Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 28



Category:20th-century women contestants

 * 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: Renamed per nom. (non-admin closure) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  11:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: This was created as a sub-cat of Category:Beauty pageant contestants. If "women" is needed, then "20th-century women beauty pageant contestants"? – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:20th-century women contestants to Category:20th-century beauty pageant contestants
 * Propose renaming Category:21st-century women contestants to Category:21st-century beauty pageant contestants


 * Support the current name is obviously problematic, and this proposal is an improvement. User:力 (powera, π,  ν ) 04:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support. Women can contest more than just beauty pageants.-- Mvqr (talk) 16:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - per parent Category:Beauty pageant contestants. Oculi (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support "Contestant" is rather vague. It would also apply to game show contestants. Dimadick (talk) 04:20, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - reflecting its actual scope. The present name would cover a lot more.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support --Just N. (talk) 19:51, 4 January 2022 (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:Oberliga (ice hockey) seasons
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 5%23Category:Oberliga (ice hockey) seasons

Category:Islamic psychology

 * 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:Psychology in medieval Islam.  ✗  plicit  01:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: merge in the spirit of WP:C2F: the category only contains the main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 8 November 2021 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  16:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Islamic psychology to Category:History of psychology and Category:History of Islamic science
 * Keep - now contains over a dozen articles and a subcategory. Grutness... wha?   00:51, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
 * The articles that were added are about health in general, with only a little piece about psychology. Now manually merge this to Category:Islamic medicine and subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  20:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Rename to category:Psychology in medieval Islam corresponding to Psychology in medieval Islam, and purge entries for which psychology is not a WP:Defining aspect. E.g. medieval works on optics may involve perception, but I don't consider it helpful to categorise them under psychology. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * (as nom) purge and rename, per Fayenatic london, is surely the best alternative if merging is not an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Alt Rename to category:Psychology in medieval Islam corresponding to Psychology in medieval Islam and purge per Fayenatic. --Just N. (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Rename, if it's appropriate to Category:Psychology in medieval Islam, or Merge with some appropriate existing and related Cat, if not Delete per nom - there can't be "Islamic psychology", just like there can't be "Islamic death penalty" (phrase which we have in some articles, unfortunately).-- ౪ Santa ౪ 99°  21:19, 17 February 2022 (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:Lemkivshchyna

 * 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: The Lemkivshchyna article was recently renamed to Lemko Region, as Lemkivshchyna is not commonly used in English or the native language of the area. See the discussion here: Talk:Lemko Region. --YoungstownToast (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Lemkivshchyna to Category:Lemko Region
 * Support Per rename of Lemko region from "Lemkivshchyna".
 * Edit: This meets WP:C2D. 21:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * --💬 KaerbaqianRen 19:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Support --Just N. (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2022 (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.

Far future video 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.


 * The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 02:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Per Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 9 * Pppery * it has begun... 18:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging video games set in 2070 to Category:Fiction set in 2070 and Category:Video games set in the 2070s
 * Propose merging video games set in 2083 to Category:Fiction set in 2083 and Category:Video games set in the 2080s
 * Propose merging video games set in 2084 to Category:Fiction set in 2084 and Category:Video games set in the 2080s
 * Propose merging video games set in 2089 to Category:Fiction set in 2089 and Category:Video games set in the 2080s
 * Merge all per nominator. --Just N. (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2022 (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.

American women opera singers by century

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Upmerge Category:19th-century African-American women opera singers to Category:19th-century American women opera singers and Category:19th-century African-American women singers and Category:African-American women opera singers
 * Upmerge Category:20th-century African-American women opera singers to Category:20th-century African-American women singers, Category:20th-century American women opera singers and Category:African-American women opera singers
 * Upmerge Category:21st-century African-American women opera singers to Category:21st-century African-American women singers, Category:21st-century American women opera singers and Category:African-American women opera singers
 * Nominator's rationale So our categorization rules for ethnicity, gender and some related auspects of a person specifically have a "no loast rung rule", which is we should not have such categories on the last rung for any category tree. This is functionally a last rung, so merging it up is advised. Some think that quadruple intersections are rarely justified, this is somewhere between 5 and 6 aspects intesection, I see century, occupation, gender, ethnicity, nationality, and sub-occupation. Singing may along with sports and acting be an occupation where the functional differences in male and female roles is so great, that we do not apply the "no diffusion" rules in quite the same way we do in writing, politics and many other professions. However ethnicity is always under no dispersion rules so all the people in these categories need to be in the by century category, yet every single articles in all 3 of these categories is not in the appropriate by century American women opera singers category. When you have a 100% failure of the no diffusion rule, especially in a category with well over 70 total articles, and there is no easy way to diffuse the parent to overcome the problems caused by total diffusion of a non-diffusing category, upmerger is by far the best choice.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the political, economic and cultural significance of African-American women in such roles outweighs these arguments. We have many occupational categories where gender and ethnicity are of far less significance.  Rathfelder (talk) 23:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment, I completed the nomination: . Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support per WP:OCEGRS which applies to both gender and ethnicity. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:25, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment -- The 20th and 21st century categories are well populated. In view of past discrimination (when they were an exception), the racial category should be retained, at least for those active before (say) 1970.  However I am not sure we need a by century split.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * 1-we do not categorize by race, we categorize by ethnicity, this means that black Canadian people who perform opera in the US do not go in this category, unless we can show that had some point they have embraced African-American ethnicity. 2-the proposal retains Category:African-American women opera singers, it only removes the by century sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
 * What exactly do we gain by putting all these articles into 3 categories rather than one? Rathfelder (talk) 18:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 * If we do not upmerge than all these articles at a minimum need to be put in category:20th-century American women opera singers to abide by ERGS rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Keep Racism against Black Americans seems to show pretty clearly that categorisation of African Americans by occupation and by century is highly defining.   Opera singing is pretty distinct from Category:African-American spiritual songs. Why would we want to merge them?Bigwig7 (talk) 22:16, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
 * You are ignoring that the current set up without question violates ERGS rules against last rung categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:24, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

WP:OCEGRS says: "people should only be categorized by ethnicity or religion if this has significant bearing on their career." Are you trying to say that African Americans suffer no discrimination in the world of opera? Or that this has not changed over time? Can you produce some evidence? Bigwig7 (talk) 09:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:OCEGRS also says "should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." Marcocapelle (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Bigwig7, your argument would make sense if this proposal was to end having Category:African-American women opera singers. However this proposal in no way advocates ending that category. What it does advocate ending is the clealry ERGS rule breaking creation of last-rung categories that split African-Americans out in a way that excludes them from being in a non-ethnicity specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This case is an intersection of ethnicity, gender, sub-sepciality and time. The proposal is leaving in place the category that intersects gender, sub-speciality and ethnicity, and just removing the added by time break out. You have to be able to justify all the points of the intersection as uniquely notable to keep this category, and then give a persuasive reason why we should in this case clearly avoid the last ring rule. One way to satify the later would be to create Category:20th-century American operative sopranos or something like that, but to the present no one has felt a need to create categories that intersect century and opera voice range, that would solve the last rung rule, but I am not sure it would be a justified creation of a useful category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Classifying singers by vocal range doesnt really work - voices change with age. But surely the argument against multiple intersections is that they usually generate very small categories, which is not the case here.  Rathfelder (talk) 19:27, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The case here is that it explicitly violates ERGS rules and creates a situation where there people are being placed in a by ethnicity category, but not in the regular not by ethnicity category, which is an explict violation of the ERGS rules. This is a highly problematic situation which in this case would probably cause some to argue that Wikipedia's very structure is implying and supporting marginalization. Similar arguments have been made in the past related to other categories that do this, and the ERGS rules exist as they are to stop any such marginalization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2022 (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:Germany–Syria military relations

 * 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 to Category:Germany–Syria relations and Category:Bilateral military relations of Germany. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: only content is a subcategory (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:41, 17 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Germany–Syria military relations to Category:Germany–Syria relations
 * shouldn't it also be merged to Category:Bilateral military relations of Germany? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  06:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Comment This is a difficult case. The actual Syrian government in Damascus (Mr. Assad) is not fully accepted by the German gov. So eventual military cooperations relate to the past only. Really unclear and complicated. --Just N. (talk) 20:07, 4 January 2022 (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:Psychological trauma interventions

 * 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 to Category:Psychotherapy. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, very small sibling of Category:Psychotherapy with two articles that are slightly broader than just about psychotherapy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Psychological trauma interventions to Category:Clinical psychology and Category:Therapy Category:Treatment of mental disorders
 * I replaced the target by a more specific category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:36, 17 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you explain why you say they're broader than psychotherapy? As far as I can tell, they both suit it. I will also note that trauma is not a mental disorder. I absolutely agree that a category of 2 is absurd though. --Xurizuri (talk) 13:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at it again I think Xurizuri is right, it can just as well be merged to Category:Psychotherapy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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 instruments
<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: merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, overlapping scope, these are mental disorders diagnostic procedures that may be used by both psychiatrists and clinical psychologists. If this merge goes ahead, I will also nominate the subcategories for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC) <p class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:40, 17 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Psychiatric instruments to Category:Mental disorders diagnostic procedures
 * pinging participants to this earlier related discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * God it would be smart if I checked back on conversations more than once. Mental disorder assessments as a set category would've worked (where assessment is a countable noun, e.g. DASS is an assessment for depression). Ah well, diagnostic procedures is also appropriately descriptive.Anyway, yes please merge. They're the same thing. --Xurizuri (talk) 09:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2022 (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:Political power
<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 consensus. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded as there is already a category called Power (social and political) Jamzze (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting political power
 * Comment - categories at cfd should not be emptied beforehand: diff. Oculi (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose, it would instead be preferable to diffuse the entire tree in Category:Political power and Category:Social power or Category:Power (social). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * See also this related discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

<p class="xfd_relist" style="border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 25px;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  bibliomaniac 1  5  05:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  18:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Either keep or upmerge -- Deletion is the wrong option. It and one parent share a main article, so that merger may be the better option.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.

Works about horticulture and gardening
<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: split, rename, and merge as nominated.  ✗  plicit  01:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Propose splitting Category:Works about horticulture and gardening to Category:Works about horticulture and Category:Works about gardening
 * Propose splitting Category:Horticultural magazines to Category:Horticultural magazines and Category:Gardening magazines
 * Propose renaming Category:Horticulture and gardening books to Category:Gardening books
 * Propose renaming Category:Horticulture and gardening television to Category:Gardening television
 * Propose merging Category:Horticulture and gardening websites to Category:Agricultural websites, Category:Works about gardening (only 1 article)

Nominator's rationale: Follow-up to Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 5. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:08, 28 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Support per previous consensus. Oculi (talk) 00:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support  The topics are distinct enough. Dimadick (talk) 04:22, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support --Just N. (talk) 20:18, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support, consistent with the previous discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2022 (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:Republic of China National Assembly elections
<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: rename to Category:Taiwanese National Assembly elections. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:42, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: rename to align with the articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:32, 18 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  13:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Republic of China National Assembly elections to Category:Taiwanese National Assembly elections
 * Rename Category:National Assembly (Republic of China) elections to match the parent article National Assembly (Republic of China). This seems to be the standard naming format for categories for elections to specific legislative bodies – e.g. Category:United States House of Representatives elections, Category:House of Councillors (Japan) elections, Category:Senate (France) elections etc. Also, only four elections were ever held to this body; one while China was still unified and three after the RoC was reduced to being just Taiwan, and I don't think it makes sense to rename it in a way that excludes the 1947 election. Cheers, Number   5  7  15:15, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Support nom -- This is a difficult one, the 1947 assembly met in Nanking and elected a president. However it lost authority over the mainland by 1949, but the 1947 assembly apparently continued to function in Taiwan.  WP practice is treat China 1912-49 and Taiwan 1947-now as separate countries.  I think the answer is for the 1947 assembly to be categorises under both.  It is in fact already in Category:Legislative elections in the Republic of China (1912–1949), so that renaming to Taiwan is appropriate and according to precedent: perhaps Category:National Assembly elections (Taiwan). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * (as nom) the latter is fine too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
 * <p class="xfd_relist" style="margin:0 0 0 -1em;border-top: 1px solid #AAA; border-bottom: 1px solid #AAA; padding: 0px 2em;"> Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Rename per nom. --Just N. (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2022 (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:Health clubs by country
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 5%23Category:Category:Health clubs by country

Category:KMFDM album covers
<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: merge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:KMFDM compilation album covers to Category:KMFDM album covers
 * Also propose merging these categories to the same target category as well:

Nominator's rationale: I don't see a need to diffuse the categorization of image files for album covers for a music act. No established scheme. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 02:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Category:KMFDM live album covers
 * Category:KMFDM remix album covers
 * Category:KMFDM studio album covers
 * merge per nom. Seems like a good idea. these categories are not usefull.--Asmodea Oaktree (talk) 12:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep For usability and survey purposes it is absolutely useful to keep this extra category. It is a big one with eight covers not at all a smallcat. Wikipedia is bound for the usability of it's users! -Just N. (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * They are image files not articles so I'm not sure what benefit there is to users to diffuse such content. Even covers of singles have long been categorized under album covers for all artists. Diffusion of Category:KMFDM albums makes some sense, sure, and the covers are easily identified from those articles. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:51, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Merge by lack of an established scheme. The categories can be restored once there is consensus to build such a scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 5 January 2022 (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.