Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 January 30

< January 29	January 31 >

January 30[edit]

Category:WikiProject User Warnings participant[edit]

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 London 11:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:WikiProject User warnings participant to Category:WikiProject User warnings participants

Nominator's rationale: Obvious duplicates. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support, clearly the same.--Mvqr (talk) 11:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:49, 8 February 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.

Category:CYGN[edit]

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: speedy delete. This page is not used as a category. It is simply a spam page created in category space, and qualifies under speedy deletion criterion G11. JBW (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:CYGN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Newly created, apparently on the fly. I can't imagine this is notable enough ever to have a reasonable number of members. Lithopsian (talk) 15:17, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cameroon Young Generation in Nuclear seems to be trying to use the WP category system to store its membership records! The creator might have thought that he was creating a user-category, but I doubt we need one for what is presumably a NN campaign organisation, with no WP article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a Personal userspace category. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per G11. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 10:50, 6 February 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.

Category:Fair use school logos[edit]

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:Non-free school logos. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fair use school logos to Category:Non-free school logos

Nominator's rationale: Per the Category:Non-free logos tree. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the category can be removed from these 218 pages' source code if the categorisation in {{Non-free school logo}} is adapted.

Self-trout for not noticing that and applying the category without seeing this. Possibly, a bot could even replace

{{Non-free logo}}
[[Category:Fair use school logos]]

by

{{Non-free school logo}}

on the remaining pages so that the categorisation is made automatic. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems odd that the template doesn't automatically apply the category - independently of whether the category gets renamed or not, I'll fix that... firefly ( t · c ) 11:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template fixed to apply the more specific category and duplicate categorisation cleaned up - as for the other swap, that'll require a BRFA... firefly ( t · c ) 17:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Firefly, I believe Category:All non-free logos should still be applied, similarly to Category:All disambiguation pages, Category:All stub articles and the like. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4 Fixed! firefly ( t · c ) 18:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -there is also the tree Category:Fair use images. Oculi (talk) 13:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 20:01, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 please check the PetScan report that you intended to provide. The link above currently returns 1925 results, not just 218. – Fayenatic London 11:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london ...have you read Firefly's comment above? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:20, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 I read it but was not sure exactly which templates were being referred to. OK, I assume it means that all duplication has been removed, so that only one template needs amending now. – Fayenatic London 13:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the PetScan query should just return all files with the template now, though about 5000 files still apply the category manually without the template (since I did not know that existed when populating the cat). Rather than just moving the files to the new category name, replacing the categorisation by the template seems to be more reasonable. ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:30, 9 February 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.

Category:Ticino rapid transit[edit]

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

The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic London 13:33, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ticino rapid transit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Ticino rapid transit railway stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The parent article for this category has been deleted on the grounds that the concept does not exist: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rete celere del Canton Ticino. There isn't a Ticino rapid transit network; there is a collection of stations receiving service, but that's not the same thing. This category and the child stations category should be deleted; no recategorization is necessary. Mackensen (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

resolved issues

Procedural comment, the child categories have not been tagged yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- I've tagged Category:Ticino rapid transit railway stations and removed Category:Ticino rapid transit network templates; the template category needs to follow its own path. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose straight deletion. If the child categories aren't kept, they should be respectively merged to Category:Railway stations in Ticino and (in case of the template category) renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: It's not a straight 1-to-1; some of the stations are in Ticino and some are in Lombardy. Regardless, all the stations are already in the respective geographic categories. Mackensen (talk) 16:04, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have checked a few and that appears to be the case indeed, e.g. Luino railway station is in the Lombadian category. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC) [reply]

Delete -- I looked at this previously. This is just a collection of railway stations. Possibly they are branded together by timetables, but that does not mean we need a categpry for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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