< May 3 May 5 >

May 4

Winter Olympics by year stubs

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 , leaning towards keep. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these stub types are used on more than 60 articles, and some do not have corresponding stub categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:57, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl. Category overload does exist, and the idea of deleting all these cats is nonsensical. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 16:52, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 21:07, 4 May 2022 (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.

Category:Songs about wealth

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Songs about wealth

Seafood companies

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 all. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 16:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, these all contain only one or two articles. The number of seafood company articles in Wikipedia is low altogether (not even 100 worldwide). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 19:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 4 May 2022 (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.

Category:Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies

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 Timrollpickering (talk) 20:47, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily long category name. It doesn't really make sense to distinguish/disambiguate between "Dresses worn on the red carpet at the Academy Awards ceremonies" and "Dresses worn at the Academy Awards ceremonies". Most people wear one outfit for both the red carpet and the ceremony, so there's no real separation between the concepts. Even when people do outfit swaps, the media tends to refer to red carpet outfits and ceremony outfits interchangeably as "Oscars dresses" and "Academy Awards dresses." ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • On reflection (not that I think anyone will mind since there's been no response to this anyway) I've changed the target to "outfits worn" rather than "dresses worn", in order to be a) gender neutral and b) cover Autograph suit of Sandy Powell and the eventual article I'm going to write about Cher's stupid and wonderful 1986 Oscars getup. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:32, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:11, 4 May 2022 (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.

Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Infobox musical artist with missing or invalid Background field

Category:Wikipedian vector graphics editors

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to have identical purposes. * Pppery * it has begun... 17:04, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:08, 4 May 2022 (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.

Reality television contestants by country

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) Qwerfjkltalk 21:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Convert to container categories, following precedent at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 5#Category:Participants in British reality television series. Those that do not have sub-cats by series should be deleted as WP:SOFTDELETE unless and until such sub-cats are created. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:07, 4 May 2022 (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.

Category:Professors of chemistry (Cambridge, 1702)

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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More concise, and bit less narrow. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. 1702 professorship is oldest permanent chemistry chair in the UK, and is notable though more for its interesting role in the history of science than the quality of its early incumbents. It was founded in response to cultish admiration for Newton, and its history covers the whole Modern Period and tallies with transition from Newtonian alchemy to recognisable chemistry. Incumbents played an interesting role in establishing in the UK the teaching of experimental science by researchers. Readers could conceivably wish to navigate these holders by category. I am working my way through some of these interesting professorships (partially as a means of diffusing the huge Category:Academics of the University of Cambridge), and will likely add create a more inclusive category called Category:Professors of chemistry (Cambridge) in due course... Charlie A. (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Clarification. I'm not particularly opposed to renaming the category per se. If there's an established convention I'm unaware of, or there's an alternative preferred for some other reason (e.g. Category:Holders of the 1702 professorship of chemistry at the University of Cambridge or Category:Professors of chemistry (1702) at the University of Cambridge etc.) But I think there's a good reason to keep the category for this particular interesting professorship, as opposed to all chemistry profs at Cam. Charlie A. (talk) 07:35, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Let Charlie A. work through this. --Bduke (talk) 01:55, 5 May 2022 (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.

Category:Former assembly constituencies in Telangana

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) Qwerfjkltalk 18:58, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Former assembly constituencies in Telangana to Category:Defunct Assembly constituencies of Telangana‎
Nominator's rationale: Proper naming like, see, and also Defunc is the correct meaning. IJohnKennadytalk 08:54, 4 May 2022 (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.

Category:Television series by Stone Stanley Entertainment

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Television series by Stone Stanley Entertainment

Category:Hololive

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 May 11#Category:Hololive

Category:Burial sites of the House of Burke

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 21:49, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are currently a couple of pages included in this category: burials at

Blackfriars, London, and Athassell Priory and Ballintubber Priory.

As you can see from these pages themselves, the burials of the people from the 'House of Burke' are surnamed either de Burgh or Bourke.

People with the surnames Burke, Bourke, de Burca and de Burgh are all derived descended from the founders of the dynasty, the House of Burgh.

de Burgh was the original surname which later (in Irish) became de Burca/Burc/Burke/Bourke, etc.

Therefore, since all these people are descended from the original dynasty of Burgh, this category should be renamed as Category:Burial sites of the House of Burgh to reflect the origins of the family. Thank you. WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2022 (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.

Category:House of Burke

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 21:50, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are currently a variety of pages included in this category: people surnamed Burke, Bourke, de Burca and de Burgh (which is correct).

All these surnamed people are descended from the founders of the dynasty, the House of Burgh.

de Burgh was the original surname which later (in Irish) became de Burca/Burc/Burke/Bourke, etc.

Therefore, since all these people are descended from the original dynasty of Burgh, this category should be renamed as Category:House of Burgh to reflect the origins of the family. Thank you. WilldeBurgh (talk) 08:40, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2022 (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.

Category:British lieutenant colonels

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 21:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Totally pointless category. The biggest problem is that it does not specify service and lumps lieutenant-colonels of the British Army, British Indian Army and Royal Marines together, despite the separate categories for officers of these services. But also, categorising by specific rank reached serves no useful purpose. The proliferation of these rank-specific categories needs to be stopped now. Pure overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:42, 26 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 00:07, 4 May 2022 (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.
More