Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 5



Category:State and local political sex scandals in the United States

 * 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: purge.  bibliomaniac  1  5  04:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose purging state and local political sex scandals in the united states
 * Nominator's rationale: purge biographies, non-convicted people do not belong in this category, convicted people are already in Category:American politicians convicted of sex offences. Quite a few politicians were involved in an extramarrital affair which in itself is not a criminal offense. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:19, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually, adultery is illegal in many states, just not prosecuted. Support purge. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  08:29, 6 March 2022 (UTC)


 * keep delete nomination is again conflating criminality with scandal. They are different, as a reading of the various documented articles here clearly shows.   A scandal is something that is notorious in the public eye, regardless of whether there is a crime.  The articles clearly show scandal.  Not being convicted of something is no reason to ignore reliable source material.  See Sex scandal for discussion.  Hmains (talk) 23:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * To clarify, the nomination is: keep notable scandals (that permit a scandal article in its own right), don't keep biographies with a non-notable scandal. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So you would only be happy if this category just contained the 6 or 7 such articles. This is hardly helpful to the readers of WP seeking such information, not knowing that WP editors expect them to read articles on every politician to try to gather up the facts.  This is simply silliness, not required for other subjects categorized in WP.  Is it 'political' or 'sex' that so twists the mind here?  Just more whitewashing, it seems.  Hmains (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Delete Encourages BLP violation. Orientls (talk) 03:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Purge per nom I agree that there is no conviction or sex crime required for a scandal, just lots of publicity. But the current inclusion criteria are far too vague. Bob Allen (Florida politician) was an LGBT politician who was caught for solicitation of a male police officer. He paid a fine and was otherwise free. Not much of a scandal, nor lasting impact in politics. Frank Artiles was a politician whose PAC had hired two women based on their previous affiliations with Hooters and Playboy, rather than their political experience. The scandal concerned his hiring practices and expenses, not his sex life. Dimadick (talk) 04:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep It is up to the reader to determine what is notable and what is not. Not us. They are all notable due to the designation as politicians. What kind of sex and with whom is unimportant.Johnsagent (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The nomination also aims at keeping the category, with all articles that are about scandals (but not articles about people). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
 * This nomination will leave only 6 or 7 articles in this category, gutting and destroying it. Scandals are ALWAYS about people, by definition. Hmains (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
 * By that broad definition, then EVERYTHING on Wikipedia is about people : ) - jc37 23:56, 25 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment - This is just too subjective in application. The word "scandal" is tossed around rather freely. I really am wondering if maybe we shouldn't be categorising using "scandal" as a criteria, at all. If kept, inclusion should be as narrow as possible, supported by clear references. (Not merely some attention-grabbing headline, for example.) - jc37 23:56, 25 March 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:Songs about days

 * 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.  bibliomaniac  1  5  04:41, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: There are over 20 songs in this category with the title "Someday". Are such songs really about days? WP:SHAREDNAME and just plain overcategorization by a very generalized topic. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 22:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting songs about days


 * Keep: The songs refer to either specific days of the week, specific holidays or reflect hope about about an undetermined day when the protagonist of the song will solve a certain problem. In all cases it gives the protagonist in the song a certain perspective about these days. The songs aren't just about his/her emotions alone, but also put them in a certain time frame. User:Kjell Knudde 10:19, 18 January 2022 (UTC).
 * Someday? Really? I could see having Category:Songs about days of the week but this is just overkill. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Needs pruning, not deletion. I Don't Like Mondays is centred on Monday, the beginning of the work week. Graduation Day (The Four Freshmen song) is about a specific day, graduation day.-- Mvqr (talk) 11:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep The problem is not with the actual category but whether the pages in the category have supporting evidence to be included in said category, as per WP:CATV. This is only an issue if the editor adding the category is introducing original research or not at least skimming the article beforehand to learn about the song's true meaning, therefore adding an incorrect category. There are some cases where "day" is being used metaphorically, but this problem is not rooted within the category itself. ResPM  (T&#x1F508;&#x1F3B5;C) 13:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Who's going to do this maintenance before it gets completely out of hand? Thanks. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Songs about specific days, purge, and containerize as much as possible. Songs about "some day" obviously do not belong in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I support this as an alternative to straight-up deletion. All of the subcategories and their entries should be kept, which appear to be more relevant than this category itself. Maybe this should just be a container category? Sean Stephens (talk) 07:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Purge most of the entries whose titles refer to a day, but are not any more specific than that. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. Keep but as a container category only (Birthdays is a reasonable cat). All of the entries are either NOT defining or included because of the word in the title. I Don't Like Mondays (see comment above) is not about 'Mondays' but about an event that happened on a Monday. It's also in about 5/6 other cats of varying relevance. For those that say purge, please do so, lead by example, please, I will remove when I see inappropriate entries and have done for several years. As an aside, perhaps WP:SONGS should be amended to limit the number of about categories a single article can be in, at least that would help the relevant cats, if any, float to the top. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars, Kjell Knudde, Mvgr, ResolutionsPerMinute, Sean Stephens, Marcocapelle.
 * If nobody objects, in 24 hours time I am going to go through this category and remove any entry which does not mention clearly in the text that the ‘song is about a day.’
 * This will mean any entry which I find in contradiction of WP:Categorization which states Para 2, The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.
 * I will also remove any article which is also in a subcat of Category:Songs about days along with any redirects, for obvious reasons, and instrumentals (which are not songs).
 * Perhaps this was a job for someone who said, ‘purge?’--Richhoncho (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Worth reviewing now that contents have been purged to just 6 songs and 2 sub-cats. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete per Richhoncho. Additional examples: "One Day I'll Fly Away" where 'day' is a substitute for time or possibly epoch (also the case with "Oh Happy Day" and several others; "Happy Days (TV theme)" is a similar example, but it's not about a day, nor is the TV program. The category itself states that it is "A list of songs about days of the week, including specific days." For that, the child cats of Songs about Mondays‎, etc. make prefect sense. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete A very trivial and dubious categorisation, which is rarely if ever defining. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Already commented above, but now find there was a CfD delete for the similarly named Category:Songs about days of the week--Richhoncho (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: that CFD closed with consensus to delete the sub-categories for each day of the week. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:56, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote to delete. After deletion of most subcategories there is no coherent content left. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete. There's no there there. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete. As purged, and after deletion of all the categories about specific days of the week (see Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 5), the category is no longer useful for any purpose. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - This is merely WP:SHAREDNAME and WP:TRIVIALCAT (intersecting on the word "day"). - jc37 00:08, 26 March 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:Bridges and tunnels in London

 * 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:Bridges in London.  bibliomaniac  1  5  04:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Bridges and tunnels in London to Category:Bridges in London
 * Nominator's rationale: A rather unnecessary name right now as there is a subcategory "Tunnels in London". Bridges and tunnels aren't grouped together like this for any other city from what I have seen. As to category changes, it would be best to put "Railway tunnels in London" into "Tunnels in London" and "Tunnels in London" would just need to have the category "Transport infrastructure in London", and apart from that, no major changes would have to be done. --Ferien (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment -- If this proceeds, the two tunnel categories need to be purged and Category:Tunnels in London reparented.  No objection otherwise.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - this rather curious grouping seems to be restricted to London and Mobile, Alabama. Agree also with Peterkingiron about purging etc. Oculi (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. I have already put "Railway tunnels in London" into "Tunnels in London" because that should be done irrespective of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Strange grouping. Dimadick (talk) 05:00, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - many bridge types are tunnels. (Are we merely relying on the name of the architecture?)  But, as far as I can tell, the various category trees don't seem to address this issue, so for now, support, I guess. - jc37 00:17, 26 March 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:LGBT history in the United States by region

 * 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:LGBT history in the United States.  bibliomaniac  1  5  04:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:LGBT history in the United States by region to Category:LGBT history in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only a subcategory, a redirect and a template. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  12:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:00, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep No quality improvement by merging as proposed. On the contrary, a container category like the existing helps to keep order and overlook. Category:LGBT history in the United States even now is big and overflowingly populated. --Just N. (talk) 17:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (reply added after relisting) The United States simply has a lot of content throughout en.wp, that is unavoidable. In this case with 9 subcategories and 54 articles it is not bad at all. Besides for order and overlook it does not help to keep only one redirect and one template apart. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Merge I cant see that we need a container category when the only real content is Category:LGBT history in the United States by stateRathfelder (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Based on the name, this should have covered regions of the United States, not individual states. I do not see any region in the category. Dimadick (talk) 05:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * UpMerge - unnecessary layer. If anything, Template:LGBT history in the United States by regions likely needs a rename. - jc37 00:22, 26 March 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:Virtualization software

 * 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 non-software contents into the topic cat Category:Virtualization.  bibliomaniac  1  5  04:44, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Virtualization software to Category:Virtualization
 * Nominator's rationale: "software" here is superfluous, and the general term is simply "virtualization". Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  12:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose, in articles Comparison of application virtualization software and Comparison of platform virtualization software the word "software" is added too. Probably the category can be split though, between Category:Virtualization software as a set category and Category:Virtualization as the overarching topic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Oppose then split per Marcocapelle. Software implements virtualization, is not be same thing as what is being implemented. -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose then split per Marcocapelle. The subsequent Category:Virtualization software should only be a container cat. - jc37 00:28, 26 March 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:Sport in Canada

 * 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:Sports in Canada.  bibliomaniac  1  5  04:40, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: Match eponymous article naming. It appears Canada uses the plural "Sports" as opposed to "Sport". See 2017 discussion on the article move. –Aidan721 (talk) 02:40, 15 December 2021 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  12:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Sport in Canada to Category:Sports in Canada
 * Comment surely that's changing the topic of the category? Sport is sport in general (and would not be pluralised), sports would mean individual sports, no? Grutness... wha?   02:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * At least in US English, sports is singular. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Interesting. There appear to be a mishmash of "sport" and "sports" subcategories in both this folder and the equivalent US one. Looks like a general tidy-up is needed. Grutness... wha?   02:29, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * can you perhaps enlighten us about Canadian English? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Canada's really kind of a mishmash. There's really no right or wrong answer here, and you regularly see both "sport" and "sports" used in different sources — the government department responsible for athletic programs is called Sport Canada rather than Sports Canada, but media are more likely to use "sports" rather than "sport" (e.g. the main television sports channels are "The Sports Network" and "Sportsnet"), so both sides of a sport vs. sports argument can point to different sources as proof that their preference is more "standard". We have the same problem with date formatting: government style tends toward "British" DMY, while media style leans more strongly toward "American" MDY, so both sides of the date formatting argument can point to "proof" that their preference is more "standard" — so the only rule we've ever been able to get consensus for in Canadian articles is "either date format is acceptable, and other than fixing internal inconsistencies within a single article, articles should never be changed to force the opposite of the existing date format".
 * I'm personally inclined to treat media usage as more definitive for actual Canadian speech than government officialese, but that's me: other Canadians might very well prefer to follow the government usage. (The anonymous IP in 2017 who argued that we should use "sport" because "sports" is an "Americanism" is, however, far too typical: most of the time, "we should take every opportunity we can to remove American influences from our culture by always automatically aligning ourselves with British usage in any matter where American and British usage differ" is the only reason that's actually given for why we should write "sport" or "DMY". Yet somehow nobody ever argues that we should also say "lift" instead of "elevator" or "lorry" instead of "truck", but I digress.) But either way, I'd recommend that whichever form is chosen here, the other one should be kept as a categoryredirect regardless. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Let's then just follow the article name, as nominated. Besides sport(s) is more media-related than government-related. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment We should use "sportS", because we should not be using Britishism in all cases, as Canadian English is not British English, as some people in the Commonwealth seem to assume. Though I think the government uses "sport" because it is the same in French and English, thus commonality, and not because it looks British and not American. As for the date thing, I tend to prefer the logical version (ie. ordered in order) versus the idiosyncratic version (ie. US, just like its measurement system, a mess of different things) -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - So I looked at the RM linked in the nom, and it seems to be "I have heard...", which is WP:OR. We need verifiable reliable sources for this. With that in mind, speedy rename to match article name, but no prejudice against a renom if such sources can be found. - jc37 00:35, 26 March 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:Animation controversies in film

 * 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:Film controversies. Purge of films and merge remainder to merge target Kbdank71 00:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Animation controversies in film to Category:Film controversies
 * Nominator's rationale: This category is A) misnamed and B) redundant. The first, because really it should be "Controversial animation films"; and two, because the difference between "controversial animated films" and "controversial live picture films" is not one worth having two separate categories RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  12:04, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The main problem of the category, and also of the target, is its vagueness. Films may be controversial for all sorts of reasons, categories should indicate the reason why a film is controversial. So the nominated category might be deleted, and the target containerized. But if that does not happen a merge will not solve the problem, then a rename to Category:Controversial animation films is the best action. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Oppose I do not see any rationale here of why a subcategory for animated films has no valid uses. Some of these controversies seem ridiculous to me, but so do other film controversies. Dimadick (talk) 05:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete all per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, or at least purge of films per Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_October_1 - which would empty the cat of all but the subcat, which is already categorised elsewhere, which brings us again to Delete as unnecessary layer. - jc37 00:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Purge and merge. Certainly the films should be purged, and whatever is left should be merged per nom.  bibliomaniac 1  5  04:39, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * That is a fair point, the category (and also its parent) should contain articles about controversies, not about films. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 18 April 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:HR objects
<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:Bright Star Catalogue objects.  bibliomaniac  1  5  04:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:HR objects to Category:Bright Star Catalogue objects
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D-style situation; and similar use the full name too.  User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk)  13:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkl  talk  11:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment the old name should be kept as a category-redirect -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 18:53, 28 February 2022 (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.


 * Support per nom, Harvard Revised Photometry Catalogue redirects to Bright Star Catalogue. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:29, 5 March 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:Types of garden by historical empire
<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 to Category:Types of garden by country of origin.  bibliomaniac  1  5  04:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Types of garden by historical empire to Category:Types of garden by country of origin
 * Nominator's rationale: merge as a trivial intersection, for types of gardens it does not matter whether the country of origin was a historical empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:15, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:27, 14 March 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:English gardens
<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 to Category:English gardens. Essentially the same as deleting it.  bibliomaniac  1  5  04:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:English gardens to Category:Gardens in England
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, overlapping scope. Note that a merge to Category:Types of garden by country of origin is not needed, there is already English landscape garden in that category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:06, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Comment "English gardens" should be for gardens in the style of an English manor house's traditional gardens (English landscape garden/Category:English Landscape Garden style), instead of gardens in England, just as what one would think of a French garden, Italian garden, Chinese garden, or Japanese garden. Since it isn't being used that way, it definitely needs to be emptied -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 03:44, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete but check the sub-cat is adequately categorised. This is an unnecessary category level; and the subcat has an unnecessarily complicated name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Delete - unnecessary layer with a less-than-clear name. Purge and Delete Category:English Landscape Garden style. Once the non-english-only entries are removed, there is the source article, and a list of gardens, and some garden designers/writers. All which are better categorised elsewhere (Such as Category:English landscape and garden designers or Category:English garden writers). And Rename Category:English gardens in English Landscape Garden style to Category:English landscape gardens (lowercase per English landscape garden). I'm thinking the whole tree under Category:Garden design history of England could use some standardisation in naming. - jc37 01:15, 26 March 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.

Geography and place templates
Relisted, see Categories for discussion/Log/2022 March 27%23Geography and place templates

Category:Taxa named by Sonia Fisch-Muller
<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: keep.  bibliomaniac  1  5  04:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting taxa named by sonia fisch-muller
 * Nominator's rationale: A small category unlikely to be populated further. Shyamsunder (talk) 23:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

<div 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, Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose WP:SMALLCAT does seem to apply here, at present, but I believe that this category will be populated further. See Sonia Fisch-Muller taxa from Wikispecies. -MPGuy2824 (talk) 02:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Looking at Category:Taxa by author this seems to be a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme which is an exception to SMALLCAT for good reasons. --Trialpears (talk) 00:00, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I'm not sure whether Category:Taxa by author should even exist (maybe it needs a rename or to be converted to a list?). But for now, Weak Keep as part of that structure. - jc37 01:37, 26 March 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:Media coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
<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: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Media coverage of the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine for just one entry? -- Another Believer ( Talk ) 05:25, 5 March 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:Rocko's Modern Life video games
<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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rocko's modern life video games
 * Nominator's rationale: Only one of the games is of the Rocko's Modern Life franchise, at it is the only game ever made based solely on the IP. The other two are Nicktoons games that have elements of the show. Essentially, WP:SMALLCAT. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:13, 5 March 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:Xanthopimpla
<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: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 13 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting xanthopimpla
 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT; not every genus needs a category, and this is the only such category in the subfamily. 1234 kb of .rar files (is this dangerous?) 00:08, 5 March 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.