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 is only one Australian geisha at this time. Don't believe this category is necessary or helpful.
Cannolis (
talk)
21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - It is precisely because non-Japanese Geishas are so unusual -- make that exceptional -- that this category is not only legitimate but downright necessary.
Cgingold (
talk)
00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
From my understanding, categories are meant to group like pages together and serve as a navigational tool between said pages. If there is but one page in a given category, doesn't that nullify the stated purpose of a category?
Cannolis (
talk)
11:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. As above, a category of one serves no purpose, and this category is highly unlikely to become more populated in the near future. Even the main
Category:Geishas category is sparsely populated, with just seven Japanese names, so there is no obvious need to sub-categorize by nationality. --
DAJF (
talk)
01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
delete It's been a long time since that name popped up on my radar... anyway, we obviously don't need a category for the one non-Japanese geisha, especially since she's also in the parent category as well.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment There was actually another one recently, a Hungarian lady working under the geimei of Ibu at a resort IIRC. --
Pitke (
talk)
20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment it might need to be renamed to non-ethnic Japanese geisha instead. To include all instances where non-Japanese have become geisha/
maiko; --
65.94.43.89 (
talk)
02:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete About as relevant as a category such as "Australian-born operators of dodgy tourist accommodation in Wanaka". Unlikely to ever contain other members, already covered by category Geishas, more likely to be a "look at me" element.
Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (
talk)
12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge both this and the Japanese Geishas category to a generalized Geishas one. With 8 articles no sub-division is justified. If later on we have more articles on Geishas we can revisit the issue.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge this and the Japanese category back to Geishas. The whole tree contains just 8 articles.
Fiona Graham is actually already in the parent, so that a plain delete will do for the nom cat. Her nationality is indicated by other categories in her article, so thsat the intersection is not needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: tagging the Japanese category as well
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon19:52, 18 June 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:Romanian timelines
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: as another editor had removed the CFD template from the page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon19:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)reply
There's only one additional article now, so this attempt to split fails per
WP:SMALLCAT. The one article fits perfectly in
Category:Romania history-related lists. (On the side, please note that we use the CfD templates to link to the discussion here where the reason is given, so deleting the template is really counterproductive.)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:56, 27 June 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:Murders in the United Kingdom by year
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: the 2 year categories here each contain only 1 article, notable murder rate in UK unlikely to need this category tree.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
18:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- While each murder that gets widely covered by the press gets an article whose title usually ends off in the form
Murder of Jodi Jones, we do not get enough to merit annual categories. Possibly there should be a third target
Category:2000s murders in the United Kingdom, etc. I suspect that we get one or two of these each year, so that a decade article might get a reasonable population.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:17, 20 June 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:Blocks in the periodic table
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 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.
Buildings and structures in Zonguldaks Province
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.
Creator's rationale: Misspelled title. Correct one is already existent.
User:CeeGee 11:58, 18 June 2015
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.
Racially motivated violence in England
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: I propose merging the racially motivated violence categories for England (7 pages, 1 subcategory) and Scotland (1 page, no subcategories) to the parent category for the United Kingdom (no pages, three subcategories including the nominated two). I don't see a need to have separate categories for England and Scotland here as none of the articles are really relevant to which country of the UK they took place in.
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Did you notice that these two categories are also in a number of England- or Scotland-specific subcategories? Upmerging purely to one parent will remove them from the other category trees, which is a bad idea. And as we have racism and violence categories for England and for Scotland, of which these are subcategories, rather than UK-wide categories, these seem to be a logical subcategorisation. So oppose but if the result of the discussion is "upmerge" it has to be "upmerge to all parent categories in each case", not just to one.
BencherliteTalk21:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- England and Scotland have different legal systems, so that there is a difference. We frequently split UK inot the 4 home nations.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:23, 20 June 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:Clinton 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I think that something needs to be done with this category and a renamme would be my preferred option. The category name currently relates to the redirect
Clinton family which was previously referenced as cat main.
GregKaye04:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename the fact is that the George Clinton/DeWitt Clinton family has more notable members and existed over time making it more of a family. The current name can not function.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Question, do we really need a narrow family definition as a category? I can also imagine, the other way around, that we populate the category with additional members of the extended family while keeping the current category name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)reply
There are not more extended members of the Clinton Family.
De Witt Clinton and his various notable relatives are not related to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The rename is to make it clear which Clinton Family we are referring to, not to refer to only a small part of the family.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
07:37, 9 July 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.
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 is only one Australian geisha at this time. Don't believe this category is necessary or helpful.
Cannolis (
talk)
21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong Keep - It is precisely because non-Japanese Geishas are so unusual -- make that exceptional -- that this category is not only legitimate but downright necessary.
Cgingold (
talk)
00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
From my understanding, categories are meant to group like pages together and serve as a navigational tool between said pages. If there is but one page in a given category, doesn't that nullify the stated purpose of a category?
Cannolis (
talk)
11:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete. As above, a category of one serves no purpose, and this category is highly unlikely to become more populated in the near future. Even the main
Category:Geishas category is sparsely populated, with just seven Japanese names, so there is no obvious need to sub-categorize by nationality. --
DAJF (
talk)
01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
delete It's been a long time since that name popped up on my radar... anyway, we obviously don't need a category for the one non-Japanese geisha, especially since she's also in the parent category as well.
Mangoe (
talk)
13:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment There was actually another one recently, a Hungarian lady working under the geimei of Ibu at a resort IIRC. --
Pitke (
talk)
20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment it might need to be renamed to non-ethnic Japanese geisha instead. To include all instances where non-Japanese have become geisha/
maiko; --
65.94.43.89 (
talk)
02:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete About as relevant as a category such as "Australian-born operators of dodgy tourist accommodation in Wanaka". Unlikely to ever contain other members, already covered by category Geishas, more likely to be a "look at me" element.
Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (
talk)
12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge both this and the Japanese Geishas category to a generalized Geishas one. With 8 articles no sub-division is justified. If later on we have more articles on Geishas we can revisit the issue.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge this and the Japanese category back to Geishas. The whole tree contains just 8 articles.
Fiona Graham is actually already in the parent, so that a plain delete will do for the nom cat. Her nationality is indicated by other categories in her article, so thsat the intersection is not needed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: tagging the Japanese category as well
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon19:52, 18 June 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:Romanian timelines
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: as another editor had removed the CFD template from the page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –
FayenaticLondon19:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)reply
There's only one additional article now, so this attempt to split fails per
WP:SMALLCAT. The one article fits perfectly in
Category:Romania history-related lists. (On the side, please note that we use the CfD templates to link to the discussion here where the reason is given, so deleting the template is really counterproductive.)
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:56, 27 June 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:Murders in the United Kingdom by year
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: the 2 year categories here each contain only 1 article, notable murder rate in UK unlikely to need this category tree.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
18:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- While each murder that gets widely covered by the press gets an article whose title usually ends off in the form
Murder of Jodi Jones, we do not get enough to merit annual categories. Possibly there should be a third target
Category:2000s murders in the United Kingdom, etc. I suspect that we get one or two of these each year, so that a decade article might get a reasonable population.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:17, 20 June 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:Blocks in the periodic table
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 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.
Buildings and structures in Zonguldaks Province
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.
Creator's rationale: Misspelled title. Correct one is already existent.
User:CeeGee 11:58, 18 June 2015
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.
Racially motivated violence in England
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: I propose merging the racially motivated violence categories for England (7 pages, 1 subcategory) and Scotland (1 page, no subcategories) to the parent category for the United Kingdom (no pages, three subcategories including the nominated two). I don't see a need to have separate categories for England and Scotland here as none of the articles are really relevant to which country of the UK they took place in.
Thryduulf (
talk)
09:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Did you notice that these two categories are also in a number of England- or Scotland-specific subcategories? Upmerging purely to one parent will remove them from the other category trees, which is a bad idea. And as we have racism and violence categories for England and for Scotland, of which these are subcategories, rather than UK-wide categories, these seem to be a logical subcategorisation. So oppose but if the result of the discussion is "upmerge" it has to be "upmerge to all parent categories in each case", not just to one.
BencherliteTalk21:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep -- England and Scotland have different legal systems, so that there is a difference. We frequently split UK inot the 4 home nations.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
18:23, 20 June 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:Clinton 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I think that something needs to be done with this category and a renamme would be my preferred option. The category name currently relates to the redirect
Clinton family which was previously referenced as cat main.
GregKaye04:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename the fact is that the George Clinton/DeWitt Clinton family has more notable members and existed over time making it more of a family. The current name can not function.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
08:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Question, do we really need a narrow family definition as a category? I can also imagine, the other way around, that we populate the category with additional members of the extended family while keeping the current category name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)reply
There are not more extended members of the Clinton Family.
De Witt Clinton and his various notable relatives are not related to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The rename is to make it clear which Clinton Family we are referring to, not to refer to only a small part of the family.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
07:37, 9 July 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.