December 26
Category:Mister Rogers' Neighborhood mass media and merchandise
- 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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very small category ★Trekker (talk) 23:05, 26 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.
Category:Pages using RhinosF1's UserStatus Template
- 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. – Fayenatic London 10:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:USERCAT, no collaborative value, redundant to Special:WhatLinksHere/User:RhinosF1/Template/StatusMonitor * Pppery * it has begun... 20:43, 26 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.
Category:Scheduled Ancient Monuments in Oxfordshire
- 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: speedily renamed already, following separate nomination at WP:CFDS as C2C following renaming of the parent at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_February_12#Scheduled_monument_categories. – Fayenatic London 09:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To be consistent with parent category Scheduled monuments in England RobinYad (talk) 19:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I took the liberty to merge the nominations. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree - in line with many other categories. Many scheduled monuments date from the 20th century, and cannot be considered to be "ancient". --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, I added the other categories for renaming. --RobinYad (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- "Ancient" is strictly correct, as they are scheduled under Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979. In most cases things from 20th century would be listed buildings, but there may be some from WWI or WWII, such as trenches on Cannock Chase, dug for training WWI troops. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Strongly support – "Historic" is not strictly correct. Historic England no longer use the word "ancient" as part of the descriptor, for the reasons given above. [1] Dave.Dunford (talk) 20:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support modern terminology. Johnbod (talk) 11:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:52, 2 January 2022 (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:Hwandan Gogi
- 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) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, contains only main and 1 other article (Hwan-guk) after removing an entry that didn't mention Hwandan Gogi. The latter page is already in the merge target. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 19:34, 26 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.
House of Boso
- 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: Merged as proposed.. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 20:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: merge, it appears to be the same family. Boso, Margrave of Tuscany, the presumed founder of the House of Boso, was a direct grandson of Boso the Elder, the founder of the Bosonids. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- No objection Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, though the other way round might be better - "-ids" form are usually for the Middle East. Johnbod (talk) 11:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I am neutral with regard to the merge direction, though "-ids" is certainly not uncommon in early medieval Europe, e.g. Pippinids. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 28 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.
Category:2018–19 MPBL season
- 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. – Fayenatic London 11:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To accurately reflect the scope of the category. Its a holdover of an aborted plan to organize multiple tournaments (2018 Rajah and 2019 Datu Cups) within a single season (2018-19). The two cup tournaments are considered as standalone seasons.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 03:49, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:51, 26 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.
Category:Pages containing links with bad anchors
- 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. I have listed the current contents on the report's talk page. – Fayenatic London 10:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Wikipedia:Database reports/Broken section anchors, which is actually being updated (unlike this category formerly populated by a bot that has not edited since 2014). * Pppery * it has begun... 16:55, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:30, 26 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.
Category:Histrionic personality disorder
- 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. ✗plicit 01:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep & populate with films, TV shows & fictional characters which show the condition. Jim Michael (talk) 12:42, 26 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- When clicking "what links here" in Histrionic personality disorder there are quite a few hits but nearly all are occasional mentions, there is hardly any article for which this is a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:13, 27 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've counted 428 items for "what links here" but indeed mostly occasional mentions. Which is not a surprise! There are lots of pothouse politicians, and other self-important "personalities" among actors, TV and music starlets. But as a Wikipedian you wouldn't dare to name them so. You would easily be accused of abusive criticism for even using psycho terms on people and also on popular fictional characters like e.g. Category:Characters in Cats (musical), a lot of Disney fictional characters, most vain Comic characters and fashion victims. So Marco, you require sth almost impossible: explicit mentioning of people/fiction heroes other than criminals, anti-heroes or Walter Mittys as histrionic personality disorder cases. But we all know that people /fiction heroes like that are quite frequent and sometimes popular (e.g. It girls or James Bond) in pop culture and in real life. --Just N. (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I do not require anything, I just agree with you that the chances of getting the category more populated are small. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge. It's going to be almost impossible to populate with a substantial number of articles. There's little community awareness of the disorder, and people tend to use the narcissistic or borderline personality disorders when they're making media about a cluster B disorder, so it rarely comes up. --Xurizuri (talk) 10:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 18:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:30, 26 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.
Category:United States mainstream rock radio stations by state templates
- 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 as empty (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:United States mainstream rock radio stations by state templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Both templates in this category have insufficient links to warrant a navbox (one of them has no links whatsoever!). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:46, 18 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 12:30, 26 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.
Category:Farranfore–Valencia Harbour line
- 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:Farranfore–Valentia Harbour line. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 21:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Valentia spelling is in far more common use than Valencia in real life and sources (O'Sullivan being an exception) and also this is to use Valentia consistently throughout Wikipedia. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, consistent with Valentia Island and the rest of the articles.--Mvqr (talk) 11:49, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Somehow I never noticed that inconsistency, this can be speedily moved per WP:C2D. --PhiH (talk) 11:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, seems consistent with most all of the articles. --Just N. (talk) 16:07, 2 January 2022 (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:Scottish people of Hungarian descent
- 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 parent, merge sub-cat as nominated and to Category:Scottish people of Hungarian descent. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just the 2 grandsons of Emeric Pressburger. Rathfelder (talk) 09:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Hmmm - given that half the Scottish royalty and nobility is of Hungarian descent (through Saint Margaret of Scotland), I suspect there's been a bit of undercategorising here. Grutness...wha? 03:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I understand we dont categorise people by descent unless its fairly immediate. Rathfelder (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Even so, that would still allow the first members of several noble lines to be added. Grutness...wha? 12:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Let's not start doing this. It opens up a far too large can of worms. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:28, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- I suspect there is scope for populating both, but Hungarian-Jewish seems overspecific, being a triple intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- At least merge the 2nd category Category:Scottish people of Hungarian-Jewish descent to Category:Scottish people of Hungarian descent and Category:British people of Hungarian-Jewish descent per Peterkingiron. As these people apparently no longer identify as Jews it goes a bit far to categorize them by the religion of ancestors who lived in a different country. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per reasons given above. Well okay, I'm not strictly against merging the second. --Just N. (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Grutness and Necrothesp: would you oppose merging just the second one? – Fayenatic London 11:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it's fair enough to merge that one I think. Grutness...wha? 13:27, 15 February 2022 (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 BC High Priests of Israel
- 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. They would clearly also be eligible for Category:2nd-millennium BC people, but we don't seem to categorise people directly by millennium. – Fayenatic London 13:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, dating is too uncertain, the oldest century for the parent categories is Category:12th-century BCE Hebrew people. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support but where do you draw the line? When does the dating become more certain? Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as most of these categories are small and the dating is uncertain. As an aside, why are the Category:High Priests of Israel categories named after centuries BC? As these categories are associated with Judaism, I would have expected them to be named after centuries BCE instead. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Because they are a subcategory of Category:15th-century BC clergy and the subcategories tend to match the parent category. I would prefer BCE myself, but I am not the one who created the clergy category tree. Dimadick (talk) 07:22, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose As already specified in the categories, the dating follows the Biblical literalist chronology. Dimadick (talk) 07:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge -- The template lists 11 high priests of the Tabernacle: I would suggest Category:High priest of the Hebrew tabernacle. I agree dating in this period is too uncertain to merit by century categories. It depends on whether the periods of successive judges were in fact consecutive, or alternatively to a reference in New Testament to 400 years. How to provide dates in Hebrew history before Solomon (or possibly Saul) is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Merge the dates are too speculative for this to be a useful distinction in the category tree. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. While all that datings are uncertain?! --Just N. (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2022 (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:Psychiatric, mental health, and addiction nursing journals
Category:Deviance (sociology) journals
- 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 delete SMALLCAT. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 00:11, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It has only one article (although not eponymous, hence not C2F) and is unlikely to significantly expand. -- Xurizuri (talk) 02:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Is merging not possible or not reasonable? --Just N. (talk) 16:21, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per SMALLCAT. --Just N. (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2022 (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.