- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:20th century BC in science to Category:20th century BC
- Propose merging Category:19th century BC in science to Category:19th century BC
- Propose merging Category:18th century BC in science to Category:18th century BC
- Propose merging Category:17th century BC in science to Category:17th century BC
- Propose merging Category:16th century BC in science to Category:16th century BC
- Propose merging Category:15th century BC in science to Category:15th century BC
- Propose merging Category:14th century BC in science to Category:14th century BC
- Propose merging Category:13th century BCE in science to Category:13th century BC
- Propose merging Category:12th century BCE in science to Category:12th century BC
- Propose merging Category:11th century BC in science to Category:11th century BC
- Propose merging Category:10th century BC in science to Category:10th century BC
- Propose merging Category:9th century BC in science to Category:9th century BC
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. These only contain lists of lunar and solar eclipses. The articles are not about observations, recordings or interpretations made at the time, which would be prehistoric science. Rather, they are calculations by modern science. Therefore these categories have no valid members. The earliest good category is Category:8th century BC in science which has the metalworking article Llyn Fawr Phase. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support—with no objection to demerging should articles appear that appropriately belong in those centuries.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
06:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, I should have said that they currently have no valid members. Deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if pages arise about science/technology in those times. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Lunar eclipses are events in the century and year they are calculated as occuring in, just as lunar eclipses in 2020 or the United States presidential election, 2016 are (forecast) future events in 2020 and 2016 respectively. And while a medieval lunar eclipse may have been observed and recorded by a medieval monk, the lists of medieval lunar eclipses with precise times etc depend on contemporary (20th or 21st century) calculations. Two early natural disasters are the Hekla 3 eruption in (perhaps) the 12th century BC and 4.2 kiloyear event in the 22nd century BC. And if kept I would propose renaming as below: Hugo999 ( talk) 10:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:13th century BCE in science to Category:13th century BC in science
- Propose renaming
Category:12th century BCE in science to
Category:12th century BC in science
- @ Hugo999: I agree the renamings if merger does not go ahead, but I do not understand your opposition. The pages will still be categorised within the centuries, which seems to cover your concern, and you have not explained why you oppose moving them out of "XX century in science". There are no categories for e.g. 20th century [BC] events; if there were, we should merge these there instead. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom, but also merge to
Category:Eclipses by century: all the content in the categories I sampled was a single item "Eclipses in XX century BCE" (which should be BC).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Peterkingiron: Correct, all the nominated categories contain only lists of eclipses. They are already categorised in Category:Lunar eclipses or Category:Solar eclipses as appropriate, so does Category:Eclipses need an additional sub-cat for century lists? It could be an addition to Category:Events by century, otherwise we'd have to go up two levels from there to Category:Centuries to navigate back down to these lists. However, Category:Lists of eclipses by century would probably be better, as this would also belong in Category:Lists by century. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:49, 14 May 2014 (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.
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I've nominated this one separately, as I could see some editors feeling that a Cannes film fest presidency is a more distinguished honour than simply to be a jurist -- meriting a keep !vote. However, I still believe WP:NOTDEFINING applies for these individuals. I would have no objection if anyone wishes to merge these two CfD nominations. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's always interesting to see the inherent conflict between deletionists and those who build the encyclopedia. I've gotten lots of thanks for this hard work I've done, and now this.... Being chosen to be a jury member is a very notable thing and a great honor, one of the greatest in the film world. Note that presidents of the jury are a subcategory of members of the jury, and not the other way around. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- — Note to closing admin: BullRangifer ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's always interesting getting a personal attack in place of a valid argument at Cfd. And when did I suggest that this category was not a sub-cat of the jurist one?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Easy does it. Don't take irritation for a personal attack. You have attacked my hard work, so naturally there is some irritation, and I'm relaying how other people have seen my work. They see its value and appreciate it.
- I never said that you suggested anything about the subcategory. I just provided that information for anyone considering a merge or deletion. It's good to know.
- BTW, the valid argument is in there, if you look for it. We have categories for award winners, so why not for those who actually judge them, IOW those who sit above them? -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's always interesting getting a personal attack in place of a valid argument at Cfd. And when did I suggest that this category was not a sub-cat of the jurist one?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I checked a sample of articles in this category and none mentioned this in the lead and sev eral didn't mention it at all. In other words, it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these people. WP:DNWAUC applies. For info: The list is a much better presentation of this information for all the usual reasons - e.g. it can include people that we don't (yet) have articles for (which is itself an indication that this "award" isn't of such importance that it is an exception to WP:OC#AWARD). DexDor ( talk) 04:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- DexDor, I'm not sure what you mean. This has nothing to do with any "award". Please provide some wikilinks to what you're talking about. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Being chosen to be a jury member is a very notable thing and a great honor" (see above). DexDor ( talk) 05:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- So you are somehow extrapolating from why someone has been chosen to sit on a jury as being equal to receiving a formal award? Isn't that a bit of a stretch not covered by WP:OC#AWARD? It seems like OR to me, IOW a misapplication of a guideline. The wording would need to be changed to justify such usage, and that hasn't been done. I suspect we could delete a huge number of helpful and well-accepted categories based on such thinking, but maybe they should be deleted anyway, since helpfulness no longer seems to be a reason for creating categories, at least according to what's happening here. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this manner of interpreting the use of categories. It's certainly different from what it used to be. Deletionism seems to be rampant, as if we were a paper encyclopedia lacking space. I've been here so long, and during that time some things change without one knowing it's happened, so much so that Wikipedia is becoming unrecognizable in some respects from when I started here in about 2003/2004. -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- 'Delete - An individual is chosen to be the President of the Jury at Cannes usually because they have a very distinguished film career, spanning many decades. It's therefore an honour to be the jury for that given festival. You could (and I certainly would) argue that Cannes is the most important festival in the calendar, and therefore the host is a defining asspect. However, compare this with people who've hosted the Academy Awards, and you'll find no such category for them. It would also begin a slippery slope of adding categories to everyone who's hosted a film festival, creating clutter. On a side note, I think this article and this article can be merged. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- a cl;assic performacne by performer category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Peterkingiron, I'm not sure what you mean. This has nothing to do with any "performance". Please provide some wikilinks to what you're talking about. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:OC#PERF. This fits well into the criterion. Being President of the Jury may well be evidcne of notability, but that does not mean we should have a category for it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- You do realize you're misapplying that, don't you? This is not a "performance" by a performer. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:30, 10 May 2014 (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.
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I do not believe that simply being on a film jury is WP:DEFINING for these individuals, even if it is Cannes. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's always interesting to see the inherent conflict between deletionists and those who build the encyclopedia. I've gotten lots of thanks for this hard work I've done, and now this.... Being chosen to be a jury member is a very notable thing and a great honor, one of the greatest in the film world. Note that presidents of the jury are members of this category, and not the other way around. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- — Note to closing admin: BullRangifer ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per my comments above for the presidents category. DexDor ( talk) 04:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as being non-defining to the individual. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- non defining, also contrary to WP:OC#PERF. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:45, 10 May 2014 (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.
- 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 by nominator (NAC). –
DexDor (
talk)
16:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Films set in prison to Category:Prison films
- Nominator's rationale:
A previous CfM was non-admin closed as "no rationale given," even though I think the nominator gave a perfectly clear, if brief, rationale. So let me restate this rationale at greater length: having read the detailed description on the nominated category, I still do not see a meaningful distinction from the target category. However, I would be equally open to a reverse merge, if others prefer to retain the "films set in X" structure. I just don't think we should have two categories that are indeed redundant, as
User:Liz pointed out in her 2012 CfM, which in my opinion was closed prematurely.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, my CfM for these two categories was in August 2013 (
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 4#Category:Films set in prison).
Liz
Read!
Talk!
12:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I didn't see that one. In that case, I'm not interested in revisiting so soon, even though I still think you were quite right in wishing to merge. Withdrawn by nominator. 13:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Withdrawal by nom was this [1] edit. DexDor ( talk) 16:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I didn't see that one. In that case, I'm not interested in revisiting so soon, even though I still think you were quite right in wishing to merge. Withdrawn by nominator. 13:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, my CfM for these two categories was in August 2013 (
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 4#Category:Films set in prison).
Liz
Read!
Talk!
12:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment the nominator made a withdrawal ; can someone enclose this in the brightly colored div to indicate that? -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 04:35, 8 May 2014 (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.
- 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. A category with only one member is not particularly useful for navigation, so it looks to me as if merger to all parents, or widening the scope, would be desirable. Therefore, this closure is no bar to making a further proposal shortly. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Most do not have an article, and the group can never be larger than 7 anyways.
Debresser (
talk)
17:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Hi, Debresser, How about changing the name of the category to Category:Rebbetzins of Chabad, Category:Rebbetzins of Chabad-Lubavitch, Category:Chabad rebbetzins or Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rebbetzins, as corresponding or equivalent to Category:Rebbes of Chabad (as opposed to Category:Rebbes of Lubavitch) or Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis? Would Chana Schneerson & Menucha Rochel Slonim (& perhaps others) fit one of those descriptions? -- -- -- 23:19, 5 May 2014 (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.
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Strange name. Propose renaming Category:Rivers on Vancouver Island to Category:Rivers of Vancouver Island.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- cmt This Category:Rivers on Vancouver Island is one of two river categories having 'on'. The other being Category:Rivers on the Isle of Wight. Hmains ( talk) 02:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've proposed it for renaming above.♦
Dr. Blofeld
09:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Above" meaning May 5. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've proposed it for renaming above.♦
Dr. Blofeld
09:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support. The use of "on" doesn't seem strange to me (maybe it's ENGVAR), but the other categories are "of" (not "in") so this/these should be "of" as well. DexDor ( talk) 04:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- rename per nom WP uses 'on' for manmade structures atop the land and 'of' for natural features. Hmains ( talk) 03:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: category was not linked above, nor tagged. Now fixed. Closers are recommended to leave a couple of additional days. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:53, 6 May 2014 (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.
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Taxa with documented soft tissue fossils (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Dinosaur taxa with documented soft tissue fossils
- Propose deleting Category:Bird taxa with documented soft tissue fossils
- Propose deleting
Category:Taxa with documented soft tissue fossils (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Species should be categorized by the characteristics of the species (e.g. whether the species is extinct or not), rather than by characteristics of the evidence for that species (e.g. we don't put the Thylacine article in a category for extinct animals that were photographed). See related CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_11#Category:Taxa_with_documented_paleopathologies. Note: the use of the word "documented" in a category name is very unusual in enwiki.
- Listification or a rename (e.g. to "Prehistoric taxa with soft tissue") could be considered. DexDor ( talk) 14:53, 4 May 2014 (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.
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Association football captains to Category:Leadership positions in sports
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Following this decision from April 23, only a subcat of lists is left, and this should be moved up to one parent (it is already within a sub-cat of the other). – Fayenatic L ondon 13:22, 4 May 2014 (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.
- 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 all, using "sport" in non-US categories.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
07:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history by country to Category:History of sports by country
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Afghanistan to Category:History of sports in Afghanistan
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Antigua and Barbuda to Category:History of sports in Antigua and Barbuda
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Australia to Category:History of sports in Australia
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Canada to Category:History of sports in Canada
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of East Germany to Category:History of sports in East Germany
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of England to Category:History of sports in England
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of India to Category:History of sports in India
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Montenegro to Category:History of sports in Montenegro
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of New Zealand to Category:History of sports in New Zealand
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Scotland to Category:History of sports in Scotland
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Serbia to Category:History of sports in Serbia
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of the United Kingdom to Category:History of sports in the United Kingdom
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of the United States to Category:History of sports in the United States
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Wales to Category:History of sports in Wales
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history by team to Category:History of sports by team
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of the United States by team to Category:History of sports in the United States by team
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent Category:History of sports and sibling Category:History of sports by sport. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: There are also Category:African-American sports history and Category:Jewish-American sports history, but I have not nominated them to keep this simple. They should probably stay as they are anyway, to match their parents e.g. Category:African-American cultural history. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I would prefer to keep these as thay are, for the simple reason that some varieties of English use "sport" and some "sports". By saying "sports history", it sounds reasonably like a genitive, and so clears up some confusion. MacRusgail 15:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep -- the present names are unobjectionable and briefer, which is usually good for categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Question to MacRusgail and Peterkingiron: would you then support renaming of the parent Category:History of sports and sibling Category:History of sports by sport, to "sports history"? The main article is History of sport. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - "History of sports by sport" is a bit of a mouthful, but I suppose it does what it says. The alternative would be "sports history by sport".-
MacRùsgail (
talk)
14:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- It would need to be "sports' history", would it not? Category:History of individual sports, would be better than sports by sport. However, I do not feel very strongly on this. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - "History of sports by sport" is a bit of a mouthful, but I suppose it does what it says. The alternative would be "sports history by sport".-
MacRùsgail (
talk)
14:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support using "history of sport" for non-American categories and "history of sports" for American categories (per construction at Category:Sports by country. SFB 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rename as per Sillyfolkboy, just sounds more natural to me. Tim! ( talk) 18:49, 1 August 2014 (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.
- 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. -- BDD ( talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Appears this was missed out from a large nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_23#Category:Fictional_characters_by_origin Tim! ( talk) 07:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, that CFD has been largely undone, albeit with mostly different category names, see Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - I can think of quite a few, and it is a useful categorisation._ MacRùsgail ( talk) 15:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Useful category; there are dozens of "category:ethnicity medium characters" existing. -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - per above arguments, and utility appears to be a good reason to keep satusuro 07:48, 1 June 2014 (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.
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:34, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:20th century BC in science to Category:20th century BC
- Propose merging Category:19th century BC in science to Category:19th century BC
- Propose merging Category:18th century BC in science to Category:18th century BC
- Propose merging Category:17th century BC in science to Category:17th century BC
- Propose merging Category:16th century BC in science to Category:16th century BC
- Propose merging Category:15th century BC in science to Category:15th century BC
- Propose merging Category:14th century BC in science to Category:14th century BC
- Propose merging Category:13th century BCE in science to Category:13th century BC
- Propose merging Category:12th century BCE in science to Category:12th century BC
- Propose merging Category:11th century BC in science to Category:11th century BC
- Propose merging Category:10th century BC in science to Category:10th century BC
- Propose merging Category:9th century BC in science to Category:9th century BC
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. These only contain lists of lunar and solar eclipses. The articles are not about observations, recordings or interpretations made at the time, which would be prehistoric science. Rather, they are calculations by modern science. Therefore these categories have no valid members. The earliest good category is Category:8th century BC in science which has the metalworking article Llyn Fawr Phase. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support—with no objection to demerging should articles appear that appropriately belong in those centuries.
Beeswaxcandle (
talk)
06:53, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Agreed, I should have said that they currently have no valid members. Deletion should be without prejudice to re-creation if pages arise about science/technology in those times. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose. Lunar eclipses are events in the century and year they are calculated as occuring in, just as lunar eclipses in 2020 or the United States presidential election, 2016 are (forecast) future events in 2020 and 2016 respectively. And while a medieval lunar eclipse may have been observed and recorded by a medieval monk, the lists of medieval lunar eclipses with precise times etc depend on contemporary (20th or 21st century) calculations. Two early natural disasters are the Hekla 3 eruption in (perhaps) the 12th century BC and 4.2 kiloyear event in the 22nd century BC. And if kept I would propose renaming as below: Hugo999 ( talk) 10:23, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:13th century BCE in science to Category:13th century BC in science
- Propose renaming
Category:12th century BCE in science to
Category:12th century BC in science
- @ Hugo999: I agree the renamings if merger does not go ahead, but I do not understand your opposition. The pages will still be categorised within the centuries, which seems to cover your concern, and you have not explained why you oppose moving them out of "XX century in science". There are no categories for e.g. 20th century [BC] events; if there were, we should merge these there instead. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Merge all per nom, but also merge to
Category:Eclipses by century: all the content in the categories I sampled was a single item "Eclipses in XX century BCE" (which should be BC).
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:01, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Peterkingiron: Correct, all the nominated categories contain only lists of eclipses. They are already categorised in Category:Lunar eclipses or Category:Solar eclipses as appropriate, so does Category:Eclipses need an additional sub-cat for century lists? It could be an addition to Category:Events by century, otherwise we'd have to go up two levels from there to Category:Centuries to navigate back down to these lists. However, Category:Lists of eclipses by century would probably be better, as this would also belong in Category:Lists by century. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:49, 14 May 2014 (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.
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I've nominated this one separately, as I could see some editors feeling that a Cannes film fest presidency is a more distinguished honour than simply to be a jurist -- meriting a keep !vote. However, I still believe WP:NOTDEFINING applies for these individuals. I would have no objection if anyone wishes to merge these two CfD nominations. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's always interesting to see the inherent conflict between deletionists and those who build the encyclopedia. I've gotten lots of thanks for this hard work I've done, and now this.... Being chosen to be a jury member is a very notable thing and a great honor, one of the greatest in the film world. Note that presidents of the jury are a subcategory of members of the jury, and not the other way around. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- — Note to closing admin: BullRangifer ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. . Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's always interesting getting a personal attack in place of a valid argument at Cfd. And when did I suggest that this category was not a sub-cat of the jurist one?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Easy does it. Don't take irritation for a personal attack. You have attacked my hard work, so naturally there is some irritation, and I'm relaying how other people have seen my work. They see its value and appreciate it.
- I never said that you suggested anything about the subcategory. I just provided that information for anyone considering a merge or deletion. It's good to know.
- BTW, the valid argument is in there, if you look for it. We have categories for award winners, so why not for those who actually judge them, IOW those who sit above them? -- Brangifer ( talk) 22:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's always interesting getting a personal attack in place of a valid argument at Cfd. And when did I suggest that this category was not a sub-cat of the jurist one?
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
21:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete. I checked a sample of articles in this category and none mentioned this in the lead and sev eral didn't mention it at all. In other words, it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of these people. WP:DNWAUC applies. For info: The list is a much better presentation of this information for all the usual reasons - e.g. it can include people that we don't (yet) have articles for (which is itself an indication that this "award" isn't of such importance that it is an exception to WP:OC#AWARD). DexDor ( talk) 04:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- DexDor, I'm not sure what you mean. This has nothing to do with any "award". Please provide some wikilinks to what you're talking about. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Being chosen to be a jury member is a very notable thing and a great honor" (see above). DexDor ( talk) 05:17, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- So you are somehow extrapolating from why someone has been chosen to sit on a jury as being equal to receiving a formal award? Isn't that a bit of a stretch not covered by WP:OC#AWARD? It seems like OR to me, IOW a misapplication of a guideline. The wording would need to be changed to justify such usage, and that hasn't been done. I suspect we could delete a huge number of helpful and well-accepted categories based on such thinking, but maybe they should be deleted anyway, since helpfulness no longer seems to be a reason for creating categories, at least according to what's happening here. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this manner of interpreting the use of categories. It's certainly different from what it used to be. Deletionism seems to be rampant, as if we were a paper encyclopedia lacking space. I've been here so long, and during that time some things change without one knowing it's happened, so much so that Wikipedia is becoming unrecognizable in some respects from when I started here in about 2003/2004. -- Brangifer ( talk) 07:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- 'Delete - An individual is chosen to be the President of the Jury at Cannes usually because they have a very distinguished film career, spanning many decades. It's therefore an honour to be the jury for that given festival. You could (and I certainly would) argue that Cannes is the most important festival in the calendar, and therefore the host is a defining asspect. However, compare this with people who've hosted the Academy Awards, and you'll find no such category for them. It would also begin a slippery slope of adding categories to everyone who's hosted a film festival, creating clutter. On a side note, I think this article and this article can be merged. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:43, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- a cl;assic performacne by performer category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Peterkingiron, I'm not sure what you mean. This has nothing to do with any "performance". Please provide some wikilinks to what you're talking about. -- Brangifer ( talk) 05:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
- See WP:OC#PERF. This fits well into the criterion. Being President of the Jury may well be evidcne of notability, but that does not mean we should have a category for it. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:44, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- You do realize you're misapplying that, don't you? This is not a "performance" by a performer. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:30, 10 May 2014 (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.
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: I do not believe that simply being on a film jury is WP:DEFINING for these individuals, even if it is Cannes. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:11, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- It's always interesting to see the inherent conflict between deletionists and those who build the encyclopedia. I've gotten lots of thanks for this hard work I've done, and now this.... Being chosen to be a jury member is a very notable thing and a great honor, one of the greatest in the film world. Note that presidents of the jury are members of this category, and not the other way around. -- Brangifer ( talk) 20:41, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- — Note to closing admin: BullRangifer ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:14, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and per my comments above for the presidents category. DexDor ( talk) 04:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete as being non-defining to the individual. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 17:37, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Delete -- non defining, also contrary to WP:OC#PERF. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:45, 10 May 2014 (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.
- 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 by nominator (NAC). –
DexDor (
talk)
16:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Films set in prison to Category:Prison films
- Nominator's rationale:
A previous CfM was non-admin closed as "no rationale given," even though I think the nominator gave a perfectly clear, if brief, rationale. So let me restate this rationale at greater length: having read the detailed description on the nominated category, I still do not see a meaningful distinction from the target category. However, I would be equally open to a reverse merge, if others prefer to retain the "films set in X" structure. I just don't think we should have two categories that are indeed redundant, as
User:Liz pointed out in her 2012 CfM, which in my opinion was closed prematurely.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:06, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, my CfM for these two categories was in August 2013 (
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 4#Category:Films set in prison).
Liz
Read!
Talk!
12:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I didn't see that one. In that case, I'm not interested in revisiting so soon, even though I still think you were quite right in wishing to merge. Withdrawn by nominator. 13:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: Withdrawal by nom was this [1] edit. DexDor ( talk) 16:21, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I didn't see that one. In that case, I'm not interested in revisiting so soon, even though I still think you were quite right in wishing to merge. Withdrawn by nominator. 13:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Actually, my CfM for these two categories was in August 2013 (
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 4#Category:Films set in prison).
Liz
Read!
Talk!
12:06, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment the nominator made a withdrawal ; can someone enclose this in the brightly colored div to indicate that? -- 65.94.171.206 ( talk) 04:35, 8 May 2014 (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.
- 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. A category with only one member is not particularly useful for navigation, so it looks to me as if merger to all parents, or widening the scope, would be desirable. Therefore, this closure is no bar to making a further proposal shortly. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:32, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Most do not have an article, and the group can never be larger than 7 anyways.
Debresser (
talk)
17:59, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Hi, Debresser, How about changing the name of the category to Category:Rebbetzins of Chabad, Category:Rebbetzins of Chabad-Lubavitch, Category:Chabad rebbetzins or Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rebbetzins, as corresponding or equivalent to Category:Rebbes of Chabad (as opposed to Category:Rebbes of Lubavitch) or Category:Chabad-Lubavitch rabbis? Would Chana Schneerson & Menucha Rochel Slonim (& perhaps others) fit one of those descriptions? -- -- -- 23:19, 5 May 2014 (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.
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Strange name. Propose renaming Category:Rivers on Vancouver Island to Category:Rivers of Vancouver Island.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:22, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- cmt This Category:Rivers on Vancouver Island is one of two river categories having 'on'. The other being Category:Rivers on the Isle of Wight. Hmains ( talk) 02:54, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've proposed it for renaming above.♦
Dr. Blofeld
09:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- "Above" meaning May 5. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- I've proposed it for renaming above.♦
Dr. Blofeld
09:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support. The use of "on" doesn't seem strange to me (maybe it's ENGVAR), but the other categories are "of" (not "in") so this/these should be "of" as well. DexDor ( talk) 04:39, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
- rename per nom WP uses 'on' for manmade structures atop the land and 'of' for natural features. Hmains ( talk) 03:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: category was not linked above, nor tagged. Now fixed. Closers are recommended to leave a couple of additional days. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:53, 6 May 2014 (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.
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:Taxa with documented soft tissue fossils (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Dinosaur taxa with documented soft tissue fossils
- Propose deleting Category:Bird taxa with documented soft tissue fossils
- Propose deleting
Category:Taxa with documented soft tissue fossils (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Species should be categorized by the characteristics of the species (e.g. whether the species is extinct or not), rather than by characteristics of the evidence for that species (e.g. we don't put the Thylacine article in a category for extinct animals that were photographed). See related CFD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_11#Category:Taxa_with_documented_paleopathologies. Note: the use of the word "documented" in a category name is very unusual in enwiki.
- Listification or a rename (e.g. to "Prehistoric taxa with soft tissue") could be considered. DexDor ( talk) 14:53, 4 May 2014 (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.
- 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.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Association football captains to Category:Leadership positions in sports
- Nominator's rationale: Merge. Following this decision from April 23, only a subcat of lists is left, and this should be moved up to one parent (it is already within a sub-cat of the other). – Fayenatic L ondon 13:22, 4 May 2014 (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.
- 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 all, using "sport" in non-US categories.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu
07:55, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history by country to Category:History of sports by country
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Afghanistan to Category:History of sports in Afghanistan
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Antigua and Barbuda to Category:History of sports in Antigua and Barbuda
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Australia to Category:History of sports in Australia
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Canada to Category:History of sports in Canada
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of East Germany to Category:History of sports in East Germany
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of England to Category:History of sports in England
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of India to Category:History of sports in India
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Montenegro to Category:History of sports in Montenegro
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of New Zealand to Category:History of sports in New Zealand
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Scotland to Category:History of sports in Scotland
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Serbia to Category:History of sports in Serbia
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of the United Kingdom to Category:History of sports in the United Kingdom
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of the United States to Category:History of sports in the United States
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of Wales to Category:History of sports in Wales
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history by team to Category:History of sports by team
- Propose renaming Category:Sports history of the United States by team to Category:History of sports in the United States by team
- Nominator's rationale: Rename to match parent Category:History of sports and sibling Category:History of sports by sport. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:12, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Note: There are also Category:African-American sports history and Category:Jewish-American sports history, but I have not nominated them to keep this simple. They should probably stay as they are anyway, to match their parents e.g. Category:African-American cultural history. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - I would prefer to keep these as thay are, for the simple reason that some varieties of English use "sport" and some "sports". By saying "sports history", it sounds reasonably like a genitive, and so clears up some confusion. MacRusgail 15:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Keep -- the present names are unobjectionable and briefer, which is usually good for categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
- Question to MacRusgail and Peterkingiron: would you then support renaming of the parent Category:History of sports and sibling Category:History of sports by sport, to "sports history"? The main article is History of sport. – Fayenatic L ondon 16:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - "History of sports by sport" is a bit of a mouthful, but I suppose it does what it says. The alternative would be "sports history by sport".-
MacRùsgail (
talk)
14:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- It would need to be "sports' history", would it not? Category:History of individual sports, would be better than sports by sport. However, I do not feel very strongly on this. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
- Comment - "History of sports by sport" is a bit of a mouthful, but I suppose it does what it says. The alternative would be "sports history by sport".-
MacRùsgail (
talk)
14:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
- Support using "history of sport" for non-American categories and "history of sports" for American categories (per construction at Category:Sports by country. SFB 21:18, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
- Rename as per Sillyfolkboy, just sounds more natural to me. Tim! ( talk) 18:49, 1 August 2014 (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.
- 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. -- BDD ( talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Appears this was missed out from a large nomination at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_September_23#Category:Fictional_characters_by_origin Tim! ( talk) 07:47, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose, that CFD has been largely undone, albeit with mostly different category names, see Category:Fictional characters by ethnicity or nationality. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:29, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - I can think of quite a few, and it is a useful categorisation._ MacRùsgail ( talk) 15:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - Useful category; there are dozens of "category:ethnicity medium characters" existing. -- 173.51.221.24 ( talk) 17:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
- Oppose - per above arguments, and utility appears to be a good reason to keep satusuro 07:48, 1 June 2014 (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.