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 to Category:Failed Lua testcases using Module:ScribuntoUnit. There was no major preference between this and merging into a larger Category:Failed Lua testcases. Renaming preserves the distinction between the two and still leaves the option of a future merge open. bibliomaniac15 05:27, 31 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:ScribuntoUnit failed tests to Category:Failed Lua testcases using Module:ScribuntoUnit

Nominator's rationale: In my opinion Category:Failed Lua testcases using Module:UnitTests‎ which was recently created, while longer, uses a better name. If this doesn't pass, then that category should renamed as both should use the same style. Gonnym (talk) 10:10, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The reason I didn't follow the naming convention when creating that category is that "UnitTests failed tests" is extremely awkward and hard to understand. Another thing to consider would be merging both into Category:Failed Lua testcases, since which unit test module is used doesn't actually matter very much. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 14:33, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  That can work also. Gonnym (talk) 16:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Relisting comment, I tagged Category:Failed Lua testcases using Module:UnitTests‎ as well, in case merging both of them to a new target is the better option. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 27 November 2021 (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. bibliomaniac15 19:11, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Indian Births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Indiscriminate category, serves no real purpose. —SpacemanSpiff 06:55, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't see the reason why this category page will be deleted. I am just categorizing all the people who were born in India as Indian births. Cannot I categorize pages??? Or cannot I create a new category? Please tell me what I am doing wrong??? There are many categories and what I am doing is also categorizing. And while other categories serve real purpose why will mine not?? Categories like "1987 births" and "1978 deaths" serves purpose, then why will mine not? Itcouldbepossible (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - WP:OVERCAT agree with nominator. Also, as per WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS the above justification fails. 2402:3A80:6DE:8405:5D61:564B:CC10:1659 (talk) 10:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't categorize births by where they took place....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, obviously. Wow. --Yamla (talk) 11:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, place of birth is not a defining characteristic, we already categorize people by nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This should be much the same as Category:Indian people, but most are likely to be categorises more specifically as Indian actors or in other ways (such as expatriate Indians). It might be possible to leave this in being long enough for the creator to empty it by recategorising into more specific Indian categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:30, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:32, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Neither place of birth nor place of death are, in themselves, defining. Rathfelder (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Just N. (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an overlap with either Category:Indian people and its subcategories, a few if they were born at the right times with Category:Pakistani people (if they were born before a certain time, they likely belong under Indian people anyway), and with various subcategories of Fooian expatriates in India, if they were clear non-nationals born in India. There is no reason to mass group these people by the location of their birth, and the resulting category will be huge even just with our current contents, which is no where near all people born in India who meet notability criteria, and we know it will keep growing over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 8 December 2021 (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 to Category:Police forces of Nazi Germany. bibliomaniac15 19:14, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Defunct police forces of Nazi Germany to Category:Police forces of Nazi Germany
  • Propose renaming Category:Defunct police units of Nazi Germany to Category:Police units of Nazi Germany

Nominator's rationale: For conciseness; as Nazi Germany no longer exists, there's no need to include "defunct." Lettler^{hello • contribs} 02:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- They are inevitably defunct and have bene since 1945. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom --Lenticel ^(talk) 06:31, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support obviously they're all defunct, so name should be more concise. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:49, 3 December 2021 (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. bibliomaniac15 19:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:2021 FIFA Arab Cup players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, we don't categorise players by every single tournament in which they compete Joseph2302 (talk) 02:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Nehme₁₄₉₉ 13:36, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I realise I will be playing devil's advocate here, but this is a FIFA-endorsed tournament for 16 senior teams. It's not the same as the British Home Championship or the COSAFA Cup. I can't see what the warm-up/sideshow called the Confederations Cup does to deserve squad templates and categories that this isn't doing. Speaking of the Confederations Cup, this tournament is doing precisely what that extinct tournament did, test the infrastructure of the country hosting the World Cup a year later. 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:8DF3:D517:8CE8:F000 (talk) 15:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confederations Cup I would also suggest deleting. But that isn't a reason to keep this, as per WP:OSE Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support -- This is clearly a Performance by performer catgegory, which are not allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more or less so than Category:2017 FIFA Confederations Cup players or Category:2018 FIFA World Cup players, or any other sporting category, of which there are thousands? Your link is about actors, musicians etc with no mention of sport, so "clearly" is a bit of an exaggeration, to say the least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:E187:5F00:5D79:290D:20B3:1612 (talk) 16:46, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • The FIFA World Cup is the top event in the sport (comparable to Olympics, which we have categories for). Confederations Cup I would also suggest deleting. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:50, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Per WP:OVERCAT and WP:PERFCAT. I concur that World Cup and Olympics lists categories can be retained, but even confederation championships should not. — Jkudlick ⚓ (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2021 (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.