo them with permission. ~ AntisocialRyan (talk) 21:01, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• There is nothing to improve, it is trivial regardless which articles are in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per xkcd 2658. This is not TopologyWiki. – Fayenatic London 21:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Brazil by state to Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Brazil
• Propose merging Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Rio Grande do Sul to Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Brazil
• Propose merging Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Rio de Janeiro (state) to Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Brazil
• Propose merging Category:Deaths from lung cancer in São Paulo (state) to Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Brazil
• Propose merging Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Paraná (state) to Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Brazil
• Propose merging Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Minas Gerais to Category:Deaths from lung cancer in Brazil

Nominator's rationale: Death from lung cancer is common and not defining. We certainly dont need to subdivide countries like this. Maybe we should delete the country categories too? Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, a far too common cause of death, nothing special about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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 delete per C1. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:23, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1st-millennium establishments in Bolivia to Category:1st-millennium establishments in South America
• Propose merging Category:1st-millennium disestablishments in Peru to Category:1st-millennium disestablishments in South America

Nominator's rationale: Following merger of the century categories at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 August 14. – Fayenatic London 18:23, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support These are very small categories and can be merged. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You might add Category:8th century in Chile in to this mix. It's the only pre-modern century category for Chile. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:58, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Thank you. I recategorized King of Easter Island, leaving the tree of Category:8th century in Chile empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Just delete -- There are three articles between the two categories. An establishment c.1000 AD should not be classified as if it were established in 1000. The two Bolivian items existed c.1000-c.1500, which is primarily 2nd millennium. The Peruvian item existed 800/200 BC to 1000/1470 AD. Both categories should be empty. No objection to changing them to 2nd millennium and merging to that South America category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• You are right, 2 of the 3 articles belong in the 2nd millennium rather than in the 1st. I have recategorized both of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:38, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have also moved Acaray to 2nd millennium, so the Peru category is now also empty. There is no need to merge the 2nd mill categories by country to South America, as they will be kept since they also contain C19 and C20. – Fayenatic London 21:48, 29 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment These two categories have been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:51, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:American films by subject to Category:American films by topic
• Propose renaming Category:British films by subject to Category:British films by topic

Nominator's rationale: Parent category is Category:Films by topic, and all sibling categories in Category:Films by topic by country are named "topic" instead of "subject" except for these two. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support, seems a standard WP:C2C nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:24, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Shina Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 May 12#Category:Wikipedians by ancestry * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete, apparently a too small ethnicity to categorize users by. The one article is already in parent Category:Gilgit-Baltistan Wikipedians too, which is equally poorly populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Why is there a Category:Balti Wikipedians and Category:Swati Wikipedians? Muhafiz-e-Pakistan (talk) 18:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Category:Swati Wikipedians now nominated too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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:Bandar Seri Begawan. bibliomaniac15 01:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Centuries in Bandar Seri Begawan to Category:History of Bandar Seri Begawan
• Propose merging Category:20th century in Bandar Seri Begawan to Category:History of Bandar Seri Begawan
• Propose merging Category:21st century in Bandar Seri Begawan to Category:History of Bandar Seri Begawan

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are 3 articles in the whole tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:02, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge all per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge all but to Category:Bandar Seri Begawan. The content is two athletics events and one summit, in a city in Brunei founded in 1906. This is not enough content for a history category, for which there is no main article. Possibly also upmerge to parallel Brunei categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• (as nom) I am perfectly fine with the alternative merge target Category:Bandar Seri Begawan. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Merge per Peterkingiron. — Qwerfjkltalk 12:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:History of Fortaleza to Category:Fortaleza

Nominator's rationale: merge, currently only one article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 13:01, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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) Qwerfjkltalk 12:26, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Villages in Berezhany Hromada to Category:Villages in Ternopil Raion and Category:Berezhany urban hromada

Nominator's rationale: merge, as far as I know we never categorize Villages by municipality. The municipality parent category is otherwise almost empty, so it will not get overcrowded by adding the villages. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Merge all per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 12:27, 1 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose renaming by adding a comma after "D.C." to the following categories:

Category:African-American people in Washington, D.C. politics

Category:National Ballet of Washington, D.C. dancers

Category:Prisoners who died in Washington, D.C. detention

Category:Railway stations in Washington, D.C. at university and college campuses

Category:Universities and colleges in Washington, D.C. by type

Category:Washington, D.C. articles missing geocoordinate data

Category:Washington, D.C. building and structure stubs

Category:Washington, D.C. Democrats

Category:Washington, D.C. education-related lists

Category:Washington, D.C. geography stubs

Category:Washington, D.C. government officials

Category:Washington, D.C. Independents

Category:Washington, D.C. Know Nothings

Category:Washington, D.C. Libertarians

Category:Washington, D.C. navigational boxes

Category:Washington, D.C. politician stubs

Category:Washington, D.C. politicians by party

Category:Washington, D.C. politicians convicted of crimes

Category:Washington, D.C. presidential primaries

Category:Washington, D.C. Registered Historic Place stubs

Category:Washington, D.C. Republicans

Category:Washington, D.C. Shadow Representative elections

Category:Washington, D.C. Shadow Senator elections

Category:Washington, D.C. socialists

Category:Washington, D.C. society

Category:Washington, D.C. sport stubs

Category:Washington, D.C. sport-related lists

Category:Washington, D.C. stubs

Category:Washington, D.C. templates

Category:Washington, D.C. Unionists

Category:Washington, D.C. user templates

Category:Washington, D.C. Whigs

Category:Women in Washington, D.C. politics

Nominator's rationale: MOS:GEOCOMMA stipulates that geographical locations separated by a comma should have a comma following the parenthetical if words follow it. Thrakkx (talk) 03:50, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• @Thrakkx: you need to tag these category pages, see instructions at WP:CFD. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: tagged them. Could not get them to link to the discussion because I am a day late. I can only manually enter the section name, not the date. I also removed 11 that were either renamed to have the comma already or are redirects (or both). Thrakkx (talk) 19:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Thrakkx: thanks, you can still edit the category pages now and change the date in order to link them to here. I will do the first one for you. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:28, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

      @Marcocapelle: thanks; fixed. Always a struggle doing these administrative processes for the first time. Thrakkx (talk) 21:31, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. It seems a bit pedantic, but I guess that it should be done. You should just have done it. Nobody would have objected. --Bduke (talk) 06:07, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• "Just do it" wouldn't work. The articles need to be moved to the new category names and via CfD that will be done by a bot. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  ... but this probably could have been done through CFDS as a C2A. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename all per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:41, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Rename all per nom. This said there are some alumni categories for which similar suggestions have been resisted; eg 2019 October 24#Xxx of the University of California, Los Angeles. Oculi (talk) 19:12, 24 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  This renaming was resisted not because of the comma but because of the formatting change from "University of California, Los Angeles x" to "x of the University of California, Los Angeles". Obviously the format was requested to change like this because of the comma issue, but I imagine the proposal would have gone differently if the editor simply requested to add a comma, like I am here. Thrakkx (talk) 19:53, 25 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[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.