Trichome

thcscience_admin
< March 30
April 1 >

March 31[edit]

Category:Arabian freedmen[edit]

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 19:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overlapping category Mason (talk) 23:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just delete, the article is still in Category:Slaves from the Abbasid Caliphate. Presumably it was not standard to free one's slaves but I can imagine that a larger proportion of notable slaves have been freed, so that the concepts are more overlapping in Wikipedia than they were in everyday medieval life. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Works for me Mason (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2024 (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:Monochamini[edit]

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 19:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The article Monochamini redirects to Lamiini where they are listed as synonyms. Pichpich (talk) 21:15, 31 March 2024 (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:15th-century Maltese philosophers[edit]

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 19:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one person in this category, which isn't helpful for navigation. Mason (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2024 (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.

Infrastructure[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Infrastructure


Category:14th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Moldavia[edit]

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 19:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. Only one bishop in here, which isn't very helpful for navgation Mason (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2024 (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:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Portuguese Macau[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:16th-century Roman Catholic bishops in Portuguese Macau

Category:16th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Africa[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 8#Category:16th-century Roman Catholic church buildings in Africa

Category:Malawian music by city[edit]

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/merge. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization of a small number of articles -- in both Blantyre and Lilongwe, the creator started "Musicians from [City]" categories that are fine on their own, but then vastly overdid everything else around them.
Firstly, they do not each require a separate "singers" subcategory: the musicians categories have just ten and seven articles in them, respectively, which is not large enough to require diffusion for different types of musicians, and the singers subcategories in turn have just two and four articles in them -- and obviously if the singers categories aren't necessary, then neither is Category:Malawian singers by city.
Secondly, with just two categories they don't need a dedicated Category:Malawian musicians by city container either, and can just be filed directly in Category:Malawian musicians.
Thirdly, they also don't need "Music in (City)" parents that don't have anything else in them (and have nothing else in the "City" parents that can be refiled into them either), which also vitiates the need for Category:Malawian music by city.
Fourthly, neither Category:People from Blantyre nor Category:People from Lilongwe have enough occupational subcategories to require chunking them out into "People from X by occupation" containers, and if those aren't needed then Category:Malawian people by city and occupation and Category:Malawian people by occupation and city also aren't needed either.
Again, the musicians subcategories themselves are fine, but they don't need any of these as parent or child categories -- they can both just be filed directly in Category:Malawian musicians and the appropriate "People from X", and don't need this many layers of redundancy added to their family trees. Bearcat (talk) 15:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom, this makes navigation through the tree a nightmare. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bearcat, @Marcocapelle There are many articles that need to be included in the categories above that haven't yet been added. If the categories are intended to be merged or deleted, I just wonder how this survives which uses the very same style and structure. If the intention is to have at least many articles into them, well then, would you give it a little time as I would look for articles to add into them (or even create some). Hopefully Wikipedia is work in progress. Thanks. Tumbuka Arch (talk) 17:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because that exists doesn't mean this has to as well, because it's entirely within the realm of possibility that that shouldn't exist either. Nothing stops anybody from creating any unwarranted thing at any time, so the existence of one thing is not automatically validation for the existence of another. Bearcat (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2024 (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 Kenya[edit]

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, seems a straightforward case of WP:C2D but having this for full discussion just in case it isn't that straightforward. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:48, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Support I see no reason to object and it is indeed close to a WP:C2D. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2024 (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:Arab-Jewish culture in the United States[edit]

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename as part of as part of Category:Arab-Jewish diaspora. This suggestion had some support at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 March 21#Category:Arab-Jewish culture in the United States. "Diaspora" would match some parent categories such as Egyptian-Jewish diaspora. I acknowledge that these are also part of Jewish culture by country, but IMHO conforming within Arab-Jewish diaspora would be most helpful. – Fayenatic London 07:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, the proposed names clarify better what these categories are about. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:39, 31 March 2024 (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:Meta-Wiki autoconfirmed users[edit]

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) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:48, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for utterly lacking collaborative value. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 31 March 2024 (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:Wikipedians who like Super Mario[edit]

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. In line with previous consensus. It's worth noting the category contains only one member. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 19:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT for utterly lacking collaborative value. * Pppery * it has begun... 01:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It shouldn't be deleted because I keep expanding the page. Hjajajsbbxb12 (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not a reason to keep it. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Hjajajsbbxb12, the size of the page isn't a factor. If the category is kept I'd recommend cleaning up the userbox clutter. It's normal and fine to have some userboxes appear on categories like this, but the page is pretty disorganized right now.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:USERCATYES. In my opinion this category is totally fine per Appropriate types of user categories § Categories which group users by interest in a subject: "This includes any grouping of users by interest in a subject – that is, interest in editing articles related to a certain topic – so long as the topic is not overly narrow or vague (see below: Categories that are overly narrow in scope, Categories that are vaguely defined)." These sorts of "Wikipedians who like x" are fairly common additions to userpages and I'd say Super Mario is a large enough series with an active enough base of interested Wikipedia editors improving the subject's coverage that it's reasonable for such a category to exist. I can't see anything in WP:USERCATNO that would suggest this an example of an inappropriate user category, as I don't think it's so narrow that it cannot conceivably be relevant to a broad number of users' editing.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Liking something is completely different than willingness to improve the encyclopedia with respect to this topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't say I agree. I think it could reasonably go on the userpage of a member of the WikiProject Video games Nintendo task force because it seems analagous to the very populous Category:Wikipedians who like Pokémon. Of course, one could always say that category needs to go as well and nominate it here, but I think at that point you'd have to argue there should be no "Wikipedians who like <x>" categories of any sort and they should all be deleted, but that seems like the sort of thing that would require broader discussion about user category guidelines at some other venue. So for me personally, I'd need some convincing that this category is less related to improving the encyclopedia than other analagous categories which have long been understood to be acceptable.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reading through that discussion, I agree with what Diriector_Doc had to say. I'll add that I think a better solution (if there exists a problem in the first place) would be to rename some of these "Wikipedians who like <x>" categories to "Wikipedians interested in <x>" so long as the subject is not too narrow to realistically relate to any editing areas. One thing that stood out as confusing in that previous deletion discussion was that the nom intentionally spared "Category:Wikipedians who like Game Center CX" solely because GameCenter CX is a show rather than a video game. What does that have to do with the collaborative value of the category? The bar for being kept versus deleted should be that a subject has enough coverage on Wikipedia that there exists an editing community (which can be said about some of those deleted categories), not "delete if it's a game series, keep if it's a television series."  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 19:34, 6 April 2024 (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:Wikipedian disc golfers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 April 30#Category:Wikipedian disc golfers

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_March_31

Leave a Reply