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) ( t · c) buidhe 09:34, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose merging Category:Academic works about clinical psychology to Category:Clinical psychology

Nominator's rationale: purge Category:Academic works about psychiatry from the category because it does not belong here at all (psychiatry is not a field within clinical psychology), then merge the nominated category because keeping it with only one subcategory merely hinders navigation. There is no need to merge to the second parent category because Category:Clinical psychology journals is already part of Category:Psychology journals. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Simply delete as an unnecessary level. Category:Academic works about psychiatry does not belong as they are separate discplines. This will leave a one-member category, which we would normally merge to the parent, but the one item is already in the parent. I had expected to find articles on a series of text books, but no! Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:10, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Peterkingiron. It's just as he said above. -- Just N. ( talk) 23:12, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• (as nom) I agree that the nomination is ultimately equivalent to deletion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:02, 24 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: keep those with 5+ members, but rename three to Category:Danish Noir writers, Category:Icelandic Noir writers, Category:Swedish Noir writers. Merge Category:Finland Noir writers to Category:Nordic Noir writers, since that intermediate category is not being emptied. I am not sure that "Noir" should be capitalised on the nationality sub-cats, but nobody commented on this. – Fayenatic London 07:17, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Noir writers by nationality
• Propose deleting Category:American Noir writers
• Propose deleting Category:Denmark Noir writers
• Propose deleting Category:Finland Noir writers
• Propose deleting Category:Iceland Noir writers‎
• Propose deleting Category:Norwegian Noir writers
• Propose deleting Category:Sweden Noir writers

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, the writers in these categories are mostly characterized as detective writers. If kept, at least rename some of the categories, e.g. Category:Denmark Noir writers to Category:Danish Noir writers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep the ones larger that five articles (American, Norwegian, Sweden), delete the rest with no prejudice against re-creation if more articles turn up. If there are non-noir detective writers in there, they should be purged. Also, standardise the names (Sweden -> Swedish). Also, should noir be lower case? Grutness... wha? 01:34, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• With respect to purging, if we would purge all writers without any mention of noir, every category is at risk of being left behind with less than five articles. So that can be done too, but then small categories should be merged to Category:Noir writers instead of deleted. However the more fundamental issue is not so much whether they were noir writers or not, the issue is that noir is not a main characteristic of any writer because noir is more a style (if that is the right term) than a genre. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep if not SMALLCAT <5 cases. And I support Marco's proposal to renaming them. -- Just N. ( talk) 22:23, 1 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:Psychological tests and scales. – Fayenatic London 10:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:Psychological tools to Category:Psychological tests and scales

Nominator's rationale: rename to align with article titles (they are called tests, scales, questionnaires etc. but not tools) and to align with the parent categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

rename per nom. Also, "tools" is rarely used in literature as compared to tests and/or scales. -- Xurizuri ( talk) 01:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Nominator's rationale: rename to align with article titles (they are called tests, scales, questionnaires etc. but not tools) and to align with the parent categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Rename per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 22:27, 1 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 ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:23, 2 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia featured article review candidates (closed) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: As noted at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review#Worth giving a periodic check?, this is unused by any FAR processes, and is obsolete. This serves no purpose and has already been deleted once. Hog Farm _Talk 05:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete, as I said in the linked discussion. [1]. FAR Coords already opined once that it should be deleted. Can categories like that be salted so they won’t be recreated? SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 05:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 22:29, 1 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. – Fayenatic London 21:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose renaming Category:International player in 15-a-side and sevens rugby to Category:International rugby union and rugby sevens players

Nominator's rationale: More suitable category name, current name is confusing, and not consistent with other rugby union and rugby sevens categories Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 10:10, 16 November 2021 (UTC) OK for me Bougnat87 18:00, 16 November 2021 reply

• Delete - we already have Category:International rugby union players and Category:International rugby sevens players so this recent creation is redundant. Oculi ( talk) 18:42, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

I'm happy with deletion if this is the preferred outcome, I was sceptical when I saw the category in the first place and just suggested the rename if it was to be kept. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 09:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Merge back to Category:International rugby union players. I doubt Rugby sevens is a separate enough sport to require separate categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Peterkingiron, I disagree there, Rugby sevens is a big sport, and is played at the Olympics and Commonwealth games. Playing rugby sevens internationally in certain competitions qualifies a player as a pass for WP:NRU and as Oculi states we have rugby sevens categories for all international countries.

• But is it a separate sport? Do they same players not play in both rugby formats? Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Peterkingiron, Rugby sevens is usually classified as a form of rugby union, hence why we don't use rugby sevens as a disambiguator etc, however not all players will play both rugby sevens and rugby union. I'd say around a half of those players that played at the Olympics would be contracted rugby sevens players to their countries (who wouldn't play rugby union). It's been pretty standard (certainly for major rugby sevens nations) to categorise with both categories, for example Category:New Zealand international rugby union players and Category:New Zealand international rugby sevens players. Rugbyfan22 ( talk) 10:34, 28 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 most. Merge Category:Wikipedians by musical interest per nom and rename Eurovision. @ M.Billoo2000: feel free to add the user category that you suggested to User:UBX/Coke Studio if you think it is justified. – Fayenatic London 10:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC) reply

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Babymetal ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian Jedward fans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Eurovision ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who are Monstercat fans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedian Coke Studio fans ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who like The Who ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (added 01:37, 26 October 2021 (UTC))
• Propose merging Category:Wikipedians by musical interest ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians interested in music

Nominator's rationale: As the header at the top of Category:Wikipedians interested in music says, NOTE: There is a precedent against creating categories to organize Wikipedians by the musicians and musical groups they enjoy. Such categories will be speedily deleted per G4. For more information, see Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/July 2007#Category:Wikipedians by musician and all subcats. (I don't endorse an application of G4 that's that broad, so am going to CfD instead). The parent category, after most of its contents are deleted, will become a WP:SMALLCAT with only three subcategories so should be merged to its parents. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 17:32, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

• Keep Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Eurovision and rename to Category:Wikipedians interested in Eurovision. Eurovision is not a single musician or musical group, but an international song contest comparable to major sporting events. WikiProject Eurovision has extensive year-by-year coverage of each country's participation in the main contest, individual articles about each participating song, as well as articles about the Junior Contest, national selections and general topics such as the history of the contest. If renamed, this category would certainly satisfy WP:USERCAT as one which groups users by interest in a subject. I have no opinion on the other nominated categories. 1857a ( talk) 19:37, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply
• Merge Category:Wikipedian Coke Studio fans into Category:Wikipedians interested in music... M. Billoo 21:50, 24 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. This back and forth of creating and deleting of the same categories or using a loophole to save them by renaming them is very tiresome. There should probably be a discussion that decides if these are wanted to not. I personally think these fall under WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. Gonnym ( talk) 19:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Delete. Well, I consent to Gonnym: those fall under WP:NOTSOCIALNETWORK. -- Just N. ( talk) 22:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete all except Category:Wikipedians who are fans of Eurovision, which can be renamed per 1857a. (the one proposed as a merge should be a merge) User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete (keep one, merge one) as suggested by user powera. Renerpho ( talk) 01:01, 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.

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. Most editors participating in this discussion argue that these categories are not facilitating an encyclopedic purpose. (non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 09:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC) reply

Option A - who like

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who read Newshounds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians who like Newshounds‎
• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in Rooster Teeth Comics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians who like Rooster Teeth Comics‎

Option B - who read

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who like Ctrl+Alt+Del ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians who read Ctrl+Alt+Del‎
• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who like Homestuck ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians who read Homestuck
• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians interested in Rooster Teeth Comics ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians who read Rooster Teeth Comics‎

Option C - interested in

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who like Ctrl+Alt+Del ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians interested in Ctrl+Alt+Del‎
• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who like Homestuck ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians interested in Homestuck‎
• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who read Newshounds ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Wikipedians interested in Newshounds‎

Nominator's rationale Rename all members of Category:Wikipedians interested in webcomics to match each other (rather than having three different naming conventions used in four categories). I weakly prefer Option C to match the name of the parent category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Option A. since it would certainly be the most descriptive in this case. [Disclaimer: my user page is a member of Category:Wikipedians who like Homestuck.] – MJL  ‐Talk‐ ^☖ 03:13, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete "like" and "read" categories, user collaboration is apparently not their goal. A user box is sufficient in those cases. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  It makes no sense to delete the first three nominated categories and keep Category:Wikipedians interested in Rooster Teeth Comics‎ at this nomination, given that it was originally named Category:Wikipedians that read Rooster Teeth comics. and then renamed to the current "interested in" title in 2007. I am open to a broader purge of "like"- and "read"- named categories (of which there are a ton within Category:Wikipedians by mass media interest), however. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:26, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  • I can see your point, but it also does not make sense to rename them to "interested in" if user collaboration is obviously not the purpose. For now I can support renaming all of these to "read" or "like" awaiting a later deletion proposal. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

    We did exactly that at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 5#Wikipedian sports fans. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:46, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

    I agree that a lot of user categories, including Category:Wikipedians by mass media interest serve no collaboration and should be replaced with a user box which is the lesser evil. Gonnym ( talk) 11:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

    Agreed with that as well. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Comment "interested in Ctrl+Alt+Del" seems a very bad name for interest in a comic and not interest in resetting computers. ie. Ctrl+Alt+Del -- 64.229.90.53 ( talk) 02:49, 13 November 2021 (UTC) reply

  True, that category should be separately renamed to "Wikipedians <something> Ctrl+Alt+Del (webcomic)" as a C2D. But let's solve one problem at a time here. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗ plicit 03:19, 24 November 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete all "like" and "read" categories, user collaboration is apparently not their goal. Just as Marco said. -- Just N. ( talk) 22:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC) reply
• Delete all 4 they are fine as userboxes (I suppose) but shouldn't be categories. If anyone is in them directly (rather than from a userbox) it could be upmerged, I have no preference. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 04:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC) reply

  Also fine with deleting all 4. For the most part, I've refrained from nominating "Wikipedians by mass media interest" categories for deletion because they weren't deleted in 2007 back when WP:USERCAT was actively enforced and lots of other clearly non-collaborative user categories were deleted, and mass user category nominations tend to be a mess at the best of times. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 01:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC) reply

• Delete all 4, as per the above. Renerpho ( talk) 01:02, 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.