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 merge C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
Occuli (
talk) 11:21, 3 September 2011 (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:Foreign-language newspapers published in Moldova
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/delete.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 18:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The intermediate categories are otherwise unpopulated and unnecessary, as they do not form part of any alternative hierarchies.
Fayenatic(talk) 17:25, 2 September 2011 (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:Jewish film producers
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 18:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete I have no particular axe to grind; in fact, I'd be happy to see this kept. But we have virtually unpopulated category that would seem to fly in the face of the deletion of
Category:Jewish directorshere, and I would just like to see some consistency, either way. The directors cat, by the way, had been recreated a short while ago and I'd spent/wasted quite a bit of time adding it to bio articles before it was speedily deleted as a repost. This is why I raise this nom, now, so someone else doesn't invest time populating the category only to see it summarily deleted.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Absolutely no rational reason to delete category. Whoever deleted "Jewish directors" had no reason to do it either. They claimed it was because it was a religious category, but "Jewish" in this case means ethnic descent. The categories are necessary because Jews have been a stateless people for a long time, so most of them will not fit under the "Israeli" categories. There are a lot of Jewish categories on Wikipedia, some of which have hundreds of people in them. If you are going to delete this one, then you can use the same argument to delete the rest of them. Here are some examples:
Delete. If the film directors category was deleted, I can't see a good justification to keep one for film producers.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per the reasons offered. This is really a trivial intersection.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:32, 9 September 2011 (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:Neo-Venetian Gothic buildings
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 rename C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 18:13, 4 September 2011 (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:Denver Area Choruses
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename There are a couple of problems with the current name. The first is that it should use the term choir in order to match
Category:Choirs and
Category:American choirs. The second is that the category contains a chorus based in Boulder which is not in the Denver metropolitan area. The Colorado-wide scope seems like a good alternative since it would still contain only four articles.
Pichpich (
talk) 15:31, 2 September 2011 (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:Volcanoes of Zimbabwe
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: There are no volcanoes in Zimbabwe. There was vulcanism back in the Mesozoic and before, but no landforms exist that are volcanoes
Babakathy (
talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete as an unused category. Note to Babakathy: given that the category is empty you can use the {{
db-empty}} template to skip the deletion process for categories such as this one.
jonkerz♠ 11:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Not empty anylonger.
jonkerz♠ 20:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. Restored
Murowa diamond mine to the category. All
kimberlite pipes (from which most diamonds are mined) are long-extinct
diatremes, which are a form of
volcano. As long as the pipe still exists as a structure, it remains classified a volcano even if it has been extinct for billions of years. This is a basic concept of
volcanology. If this category is removed, it will be restored. I have brought this matter to the attention of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes. -
Gilgamesh (
talk) 16:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. Kimberlite pipes are volcanoes. Volcanoguy 16:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
A mine is not a volcano. If these kimberlite pipes are correctly classified as a volcano, then that article should be written or a redirect created at say
Murowa kimberlite pipes unless a formal name for the pipes or diatreme exists. The category can then be moved to the redirect.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 16:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I never said a mine is a volcano. According to
The Atlas of Canada "kimberlites are emplaced by a gaseous explosion. Within the magma, a large amount of dissolved gas is present under great pressure. A few kilometers below the surface, these gases expand as they approach the surface, causing explosions. Those explosions generate a very rapid acent of the magma through the mantle. The speed increases near the surface and can reach several hundred kilometres per hour. As the magma penetrates crustal rock, the pipe widens to a conical shape, and becomes a kimberlite pipe."
Furthermore, "as the kimberlite magma approches the earth's surface, an explosive reaction takes place between groundwater, the molten kimberlite, and dissolved gases in the kimberlite. An explosive volcanic eruption follows, resulting in the formation of a kimberlite pipe or vent." It isn't always necessary to create separate articles. Volcanoguy 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Be that as it may, part of the problem here is that this article probably does not belong in that category and that leaves the category empty and it should then be deleted. However if a redirect for the structure is created, then the category can be placed there and there would be no reason to then delete the category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
If you are interested in the consensus process, you can go to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes. Thus far, there has been solid consensus to classify kimberlite mines among diatremes out of sufficient geological interest for each including one or more kimberlite pipes. -
Gilgamesh (
talk) 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep There's a well-established precedent for classifying mines as diatremes (when relevant of course). Examples include
Sullivan Mine,
Diavik Diamond Mine,
Victor Diamond Mine,
Kelsey Lake Diamond Mine,
Mir mine,
Jagersfontein Mine. The fact that, say, Murowa kimberlite pipes is not sufficiently in use to warrant a redirect does not change the fact that it's natural to classify a place with this well-known geological structure as a volcano.
Callander Bay is another example where the categorization of a bay as a volcano is superficially odd but in fact makes perfect sense in terms of carrying relevant information for Wikipedia readers.
Pichpich (
talk) 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep as above. Yes, mines are not volcanoes, but categorisation doesn't have to be that literal. --
Avenue (
talk) 15:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Or alternatively rename it
Category:Volcanism of Zimbabwe. That's arguably more correct, but I don't have a strong preference either way. --
Avenue (
talk) 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I do not see the need of creating or renaming this to
Category:Volcanism of Zimbabwe. It is quite obvious that kimberlite pipes form the subterranean part of kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes. Volcanoguy 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep if consensus at WP:volcanoes is all product of volcanism are classified as volcanoes, then Murowa stays in the category and the category is not empty.
Babakathy (
talk) 07:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)reply
After discussion over at WP:volcanoes, I have also added another page to the cat.
Babakathy (
talk) 10:18, 6 September 2011 (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:20th century in Boston, Massachusetts
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:Delete. Category appears to have been created to match one on commons. Basically this category is so broad as to be useless. It can include anything that happened in the city over that 100 years.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is not the only category like this, there are several others, so this will test the waters and see where consensus is on this category structure.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom. Don't see such a category tree as necessary
Mayumashu (
talk) 16:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep contains 36 articles so the nominator's concerns seem rather weak.
Tim! (
talk) 20:26, 2 September 2011 (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:All-American City Award
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 11:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - The category contains only one mainspace page and can't be expanded further.
jonkerz♠ 07:00, 2 September 2011 (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:Speedy merge C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 20:42, 4 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom.
Occuli (
talk) 11:21, 3 September 2011 (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:Foreign-language newspapers published in Moldova
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/delete.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 18:50, 9 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The intermediate categories are otherwise unpopulated and unnecessary, as they do not form part of any alternative hierarchies.
Fayenatic(talk) 17:25, 2 September 2011 (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:Jewish film producers
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 18:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete I have no particular axe to grind; in fact, I'd be happy to see this kept. But we have virtually unpopulated category that would seem to fly in the face of the deletion of
Category:Jewish directorshere, and I would just like to see some consistency, either way. The directors cat, by the way, had been recreated a short while ago and I'd spent/wasted quite a bit of time adding it to bio articles before it was speedily deleted as a repost. This is why I raise this nom, now, so someone else doesn't invest time populating the category only to see it summarily deleted.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep Absolutely no rational reason to delete category. Whoever deleted "Jewish directors" had no reason to do it either. They claimed it was because it was a religious category, but "Jewish" in this case means ethnic descent. The categories are necessary because Jews have been a stateless people for a long time, so most of them will not fit under the "Israeli" categories. There are a lot of Jewish categories on Wikipedia, some of which have hundreds of people in them. If you are going to delete this one, then you can use the same argument to delete the rest of them. Here are some examples:
Delete. If the film directors category was deleted, I can't see a good justification to keep one for film producers.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete per the reasons offered. This is really a trivial intersection.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:32, 9 September 2011 (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:Neo-Venetian Gothic buildings
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 rename C2D.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 18:13, 4 September 2011 (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:Denver Area Choruses
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 14:36, 9 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename There are a couple of problems with the current name. The first is that it should use the term choir in order to match
Category:Choirs and
Category:American choirs. The second is that the category contains a chorus based in Boulder which is not in the Denver metropolitan area. The Colorado-wide scope seems like a good alternative since it would still contain only four articles.
Pichpich (
talk) 15:31, 2 September 2011 (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:Volcanoes of Zimbabwe
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: There are no volcanoes in Zimbabwe. There was vulcanism back in the Mesozoic and before, but no landforms exist that are volcanoes
Babakathy (
talk) 11:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete as an unused category. Note to Babakathy: given that the category is empty you can use the {{
db-empty}} template to skip the deletion process for categories such as this one.
jonkerz♠ 11:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC) Not empty anylonger.
jonkerz♠ 20:15, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. Restored
Murowa diamond mine to the category. All
kimberlite pipes (from which most diamonds are mined) are long-extinct
diatremes, which are a form of
volcano. As long as the pipe still exists as a structure, it remains classified a volcano even if it has been extinct for billions of years. This is a basic concept of
volcanology. If this category is removed, it will be restored. I have brought this matter to the attention of
Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes. -
Gilgamesh (
talk) 16:06, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep. Kimberlite pipes are volcanoes. Volcanoguy 16:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
A mine is not a volcano. If these kimberlite pipes are correctly classified as a volcano, then that article should be written or a redirect created at say
Murowa kimberlite pipes unless a formal name for the pipes or diatreme exists. The category can then be moved to the redirect.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 16:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I never said a mine is a volcano. According to
The Atlas of Canada "kimberlites are emplaced by a gaseous explosion. Within the magma, a large amount of dissolved gas is present under great pressure. A few kilometers below the surface, these gases expand as they approach the surface, causing explosions. Those explosions generate a very rapid acent of the magma through the mantle. The speed increases near the surface and can reach several hundred kilometres per hour. As the magma penetrates crustal rock, the pipe widens to a conical shape, and becomes a kimberlite pipe."
Furthermore, "as the kimberlite magma approches the earth's surface, an explosive reaction takes place between groundwater, the molten kimberlite, and dissolved gases in the kimberlite. An explosive volcanic eruption follows, resulting in the formation of a kimberlite pipe or vent." It isn't always necessary to create separate articles. Volcanoguy 18:50, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Be that as it may, part of the problem here is that this article probably does not belong in that category and that leaves the category empty and it should then be deleted. However if a redirect for the structure is created, then the category can be placed there and there would be no reason to then delete the category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
If you are interested in the consensus process, you can go to
Wikipedia:WikiProject Volcanoes. Thus far, there has been solid consensus to classify kimberlite mines among diatremes out of sufficient geological interest for each including one or more kimberlite pipes. -
Gilgamesh (
talk) 03:52, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep There's a well-established precedent for classifying mines as diatremes (when relevant of course). Examples include
Sullivan Mine,
Diavik Diamond Mine,
Victor Diamond Mine,
Kelsey Lake Diamond Mine,
Mir mine,
Jagersfontein Mine. The fact that, say, Murowa kimberlite pipes is not sufficiently in use to warrant a redirect does not change the fact that it's natural to classify a place with this well-known geological structure as a volcano.
Callander Bay is another example where the categorization of a bay as a volcano is superficially odd but in fact makes perfect sense in terms of carrying relevant information for Wikipedia readers.
Pichpich (
talk) 19:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep as above. Yes, mines are not volcanoes, but categorisation doesn't have to be that literal. --
Avenue (
talk) 15:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Or alternatively rename it
Category:Volcanism of Zimbabwe. That's arguably more correct, but I don't have a strong preference either way. --
Avenue (
talk) 15:51, 5 September 2011 (UTC)reply
I do not see the need of creating or renaming this to
Category:Volcanism of Zimbabwe. It is quite obvious that kimberlite pipes form the subterranean part of kimberlite maar-diatreme volcanoes. Volcanoguy 19:12, 5 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep if consensus at WP:volcanoes is all product of volcanism are classified as volcanoes, then Murowa stays in the category and the category is not empty.
Babakathy (
talk) 07:19, 5 September 2011 (UTC)reply
After discussion over at WP:volcanoes, I have also added another page to the cat.
Babakathy (
talk) 10:18, 6 September 2011 (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:20th century in Boston, Massachusetts
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:Delete. Category appears to have been created to match one on commons. Basically this category is so broad as to be useless. It can include anything that happened in the city over that 100 years.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 02:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Comment. This is not the only category like this, there are several others, so this will test the waters and see where consensus is on this category structure.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete as per nom. Don't see such a category tree as necessary
Mayumashu (
talk) 16:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Keep contains 36 articles so the nominator's concerns seem rather weak.
Tim! (
talk) 20:26, 2 September 2011 (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:All-American City Award
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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 11:24, 9 September 2011 (UTC)reply
Delete - The category contains only one mainspace page and can't be expanded further.
jonkerz♠ 07:00, 2 September 2011 (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.