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 all. bibliomaniac15 04:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There is no advantage to create huge area categories like the nominator proposed. I'm personally not familiar with Texas or Florida sports grounds but the existing US state communities would surely be able to populate those cats if asked. The California cat has five entries and thus doesn't qualify for SMALLCAT. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
These 3 states of the US have notable grounds that have hosted international matches. Most other states in the US don't. Upmerging it to the country level isn't going to create a massive number of articles in that category (it will be barely more than the 11 grounds listed in these subcats).
Joseph2302 (
talk) 20:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge There is no reason to brake up categories that in total have less than 20 enties.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:25, 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.
Sierra Nevada (U.S.)
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. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: follow-up on
this earlier discussion. The above batch was opposed for speedy renaming. To be honest, I would be neutral towards re-opening the earlier full discussion, however with the given outcome there should at least be some level of consistency.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
At minimum a redirect should be left behind, in order to avoid confusion for editors who are using Hotcat.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose as there 2 substantial mountain ranges,
Sierra Nevada (Spain) (containing the highest peak in Spain) and
Sierra Nevada in the US, there is a clear danger of confusion if the categories are not disambiguated.
Birmingham and
Birmingham, Alabama is perhaps comparable. This was not mentioned in the earlier cfd. (I would expect for most people in Europe Sierra Nevada is in Spain. Further the
Spanish version of the category is more fully developed indicating potential for expansion.)
Oculi (
talk) 20:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Oculi: just to be clear, I guess you would prefer re-opening the previous full discussion?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
SupportArticle renaming discussion determined that the California mountain range is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That determination of primary topic should carry over to the category tree, for consistency. No new evidence has been presented that would overturn the determination of primary topic. Therefore, Category tree should not be disambiguated. —
hike395 (
talk) 16:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, else the abbrevatioin U.S. should be expanded to United States for all categories. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 02:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Not sure. I was one of the supporters of the U.S. mountain range being primary topic for the article, but I feel like there is a higher bar to clear for categories. If someone navigates to an incorrect article initially, they should be able to find their way to the correct article without much difficulty. But if someone tags a category incorrectly, they might not notice it, because unlike articles, people do not consistently verify the contents of categories when making use of them. As
Oculi points out,
Birmingham, England is the primary topic for the article but not the category. --
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Exactly - there is a higher bar for category names. The question is whether 'the Sierra Nevada mountain range' is ambiguous and the answer is clearly yes. 'Fauna of the Sierra Nevada' is ambiguous, obviously; one does not wish to introduce Spanish creatures into the US.
Category:People from Birmingham is often not empty; eg
diff a few days ago.
Oculi (
talk) 12:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Oculi and
King of Hearts: May I suggest getting consensus at
WP:D and
WP:CATNAME to reflect the higher bar? Category disambiguation must be a common case, and yet there is little guidance available to editors. —
hike395 (
talk) 08:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)reply
That is a very fair point. Currently the only reference to ambiguity with respect to category names is that it rules out speedy
WP:C2D renaming.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per King of Hearts's excellent point. I don't have a very strong opinion on whether the US mountain range is the primary topic for the article, but categories could indeed be more confusing. As to whether it's U.S. or United States, I guess I have a weak preference for U.S., just on the grounds that the category names are already on the long side. --
Trovatore (
talk) 06:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
OpposeWP:CAT and
WP:CATNAME say to include a disambiguator when it's part of the article title, but don't address the primary topic.
WP:C2D says it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name. That wording in C2D implies that category names can include a disambiguator even though the primary topic does not. Given that, I'm convinced by the arguments in this discussion so far that dabbing the category is better for the reader experience and for the editors trying to apply the categories, and that those benefits outweigh consistency with the primary topic name. (Ambivalent on U.S. vs. United States as the dab)
Schazjmd(talk) 14:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The US range may be more important but the Spanish one is the original, so that a disambiguator is needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose The question is whether 'the Sierra Nevada mountain range' is ambiguous and the answer is clearly yes. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose There is clearly ambiguity with the range in Spain.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:26, 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.
Category:Store-hailing
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.
Nominator's rationale: Newly created single-use category. Term seems to have been invented by Robomart, which is the only article in the category. Cat created by same user who created article. Not likely to contain additional articles. –
Broccoli & Coffee(
Oh hai) 19:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 01:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete speedily, an empty one. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:44, 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.
Plazas in South America
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. bibliomaniac15 04:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Following the contents renamed below. –
FayenaticLondon 16:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect, but all three should go to an equivalent
Category:Squares and plazas in.... Though the current South American categories are all from Latin American countries, it is unlikely that Guyana, Suriname, or French Guiana would use the term plaza as default.
Grutness...wha? 02:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
See related discussionhere which proposes that the titles should be "Squares and plazas".
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 18:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Personally I would prefer it if all the categories were renamed "Squares" and the overall category was renamed
Category:Squares by country. Why are we singling out plazas when there are many words used in different languages? "Square" is a generic term in English for any formally laid-out urban open space, whatever it is actually called (and most of them are not square). Even in Spanish-speaking countries they are not all called plazas. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
Necrothesp's reasoning above which seems convincing. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:47, 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.
Fwiw,
User:Laurel Lodged had added the following under the relisting notice in the original discussion:
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. bibliomaniac15 04:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Personally I would prefer it if all the categories were renamed "Squares" and the overall category was renamed
Category:Squares by country. Why are we singling out plazas (and piazzas) when there are many words used in different languages? "Square" is a generic term in English for any formally laid-out urban open space, whatever it is actually called (and most of them are not square). Even in Spanish- and Italian-speaking countries they are not all called plazas or piazzas. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
See related discussionhere which proposes that the titles should be "Squares and plazas".
Oppose per Necrothesp's reasoning above which seems convincing. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:49, 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.
Fwiw,
User:Laurel Lodged had added the following under the relisting notice in the original discussion:
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 per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:53, 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.
Category:Alex Kidd games
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.
Nominator's rationale: I had attempted to speedy move this category, but it was disputed since there was only a character article for the main series. I have since created a main series page, so there should be no issues any more naming the category after it, too. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 11:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - this is a set category of video games (apart from 2 explanatory articles) and no reason has been given for conversion to a topic eponymous category.
Oculi (
talk) 14:13, 12 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.
Nominator's rationale: Category loops and repeats to null result.
Whiteguru (
talk) 08:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is one of several creations by the
same editor, who appears to be confused.
Oculi (
talk) 10:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete all. I've posted a welcome message to the user with explanations about creating articles; all of their category creations are really attempts to create an article rather than a category, and all of them should be deleted.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 12:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete It was created by an obvious sock of blocked user
Abdo Mitwally, and all of their creations should be G5'd as such.
PohranicniStraze (
talk) 14:14, 12 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.
Category:Yaksha Kingdom
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. bibliomaniac15 04:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
If not kept, merge instead of delete.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 06:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per Oculi's reasons. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:58, 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 result of the discussion was:merge all. bibliomaniac15 04:54, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There is no advantage to create huge area categories like the nominator proposed. I'm personally not familiar with Texas or Florida sports grounds but the existing US state communities would surely be able to populate those cats if asked. The California cat has five entries and thus doesn't qualify for SMALLCAT. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
These 3 states of the US have notable grounds that have hosted international matches. Most other states in the US don't. Upmerging it to the country level isn't going to create a massive number of articles in that category (it will be barely more than the 11 grounds listed in these subcats).
Joseph2302 (
talk) 20:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Merge There is no reason to brake up categories that in total have less than 20 enties.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:25, 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.
Sierra Nevada (U.S.)
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. bibliomaniac15 04:45, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: follow-up on
this earlier discussion. The above batch was opposed for speedy renaming. To be honest, I would be neutral towards re-opening the earlier full discussion, however with the given outcome there should at least be some level of consistency.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
At minimum a redirect should be left behind, in order to avoid confusion for editors who are using Hotcat.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 13:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose as there 2 substantial mountain ranges,
Sierra Nevada (Spain) (containing the highest peak in Spain) and
Sierra Nevada in the US, there is a clear danger of confusion if the categories are not disambiguated.
Birmingham and
Birmingham, Alabama is perhaps comparable. This was not mentioned in the earlier cfd. (I would expect for most people in Europe Sierra Nevada is in Spain. Further the
Spanish version of the category is more fully developed indicating potential for expansion.)
Oculi (
talk) 20:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Oculi: just to be clear, I guess you would prefer re-opening the previous full discussion?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:21, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
SupportArticle renaming discussion determined that the California mountain range is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. That determination of primary topic should carry over to the category tree, for consistency. No new evidence has been presented that would overturn the determination of primary topic. Therefore, Category tree should not be disambiguated. —
hike395 (
talk) 16:37, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Support, else the abbrevatioin U.S. should be expanded to United States for all categories. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 02:43, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Not sure. I was one of the supporters of the U.S. mountain range being primary topic for the article, but I feel like there is a higher bar to clear for categories. If someone navigates to an incorrect article initially, they should be able to find their way to the correct article without much difficulty. But if someone tags a category incorrectly, they might not notice it, because unlike articles, people do not consistently verify the contents of categories when making use of them. As
Oculi points out,
Birmingham, England is the primary topic for the article but not the category. --
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Exactly - there is a higher bar for category names. The question is whether 'the Sierra Nevada mountain range' is ambiguous and the answer is clearly yes. 'Fauna of the Sierra Nevada' is ambiguous, obviously; one does not wish to introduce Spanish creatures into the US.
Category:People from Birmingham is often not empty; eg
diff a few days ago.
Oculi (
talk) 12:23, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
@
Oculi and
King of Hearts: May I suggest getting consensus at
WP:D and
WP:CATNAME to reflect the higher bar? Category disambiguation must be a common case, and yet there is little guidance available to editors. —
hike395 (
talk) 08:22, 16 August 2021 (UTC)reply
That is a very fair point. Currently the only reference to ambiguity with respect to category names is that it rules out speedy
WP:C2D renaming.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per King of Hearts's excellent point. I don't have a very strong opinion on whether the US mountain range is the primary topic for the article, but categories could indeed be more confusing. As to whether it's U.S. or United States, I guess I have a weak preference for U.S., just on the grounds that the category names are already on the long side. --
Trovatore (
talk) 06:46, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
OpposeWP:CAT and
WP:CATNAME say to include a disambiguator when it's part of the article title, but don't address the primary topic.
WP:C2D says it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name. That wording in C2D implies that category names can include a disambiguator even though the primary topic does not. Given that, I'm convinced by the arguments in this discussion so far that dabbing the category is better for the reader experience and for the editors trying to apply the categories, and that those benefits outweigh consistency with the primary topic name. (Ambivalent on U.S. vs. United States as the dab)
Schazjmd(talk) 14:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- The US range may be more important but the Spanish one is the original, so that a disambiguator is needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose The question is whether 'the Sierra Nevada mountain range' is ambiguous and the answer is clearly yes. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:42, 19 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose There is clearly ambiguity with the range in Spain.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 14:26, 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.
Category:Store-hailing
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.
Nominator's rationale: Newly created single-use category. Term seems to have been invented by Robomart, which is the only article in the category. Cat created by same user who created article. Not likely to contain additional articles. –
Broccoli & Coffee(
Oh hai) 19:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 01:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete speedily, an empty one. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:44, 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.
Plazas in South America
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. bibliomaniac15 04:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Following the contents renamed below. –
FayenaticLondon 16:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:23, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Redirect, but all three should go to an equivalent
Category:Squares and plazas in.... Though the current South American categories are all from Latin American countries, it is unlikely that Guyana, Suriname, or French Guiana would use the term plaza as default.
Grutness...wha? 02:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
See related discussionhere which proposes that the titles should be "Squares and plazas".
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 18:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Personally I would prefer it if all the categories were renamed "Squares" and the overall category was renamed
Category:Squares by country. Why are we singling out plazas when there are many words used in different languages? "Square" is a generic term in English for any formally laid-out urban open space, whatever it is actually called (and most of them are not square). Even in Spanish-speaking countries they are not all called plazas. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:42, 17 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose per
Necrothesp's reasoning above which seems convincing. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:47, 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.
Fwiw,
User:Laurel Lodged had added the following under the relisting notice in the original discussion:
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. bibliomaniac15 04:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC) reply
Oppose. Personally I would prefer it if all the categories were renamed "Squares" and the overall category was renamed
Category:Squares by country. Why are we singling out plazas (and piazzas) when there are many words used in different languages? "Square" is a generic term in English for any formally laid-out urban open space, whatever it is actually called (and most of them are not square). Even in Spanish- and Italian-speaking countries they are not all called plazas or piazzas. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 10:58, 13 August 2021 (UTC)reply
See related discussionhere which proposes that the titles should be "Squares and plazas".
Oppose per Necrothesp's reasoning above which seems convincing. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:49, 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.
Fwiw,
User:Laurel Lodged had added the following under the relisting notice in the original discussion:
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 per nom. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:53, 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.
Category:Alex Kidd games
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.
Nominator's rationale: I had attempted to speedy move this category, but it was disputed since there was only a character article for the main series. I have since created a main series page, so there should be no issues any more naming the category after it, too. ZXCVBNM (
TALK) 11:03, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose - this is a set category of video games (apart from 2 explanatory articles) and no reason has been given for conversion to a topic eponymous category.
Oculi (
talk) 14:13, 12 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.
Nominator's rationale: Category loops and repeats to null result.
Whiteguru (
talk) 08:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete - this is one of several creations by the
same editor, who appears to be confused.
Oculi (
talk) 10:11, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete all. I've posted a welcome message to the user with explanations about creating articles; all of their category creations are really attempts to create an article rather than a category, and all of them should be deleted.
Nikkimaria (
talk) 12:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete It was created by an obvious sock of blocked user
Abdo Mitwally, and all of their creations should be G5'd as such.
PohranicniStraze (
talk) 14:14, 12 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.
Category:Yaksha Kingdom
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. bibliomaniac15 04:47, 26 August 2021 (UTC)reply
If not kept, merge instead of delete.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:19, 18 July 2021 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 06:17, 12 August 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep per Oculi's reasons. --
Just N. (
talk) 20:58, 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.