Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 7



Category:Pakistani fraudsters

 * 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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:58, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting pakistani fraudsters


 * Nominator's rationale: a page with only 6 names isn't worthy enough to stay up. Immu 01 20:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, because
 * 5 pages usually taken as an acceptable minimum size for a category
 * this is part of an established series under Category:Fraudsters by nationality.
 * -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep  - per BHG. Oculi (talk) 10:51, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:SMALLCAT. And in this case, there is scope for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 18:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep, same as we already did at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 September 3 when there were only half as many member pages as there are now. Also, WP:TROUT the nominator for repeating this nomination with even less justification than last time. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , please declare whether you have a connection with one of the persons whose biographies are within this category (perhaps Shoaib Ahmed Sheikh?). It is noted that you have been suspected of editing with a WP:conflict of interest before, e.g. at Articles for deletion/Schön Properties (as notified on your talk page, after which you did not reply again).
 * Please also change your non-compliant signature, to include a link to your user page as required by WP:SIGLINK. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not link me with random people without any proof (let alone fraudsters). I genuinely don't see any use for an article with just 6 names. About the conflict of interest, it has been a misunderstanding between one of the editors and i which has been cleared and i have already declared my COI with an article that i have been asked to create. Also, i was unaware that minimum limit for pages is 5 but i do now.  Immu 01 08:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a category, not a list/article; and 5 is not a limit in cases where the exception to WP:SMALLCAT applies, i.e. where the category is part of an established wider scheme of categories.
 * Thank you for declaring an interest on your user page re Draft:International Hospitality Investment Group (IHIG). I have fixed the link for you.
 * For the record, since you have claimed that you cleared a "misunderstanding" about Schön Properties, it would be helpful if you would give a link to where you did so. The appearance of a WP:COI was documented both on your talk page and on the AFD page, by two different editors, and was not cleared up at either of those pages.
 * I have no evidence that links you to any fraudsters, but your own actions beg the question (so I enquired about the most recently convicted member of the category). There are plenty of categories with few members; why are you repeatedly picking on this one?
 * Now please fix your signature in your Preferences, and then explain why you are so determined to keep nominating this particular category. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Unicode replacement characters

 * 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) 06:56, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Unicode replacement characters to Category:Unicode
 * Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Unreferenced album articles
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 1%23Category:Unreferenced album articles

Centuries in Afghanistan

 * 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) DannyS712 (talk) 00:23, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:9th century in Afghanistan to Category:Medieval Afghanistan
 * Propose merging Category:15th century in Afghanistan to Category:Medieval Afghanistan
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, we usually do not have century categories for countries if they did not exist yet. Afghanistan emerged as a country in the 18th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. However, I would, yet again, point out that we do indeed have "century categories for countries if they did not exist yet" - Category:19th-century establishments in Poland . That Polish anomaly really needs to be sorted out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:45, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The nom correctly says "usually". Please stop spouting about Poland in unrelated CFDs, and just publish your proposal. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support but the first one (only) also needs to be merged to Category:9th century in Asia. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:11, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.

Centuries in Albania

 * 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 and split as nominated. MER-C 10:26, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:11th century in Albania to Category:Medieval Albania
 * Propose merging Category:12th century in Albania to Category:Medieval Albania
 * Propose splitting Category:13th century in Albania to Category:13th century in the Kingdom of Albania and Category:Medieval Albania
 * Propose splitting Category:14th century in Albania to Category:14th century in the Kingdom of Albania and Category:Medieval Albania
 * Propose merging Category:15th century in Albania to Category:Medieval Albania
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, we usually do not have century categories for countries if they did not exist yet. Albania was a kingdom under the Anjou dynasty from 1272 to 1368. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. However, I would, yet again, point out that we do indeed have "century categories for countries if they did not exist yet" - Category:19th-century establishments in Poland . That Polish anomaly really needs to be sorted out. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Question to for the items not moved to C13/14 in the K of A, shouls they not be merged to e.g. Category:11th century in Europe? and for C15, to Category:Ottoman Albania? – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:26, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * For the pre-Kingdom of Albania articles, no they don't need an additional merge target, since they already are in some other subcategory of Category:11th century in Europe except for two family articles and one biography that would not belong there anyway. For the post-Kingdom of Albania articles, also merging them to Category:Ottoman Albania is a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Texas Sports Hall of Fame

 * 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. The list is already included in the parents of this category - 2 directly, and Category:Sports in Texas via Category:Sports museums in Texas. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Texas Sports Hall of Fame
 * Nominator's rationale: Per either WP:OCAWARD or WP:SMALLCAT
 * It's not clear if this category intends to be an organization/museum category an awards category. The Texas Sports Hall of Fame in Waco is certainly bigger than my local Delaware equivalent, but so are the 352 athletes] they've inducted. The articles for Shaquille O'Neal, Roger Clemens and Mike Modano all mention other Halls of Fame they were inducted into but make no mention of this one so it doesn't seem defining. If this is a category about the organization, the main article is the only one that belongs in it with limited growth potential. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Background In the past, we've deleted similar US state-level sports halls of fame categories here and here and this is the last subcategory left under Category:State sports halls of fame in the United States. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - I just don't see a good rationale for any state-level sports halls of fame categories. National halls of fame categories might make sense in certain cases, but not state-level. Anomalous+0 (talk) 05:16, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete but move the list into parent categories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame inductees

 * 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 created a draft list page at Draft:United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:22, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame inductees
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD and possibly WP:NARROWCAT
 * We don't have a main article for the United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame to establish notability but, according to their web site, it was established in 2011 although the vast majority of inductees were active decades earlier. The main problem is that this is an award primarilly for U.S. Marines who were also prominent athletes outside the Marines. For instance, Jack Lummus was a major football player and Greg Burgess was an Olympic swimmer and then enlisted while Elroy Hirsch and Tom Seaver served and then played played professional football and baseball, respectively. The Olypic shooter athletes in this category (Ken Norton & William McMillan (sport shooter)) have meaningful interaction between their sporting and military careers but they are outliers. All of them are already categorized in both Category:United States Marines and their respective sports categories and this intersection award isn't defining. I copied the curent contents of the category here and here so no work is lost of anyone wants to create a main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:23, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is a special recognition given by the Marine Corps. The rationale given by the nominator does not account for the fact that these athletes achieved these accomplished despite also serving in the military, with their athletic training often interrupted by military activities. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - The fact that honors of this sort are meaningful to the recipients and their family & friends is not doubted. Nonetheless, that does not make them a sound basis for categorization. Anomalous+0 (talk) 05:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment: IMHO, the meaningfulness to the recipients and their families is not relevant. In my opinion, it is meaningful to the article on the person, and as a category, to researchers looking for similar items on the subject. It is no different than a category listing a school attended or an award received. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @FieldMarine, your username and comments give a v strong suggestion that you may not be taking an NPOV approach to the topic. Please step back from personal opinions and apply WP:DEFINING. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I admit I have an interest in military related articles, however, my point stands. Why is a cat of a school "defining" and this recognition from a military service not? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @FieldMarine, that is classic WP:OTHERCATSEXIST. This discussion is about Category:United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame inductees, not schools. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The comment and use of WP:OTHERCATSEXIST does not address my question or my point, which I will state below. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @FieldMarine: Your point is that instead of engaging in assessment of the WP:DEFININGness of the nominated category, you are pointing somewhere else by questioning the definingness of a completely unrelated set of categories.
 * However, even if you are 100% right that those other categories are also non-defining, that is a reason to open a separate discussion to delete them ... but it is not a reason to keep this non-defining category.
 * In articlespace, the same basic principle has a shortcut WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. That's crude, but on point:  If we couldn't delete any piece of crap unless and until every other piece of crap had  been deleted, then we'd never be able to tackle anything unless we tackled everything at once. And if we tackled it all at once, we would still be unable to remove any crap at all unless everyone involved agreed about the tire list of what's crap and what isn't. No clwanup system can work that way.  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually, I was addressing the flawed logic used below to determine if an item is defining, that an item must be in the lede of an article to be "defining" and thus also included as a cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 18:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

'' Fire Walk with Me 12:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete/listify per nom. DexDor(talk) 09:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. ''' Lugnuts '
 * Delete. The key test here is WP:DEFINING. To select a sample to test, I used a randon number generator to select for me 5 out of the 24 pages in the category.  The 5 numbers (20, 9, 18, 7, 5) gave the following articles:
 * Tom Seaver: USMCDHoF mentioned in lede of article
 * Hayden Fry: USMCDHoF unmentioned except in category
 * Barney Ross: USMCDHoF mentioned only in the "Honors" section at the bottom of the article
 * Vince Dooley: USMCDHoF mentioned only in the "Awards and honors" section at the bottom of the article, as the last of 8 awards listed there
 * Josh Culbreath: USMCDHoF mentioned in lede of article
 * That's only 40% thinking it is lede-worthy. Far too low to be WP:DEFINING. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Out of the articles in this category, how many of these have the school they attended in the lede, but also have the school they attended as a cat? Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 12:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * @FieldMarine, as I noted above, that is classic WP:OTHERCATSEXIST. This discussion is about Category:United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame inductees, not schools.
 * If you want to have a discussion about categorising people by school, feel free to open an RFC or a group CFD nomination. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The logic here is that a cat is “defining” if in the lede. IMHO, that is a faulty test, and I use schools as an example of why that test does not hold true. Many, if not most articles on people do not include the school they attended in the lede, but almost all include the school they attended as a cat. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk)
 * I tend to agree that school is not defining either. But that is not a reason to keep this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These people contributed (in various proportions) to the Marines and to sports which caused two things to happen: they have articles on Wikipedia and they received this award. I see awards defining only in the rare cases where the award is actually an emphasis with a well written Wikipedia article. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:31, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment - I would have voted for a Keep on this category, however I know that since I served in the Marine Corps, my vote will attract criticism. I believe that an article about the "United States Marine Corps Sports Hall of Fame" should be written and here I am wondering why hasn't anyone taken the task of doing so. Tony the Marine (talk)
 * I certainly would not discount your perspective based on your service, although there is a potential WP:CANVAS issue with how you got here. We actually agree though that creating a main article would be a positive direction which is why I saved the contents of this category here and here so no work was lost. One HOF article that I like because it has a sortable list is the Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame if that's helpful as a template. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Tony the Marine, please remember that WP:NOTAVOTE. You have cited no policy-based reason for your !vote, so the closer is obliged to discount it. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:15, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I will address the CANVAS because that was me, and I honestly would do it again in a heartbeat because the two people I notified are my mentors. As the creator of a different "Hall of Fame" cat, I was never notified of the CfD Cat:USA Shooting Hall of Fame inductees, and thus never had the opportunity to comment. In reviewing that case with respect to this one and others in this series, it appears to me that most of these "Hall of Fame" deletions have the same relatively small group of people commenting, and IMHO, the community would benefit from more involvement and comments by others as well. Semper Fi! FieldMarine (talk) 11:37, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

*Comment Let me remove all question of whether the state of an article has any bearing on a subject's notability. It does not. you are correct. Please refer to WP:NEXIST "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." In addition, see WP:ARTN, "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Unfortunately, attacking notability seems to be a common ploy in these hall of fame delete/listify proposals. Which is why there is much more content written in the notability guidelines to protect the notability of subjects. After all, they are Wikipedia's bread and butter. dawnleelynn(talk) 03:27, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment - There is no need to make a big fuzz over nothing. Read carefully and you all will see that I did not vote for a "keep" and that I only made a "Comment". Forget about the "Category", my comment addressed the fact that there should be an article about the USMC Sports Hall of Fame, plain and simple. To the closer: Do not regard my "Comment" as a "Keep" vote, it is not so. It would have been improper of me to vote either way. Tony the Marine (talk) 14:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete another overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Does any of that comment have any relevance to this discussion which is about a category? (Specifically, this discussion is about the category being for a characteristic that is non-defining in all/most cases.) DexDor(talk) 06:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I was just answered what I saw in here. Yes, and it exists in other discussions. See WP;WHYN "Because these requirements are based on major content policies, they apply to all articles, not solely articles justified under the general notability criteria." If disparagement of a hall of fame article is part of your rationale or an argument to delete a category, then it needs addressed. It is against policy, for instance, to talk about the way the category's inductees' articles handle the induction. If you are thinking to do anything that disparages the notability of an inductee or a hall of fame article, don't. Wikipedia is serious about this and has taken careful steps in its notability policy to protect the notability of its subjects. Remember, notable subjects are why we are here. To write about them. That is all. dawnleelynn(talk) 17:06, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Much/most of that is incomprehensible. WP:WHYN is not about categorization. DexDor(talk) 18:29, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I did go overkill on the policies I admit. Yes, this is a discussion about categories. However, some articles have been discussed too. WP:WHYN does apply a bit. Of course, other policies sometimes are quoted in a category discussion. The bit of content in contention was "I see awards defining only in the rare cases where the award is actually an emphasis within a well written Wikipedia article." This is not true according to WP:NOTESAL "The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." There that is more specific. dawnleelynn(talk) 19:38, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
 * You still appear to be unable/unwilling to understand that notability and definingness are different things. DexDor(talk) 05:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment I read through the discussion again. No, I get the difference between policies. You seem to unwilling to understand that notability is a core guideline that does not only relate to article creation and deletion. I missed it that there was no hall of fame article here. But my intent was to point out where an argument to support WP:NONDEFINING was in error with a notability policy. However, I am no longer convinced that WP:NOTESAL applies. I am also not convinced that the argument I quoted applies to nondefining either. I cannot locate in any category guideline where it says that the "award" must be mentioned in every subject of the category's article to be defining. Lastly, there are definite arguments in some other hall of fame CfDs that go against notability guidelines just to make a point that there are such things. Many of them are where the argument uses negative information about the subject of a hall of fame article to make a case, thus demeaning the subject's notability.
 * See WP:ARTN "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ...Conversely, if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." Notability has been established, is this the time to question its suitability? Unless its notability is being questioned again in a proper procedure, no negative arguments about the subject of an article should be made. Surely, these hall of fame CfD nominations can make their case w/o detracting from the hall of fame subject.
 * Example: The World Golf Hall of Fame: Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 1
 * "This award seems to echo rather than create the fame and doesn't seem defining." The editor seems to denigrate the method they use to induct their members. These are things that should have been considered while establishing their notability, not after. The hall of fame is now established as the subject of an article and therefore notable. What editor is qualified to judge their method of induction? You must win two majors. Does the editor have any idea how incredibly difficult it is to just win one major, and that most PGA members will never accomplish this? p.s. Any argument that knocks down the hall of fame also makes a case for deleting the list article too. What's the difference? If the hall of fame only echoes the fame, then why would a list article be needed either? dawnleelynn(talk) 20:36, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Re "I cannot locate..." - try WP:CATV. DexDor(talk) 20:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Yep, it's right there at the beginning of "Articles" - "Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Thanks. We have that although it doesn't stipulate an amount of content, just that it is clear. Good deal, thanks. Some other good stuff there too. dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 21:11, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I am confused by your repeated claims that I am somehow denigrating halls of fame or calling their notability into question. Whenever you are free, I reiterate my offer discuss further on your talk page and avoid such misunderstandings in the future. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:46, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I was working through an issue in here. Did you not notice that I withdrew my claim of NOTESAL and came into a better understanding of your statement that states that the articles need to mention the "award" or induction through WP:CATV? And I am still trying to better understand the statements made about halls of fame in the CfD discussions. I have also some real world commitments today. But I am not going to comment on any more CfDs before responding on my talk page. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 22:01, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I could say more but this CfD seems to have plenty of editors involved so I will bow out now. <i style="color:#800000;">dawnleelynn</i>(talk) 19:29, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


 * 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 to import images to Wikidata
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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) DannyS712 (talk) 11:39, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting pages to import images to wikidata


 * Nominator's rationale: Category contains many, many non-free images which may not be imported to Wikidata (P18 only allows images from Commons), but which can not be cleared from this category either. Basically, the vast majority of pages in this category don't need (are not allowed to have) the "maintenance" it is intended for. (Of course, Wikidata maintenance categories belong on Wikidata, not here, but that is a different discussion.) Fram (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

<div class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted from CFD 2019 March 25 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Relisting comment: the category currently contains 56,417 pages, so I'd prefer to see some comment on it before deletion. This category is populated by two templates, so I have left notifications at Template talk:Infobox book and Template talk:Infobox person. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, I left a notification at Wikiproject Wikidata as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Pages with images not on Wikidata for now. This is just a suggestion for the interim while something better is found. What would be ideal is for the rather crude code that creates this classification ( were updated to check that the image isn't a non-free image as well before applying the category. We could write such code in a Lua module but it would take an expensive call as I think we would have to read the entire text on the file page and see whether it contained the text  .  An alternative would be for a bot to look at the intersection of Category:Pages with images not on Wikidata and the negative of the search   for the infobox image, and create a usable maintenance category from that. It would be easier and less load, but has the disadvantage that it requires the continued existence of the current 56K member not-so-useful category. Maybe the answer would be to write a bot that looked for all three conditions and use that to generate the desired maintenance category from scratch, then there's no reason to keep this category. --RexxS (talk) 12:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete I appreciate RexxS' background on what a useful category would look like becasue I honestly lack that expertise. If a bot might be written/rewritten to completely change the category to make it useful, that's not a compelling reason to keep the category that serves no practical use today. Tracking categories need to serve a tracking purpose. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually,, you're quite right. There's no point in keeping the category in anticipation of someone making a bot to refine it into a more useful category later. Best thing would be to delete. --RexxS (talk) 18:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete as misleading; code to be developed along the lines outlined above might be used to create a useful category. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:55, 20 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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:Articles containing Sinhalese-language text
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: no further action required (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Articles containing Sinhalese-language text to Category:Articles containing Sinhala-language text
 * Nominator's rationale: Match the language name in the category with the Sinhala language and Sinhala script articles Danielklein (talk) 00:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Oppose as nominated. Categories such as this are populated by use of the   in the articles. A CFD discusison can't change the way that Lang operates, but a modification of the appropriate template or module can select which category is used. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks @BrownHairedGirl! I've requested the data be changed back to its previous value on the appropriate module's talk page. Danielklein (talk) 12:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Are you sure that the data is completely populated from Lang? I've just had a look at the source for the two category pages and Cat:Sinhala-lang redirects to Cat:Sinhalese-lang. The word "Sinhalese" appears in the source of the Sinhalese page. If this proposal is approved, won't someone have to swap the redirect direction? Danielklein (talk) 00:47, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * no, I haven't checked. That;'s just the usual way these things work.
 * But whatever's going on here, this is something to sort out on the relevant templates and modules. CFD is not the place to make this change. - Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, I'll just be WP:BOLD and change it myself. Danielklein (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Support because category names ought to match the articles. All this should really be a purely technical matter, to be resolved by editing the override tables used by Module:Lang (which provides the machinery that populates these categories), but that module is overseen by one editor who's generally proved unwilling to concede the need for keeping the spellings in sync, so we need a discussion somewhere to gain consensus, and this place here is as good as any other. – Uanfala (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * whatever consensus is reached, nothing will change until the module is changed. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Update. After some further discussion, the module has been updated, so there's not much of a need to do anything here anymore. There's no need to move the category either: it's now been turned into a redirect, and target category is the older one anyway, so there's page-history-related need to move either. – Uanfala (talk) 06:33, 15 April 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.