No article found for “Henry H. Nash?action=edit&redlink=1”.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 21

☆ Save On Wikipedia ↗

June 21

Category:Television stations in Fargo–Moorhead

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) Staraction (talk · contribs) 03:04, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Better suited category name and aligns with the other similar categories. OWaunTon (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Mvcg66b3r (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2026 (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.

Songs by language

Nominator's rationale: For some context, all of these categories were previously named "[X]-language songs" but were speedy renamed to "Songs in [X]" after the brief discussion started by NLeeuw at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_11#Category:Latin-language_songs, which was kickstarted following Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_9#Category:Hindi-language_works. A week later, citing that Latin discussion, Hindi-language songs was merged to Hindi songs after the latter was renamed to Songs in Hindi after another brief CfD by NLeeuw at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_August_18#Category:Hindi_songs. A week later, another brief discussion from NLeeuw at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2023_September_1#Songs_in_Fooian_part_1 renamed the song categories for Afrikaans, Amharic, Arabic, Aramaic, Judaeo-Spanish, Malayalam, Urdu, and Yiddish due to the same rationale of Latin that they're in languages whose name cannot be mixed up with a nationality or ethnicity, and whose articles (just like Latin and Hindi) don't have the word "language" in the title. The rest were speedy renamed.
In July 2025, this was revived by NLeeuw at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2025_July_18#Category:Serbo-Croatian_books, resulting in the category Books in Serbo-Croatian. A month later, a wider discussion that included NLeeuw, myself and others at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2025 August 25#Category:Algerian writers in French instead resulted in consensus to adopt the "-language" construction for over 200 categories intersecting language and nationality. This was affirmed for English-language television shows and English-language novels. The "-language" construction is also consistent with the overwhelming majority of similar Categories by language that already exist on Wikipedia: Albums by language, Books by language, Films by language, Magazines by language, Mass media by language, Newspapers by language, Novels by language, Operas by language, Radio stations by language, Singers by language, Surnames by language, Television by language, Websites by language, Works by language, Writers by language.
NOTE: The aforementioned Books in Serbo-Croatian has been renamed Serbo-Croatian-language books to be consistent with its adjacent categories at Books by language. I argued that CfD (Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 April 22#Category:Books in Serbo-Croatian) against the "Latin argument" that some categories don't require "-language" per their respective language articles/categories (C2C/C2D). One user disagreed. For that reason, I am leaving those Latin, Arabic, Yiddish, etc categories for a separate discussion that can be focused on just that. Οἶδα (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Support per nom, consistent with other categories, and this is far clearer. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Support The previous discussions were clearly based on lickspittle. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:16, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
Comment I notice that two of the current categories, Songs in Sámi languages and Songs in Yolŋu languages, have names which indicate they cover more than one language, yet the proposed rename doesn't capture or account for this. I wonder whether there's a way of capturing this within the proposed format, or whether these should be left out given the proposed format implies it's referring to a singular language, rather than several? Turnagra (talk) 10:46, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
I'm happy to leave them out. I considered both those categories when nominating but still went ahead given the subcategories at Sámi languages. I'll remove them so as to keep this discussion focused. Οἶδα (talk) 17:58, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
 Done Οἶδα (talk) 18:00, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose the meaning of the current name is clear and shorter. I do not think we need to go to the longer name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    @Johnpacklambert Why should it be inconsistent with all other categories like this? PARAKANYAA (talk) 15:52, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    The argument is that all category of works by language should be named as Category:$1 in $LANG. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:10, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    That doesn't seem to be the argument he is making. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:57, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
    Why should a single songs categorization be treated differently than all the other established categories now? From the parent works categories? From all film categories? From all album categories? From all book categories? Because what you are suggesting implies a category like Spanish-language French songs should be renamed to French songs in Spanish. And French-language Spanish writers should be Spanish writers in French. And English-language Spanish singers should be Spanish singers in English. And French-language Spanish films should be Spanish films in French. What you are saying contradicts the previous consensus we had on these naming constructions. So should we now reverse all of those moves? This is the issue with CfD. Not enough consistency. We create a sliding standard from repeated CfDs with varying degrees of participation and, as such, varying results that can't be consistently applied.
    As stated at the previous CfD, constructions like Writers in French do rely, however subtly, on the reader to mentally supply additional words. Because the more natural and recognizable expression for these categories is some variation of books written in French and songs sung/recorded/etc in Spanish etc. But without those modifiying past participles you're left with an adjectival prepositional phrase that sounds unnatural and abstracts the relationship between the subject and its attributes. It reads as more ambiguous than the similar Category:Chinese expatriates in Finland, for example. In standard English usage, the more natural forms I find without those modifiers are compound noun phrases such as Category:French-language books and Category:Spanish-language albums. The only other common usage is ambiguous with adjectives for nationalities i.e. "Spanish songs". And as indicated above, "[Works] in [Language]" does not scale across catgories because you cannot clearly separate the intersection of writing language and nationality. Οἶδα (talk) 17:47, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Support less vague this way. Traumnovelle (talk) 20:36, 23 June 2026 (UTC)

Months in Spain

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 14:09, 26 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: merge, per WP:OCYEAR, mostly isolated one- or two-articles categories, this is not helpful for navigation. Apart from the United Kingdom, no other European country has categories by month this early. With one exception, Category:May 1906 in Spain, all articles are already in a year in Spain category or in another subcategory thereof so that a dual merge is not needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:34, 21 June 2026 (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:Count's Feud

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). GoldRomean (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer, the subcategory suffices. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:16, 14 June 2026 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Staraction (talk · contribs) 19:34, 21 June 2026 (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:WikiProject Greyhawk participants

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). GoldRomean (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The project or task force hasn't been a thing since 2009 when it was redirected. Gonnym (talk) 17:49, 21 June 2026 (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:Rail transport stations in London outside fare zones area

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) –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Currently the title suggests that these stations are in London when actually 0 are in London, 12 are in Hertfordshire, 6 are in Surrey, 5 are in Essex, and 1 is in Sussex by my count. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 11:26, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose, Definitely not "London ticketing area". That could refer to CPAY. The current naming follows Category:Rail transport stations in London by fare zone etc. naming of the London fare zone system these stations are in (despite being on the very fringe). MRSC (talk) 11:31, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Well then an alternative is needed, but it can't be rail transport stations in London outside fare zones area because they're not in London! How about Railway stations in non-publicised London fare zones, because they actually in higher fare zones but it's just not shown to the public. JacobTheRox(talk | contributions) 12:35, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
But they are in the "London outside fare zones area". MRSC (talk) 12:41, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Delete, ticketing systems come and go, this is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:57, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete, misleading category name, plus per Marcocapelle Cheerio, Mattdaviesfsic. Talk to me. 16:06, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment Okay, okay. I agree now. It needs to be renamed to something that does not imply these places are in London. MRSC (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment This category seems to have some people hot under the collar. Just to give some explanation, I am currently working on converting {{Infobox London station}} to {{Infobox station}}. Infobox London station was generating London zonal categories for all stations that had the fare-zone field populated. All of these 23 stations were in London fare zone categories. As part of the work of moving from one template to another the automatic categories have been removed and I have manually added all articles to a category. For the stations in the "unofficial" zones 10+ I put them all in the same category. So that's how we ended up here. If you are not aware, these are the 23 stations that are within the TfL ticketing area for Oyster and contactless but don't have publicised zones and appear on the London rail maps as "Outside fare zones" which is the naming I used for the category (clearly not a good choice!) MRSC (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
WP:CLN is always helpful: while having a list, template or category does not mean you cannot have one the others, the different namespaces have different standards which is called out in the third paragraph. - RevelationDirect (talk) 16:54, 21 June 2026 (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:GalaxyCon navigational boxes

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2026 June 28#Category:GalaxyCon navigational boxes

Histories by former British Caribbean colonies

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). Staraction (talk · contribs) 08:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
None of these British colonies exist anymore so there's no difference between these history subcategories and their parent categories. It would be subjective for an editor to decide what went in the history subcategory because it's all history since these countries gained independence. I checked and all the target categories are already under "History in Foo by period" so this content will still remain in the history tree. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2026 (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:Bahamas national football teams

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERLAPCAT
National football teams will have different squads for men, women, youth, beach soccer, etc. The Caribbean sibling categories aren't consistent whether they describe that as singular "team" or plural "teams" but there's no purpose in having both categories. (We do sometimes see this pairing when one is a WP:SETCAT and the other a WP:TOPICCAT, but that's not how these are being used.) Both cats are tagged in case the consensus is to reverse merge. - RevelationDirect (talk) 03:47, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Oppose. Delete the category instead of merging it into that. Because that's referring to the men's Bahamas team, which the women's team article can't go in. FastCube (talk) 04:21, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Huh, Bahamas women's national football team is already under Category:Bahamas national football team right now. @FastCube: In any case, based on your description, I think your suggesting a reverse merge where we would keep Category:Bahamas national football teams (and get rid of Category:Bahamas national football team). If that is the case, could you clarify your !vote as "Reverse Merge"? (If I misunderstood and you're against a merge in either direction, "Oppose" should stay.) RevelationDirect (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
No, I'm suggesting delete Category:Bahamas national football teams because it's not populated enough (for now, there's not many Bahamas national team articles), and keep Category:Bahamas national football team because it is populated enough as an eponymous category. Just keep Bahamas women's national football team out of Category:Bahamas national football team because they're two seperate teams. FastCube (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Thank you for clarifying. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 11:09, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Oppose per FC. One is for the men's team only, one is for mens & women's (i.e. is a parent category). GiantSnowman 11:10, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
Hatting myself, too many replies
  • Neither is currently the parent of the other (No objection to revisiting that during this discussion though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 16:27, 21 June 2026 (UTC)
  • Comment (as nominator) No objection if the consensus is to keep both cats and repurpose them. If that is the close, this should go to the working/manual process to move around some of the current articles, make the "teams" category a parent of the "team" one, and change some of their existing parent categories to avoid the current overlap. - RevelationDirect (talk) 17:02, 21 June 2026 (UTC)