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 here and given the repeated "no consensus" and "keep" closures elsewhere there's no point in relisting since there's clearly not going to be a consensus to delete
* Pppery *it has begun... 15:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I agree that a tribute album should not be included in the category for albums by the artist(s) being tributed, unless someone can point out some special circumstances.
KConWiki (
talk) 23:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep This was nominated once before and the consensus was to keep (see
CfD 2022 Aug 28). There is also precedent in that there are 71 other subcategories under
Category:Tribute albums with a single article/album. Most of those were created by
KConWiki ten years ago. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:20, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep: My rationale for this has not really changed since our last discussion on this general topic,
which can be reviewed here. Thanks to all for their contributions.
KConWiki (
talk) 23:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:24, 1 September 2023 (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:11th-century establishments in Ukraine
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.
Can you cite any sources for that change, or is that your own
WP:OR?
Marcelus (
talk) 07:13, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
The articles
Name of Ukraine cites the oldest mention of "Ukraine" in the year 1187, but that does not imply that "Ukraine" was a common name of a region or country in the centuries to follow.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:29, 16 August 2023 (UTC)reply
It seems to me that this should be understood as events from the 10th century on the territory of today's Ukraine. Besides,
Category:11th-century establishments in Ukraine is not anachronistic in any respect, it is a completely different case.
Marcelus (
talk) 08:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose as always, as the "anachronism" and similar viewpoints look at this from one perspective only (how was it called then), not from another, equally valid (how is it called now). "When did the things in current Ukraine or the things that shaped the history of what is now Ukraine get established" is a natural question, the history of a country doesn't start when it is formally named or established but long before.
Fram (
talk) 07:32, 16 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 14:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 1 September 2023 (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.
Categories with disallowed fraction characters
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.
Nominator's rationale: The characters ⅜, ⅝, and ⅞ are disallowed by
MOS:FRAC because they do not reliably work with screen readers. After discussion at
Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Fractions in category names, it seems the ASCII representation is preferred in these situations. I updated the MOS and am making this nomination to get final approval from a slightly wider audience. Also fixed non-compliance with
MOS:UNITS; whitespace is required between number and unit. --
Beland (
talk) 02:03, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
(BTW, as of the 1 Aug 2023 database dump, these are the only categories with these characters. --
Beland (
talk) 02:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC))reply
As per a comment I've just added to that discussion, I tested the page with NVDA (a popular screen reader), and found that ⅞ was read fine - better than "7/8" which is read "seven divided by eight". This was a very quick and dirty test, so I think it would be helpful if someone with access to other screen readers could test to see if they have been updated since the original
MOS:FRAC guidance. It would be a shame if we make this change in the name of accessibility and end up making things worse.
Barnards.tar.gz (
talk) 14:20, 21 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Isn't it possible to move the two remaining categories to a mm format as well?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
That works to fix the character issue! --
Beland (
talk) 20:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Support. Great solution!
Mason (
talk) 02:51, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 14:46, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: What to do with
Category:12⅝ in gauge railways? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:21, 1 September 2023 (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:11th-century women rulers
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.
Galobtter (
talk) 22:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Notes: When biographies say so-and-so was the ruling duchess/countess of Fooland, always check what that means. If it is because her father and brothers died and so she inherited Fooland, that makes her a duchess/countess regnant (suo jure). But when biographies say so-and-so was the ruling duchess/countess of Fooland during the minority of her son, that means she was a duchess/countess consort + a woman regent, not a duchess/countess regnant. Regent ≠ regnant.
Also note the end-of-century mark. Example:
Gerberga, Countess of Provence was countess consort until her husband died in 1108, so we can't categorise her as "11th-century countesses regnant", but only as "12th-century countesses regnant".
For the purposes of preventing
WP:SMALLCATs, I am classifying "margravines" ("march-countesses") and "viscountesses/vicomtesses" ("vice-countesses") as "countesses". If any of these become large enough for their own categories, they can always be split off later. I am classifying
Jimena Díaz (widow of
El Cid) as "queen regnant" rather than "lady" (per article "lady of Valencia") or "princess" (per El Cid's article "prince of Valencia"), because all other rulers of the
Taifa of Valencia are either called "king" or "emir" (the Arabic equivalent of "king"). I suppose we could call her an "emira", but that would also create a 1-item Smallcat, so let's just go with "queen regnant". Other doubtful cases have come with recommendations.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 14:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose any "consort" categor being here: consorts weren't rulers out of definition. Oppose others out of possible
WP:OR, for example:
Urraca of Zamora wasn't "countesses regnant", she was none of the sources describe her as such, she and her sister were given possession of the so-called infantados, a complex of monasteries that belonged to her and her sister by virtue of being infantas, they held them until their marriage. She also received the towns of Zamora and Elvira, but not by virtue of being an infanta. We do not know what title she bore. Calling her a countess is not confirmed in the sources. Similarly, Anne of Kiev was married to a count after her first husband's death, but she held power by virtue of being her royal son's regent. The Garsende of Béziers was a viscountess, not a countess. Mariam of Vaspurakan was a ruler by virtue of being a regent, not queen etc. If we want to isolate a category, it could be
Category:11th-century women regents. The division proposed by the OP is wrong and OR.
Marcelus (
talk) 21:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Marcelus: it is not clear to me what exactly you are opposing. The proposed split will solve the issue that consorts do not belong here. I have argued the same, plus I have argued that regents are a different class as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:11, 25 August 2023 (UTC)reply
My argument is this: I am against the removal of
Category:11th-century women rulers because it is a useful category, gathering women exercising actual supreme power in a country. @
Nederlandse Leeuw proposed split will result in women actually exercising power (e.g. as regents) being assigned to the "x consort" category, which by definition gathers those not exercising actual power. Moreover, NL's proposed split is
WP:OR and in fact most of the cases I have checked prove this, e.g. NL proposes to move
Sayyida Shirin to the "queens consort" category, when in fact she was an emira. For these two reasons, the proposed change is unacceptable.
Marcelus (
talk) 17:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Nederlandse Leeuw has proposed a women regents category too, so any consorts who have been regents can be put in this category. I don't think this needs to be a reason for disagreement. Your second argument is more of an issue, because do we really want to split this by every possible title? That is also why I said "at least three" because I am in doubt whether splitting it further adds much value.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)reply
First of all I don't want to split anything. But if you need to split it for some reason, you cannot put someone who wasn't a queen, to a queen category. I think that's pretty straightforward. Plenty of these characters did not carry any specific title, or any of those listed (queen, duchess, etc.), so to pin them down by force to them is misleading and simply OR. The "women rulers" category is simply very useful.
Marcelus (
talk) 20:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Split as per prior centuries; not splitting this one would be just bizarre.
* Pppery *it has begun... 18:46, 23 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Split per Pppery: no compelling reason has been given to depart from the convention for this particular century.
HouseBlastertalk 14:48, 16 October 2023 (UTC)reply
Split - I dont get the oppose argument at all, indeed the proposed split is solving the exact problem they have raised. Maybe they think that the articles will be copy pasted into all of the categories? Apart from that, I dont think a reasonable argument to be made against.
Captain Jack Sparrow (
talk) 03:11, 27 October 2023 (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:keep. Other categories no longer use adjective format.
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 18:06, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Other similar category names follow the adjective format (African culture, Malagasy culture, etc.).
Zanahary (
talk) 15:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Related discussion was relisted. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:13, 1 September 2023 (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:Tornadoes in Canada by date
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.
✗plicit 01:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:delete in the spirit of
WP:SHAREDNAME, these are apparently articles with a date in the article title. A merge is not needed, the articles are already in
Category:Tornadoes in Ontario etc.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:31, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Background: This category, along with
Category:Tornadoes in Canada by location, was intended as a way to resolve the mess that's seen in existing categories such as
Category:Tornadoes in Canada or
Category:Tornadoes in Ontario, where the entries in those categories are in no specific order at all, neither date nor location, because the category name gives no guidance as to a suitable ordering of the category keys (some entries are listed under T for Tornado, some listed by date if that happens to be the first word of the article, some under L for list, some under the name of the location, and other variants too). The intention was to populate the two subcategories with items from the larger category, which would then consist of only of the subcategories. However, this work was left incomplete. This is also a problem with tornado categories in the US - an example is
Category:Tornadoes in Georgia (U.S. state).
Colonies Chris (
talk) 22:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)reply
(continued): Looking at this more closely, it seems that the problem of indexing by location has since been resolved by the creation of the tornadoes in province subcategories. Within these, ideally, articles would be ordered by date, though that's pretty patchy. Currently, not all the articles in
Category:Tornadoes in Canada by date are also categorised by province (e.g.
Tornado outbreak of June 5–6, 2010 should be in
Category:Tornadoes in Ontario) - once that has been done, the category in question would indeed be redundant. In fact,
Category:Tornadoes in Canada by location is also potentially redundant, as it consists solely of province subcategories that could just be promoted to subcategories of
Category:Tornadoes in Canada.
Colonies Chris (
talk) 01:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete; I've been through all the articles in this category and correctly categorised them by province and date, so this category is now empty and unneeded.
Colonies Chris (
talk) 15:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment Yes, this category has been emptied. I wish you'd wait until this discussion was closed before doing this. LizRead!Talk! 01:13, 4 September 2023 (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.
Songs in Fooian part 1
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.
@
Marcocapelle,
Jc37,
Srnec, and
Qwerfjkl: pinging participants from previous discussion for follow-up, for your consideration. Cheers,
NLeeuw (
talk) 13:52, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename, per precedent, and for brevity.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename, I think this is a reasonable set of renamings using synonyms which shorten the names of the categories. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:48, 2 September 2023 (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.
Hymns by language
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.
@
Srnec pinging you as well, as you were instrumental (no pun intended) to the "Songs in Latin" precedent.
NLeeuw (
talk) 13:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename per precedent. Thanks for the follow-up ping!
NLeeuw (
talk) 10:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Interesting! I might try that out myself later on. It's usually best to start with a single test case, and then a logical follow-up bundle, but nomming them all individually can be real pain. Glad the script already works for you. :)
NLeeuw (
talk) 13:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Qwerfjkl It looks like some of these hymns aren't necessarily in the language stated. The category trees
Category:Christian hymns by country and
Category:Hymns by language are mixed up. We might have to do some purging. We Gather Together is probably fine; the article title is the name of the English translation (which I never knew) of the Dutch original Wilt heden nu treden (which I do know), which is both in Dutch and from the Netherlands / written by a Dutch person. But Dio vi salvi Regina is evidently written in Italian (and in modern times the Corsican version seems most commonly used). Apparently, it's only in
Category:French Christian hymns because France acquired Corsica in 1769, about a century after this song was written. We could recategorise to
Category:Italian Christian hymns for now, but then it wouldn't fit the
Category:Christian hymns by country and
Category:Christianity in Italy parents anymore either, because Corsica isn't in Italy. One can argue whether Corsica was or wasn't in "Italy" in 1675, but the writer
Francis de Geronimo seems to have lived in Naples all his life and never really visited Corsica, so saying the song is "from Italy" would be correct again. Eg veit i himmerik ei borg leads to similar complications, being originally written in German in Norway, but translated to Norwegian later and having an article title in Norwegian, but still being categorised as
Category:German Christian hymns. Thoughts? Sorry if I'm making it complicated.
NLeeuw (
talk) 14:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It doesn't sound complicated. If a song in language X is translated into language Y, then place the article in both categories. If - as we've seen in a few cases - that some articles have been categorised in these due to culture rather than language, then those will just need to be pruned/re-categorised. QED - jc37 14:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Any song can be translated into 20 languages or more. Dio vi salvi Regina#Lyrics alone shows 4 versions. I don't think every single translation is
WP:DEFINING. Where do we draw the line?
NLeeuw (
talk) 18:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw, we can draw the line where the language is defining. If the translation isn't defining, then there's no need to categorise it.
Qwerfjkltalk 21:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Ok, and what are the criteria which make a translation defining? In the example of
Dio vi salvi Regina#Lyrics, which of the following languages should we categorise it by?
Italian (original)
Corsican (because it is alleged to be the de facto anthem of Corsica?)
French (because Corsica is located in France in our times?)
English (because this is English Wikipedia? Because the text is mentioned in the article?)
Personally, I think only 1 and 2, maybe 3 apply. Curious what you and others think, or if such criteria have already been agreed on.
I'm open to lots of options, I just hope we can agree to criteria that we can consistently apply in follow-ups. Cheers,
NLeeuw (
talk) 22:33, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Nederlandse Leeuw, I would say only 1 and 2, the former because it's the original language, the latter because that's the language it's mostly sung in today. (please mention me on reply).
Qwerfjkltalk 11:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
I think it's not a bad place to start. Probably begin with a group nom of the more obvious ones, to see what the rest of the community thinks; and then individually nom ones that might be less obvious, or which might need significant cleanup. - jc37 14:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Yes. We've agreed on "Songs in Latin, Hindi, Hawaiian" already. Moreover, subcats
Category:Arias by language and
Category:Classical song cycles by language also follow the [Song type] in Fooian convention already before we even set the "Songs in Latin" precedent. I think I'll start with a select few categories for languages whose name cannot be mixed up with a nationality or ethnicity, and whose articles don't have the word "language" in the title:
Amharic,
Urdu,
Arabic,
Afrikaans,
Aramaic,
Judaeo-Spanish,
Yiddish, and
Malayalam. If we agree on that, we might more easily agree on the rest as well.
NLeeuw (
talk) 13:24, 1 September 2023 (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:Getai people
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. Arguments for keeping were unconvincing and not policy-based.
(non-admin closure)Qwerfjkltalk 18:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: It's quite possible that I don't quite get what "Getai people" is intended to mean but this seems like a classic case of
WP:PERFCAT.
Pichpich (
talk) 02:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It seems to be a defining characteristic for two articles,
Hao Hao and
Liu Lingling (Singaporean host), the other articles should be purged to begin with. Delete the category for now without prejudice to re-creating the category when it can be populated better.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
It applies to entertainers like
Ke Le,
Desmond Ng and
Marcus Chin as well, who all debuted in the Singapore entertainment scene through
Getai. Am going to be
bold and suggests this category remains as more articles on individuals who are hugely involved in the Getai scene are created progressively.
Mcdynamite (
talk) 03:02, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Getai is not a defining characteristic of these articles, the articles are about artists generally.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Keep - It's a prominent performing medium in Singapore, just like in films, on stage or television etc. There are plenty of standalone articles on people who are involved in
Getai in the Singapore mainstream media. And categorising individuals who are performing through this medium is quite defining in the Singapore entertainment industry.
Mcdynamite (
talk) 02:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)reply
And as I noted above, we don't categorise people by what film, television, or stage production they were in, either. - jc37 14:19, 3 September 2023 (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.
Nominator's rationale: This category, with its unclear scope or purpose, only seems to be for the use of the category creator,
User:Abishekdascs. I removed inappropriately categorized User pages but was reverted so I'm sending this case to CFD. LizRead!Talk! 00:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete per
WP:G2, based on what creator wrote on their talk page.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 02:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose : Purpose: This category will contains articles that are marked as discouraged for selection in Wiki Education courses. Articles in this category have historically shown challenges in student assignments, with limited improvement over time. While students can still choose to work on these articles, they are encouraged to consider the historical context and potential difficulties associated with these topics. This category will serves as a cautionary resource to guide students and instructors in making informed decisions when selecting articles for assignments.
In simple words this category will be useful for
https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/. So, that students or instructor will be able to mark an article under this category so it will discourage a student from choosing one of these articles to work on, and it annoys the editors of such articles.As, such Wikipedia articles rarely lead to significant improvement. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Abishekdascs (
talk •
contribs) 05:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Abishekdascs: can you give some examples of articles that would qualify for this category?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Sure, this will be one of the article that would qualify for this topic -
Boba.
And, only if this category is accepted then only will I be able to add a feature in
https://dashboard.wikiedu.org/, which will allow instructor or students to mark an article under this category.
Delete - this is "A Very Bad Idea" (tm) - Out of 6,836,726 Wikipedia articles, how many do we think would be placed in this category based upon the criteria listed above? I'll take "most, if not all" for $1000, Alex... - jc37 11:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Fair point, then deleting it will be good. I had one final question so is there way any to create a category which is hidden from everyone. I just show this in Hiding categories under Wikipedia:Categorization - To hide a category, add the template {{
Wikipedia category|hidden=yes}} to the category page (the template uses the
magic word__HIDDENCAT__). This also places the page in
Category:Hidden categories.
Abishekdascs (
talk) 12:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Basically. Though you may wish to check ou the guidelines at
WP:HIDDENCAT. It's use should only be for administrative purposes. - jc37 14:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
No. That has nothing to do with whether a category is deleted. It merely has to do with how the category is displayed at the bottom of a page. "Hidden" categories are not displayed by default, unless you opt in to see them in your user preferences. - jc37 17:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Okay, ty for the explanation
Abishekdascs (
talk) 18:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
But this category 'Undesirable Wiki Ed Articles' is intended to serve a specific purpose within the context of Wiki Education. It's not meant to encompass a vast majority of Wikipedia articles but rather to guide students and instructors in making informed decisions when selecting topics for assignments.So, then this category can help, guiding them toward better choices for the students assignments
Abishekdascs (
talk) 18:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
So, if tweaking the category names works since the name of this category doesn't makes its purpose clear which i noticed 🥲 only after i named this category.
Abishekdascs (
talk) 18:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Just out of curiosity, have you read over
WP:ASSIGN? - jc37 19:55, 1 September 2023 (UTC)reply
Still delete (already voted above) but this time because I see no objective reason why the
Boba dab page would be marked as discouraged for selection in Wiki Education courses.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:53, 1 September 2023 (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.