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 here and given the repeated "no consensus" and "keep" closures elsewhere there's no point in relisting since there's clearly not going to be a consensus to delete * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:The Shaggs tribute albums to Both parent categories: Category:The Shaggs and Category:Tribute albums

Nominator's rationale: Only one article. No need for this diffusion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• As target Category:The Shaggs will be deleted, the merge is probably going to be to Category:The Shaggs albums instead. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No, don't merge a tribute album into albums by the artist. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok, then still merge but assuming target Category:The Shaggs will be deleted, the only relevant merge target left is Category:Tribute albums. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that a tribute album should not be included in the category for albums by the artist(s) being tributed, unless someone can point out some special circumstances. KConWiki (talk) 23:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This was nominated once before and the consensus was to keep (see CfD 2022 Aug 28). There is also precedent in that there are 71 other subcategories under Category:Tribute albums with a single article/album. Most of those were created by KConWiki ten years ago. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: My rationale for this has not really changed since our last discussion on this general topic, which can be reviewed here. Thanks to all for their contributions. KConWiki (talk) 23:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:24, 1 September 2023 (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. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 17:09, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:11th-century establishments in Ukraine to Category:11th-century establishments in Kievan Rus'
  • Re-parent to Category:11th century in Kievan Rus'
• Propose merging Category:11th century in Ukraine to Category:11th century in Kievan Rus'
• Propose renaming Category:12th-century establishments in Ukraine to Category:12th-century establishments in Kievan Rus'
  • Re-parent to Category:12th century in Kievan Rus'
• Propose merging Category:12th century in Ukraine to Category:12th century in Kievan Rus'
• Propose merging Category:10th century in Ukraine to Category:10th century in Kievan Rus'

Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT / WP:NARROWCAT. "Ukraine" didn't exist yet, but Kievan Rus' did. These categories largely have the same contents anyway. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you cite any sources for that change, or is that your own WP:OR? Marcelus (talk) 07:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• The articles Name of Ukraine cites the oldest mention of "Ukraine" in the year 1187, but that does not imply that "Ukraine" was a common name of a region or country in the centuries to follow. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It seems to me that this should be understood as events from the 10th century on the territory of today's Ukraine. Besides, Category:11th-century establishments in Ukraine is not anachronistic in any respect, it is a completely different case. Marcelus (talk) 08:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, resolves anachronism. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as always, as the "anachronism" and similar viewpoints look at this from one perspective only (how was it called then), not from another, equally valid (how is it called now). "When did the things in current Ukraine or the things that shaped the history of what is now Ukraine get established" is a natural question, the history of a country doesn't start when it is formally named or established but long before. Fram (talk) 07:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 1 September 2023 (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 Category:4 ft 10⅞ in gauge railways to Category:Toronto-gauge railways, delete Category:12⅝ in gauge railways. (non-admin closure) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways to Category:4 ft 8 3/8 in gauge railways
• Propose renaming Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Hong Kong to Category:4 ft 8 3/8 in gauge railways in Hong Kong
• Propose renaming Category:4ft 8⅜in gauge railways in Germany to Category:4 ft 8 3/8 in gauge railways in Germany
• Propose renaming Category:12⅝ in gauge railways to Category:12 5/8 in gauge railways
• Propose renaming Category:4 ft 10⅞ in gauge railways to Category:4 ft 10 7/8 in gauge railways

Nominator's rationale: The characters ⅜, ⅝, and ⅞ are disallowed by MOS:FRAC because they do not reliably work with screen readers. After discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Fractions in category names, it seems the ASCII representation is preferred in these situations. I updated the MOS and am making this nomination to get final approval from a slightly wider audience. Also fixed non-compliance with MOS:UNITS; whitespace is required between number and unit. -- Beland (talk) 02:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(BTW, as of the 1 Aug 2023 database dump, these are the only categories with these characters. -- Beland (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC))[reply]

Turns out the 4ft 8⅜in categories have been moved to Category:1432 mm gauge railways and friends as a result of the MOS:FRAC discussion. -- Beland (talk) 02:10, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:12⅝ in gauge railways is a WP:SMALLCAT. Aren't there any others than only Midland Beach Railway Company? I suppose not: The gauge of the locomotive was a unique 12+5⁄8 in (321 mm). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per a comment I've just added to that discussion, I tested the page with NVDA (a popular screen reader), and found that ⅞ was read fine - better than "7/8" which is read "seven divided by eight". This was a very quick and dirty test, so I think it would be helpful if someone with access to other screen readers could test to see if they have been updated since the original MOS:FRAC guidance. It would be a shame if we make this change in the name of accessibility and end up making things worse. Barnards.tar.gz (talk) 14:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't it possible to move the two remaining categories to a mm format as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename Category:4 ft 10⅞ in gauge railways to Category:Toronto-gauge railways per WP:C2D main article Toronto-gauge railways. Just call it Toronto. No fuss. Much easier. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename this one to Category:Toronto-gauge railways per WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• That works to fix the character issue! -- Beland (talk) 20:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Support. Great solution! Mason (talk) 02:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: What to do with Category:12⅝ in gauge railways?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:12⅝ in gauge railways as a one-item category with apparently zero potential for growth. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:58, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:12⅝ in gauge railways pee Pppery. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:12⅝ in gauge railways per Pppery. Everyone else also seems to agree to Alt rename Category:4 ft 10⅞ in gauge railways to Category:Toronto-gauge railways; looks like this is gonna be the conclusion. NLeeuw (talk) 18:07, 2 September 2023 (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: Split. Galobtter (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:11th-century women rulers to...

• Category:11th-century women regents
• Category:11th-century empresses regnant
• Category:11th-century empresses consort
• Category:11th-century queens regnant
• Category:11th-century queens consort
• Category:11th-century duchesses consort
• Category:11th-century countesses regnant
• Category:11th-century countesses consort

Nominator's rationale: This better describes the lives of these medieval women. I'm suggesting a split into no fewer than 8 new categories. Follow-up to Category:5th-century women rulers (Split), 2nd-century BC women rulers (Split), 3rd-century BC women rulers (Split), and 4th-century BC women rulers (Split). The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well; the "7th-century women rulers" CfS, the "8th-century women rulers" CfS, the "9th-century women rulers" CfS, and the "10th-century women rulers" CfS are still ongoing.

Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 21:42, 15 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split at least in three. Monarchs, regents and monarch's consorts are clearly different roles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Update The "6th-century women rulers" CfS closed as "Split" as well. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:07, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 14:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose any "consort" categor being here: consorts weren't rulers out of definition. Oppose others out of possible WP:OR, for example: Urraca of Zamora wasn't "countesses regnant", she was none of the sources describe her as such, she and her sister were given possession of the so-called infantados, a complex of monasteries that belonged to her and her sister by virtue of being infantas, they held them until their marriage. She also received the towns of Zamora and Elvira, but not by virtue of being an infanta. We do not know what title she bore. Calling her a countess is not confirmed in the sources. Similarly, Anne of Kiev was married to a count after her first husband's death, but she held power by virtue of being her royal son's regent. The Garsende of Béziers was a viscountess, not a countess. Mariam of Vaspurakan was a ruler by virtue of being a regent, not queen etc. If we want to isolate a category, it could be Category:11th-century women regents. The division proposed by the OP is wrong and OR. Marcelus (talk) 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcelus: it is not clear to me what exactly you are opposing. The proposed split will solve the issue that consorts do not belong here. I have argued the same, plus I have argued that regents are a different class as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  My argument is this: I am against the removal of Category:11th-century women rulers because it is a useful category, gathering women exercising actual supreme power in a country. @Nederlandse Leeuw proposed split will result in women actually exercising power (e.g. as regents) being assigned to the "x consort" category, which by definition gathers those not exercising actual power. Moreover, NL's proposed split is WP:OR and in fact most of the cases I have checked prove this, e.g. NL proposes to move Sayyida Shirin to the "queens consort" category, when in fact she was an emira. For these two reasons, the proposed change is unacceptable. Marcelus (talk) 17:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Nederlandse Leeuw has proposed a women regents category too, so any consorts who have been regents can be put in this category. I don't think this needs to be a reason for disagreement. Your second argument is more of an issue, because do we really want to split this by every possible title? That is also why I said "at least three" because I am in doubt whether splitting it further adds much value. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    First of all I don't want to split anything. But if you need to split it for some reason, you cannot put someone who wasn't a queen, to a queen category. I think that's pretty straightforward. Plenty of these characters did not carry any specific title, or any of those listed (queen, duchess, etc.), so to pin them down by force to them is misleading and simply OR. The "women rulers" category is simply very useful. Marcelus (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Split as per prior centuries; not splitting this one would be just bizarre. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Split per Pppery: no compelling reason has been given to depart from the convention for this particular century. HouseBlaster^talk 14:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Split - I dont get the oppose argument at all, indeed the proposed split is solving the exact problem they have raised. Maybe they think that the articles will be copy pasted into all of the categories? Apart from that, I dont think a reasonable argument to be made against. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 03:11, 27 October 2023 (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. Other categories no longer use adjective format. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Culture of Mayotte to Category:Mahoran culture

Nominator's rationale: Other similar category names follow the adjective format (African culture, Malagasy culture, etc.). Zanahary (talk) 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's put this on hold until Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_21#Fooian_culture_to_Culture_of_Fooland_part_2 closes. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Related discussion was relisted.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• On hold until Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_21#Fooian_culture_to_Culture_of_Fooland_part_2 closes per Marcocapelle. NLeeuw (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2023 (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. ✗plicit 01:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Tornadoes in Canada by date

Nominator's rationale: delete in the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME, these are apparently articles with a date in the article title. A merge is not needed, the articles are already in Category:Tornadoes in Ontario etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background: This category, along with Category:Tornadoes in Canada by location, was intended as a way to resolve the mess that's seen in existing categories such as Category:Tornadoes in Canada or Category:Tornadoes in Ontario, where the entries in those categories are in no specific order at all, neither date nor location, because the category name gives no guidance as to a suitable ordering of the category keys (some entries are listed under T for Tornado, some listed by date if that happens to be the first word of the article, some under L for list, some under the name of the location, and other variants too). The intention was to populate the two subcategories with items from the larger category, which would then consist of only of the subcategories. However, this work was left incomplete. This is also a problem with tornado categories in the US - an example is Category:Tornadoes in Georgia (U.S. state). Colonies Chris (talk) 22:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(continued): Looking at this more closely, it seems that the problem of indexing by location has since been resolved by the creation of the tornadoes in province subcategories. Within these, ideally, articles would be ordered by date, though that's pretty patchy. Currently, not all the articles in Category:Tornadoes in Canada by date are also categorised by province (e.g. Tornado outbreak of June 5–6, 2010 should be in Category:Tornadoes in Ontario) - once that has been done, the category in question would indeed be redundant. In fact, Category:Tornadoes in Canada by location is also potentially redundant, as it consists solely of province subcategories that could just be promoted to subcategories of Category:Tornadoes in Canada. Colonies Chris (talk) 01:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• I have added Tornado outbreak of June 5–6, 2010 to Category:Tornadoes in Ontario. That appears the only article that was not already somewhere else in the Canadian tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also woefully underpopulated. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:59, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; I've been through all the articles in this category and correctly categorised them by province and date, so this category is now empty and unneeded. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, this category has been emptied. I wish you'd wait until this discussion was closed before doing this. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:13, 4 September 2023 (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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Afrikaans-language songs to Category:Songs in Afrikaans
• Propose renaming Category:Amharic-language songs to Category:Songs in Amharic
• Propose renaming Category:Arabic-language songs to Category:Songs in Arabic
• Propose renaming Category:Aramaic-language songs to Category:Songs in Aramaic
• Propose renaming Category:Judaeo-Spanish-language songs to Category:Songs in Judaeo-Spanish
• Propose renaming Category:Malayalam-language songs to Category:Songs in Malayalam
• Propose renaming Category:Urdu-language songs to Category:Songs in Urdu
• Propose renaming Category:Yiddish-language songs to Category:Songs in Yiddish

Nominator's rationale: WP:C2C. Follow-up to recent renaming of siblings Category:Songs in Latin (link) and Category:Songs in Hindi (link) (see also (Category:Hawaiian songs and Category:Latin-language Christian hymns). This CfR is for songs in languages whose name cannot be mixed up with a nationality or ethnicity, and whose articles (just like Latin and Hindi) don't have the word "language" in the title: Afrikaans, Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Judaeo-Spanish, Malayalam, Urdu, and Yiddish. Thus, "-language" is a redundant addition to these catnames. This nomination is intended as a stepping stone towards the renaming of all Category:Songs by language; I expect this proposal to be easier, and that agreement on this proposal will make the next step easier. NLeeuw (talk) 13:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, Jc37, Srnec, and Qwerfjkl: pinging participants from previous discussion for follow-up, for your consideration. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per precedent, and for brevity. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, I think this is a reasonable set of renamings using synonyms which shorten the names of the categories. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:48, 2 September 2023 (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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:01, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greek hymns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Hymns in Ancient Greek
• Propose renaming Category:Danish Christian hymns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Christian hymns in Danish
• Propose renaming Category:Dutch Christian hymns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Christian hymns in Dutch
• Propose renaming Category:French Christian hymns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Christian hymns in French
• Propose renaming Category:German Christian hymns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Christian hymns in German

Nominator's rationale: Follow up to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 August 22#Category:Latin-language Christian hymns; pinging participants there @Nederlandse Leeuw, @Marcocapelle, @jc37. Qwerfjkltalk 09:48, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Srnec pinging you as well, as you were instrumental (no pun intended) to the "Songs in Latin" precedent. NLeeuw (talk) 13:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per precedent. Thanks for the follow-up ping! NLeeuw (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I was sort of using this as an excuse to test my script, User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massCFD. Good to see that it works. Qwerfjkltalk 10:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Interesting! I might try that out myself later on. It's usually best to start with a single test case, and then a logical follow-up bundle, but nomming them all individually can be real pain. Glad the script already works for you. :) NLeeuw (talk) 13:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Qwerfjkl It looks like some of these hymns aren't necessarily in the language stated. The category trees Category:Christian hymns by country and Category:Hymns by language are mixed up. We might have to do some purging. We Gather Together is probably fine; the article title is the name of the English translation (which I never knew) of the Dutch original Wilt heden nu treden (which I do know), which is both in Dutch and from the Netherlands / written by a Dutch person. But Dio vi salvi Regina is evidently written in Italian (and in modern times the Corsican version seems most commonly used). Apparently, it's only in Category:French Christian hymns because France acquired Corsica in 1769, about a century after this song was written. We could recategorise to Category:Italian Christian hymns for now, but then it wouldn't fit the Category:Christian hymns by country and Category:Christianity in Italy parents anymore either, because Corsica isn't in Italy. One can argue whether Corsica was or wasn't in "Italy" in 1675, but the writer Francis de Geronimo seems to have lived in Naples all his life and never really visited Corsica, so saying the song is "from Italy" would be correct again. Eg veit i himmerik ei borg leads to similar complications, being originally written in German in Norway, but translated to Norwegian later and having an article title in Norwegian, but still being categorised as Category:German Christian hymns. Thoughts? Sorry if I'm making it complicated. NLeeuw (talk) 14:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It doesn't sound complicated. If a song in language X is translated into language Y, then place the article in both categories. If - as we've seen in a few cases - that some articles have been categorised in these due to culture rather than language, then those will just need to be pruned/re-categorised. QED - jc37 14:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Any song can be translated into 20 languages or more. Dio vi salvi Regina#Lyrics alone shows 4 versions. I don't think every single translation is WP:DEFINING. Where do we draw the line? NLeeuw (talk) 18:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nederlandse Leeuw, we can draw the line where the language is defining. If the translation isn't defining, then there's no need to categorise it. Qwerfjkltalk 21:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Ok, and what are the criteria which make a translation defining? In the example of Dio vi salvi Regina#Lyrics, which of the following languages should we categorise it by?

  1. Italian (original)
  2. Corsican (because it is alleged to be the de facto anthem of Corsica?)
  3. French (because Corsica is located in France in our times?)
  4. English (because this is English Wikipedia? Because the text is mentioned in the article?)

  Personally, I think only 1 and 2, maybe 3 apply. Curious what you and others think, or if such criteria have already been agreed on.

  I'm open to lots of options, I just hope we can agree to criteria that we can consistently apply in follow-ups. Cheers, NLeeuw (talk) 22:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Nederlandse Leeuw, I would say only 1 and 2, the former because it's the original language, the latter because that's the language it's mostly sung in today. (please  mention me on reply). Qwerfjkltalk 11:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Qwerfjkl I agree! Looking at the WikiProject Songs archives, the question is sometimes indirectly addressed (e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Songs/Archive 23#Songs recorded in multiple languages), giving me the impression that per WP:NSONG, only the language versions which are notable, are categorisable. For Dio vi salvi Regina, this would mean it would fit in Category:Christian hymns in Italian (if we renamed and rescoped that category from being country-based to language-based) and Category:Christian hymns in Corsican (if we ever created one; currently we probably can't get more WP:CATSPECIFIC than Category:Corsican music), but not Category:Christian hymns in French. What do @Jc37 and @Marcocapelle think? Should we apply these criteria to the entire Category:Songs by language tree? NLeeuw (talk) 11:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's not a bad place to start. Probably begin with a group nom of the more obvious ones, to see what the rest of the community thinks; and then individually nom ones that might be less obvious, or which might need significant cleanup. - jc37 14:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Guessing that Category:Songs by language's subcats are next... - jc37 11:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes. We've agreed on "Songs in Latin, Hindi, Hawaiian" already. Moreover, subcats Category:Arias by language and Category:Classical song cycles by language‎ also follow the [Song type] in Fooian convention already before we even set the "Songs in Latin" precedent. I think I'll start with a select few categories for languages whose name cannot be mixed up with a nationality or ethnicity, and whose articles don't have the word "language" in the title: Amharic, Urdu, Arabic, Afrikaans, Aramaic, Judaeo-Spanish, Yiddish, and Malayalam. If we agree on that, we might more easily agree on the rest as well. NLeeuw (talk) 13:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 1 September 2023 (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. Arguments for keeping were unconvincing and not policy-based. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Getai people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It's quite possible that I don't quite get what "Getai people" is intended to mean but this seems like a classic case of WP:PERFCAT. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• It seems to be a defining characteristic for two articles, Hao Hao and Liu Lingling (Singaporean host), the other articles should be purged to begin with. Delete the category for now without prejudice to re-creating the category when it can be populated better. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It applies to entertainers like Ke Le, Desmond Ng and Marcus Chin as well, who all debuted in the Singapore entertainment scene through Getai. Am going to be bold and suggests this category remains as more articles on individuals who are hugely involved in the Getai scene are created progressively. Mcdynamite (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • Getai is not a defining characteristic of these articles, the articles are about artists generally. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - per WP:OC#Performers by production or performance venue. Anyone truly notable only due to this event, can be linked in the article Getai, if they aren't already. - jc37 11:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It's a prominent performing medium in Singapore, just like in films, on stage or television etc. There are plenty of standalone articles on people who are involved in Getai in the Singapore mainstream media. And categorising individuals who are performing through this medium is quite defining in the Singapore entertainment industry. Mcdynamite (talk) 02:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And as I noted above, we don't categorise people by what film, television, or stage production they were in, either. - jc37 14:19, 3 September 2023 (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 * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Undesirable Wiki Ed Articles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category, with its unclear scope or purpose, only seems to be for the use of the category creator, User:Abishekdascs. I removed inappropriately categorized User pages but was reverted so I'm sending this case to CFD. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per WP:G2, based on what creator wrote on their talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per WP:G2. Pichpich (talk) 03:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose : Purpose: This category will contains articles that are marked as discouraged for selection in Wiki Education courses. Articles in this category have historically shown challenges in student assignments, with limited improvement over time. While students can still choose to work on these articles, they are encouraged to consider the historical context and potential difficulties associated with these topics. This category will serves as a cautionary resource to guide students and instructors in making informed decisions when selecting articles for assignments.

In simple words this category will be useful for https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/. So, that students or instructor will be able to mark an article under this category so it will discourage a student from choosing one of these articles to work on, and it annoys the editors of such articles.As, such Wikipedia articles rarely lead to significant improvement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abishekdascs (talk • contribs) 05:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @Abishekdascs: can you give some examples of articles that would qualify for this category? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Sure, this will be one of the article that would qualify for this topic - Boba.

  And, only if this category is accepted then only will I be able to add a feature in https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/, which will allow instructor or students to mark an article under this category.

  Further details for the reason of this category is mention in this link - https://github.com/WikiEducationFoundation/WikiEduDashboard/issues/5477 Abishekdascs (talk) 06:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this is "A Very Bad Idea" (tm) - Out of 6,824,966 Wikipedia articles, how many do we think would be placed in this category based upon the criteria listed above? I'll take "most, if not all" for $1000, Alex... - jc37 11:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Fair point, then deleting it will be good. I had one final question so is there way any to create a category which is hidden from everyone. I just show this in Hiding categories under Wikipedia:Categorization - To hide a category, add the template ((Wikipedia category|hidden=yes)) to the category page (the template uses the magic word __HIDDENCAT__). This also places the page in Category:Hidden categories. Abishekdascs (talk) 12:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Basically. Though you may wish to check ou the guidelines at WP:HIDDENCAT. It's use should only be for administrative purposes. - jc37 14:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  okay ty i will check it out Abishekdascs (talk) 15:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Jc37 So, if i add ((Wikipedia category|hidden=yes)) and __HIDDENCAT__ to Category:Undesirable Wiki Ed Articles will it be removed from deletion? Abishekdascs (talk) 16:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  No. That has nothing to do with whether a category is deleted. It merely has to do with how the category is displayed at the bottom of a page. "Hidden" categories are not displayed by default, unless you opt in to see them in your user preferences. - jc37 17:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, ty for the explanation Abishekdascs (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  But this category 'Undesirable Wiki Ed Articles' is intended to serve a specific purpose within the context of Wiki Education. It's not meant to encompass a vast majority of Wikipedia articles but rather to guide students and instructors in making informed decisions when selecting topics for assignments.So, then this category can help, guiding them toward better choices for the students assignments Abishekdascs (talk) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  So, if tweaking the category names works since the name of this category doesn't makes its purpose clear which i noticed 🥲 only after i named this category. Abishekdascs (talk) 18:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Just out of curiosity, have you read over WP:ASSIGN? - jc37 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Still delete (already voted above) but this time because I see no objective reason why the Boba dab page would be marked as discouraged for selection in Wiki Education courses. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 1 September 2023 (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.