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.
Merge we do not need a category for one item. If we come later to have lots of articles on people who fit this description, we can reconsider the matter then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 20 August 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.
Merge we do not need a category for one item. If we come later to have lots of articles on people who fit this description, we can reconsider the matter then.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 20 August 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.
Reverse merge I have argued multiple times there is no Engvar here, and all should use x institution y. British use is actually not different than American on this matter. There are 2 reasons we have the difference. 1-personal views of editors that they falsely presented as English variation issues but were really person preference issues. 2- the difference is that in the US people always call them University of Chicago, University of Michigan, Univeristy of Kansas etc, some have nicknames, but no one goes around calling them "Chicago University", "Michigan University" and "Kansas University" and if you do, people will look at you strange or be confused. In Britain "Oxford University" and "Cambridge University" are actually possible the common applied names, but for reasons that may or may not conform to our common name guidelines we have the articles at "University of Oxford" and "University of Cambridge", and this leads to see the category name as much more formal than any American views the name of the category of an American university as.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:47, 19 August 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 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 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 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 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.
Propose deletingCategory:Wikipedia books (user books with bugs) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this separately from the below nomination since this one is populated by Template:Saved book directly when passed the |bug= parameter rather than being a populated by a broken bot, so the first reason for deletion below doesn't apply. However, the second one, that the entire point of user books is that they are not maintained by the community (and thus no action should to be taken based on a book's appearance in the category, continues to apply, and furthermore the |bug= parameter is in most pages reporting a bug in the way the book tool renders articles, which should have been reported on phabricator rather than here where it will be ignored. * Pppery *it has begun...15:18, 15 August 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.
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with errors)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with disambiguation pages)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with duplicates)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with invalid colors)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with redirects)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books without titles)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with internal links)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with parenthesis)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with redlinks)
Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia books (user books with section links)
Nominator's rationale: Per my comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 4#Category:Wikipedia books (books with errors), I also wonder whether Category:Wikipedia books (user books with errors) and its subcategories should be deleted, since they appear to have been populated by a bot that hasn't edited since 2014, and in any case the entire point of user books is that they are not maintained by the community (and thus no action should to be taken based on a book's appearance in the category). * Pppery *it has begun... 14:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC) (as a correction to the quoted comment, the bot task in question hasn't actually run since 2010, and I originally said since 2014 since the bot account did other things for the next four years). * Pppery *it has begun...15:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. The amount of issues in these categories, in my opinion, is part of the reason the Book namespace was deleted. It's just dead and no one cares, as evidenced by those users who have these book in their userpages. The community already confirmed they want nothing to do with the book namespace, going as far as deleting all books and the namespace itself. There is no reason to keep behind tracking categories for bugs which are only present on a single user's page. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I was the WP:BOLD category emptier, and appreciate the revert, though I think this discussion will show this is a completely non-controversial delete (I was also prepared to clean up all those tagged with ((possibly empty category))). There are really very few reasons to have maintenance categories that hold only user pages, and certainly not for this group of categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:01, 8 September 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.
Oppose this one-off change. Any one-off change would create an inconsistency with the categories for other countries, such as Category:People by city in the United States, others. WOuld support as part of a broader nom. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:06, 8 September 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 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.
Support the first three, but not the cherry blossom ones - blossom is not a "pure" singular but often acts as a plural, and I think it suffices in this case. Grutness...wha?06:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases, the use of "blossoms" considerably outnumbers the plural "blossom." I can find no dictionaries that support "blossom" as a plural of the tree. This is an error in the captions, not evidence of a thing real people do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:44, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's because it isn't about a tree - it's about the flowers of the tree, which is the flowering cherry. You're mixing up two different types of thing in these categories. The first three are about trees - the last two are about the blooms. Grutness...wha?03:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are flowers with multiple varieties, usually considered as individual blooms - exactly the opposite of cherry blossom, which is one variety usually considered as a mass. Grutness...wha?04:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support the first three only, but "blossom" is as Grutness states effectively a plural form; and the fact that usage in the article is not well written is absolutely no evidence at all ("Wikipedia is not a reliable source") to the contrary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 15 August 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 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 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.