Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 April 13

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) 04:49, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:User tso to Category:User ts

Nominator's rationale: Don't need two categories for the same language. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support as both are the same.--Mvqr (talk) 10:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:User nbl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:User nr. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: soft merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:User iii to Category:User ii

Nominator's rationale: Don't need two categories for the same language. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: soft delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:03, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:User sag (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:User sg * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:User kon to Category:User kg

Nominator's rationale: Don't need two categories for the same language. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 23:01, 15 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn in favor of phab:T306539 (non-admin closure) * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:User mul (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:User mul-N (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Recreation of category previously deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 30#Category:Multilingual Wikipedians under a technically accurate but nonsensical name containing only one user who has been inactive since 2007. Actually emptying the category without changing the displayed appearance of the sole member's userpage will be a pain since the category is populated by the babel extension, but I am willing to handle implementing it myself when the time for that comes. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:10, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless empty. I created these categories to fill redlinks listed at Special:WantedCategories. I have no substantive views on the merits of the categories; my only concern is that per WP:REDNOT, populated categories should have a category page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I understand that, and as I said above would be willing to empty the category if this discussion is closed as delete. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery, my concern is not emptying the cat after deletion. The problem for me is keeping it empty, so that we dont end up in yet another of the cycles of deletion and re-creation which plagues all these wretched babel-populated categs.

  It seems to me that this needs to start with the fixes to the babel system BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see how that danger can occur if the sole member has not edited since 2007. The original population of this category was done during Special:WantedTemplates cleanup and Special:WantedTemplates is now cleared so that circumstance can't recur. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:38, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pppery: if you can amend the babel stuff so that {{#Babel:en|mul}} no longer populates a category, then I will withdraw my objection. Can you do that? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  My original goal was to edit the user page to not contain that markup. But that seems unlikely to get consensus here, so I've instead filed phab:T306539 to fix the babel system and closing this CfD. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 15:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:User latn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:User latn-4 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:User latn-5 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Revisiting Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_November_25#Category:User_latn, where consensus was that the categories should ideally be deleted but it was closed as "no consensus" on a technicality (referring to technical difficulty in emptying the categories). As I said there, Template:User iso15924 already had code to ignore Latn (with a capital L) dating back to 2007, and thus the templates in Category:User templates Latin script (which are wrappers of Template:User iso15924 that pass the capital L) never actually populated this category, only direct calls to Template:User iso15924. Any way, I've added code to Template:User iso15924/sandbox to never populate [these] categories, so there is no barrier to their deletion. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 16:39, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless empty. I created 2 of these categories to fill redlinks listed at Special:WantedCategories. I have no substantive views on the merits of the categories; my only concern is that per WP:REDNOT, populated categories should have a category page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I of course understand that, and thus did the work of emptying the categories in the template sandbox (it's inappropriate to empty categories before bringing them to CfD - that renders the discussion meaningless). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:44, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep unless empty. Exactly the same stance and rationale as BrownHairedGirl. I created the latn-5 one for the same reasons, as well. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 05:06, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• @BrownHairedGirl and Sweyn78: are you satisfied with Pppery's response? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: I think I am satisfied. If closing as delete, pls make sure to alert @Pppery to implement the template fixes, and thereby empty the category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:05, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: Aye, I suppose so. I'm fine either way. If the categories are going to be deleted, they need to first be emptied of all contents, which User:Pppery has offered to do. /ˈswɛ̹͡yn/78 04:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about walking (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:IINFO. Just songs with "walk" in the title, regardless of whether or not any actual walking happens. This is not a defining trait of any of the songs. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, I checked a dozen articles and neither of the songs in these articles was clearly about walking. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is a category of how many different meanings to 'walk' there are, so hardly defining.--Richhoncho (talk) 07:26, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It made me laugh, so that's not nothing. But clearly not an encyclopedic category. Nohomersryan (talk) 18:09, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, a small minority of them might be about walking, or dog walking, but it's really just a shared name.--Mvqr (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.