Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3

Category:Roman amphitheaters in North Africa

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. You may want to try again in a couple of years.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The general structure of everything is under "Africa" not "North Africa". Logically, for a parallel, look at Category:Roman amphitheatres in Spain. This would fall under Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in North Africa and then Category:Buildings and structures in North Africa and then Category:Visitor attractions in North Africa and a bunch of others. There is a category structure under Africa overall rather than North Africa. - Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Language creators

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Constructed language creators.
Nominator's rationale: Per main article at List of language inventors and the subcat Category:inventors of writing systems (rather than Category:Creators of writing systems) and parent category Category:Inventors — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support per current article and parents. No comment on the benefits of creator vs. inventor. SFB 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The current term is 'constructed language', not 'invented language'. The latter was formerly used but is not current. I think it's better to use the term that matches current usage. However, I think there's no harm to having a redirect from one to the other, so that both work. -- Sai  ¿? ✍ 17:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2015 (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:Rakkah Family

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 per the consensus that WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT apply here as does WP:OTHER. Note that the inter-wiki links to other language articles carry no weight in English Wikipedia discussions.  Philg88 ♦ talk 09:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT (with Category:Libyan rabbis). The Libyan rabbis cat is just beginning to be expanded, but the Rakkah cat has no potential for expansion. Aside from the two Adadi articles, none of these people are notable enough or have adequate sourcing for an article on the English Wikipedia. I do not understand the addition of the family tree at all. Family trees are not even done on Judaism topic pages on the English Wikipedia, other than for Hasidic dynasties. Yoninah ( talk) 22:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep There are nine linked entries in the family tree. Admittedly, many of them are red links, but there appears to be sentiment to create these articles. The category creatory has added entries to the family tree that are not yet actually included in the category, but that's a clerical issue. And clearly, the family tree itself does not belong on the category page. (Perhaps a main page of Rakkah family or Rakkah (Hasidic dynasty) would be an appropriate place to include such a family tree?) WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Both policies cited are applicable here. It's very small subset of an existing (sufficient) category. The family tree is a nice image, so perhaps it could be used in the 3 articles? In any case, the 3 articles can naturally link to each (when explaining the family) and be linked in See also. Kudos to whoever is writing these rabbinic biography articles. HG | Talk 01:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 17:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 17:58, 22 April 2015 (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:Men and the arts

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) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a container category for two totally unrelated child categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (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:Kings of Arts

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) 00:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what this category is supposed to be, but I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia doesn't need it. DexDor ( talk) 20:09, 3 February 2015 (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:Amateur radio repeater sites

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: listify and delete. I have converted the current contents, and some comments from below, to List of amateur radio repeater sites. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a classic example of creating a list using a category. The current contents include towers (e.g. CN Tower and Bremen TV tower), hills/mountains (e.g. Rigi, Gehrenberg and Melibokus) and other things (e.g. Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences) for which being a repeater station is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. In fact, many/most of these articles don't even mention the repeater - hence I don't propose to listify. DexDor ( talk) 19:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. All the articles in the category are the sites of amateur radio repeaters. The reason why this is not mentioned in some articles is simply that I used information from German Wikipedia where the the articles in question are more developed and do mention the repeater site. Even if we remove those articles, many articles will still be left so I don't see a reason to delete the entire category. BTW have you notified the radio/comms community (of which I'm not one)? Hope that helps. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am a member of WikiProject Radio Stations, and I don't see being an amateur radio transmitter or repeater as being a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the sites. Being an amateur radio transmission site is not something that would get a geographic location or a structure into Wikipedia in and of itself, if no other substantive claim of notability could be made besides that — everything in this category is notable for something other than this, and being an "amateur radio repeater site" is just WP:TRIVIA that's irrelevant to its encyclopedic notability. But we don't categorize on every individual characteristic that a topic happens to possess — we categorize on WP:DEFINING, and only WP:DEFINING, characteristics of the topic. Delete per nom (listifying per SFB also acceptable.) Bearcat ( talk) 22:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Listify Not defining of the topic, but surely a citable fact that we can build a useful list from what's in the category. I do have to say that I think no categories should be placed on a page where there is no coverage of that fact (regardless of it's importance). We should be working on articles first. Categories are, in a way, just window dressing for the meat of articles. SFB 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete category per nom, neutral on listifying. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:55, 3 April 2015 (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:Bibliographies

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: unclear distinction Fgnievinski ( talk) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (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:Plagiarism controversies involving Led Zeppelin

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 and merge contents to Category:Plagiarism controversies and/or Category:Led Zeppelin, as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We should not have a category that depicts something negative towards a group of living persons without good reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 3 February 2015 (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:Turtles as pets

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 per the previous discussion and the discussion before that. Bencherlite Talk 11:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The "... as pets" categories are for articles about animals as pets (e.g. see Category:Cats as pets) not for articles about species (e.g. Striped mud turtle). We don't (currently) have any articles about turtles as pets (note: no objection to this category being created in the future if we do have a few suitable articles). See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_26#Category:Pet_Turtles (note: that category was created by the same user who is now blocked). DexDor ( talk) 07:41, 3 February 2015 (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:Imperial Chinese dynasties

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Dynasties in Chinese history. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category contains all Chinese dynasties, including the pre-imperial Three Dynasties (Xia, Shang, and Zhou). The name should be changed to match the scope. Zanhe ( talk) 05:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
if true, consider renaming Category:People by Imperial Chinese dynasty as well. Hmains ( talk) 06:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
In the context of Chinese history, dynasties always refer to the country or the period of rule, not any political or business family. If we want to eliminate any possible confusion, another alternative is Category:Dynasties in Chinese history, matching the article Dynasties in Chinese history. - Zanhe ( talk) 20:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply
That doesn't entirely resolve my stated issue, but I'm happy to support a rename based upon the current article name. SFB 21:51, 6 February 2015 (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:American ethnic media

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, the merge having already been performed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: duplicate of Category:Ethnic media in the United States. Now an empty category, as I've moved the 6-ish pages to the latter category. Forbes72 ( talk) 03:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: The category isn't CFD-tagged. I've CSD-tagged it as empty. DexDor ( talk) 07:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I have re-tagged it with a link to this discussion. I don't think it's eligible for speedy, as it was emptied out of process, and neither category is newly-created. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For the record, this category actually existed before Category:Ethnic media in the United States did — what happened is that Category:American ethnic media existed with the individual articles in it but no subcategories, and somebody else created Category:Ethnic media in the United States at a later date as a container for the subcategories without noticing that "American ethnic media" already existed. We definitely don't need both, but strictly speaking the target was the duplicate and this was the already existing category, not vice versa. But there's room for some debate here about which wording should be retained and which one should be categoryredirected, so we should let the discussion run for an appropriate length of time rather than speedying it either way. I'd personally prefer to retain Category:Ethnic media in the United States as the category, as it's more in keeping with our naming conventions for the media tree — we use Category:Radio stations in the United States rather than "American radio stations", Category:Television stations in the United States rather than "American television stations", Category:Newspapers published in the United States rather than "American newspapers", and on and so forth — so I support the merger as proposed and performed. That said, I still encourage the nominator to be more careful in the future not to empty categories out of process. Bearcat ( talk) 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support "American" isn't an ethnicity, and the way this is formulated, it could be construed to mean "American" media outside of the United States. -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 05:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as dup; also "ethnic media" is a constrained concept do media have ethnicities (are we going down the path that there are Jewish companies, African-American companies, etc.) and how do we characterize a company as such (do they discriminate in favor of their ethnicity, is that what we are supposed to infer?) And then we have the problem of what is an "ethnicity"; in the United States, the census bureau only recognizes one: Latino/Hispanic. According to the US censue bureau: African-Americans are a race, not an ethnicity. Jewish-Americans are not separately counted (religions are not inquired about in the census). Italians, Germans, English, Scots-Irish, and the other European-Americans are not ethnicities either - so how would WP try to figure out what "ethnicity" a corporation is when we cannot find out what "ethnicity" owns it or constitutes its target market. Seems like racial profiling, which we ought not do. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- It may be worth leaving the present category as a category redirect, to prevent inadvertent re-creation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:15, 8 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_3&oldid=1138408574"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3

Category:Roman amphitheaters in North Africa

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. You may want to try again in a couple of years.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 10:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The general structure of everything is under "Africa" not "North Africa". Logically, for a parallel, look at Category:Roman amphitheatres in Spain. This would fall under Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in North Africa and then Category:Buildings and structures in North Africa and then Category:Visitor attractions in North Africa and a bunch of others. There is a category structure under Africa overall rather than North Africa. - Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Language creators

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Constructed language creators.
Nominator's rationale: Per main article at List of language inventors and the subcat Category:inventors of writing systems (rather than Category:Creators of writing systems) and parent category Category:Inventors — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 10:06, 9 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support per current article and parents. No comment on the benefits of creator vs. inventor. SFB 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose The current term is 'constructed language', not 'invented language'. The latter was formerly used but is not current. I think it's better to use the term that matches current usage. However, I think there's no harm to having a redirect from one to the other, so that both work. -- Sai  ¿? ✍ 17:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:55, 3 February 2015 (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:Rakkah Family

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 per the consensus that WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT apply here as does WP:OTHER. Note that the inter-wiki links to other language articles carry no weight in English Wikipedia discussions.  Philg88 ♦ talk 09:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT (with Category:Libyan rabbis). The Libyan rabbis cat is just beginning to be expanded, but the Rakkah cat has no potential for expansion. Aside from the two Adadi articles, none of these people are notable enough or have adequate sourcing for an article on the English Wikipedia. I do not understand the addition of the family tree at all. Family trees are not even done on Judaism topic pages on the English Wikipedia, other than for Hasidic dynasties. Yoninah ( talk) 22:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep There are nine linked entries in the family tree. Admittedly, many of them are red links, but there appears to be sentiment to create these articles. The category creatory has added entries to the family tree that are not yet actually included in the category, but that's a clerical issue. And clearly, the family tree itself does not belong on the category page. (Perhaps a main page of Rakkah family or Rakkah (Hasidic dynasty) would be an appropriate place to include such a family tree?) WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Both policies cited are applicable here. It's very small subset of an existing (sufficient) category. The family tree is a nice image, so perhaps it could be used in the 3 articles? In any case, the 3 articles can naturally link to each (when explaining the family) and be linked in See also. Kudos to whoever is writing these rabbinic biography articles. HG | Talk 01:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 17:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/ talk| contribs\ 17:58, 22 April 2015 (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:Men and the arts

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) 00:25, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a container category for two totally unrelated child categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (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:Kings of Arts

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) 00:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what this category is supposed to be, but I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia doesn't need it. DexDor ( talk) 20:09, 3 February 2015 (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:Amateur radio repeater sites

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: listify and delete. I have converted the current contents, and some comments from below, to List of amateur radio repeater sites. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a classic example of creating a list using a category. The current contents include towers (e.g. CN Tower and Bremen TV tower), hills/mountains (e.g. Rigi, Gehrenberg and Melibokus) and other things (e.g. Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences) for which being a repeater station is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. In fact, many/most of these articles don't even mention the repeater - hence I don't propose to listify. DexDor ( talk) 19:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. All the articles in the category are the sites of amateur radio repeaters. The reason why this is not mentioned in some articles is simply that I used information from German Wikipedia where the the articles in question are more developed and do mention the repeater site. Even if we remove those articles, many articles will still be left so I don't see a reason to delete the entire category. BTW have you notified the radio/comms community (of which I'm not one)? Hope that helps. -- Bermicourt ( talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am a member of WikiProject Radio Stations, and I don't see being an amateur radio transmitter or repeater as being a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the sites. Being an amateur radio transmission site is not something that would get a geographic location or a structure into Wikipedia in and of itself, if no other substantive claim of notability could be made besides that — everything in this category is notable for something other than this, and being an "amateur radio repeater site" is just WP:TRIVIA that's irrelevant to its encyclopedic notability. But we don't categorize on every individual characteristic that a topic happens to possess — we categorize on WP:DEFINING, and only WP:DEFINING, characteristics of the topic. Delete per nom (listifying per SFB also acceptable.) Bearcat ( talk) 22:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Listify Not defining of the topic, but surely a citable fact that we can build a useful list from what's in the category. I do have to say that I think no categories should be placed on a page where there is no coverage of that fact (regardless of it's importance). We should be working on articles first. Categories are, in a way, just window dressing for the meat of articles. SFB 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete category per nom, neutral on listifying. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:55, 3 April 2015 (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:Bibliographies

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:43, 23 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: unclear distinction Fgnievinski ( talk) 13:49, 3 February 2015 (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:Plagiarism controversies involving Led Zeppelin

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 and merge contents to Category:Plagiarism controversies and/or Category:Led Zeppelin, as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We should not have a category that depicts something negative towards a group of living persons without good reason. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:47, 3 February 2015 (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:Turtles as pets

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 per the previous discussion and the discussion before that. Bencherlite Talk 11:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The "... as pets" categories are for articles about animals as pets (e.g. see Category:Cats as pets) not for articles about species (e.g. Striped mud turtle). We don't (currently) have any articles about turtles as pets (note: no objection to this category being created in the future if we do have a few suitable articles). See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_26#Category:Pet_Turtles (note: that category was created by the same user who is now blocked). DexDor ( talk) 07:41, 3 February 2015 (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:Imperial Chinese dynasties

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Dynasties in Chinese history. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category contains all Chinese dynasties, including the pre-imperial Three Dynasties (Xia, Shang, and Zhou). The name should be changed to match the scope. Zanhe ( talk) 05:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
if true, consider renaming Category:People by Imperial Chinese dynasty as well. Hmains ( talk) 06:05, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
In the context of Chinese history, dynasties always refer to the country or the period of rule, not any political or business family. If we want to eliminate any possible confusion, another alternative is Category:Dynasties in Chinese history, matching the article Dynasties in Chinese history. - Zanhe ( talk) 20:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply
That doesn't entirely resolve my stated issue, but I'm happy to support a rename based upon the current article name. SFB 21:51, 6 February 2015 (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:American ethnic media

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, the merge having already been performed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: duplicate of Category:Ethnic media in the United States. Now an empty category, as I've moved the 6-ish pages to the latter category. Forbes72 ( talk) 03:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: The category isn't CFD-tagged. I've CSD-tagged it as empty. DexDor ( talk) 07:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I have re-tagged it with a link to this discussion. I don't think it's eligible for speedy, as it was emptied out of process, and neither category is newly-created. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For the record, this category actually existed before Category:Ethnic media in the United States did — what happened is that Category:American ethnic media existed with the individual articles in it but no subcategories, and somebody else created Category:Ethnic media in the United States at a later date as a container for the subcategories without noticing that "American ethnic media" already existed. We definitely don't need both, but strictly speaking the target was the duplicate and this was the already existing category, not vice versa. But there's room for some debate here about which wording should be retained and which one should be categoryredirected, so we should let the discussion run for an appropriate length of time rather than speedying it either way. I'd personally prefer to retain Category:Ethnic media in the United States as the category, as it's more in keeping with our naming conventions for the media tree — we use Category:Radio stations in the United States rather than "American radio stations", Category:Television stations in the United States rather than "American television stations", Category:Newspapers published in the United States rather than "American newspapers", and on and so forth — so I support the merger as proposed and performed. That said, I still encourage the nominator to be more careful in the future not to empty categories out of process. Bearcat ( talk) 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support "American" isn't an ethnicity, and the way this is formulated, it could be construed to mean "American" media outside of the United States. -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 05:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as dup; also "ethnic media" is a constrained concept do media have ethnicities (are we going down the path that there are Jewish companies, African-American companies, etc.) and how do we characterize a company as such (do they discriminate in favor of their ethnicity, is that what we are supposed to infer?) And then we have the problem of what is an "ethnicity"; in the United States, the census bureau only recognizes one: Latino/Hispanic. According to the US censue bureau: African-Americans are a race, not an ethnicity. Jewish-Americans are not separately counted (religions are not inquired about in the census). Italians, Germans, English, Scots-Irish, and the other European-Americans are not ethnicities either - so how would WP try to figure out what "ethnicity" a corporation is when we cannot find out what "ethnicity" owns it or constitutes its target market. Seems like racial profiling, which we ought not do. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge -- It may be worth leaving the present category as a category redirect, to prevent inadvertent re-creation. Peterkingiron ( talk) 22:15, 8 February 2015 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_3&oldid=1138408574"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE