Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 29

< March 28
March 30 >

March 29

Category:Posthumous people

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:07, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category, does not appear defining. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd assumed that it was a simple misunderstanding of what 'posthumous' meant: see above. If it wasn't that, then it is even less explicable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:22, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That was my initial assumption, but I think it's actually meant to be for posthumous children. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems a stretch to assume that it would be understood that way by readers, if that was the intention. It is still a misuse of the word. And in any case it isn't a defining characteristic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but Category:People born posthumously still seems silly. It is the act of having a child that is posthumous. Something described in relation to the parent, not the child. And given that this usage of 'posthumous' is clearly uncommon compared to other usages, it is also expecting far too much of readers, where (if this actually is a defining characteristic, which I'd like to see real evidence of) a simple. factual explanation would do better: Category:People born after the death of a parent. AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's wrong. "Born posthumously", as in "X was born posthumously", is absolutely standard idiom eg [1][2][3][4][5][6] DeCausa (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1st link: A sentence on Charles IV, not his posthumous daughter.
2nd link: Sentence on Theobald III's death, which goes on to say his son was 'born posthumously'.
3rd link: "Theobold of Champaigne's death in 1201, whose only son was born posthumously, further strengthened..."
4th link: "Albert died in 1439, and his heir Ladislas was born posthumously..."
5th link: I fail to see how Roman naming conventions are relevant to modern English word usage.
6th link: "... Ernie...was lost in action...Lucy was carrying my brother Mark, who was born posthumously."
Ignoring 5, which simply demonstrates that Romans used the name 'Posthumus', every example provided merely demonstrates that when discussing the death of someone, subsequent birth of an ofspring may be described as 'posthumous'. Posthumous in relation to the dead parent. None of your examples, demonstrate that the term is used to describe an individual in isolation. It isn't a description of an individual (except possibly in Latin), it is a description of the circumstances of their birth, applied only in the context of the death of their parent, the topic of focus. Beyond that, the word simply isn't used to describe individuals. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not, especially in the context royal/aristocratic succession. Maybe only for that context and the categorisation should be limited to that. See, for example, Ladislas Posthumous, John the Posthumous, Theobald the Posthumous, Agrippa Postumus etc. Literally defining, no? Even when they don't get the epithet I would argue it's normally fundamental to their bio eg Alfonso XIII's posthumous birth caused a six month interregnum. DeCausa (talk) 11:00, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could see a case for a very limited application of this cat to that context, but I do think a different name would be needed. Nikkimaria (talk) 15:16, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's what I suggested. DeCausa (talk) 22:20, 30 March 2025 (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:Pre-1606 contact with Australia

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 6#Category:Pre-1606 contact with Australia

Disestablishments in Tonga

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 6#Disestablishments in Tonga

Category:Porin Ässät personnel

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure I understand the intention in creating this category but I believe the idea is to include anyone employed by Porin Ässät (or more specifically for its ice hockey component HC Ässät Pori) that isn't already included in Category:Porin Ässät (men's ice hockey) players or Category:Porin Ässät (men's ice hockey) coaches. The problem is that we're left with a non-defining categorization. For instance, Jere Seppälä is a massage therapist for the team (uncited fact btw) but is obviously not notable for that: he had a seven-year career as a player. As for Matti Kuparinen, he played for the team (and is categorized as such) but was also briefly an assistant coach for its U18 squad and now works as the team's physical therapist. Neither position makes him particularly notable, so the extra Category:Porin Ässät personnel is not pertinent. Pichpich (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2025 (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.

Trials by year

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:2000s trials. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:39, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCYEAR and WP:NARROW. Every other trial article is categorized by decade and 2007 is the only year catgegory. voorts (talk/contributions) 21:45, 29 March 2025 (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:Minsk City Council of Deputies

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:31, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, unnecessary. Gjs238 (talk) 21:37, 29 March 2025 (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:Surinamese politicians by populated place

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge for now. There's only one category in here. SMasonGarrison 18:50, 29 March 2025 (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:Singers from Huddinge

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/delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two categories for one article is not aiding navigation. I have not found any definition of what is constituting the borders of Stockholm for categories and if Huddinge and similar are part of Stockholm or not. It varies from category to category. There are at least three definitions:
This decides the first merge target: to Category:Singers from Stockholm or Category:Musicians from Stockholm County. Suggestion is based on the first option. Kaffet i halsen (talk) 18:46, 29 March 2025 (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.

17th century in Oceania

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:50, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCYEAR. Not useful to diffuse the 17th century in Oceania by year or decade. –Aidan721 (talk) 18:00, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The nomination does not explain why Oceania is different than any other continent. Dimadick (talk) 11:19, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Don´t know if it is the reasoning thus time, but too often some smallish thing is nominated, a few usual suspects agree, and then this is presented as some precedent to go after a larger group and silence the opposition which then appears. It´s very tiring, and all for no benefit to readers at all. Fram (talk) 11:59, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
      • "all for no benefit to readers at all" None of the deletions was ever about the benefit of readers. The purpose is usually to waste the effort of editors and drive them away from Wikipedia. Dimadick (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    Because the 17th century was the very early stages of European exploration of Oceania so there are very few articles in this tree, meaning per WP:OCYEAR the century level should not be diffused by decade or year. Other continents have far more content for the 17th century so decade categories (and years in some cases) make sense there. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:55, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't agree with WP:OCYear. If we know the year of an event, comparing it with contemporary events in other parts of the world is useful. Amalgamating it into a century category loses the parallels. --Error (talk) 22:08, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These are part of a number of trees, where it serves no purpose to cut off the small branches. For example, this nom "Propose merging 1606 in Australia to Category:17th century in Australia". It would then e.g. no longer be a part of the Category:1606 by country tree. I see no benefit from this proposal, nor from the many similar proposals constantly diminishing the use of the year/country cats and similar trees. Fram (talk) 09:20, 31 March 2025 (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.

People from Northern Ireland places by occupation

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/delete as nominated. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:00, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All contain 1-2 subcategories. Redundant category layers. Not useful for navigation. –Aidan721 (talk) 16:49, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Crowsus (talk) 16:56, 29 March 2025 (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:Bangladeshi Bengali people

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:20, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: According to Demographics_of_Bangladesh#Ethnic_group, The vast majority (about 99%) of Bangladeshis are of the Bengali ethno-linguistic group. This intersection is therefore not defining. The parent Category:Bangladeshi people by ethnicity contains nothing else, and if populated more would only duplicate Category:Ethnic groups in Bangladesh. – Fayenatic London 16:48, 29 March 2025 (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:Cricket World Cup stadiums

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per previous deletions e.g here and here, the scope fails WP:OCVENUE. Valid list item, though has not been created. Crowsus (talk) 16:39, 29 March 2025 (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:Rugby League World Cup stadiums

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per previous deletions e.g here and here, the scope fails WP:OCVENUE. Crowsus (talk) 16:35, 29 March 2025 (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:Rugby World Cup stadiums

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:21, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per previous deletions e.g here and here, the scope fails WP:OCVENUE. Crowsus (talk) 16:33, 29 March 2025 (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:Core Anglosphere Initiatives

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Anglosphere seems sufficient, which all the articles are in anyway. Gjs238 (talk) 16:09, 29 March 2025 (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:Aliko Dangote

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:22, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Questioning the necessity for a category with one eponymous article and one non-eponymous article. Gjs238 (talk) 12:40, 29 March 2025 (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 BC women regents

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 6#Category:16th-century BC women regents

Category:Clockmakers from Norwich

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:41, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. Also propose merging-

Also categories with just one entry.Lost in Quebec (talk) 09:20, 29 March 2025 (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:Artists from Dalarna

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:01, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this category there are only musicians (and musical groups), no artists [actually there is one, discussed below]. Suggestion is also to change from Dalarna to Dalarna County as county is the subdivision in use (and Category:Swedish people by occupation and county is more used than Category:Swedish people by occupation and province). Kaffet i halsen (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2025 (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.

Establishments by continent

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:11, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
information Note: I have moved the list of nominated categories to the talk page so that I can actually edit this page without my browser throwing a temper tantrum. It was listed on this page for the entire discussion. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:47, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 March 22#Category:Establishments by decade and country nominating subcategories and organizing only by country and not by continent, as suggested by Marcocapelle. -- Beland (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Beland (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the outcome here, I can do a followup on century and millennium categories in Category:Establishments by continent and time. -- Beland (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC) Beland (talk) 08:34, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose What is the purpose of this absurd proposal, to make the category trees more confusing and difficult to find? Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually trying to simplify the category trees and make things easier to find and maintain. We don't need to have things sorted by both country alphabetically for the whole world and country alphabetically scoped one continent at a time. I'm agnostic as to which scheme to keep, but having two schemes seems like more work and more confusing. -- Beland (talk) 08:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subcategories are already in the target, so if this goes ahead conceptually it means for execution that any articles should be manually moved one level higher, to the global establishments in year category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for the content of the nomination, I am not sure if it is confusing to have two category trees next to each other. But at least until the Middle Ages the split in Europe, Asia and Africa is anachronistic and there wasn't any alternative commonly recognized scheme by regions in place. The idea of continents starts to make sense in the Age of Discovery, when there is a continent of colonial powers, and east, west and south of that there are the continents to be explored and colonialized. So I support nominations up to the year 1500. That is, I am not against nominations of later years, but then the reason is weaker, namely for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, I see no benefit from this proposal, and tectonic shifts arenlt rapid enough to see the "anachronism" claim as in any way convincing. Perhaps we should also delete all categories with a "BC" date, as that is anachronistic as well? Fram (talk) 13:01, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fram: Would you support streamlining by removing the "by country" categories and only leaving the "by continent" categories, which then have categories for individual countries in them? -- Beland (talk) 16:47, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no benefit in this proposal, at all, just like in way too many proposals for "streamlining" or dismantling trees for dubious reasons (like "anachronisms"). Fram (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't agree with the anachronism argument, either. What do you see is the benefit of having by-country-alphabetical-by-continent if we already have by-country-alphabetical, or vice versa? -- Beland (talk) 17:32, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I don't think this proposal improves the category structure. –Aidan721 (talk) 17:21, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Fine as it is. GMH Melbourne (talk) 08:05, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Maybe this nomination should be withdrawn at this point since I don't see enough support for it to pass. Then, taking on feedback, an alternative proposal could be proposed for a subset of this large group of categories. Liz Read! Talk! 00:46, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    If the subset you're talking about is pre-1500, I don't think it makes sense to sort by continent after 1500 and not before. That would be confusingly inconsistent and break navigation templates that currently let readers go from e.g 1510s establishments in Europe to 1490s establishments in Europe. Sorting by continent is already confusing for countries like the Ottoman Empire, which covered different continents at different times, and you'd have to know which when to find it. -- Beland (talk) 03:44, 31 March 2025 (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.

British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies upmerge

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/merge as in the updated nomination. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:59, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(edited as suggested in discussion, twice)

Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 February 28#British Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies, implementing the "full merge" option discussed there. I am leaving out year-related categories to a followup nomination as they might need more complicated handling. -- Beland (talk) 07:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Check your post for typos, because you are suggesting the creation of a "Catgegory" category tree. Dimadick (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I thought I'd fixed that! Thanks for catching it; nomination corrected. -- Beland (talk) 08:18, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Also, after "Years" the target names use "the" before "dependent". The names need to be harmonised one way or the other; I suggest removing "the", because e.g. Category:Treaties of dependent territories of the United Kingdom is consistent with siblings for other countries. – Fayenatic London 10:03, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with removing "the" prefix. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:31, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hurray for brevity! -- Beland (talk) 16:52, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They actually should be switched from "British" to "United Kingdom"... i.e. Parliament has since started using the term "United Kingdom Overseas Territories -- UKOTs" etc. which is the country's name. The UK stopped using "British" a while back hance why the DOT .gb Country-code was retired and replaced by more popular DOT .uk CaribDigita (talk) 06:15, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@CaribDigita: If UKOT has become the common name, then the thing to do would probably be to start a move discussion on Talk:British Overseas Territories. The proposal above removes the name "British Overseas Territories" entirely from the affected categories, though Category:British Overseas Territories will remain (and perhaps others). -- Beland (talk) 08:40, 3 April 2025 (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:Suffragette 1911 census boycotters

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: convert to 1911 census boycotters. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:29, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Suffragette 1911 census boycotters to article 1911 census boycotters
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if this can be listified, but I struggle to see how this is a defining category SMasonGarrison 04:39, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I might give it a try if no one else does. Perhaps a better title would be 1911 United Kingdom census boycott for WP:TITLECON with 1911 United Kingdom census? NLeeuw (talk) 07:50, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
PS: I've turned it into a separate section which I have expanded with bits and pieces from other articles: 1911 United Kingdom census#Suffragette boycott. I think it could very well be viable as a stand-alone article if more material were to be added. At present, much of the material relies on Liddington, Jill; Crawford, Elizabeth (2014). Vanishing for the vote: suffrage, citizenship and the battle for the census., without providing page numbers (which it should for verification, although I have no reason to doubt the information can be found in this book). But there are enough independent sources, which all seem to attest to this having been a somewhat significant event. The empirical impact is hard to measure, exactly because of the absence of uniform, quantitative evidence. But even if fewer than 1% of all UK women participated in the boycott, many suffragist men also participated in it, and it seems to have had a political and cultural impact that stretched beyond just the members of the movement itself. The protest took many forms, and seems to have strengthened the movement further on the way to partial success with the Representation of the People Act 1918. It's worth exploring that further, especially by combining bits and pieces of information about the 1911 UK census boycott from all articles currrently in this category. NLeeuw (talk) 09:29, 29 March 2025 (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.

1900–1999 disease outbreaks

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:32, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough disease outbreaks in the 20th century to diffuse by year. WP:OCYEAR. Many of these outbreaks span multiple years, making decades an even better choice. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:42, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of them is going to contain more than 20 articles, most of them far less. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:37, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said, many of the outbreaks span multiple years, so after merging, the decades will be populated with (via PetScan):
One could even argue that the decades could be upmerged. –Aidan721 (talk) 12:38, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: Did you even read my reply? NO MORE THAN 12! –Aidan721 (talk) 13:03, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Aidan721: Yea, yea I read through the lot. I can't come up with any kind of argument to merge them. I think the granularity is important on its own. scope_creepTalk 15:49, 30 March 2025 (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.

6th-century famines

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: dual merge to the nominated target category as well as a new Category:Medieval famines. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 22:06, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation through at least the 15th century. WP:NARROW –Aidan721 (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2025 (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.

14th-century epidemics

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/delete. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not useful for navigation. Redundant category layers. WP:NARROW –Aidan721 (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2025 (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:Sports trophies and medals

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: manual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:33, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clearly the same scope and Category:Sports trophies and awards is already well-developed. Pichpich (talk) 01:38, 29 March 2025 (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:Visual Studio Code - Open Source distributions

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 April 6#Category:Visual Studio Code - Open Source distributions

Category:Thai people by populated place and occupation

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: dual merge. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:35, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redunant category layer SMasonGarrison 00:15, 29 March 2025 (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:Omani sportspeople by populated place

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. HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 02:08, 6 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duel upmerge for now. Redundant category layer SMasonGarrison 00:12, 29 March 2025 (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.
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_March_29