December 31
Category:Leap years
- 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: Relisted at WP:CFD 2017 February 6. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: (1) In which calendar? (Proleptic) Julian, (Proleptic) Gregorian. (2) Not a useful categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. If we need a category for leap years of other calendars than Gregorian, this can become the parent.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 17:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to rename the category to
Category:Leap years in the Gregorian calendar, I have no objection. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 17:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @
Arthur Rubin: I've moved all the Year articles to that category, but - as indicated - kept this one as the parent.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's still subject to deletion, per Marcocapelle's !vote. I'm now neutral, leaning Delete. Didn't anyone tell you you're not supposed to empty categories while under CfD? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- @
Arthur Rubin: I've moved all the Year articles to that category, but - as indicated - kept this one as the parent.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to rename the category to
Category:Leap years in the Gregorian calendar, I have no objection. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 17:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Notified WP:YEARS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as a triviality. Who would ever need to consult this category?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Er, anyone who wants to read about years that were leap years. HTH.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure but I can't think of any plausible reason why someone would only want to read what happened in leap years.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- So, by that logic, we should also delete
Category:2016 births, since why would someone want to read a list of infants? Canuck89
(have words with me) 11:49, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
- Fair point. Makes me wonder about these year-of-birth categories too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- So, by that logic, we should also delete
Category:2016 births, since why would someone want to read a list of infants? Canuck89
(have words with me) 11:49, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
- Sure but I can't think of any plausible reason why someone would only want to read what happened in leap years.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Er, anyone who wants to read about years that were leap years. HTH.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- 'Keep This is a defining characteristic of years. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:16, 5 January 2017 (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.
Shooting in FooCountry
- 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 option B, Category:Shooting sports in Argentina etc. Cerebellum ( talk) 20:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- OPTION A: (singular) "Category:Shooting sport"
- or OPTION B: (plural) "Category:Shooting sports"
- Nominator's rationale: The phrase "Shooting in FooCountry" is ambiguous, because it can reasonably be read to include school shootings and other forms of gun crime. The scope of these categories is for shooting sport, as defined by a hatnote on each category page. It would be better to make the scope explicit in the title, following both the head article Shooting sport and the containing Category:Shooting sports by country (parent Category:Shooting sports).
- I can see arguments in favour of both the singular and the plural forms, so I have listed the both as options. So far, I have no preference between them; both resolve the ambiguity, so either is fine by me.--
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 13:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Several editors below make a good case for preferring the plural form (Option B), and I am persuaded by it. I still support either option, but now prefer "B". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: all categories tagged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support – it should be 'sport' or 'sports' depending on the country, following the rule established in Category:Sport by country and sport. Oculi ( talk) 02:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- :Actually, as a User:en-gb, this is one of those occasions where that rule doesn't apply. To these British English ears it feels more natural to refer to shooting sports - biathlon versus target shooting versus "hunting" are a group of distinct sports rather than the collective noun for a single sport. Le Deluge ( talk) 17:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support, though Option B sounds better to me. We have the slight discrepancy that the top level category is Category:Shooting sports but the main article is Shooting sport. Because the article lists a variety of sports, I think "sports" is more correct in the circumstances. Sionk ( talk) 11:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Option B. There are multiple sports involving shooting. Dimadick ( talk) 07:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Option B. Plural is better. A definite improvement over plain "shooting". Felsic2 ( talk) 16:40, 3 January 2017 (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.
Category:Corporate finance
- 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 Category:Corporate finance and governance as a pointless layer. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Corporate finance to Category:Corporate finance and governance
- Nominator's rationale: merge, the target consists only of two subcategories, so there is one redundant category layer. In addition the nominated category and the target category have the same JEL tag on the category page. (A reverse merge is also possible.)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree.The
Category:Corporate finance and governance should go and the
Category:Corporate finance and
Category:Corporate governance should stay.
Category:Corporate finance and governance does not serve any purpose.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 23:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's what I meant with a reverse merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Disagree.The
Category:Corporate finance and governance should go and the
Category:Corporate finance and
Category:Corporate governance should stay.
Category:Corporate finance and governance does not serve any purpose.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 23:44, 31 December 2016 (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.
Category:Order of the Colonial Empire
- 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: Relisted at CFD 2017 February 6. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Order of the Colonial Empire
- Propose Deleting Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Colonial Empire
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
- The Order of the Colonial Empire was an award for residents of Portugal's colonial empire. The three articles we have listed are Mozambique Company (which makes sense although it's already well categorized), George V, and Prince George, Duke of Kent. I haven't found a source that says why two British royals received the award but neither is defined by Portugal's colonies. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note:
Notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to
WikiProject Portugal. –
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- The Portuguese wikipedia says the canonical source of the recipient is here. You have to select between "cidadãos nacionais" (national citizens) or "cidadãos estrangeiros" (foreign citizens) on the bottom left menu. From a quick google search on a couple of recipients, it is a defining characteristic of Salazar, but not of Eça de Queiroz. Therefore, I'd rather have it kept.
-
Order of the Colonial Empire#Notable Recipients should be expanded. Regards,
Comte0 (
talk) 14:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Reply As the President and Prime Minister of Portugal, Salazar was either awarded or gave himself 4 official medals and doesn't seem to have ever lived in a Portuguese colony. We obviously look at WP:DEFINING differently. (We agree on expanding Order of the Colonial Empire#Notable Recipients though; I added both articles you mentioned.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Clearly this wasn't a purely colonial decoration, although it was perhaps more so than say the
Category:Order of the British Empire. However, for someone in Mozambique or Cape Verde I'd suggest that certainly the higher levels of this (certainly Grand Officer, perhaps lower) were at least as defining as
Category:Congressional Gold Medal recipients or some of the
Category:Order of the British Empire recipients. Whether that is defining enough for Wikipedia I leave to others, but without getting too
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-y I think we should at least be consistent on high-level civilian decorations, and not have one rule for the US/UK and another for "foreigners in Africa". Broadly it seems to be that the top levels of civilian awards are considered defining, roughly of a level equivalent to British knighthoods, of which ~60 are awarded per year in a population of 60 million. So I'd suggest a loose "1 in a million" rule when it comes to these things, I'm not sure where that would put the cut-off here.
Le Deluge (
talk) 17:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note that we categorise all levels of the Order of the British Empire and all the other British honours, from lowest to highest. So this is actually a non-issue. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. An order apparently awarded for merit. A few honorary awards do not make it invalid. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The order is not defining to anyone who got it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- And you would know that how? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I actually have no idea if this award would be defining for the colonial people for which it was intended. We don't have any of those articles to look at, either because the recipients are not notable or because African biographies are under-represented in Wikipedia. But, ultimately, categories are designed to aid navigation and readers clicking on this one would probably be looking for biographies of people in Africa or Asia but all they would find today would be high-ranking Europeans. (If and when these other biography articles show up, that would be a good point to re-evaluate.)
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that it was predominantly aimed at Portuguese people serving in the colonies, not people from the colonial territories. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I actually have no idea if this award would be defining for the colonial people for which it was intended. We don't have any of those articles to look at, either because the recipients are not notable or because African biographies are under-represented in Wikipedia. But, ultimately, categories are designed to aid navigation and readers clicking on this one would probably be looking for biographies of people in Africa or Asia but all they would find today would be high-ranking Europeans. (If and when these other biography articles show up, that would be a good point to re-evaluate.)
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, the order is not defining for the articles that are in this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:42, 3 February 2017 (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.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Pahlevi
- 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 (non-admin closure) f eminist 09:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of Pahlevi
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
- When foreign heads of state visited Iran, they would receive Order of Pahlevi as a souvenir from the government as part of the official welcome. For instance, George VI is in Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom, which is how he got this award, and there are not shortage of other non-defining foreign awards at the bottom of the George VI article. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note:
Notified Folks at 137 as the apparent category creator and I added this discussion to
WikiProject Iran. –
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Background We deleted medals given to foreign officials by Venezuela and Afghanistan here and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete When Olav V of Norway has 20 lines of categories (not just 20 categories, more like 60 categories) something is not right. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non defining. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:33, 22 January 2017 (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.
Category:British zombie comedy films
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:British zombie comedy films to Category:British zombie films
- Nominator's rationale: With so few entries in both cats, sub-categorization seems needless. 2600:1008:B044:86A7:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 ( talk) 01:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per nom Small category. Dimadick ( talk) 23:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question shouldn't also be upmerged to the other two parent categories? If not, why not? Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep It's a relevant intersection. If it is upmerged, it would have to be to Category:Zombie comedy films as well. Jim Michael ( talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (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.
Category:Wikipedians who put really really long redlinked categories at the bottom of their userpage as a conversation piece
- 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 but don't empty. Early closure per
WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 07:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
- The category page itself was one of
a series created by
User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.
That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory?
Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question.
So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion.
WP:RFC is thataway, folks. --- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is a bad joke gone badly wrong - the "redlinked" is a clue that this category was never supposed to actually exist and was simply a way of trying to "out-EEng"
EEng.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- So now I'm a punchline.
E
Eng 00:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- A horse gets pulled up to arb. Everyone says "why the long face?"
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 00:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, this CfD stuff is a whole new world of crazy I didn't even know existed. Just above we've got someone worrying about whether Category:British zombie comedy films should be merged to Category:British zombie films. Talk about deck chairs on the Titanic!
E
Eng 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, crazy that a legitimate CfD entry somehow slipped into this chat page. -- 2600:1008:B044:86A7:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 ( talk) 02:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, this CfD stuff is a whole new world of crazy I didn't even know existed. Just above we've got someone worrying about whether Category:British zombie comedy films should be merged to Category:British zombie films. Talk about deck chairs on the Titanic!
E
Eng 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- A horse gets pulled up to arb. Everyone says "why the long face?"
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 00:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- So now I'm a punchline.
E
Eng 00:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – User:Rathfelder who created most of the categories in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians would do everyone a favour by deleting them using db-author. Oculi ( talk) 01:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete ridiculously long title and obviously made as a joke. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't really create any of them except the idiosycratic one - which I will defend, as I think its useful. All the others I merely regularised. I don't object to people making jokes. What I object to is having them all appear as red links in the list of categories. If they are to be deleted I want them deleted from the pages where they exist. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment see also this related discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Violates WP:USERCAT as a joke category. Also possibly substantially similar enough to be speedyable per G4 per this discussion. VegaDark ( talk) 10:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete It's obviously meant to remain red. See also: [1] AlexEng( TALK) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (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.
Category:Women scientists by century
- 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. Bduke (Discussion) 06:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Hierarchy was 'Women scientists by period' > Women scientists by century, Ancient women scientists, Medieval scientists. (1) While a century can be conceived as a subunit of a longer period, it is also a period in it's own right so it is a redundant level. (2) There are only going to be about 8 subcats in the Period (Ancient, Medieval, 15th, 16th, etc.) so it is unnecessary and cumbersome to create the "by century" sub category. (3) An individual may conceive of the centuries to be subunits in their own mental hierarchy but that does not mean the wiki categories need to mirror that instead of being pragmatic JBVaughan ( talk) 00:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note The category had been depopulated, so I have repopulated it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, to ensure that the whole set remains together in the vy-century category tree. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This is part of the wider people by century category tree. Dimadick ( talk) 00:00, 2 January 2017 (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.
December 31
Category:Leap years
- 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: Relisted at WP:CFD 2017 February 6. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: (1) In which calendar? (Proleptic) Julian, (Proleptic) Gregorian. (2) Not a useful categorization. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:23, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep. If we need a category for leap years of other calendars than Gregorian, this can become the parent.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 17:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- If you want to rename the category to
Category:Leap years in the Gregorian calendar, I have no objection. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 17:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- @
Arthur Rubin: I've moved all the Year articles to that category, but - as indicated - kept this one as the parent.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- It's still subject to deletion, per Marcocapelle's !vote. I'm now neutral, leaning Delete. Didn't anyone tell you you're not supposed to empty categories while under CfD? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- @
Arthur Rubin: I've moved all the Year articles to that category, but - as indicated - kept this one as the parent.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- If you want to rename the category to
Category:Leap years in the Gregorian calendar, I have no objection. —
Arthur Rubin
(talk) 17:04, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Notified WP:YEARS. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:02, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as a triviality. Who would ever need to consult this category?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:03, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Er, anyone who wants to read about years that were leap years. HTH.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Sure but I can't think of any plausible reason why someone would only want to read what happened in leap years.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- So, by that logic, we should also delete
Category:2016 births, since why would someone want to read a list of infants? Canuck89
(have words with me) 11:49, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
- Fair point. Makes me wonder about these year-of-birth categories too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:29, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- So, by that logic, we should also delete
Category:2016 births, since why would someone want to read a list of infants? Canuck89
(have words with me) 11:49, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
- Sure but I can't think of any plausible reason why someone would only want to read what happened in leap years.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Er, anyone who wants to read about years that were leap years. HTH.
Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing);
Talk to Andy;
Andy's edits 23:17, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- 'Keep This is a defining characteristic of years. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:16, 5 January 2017 (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.
Shooting in FooCountry
- 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 option B, Category:Shooting sports in Argentina etc. Cerebellum ( talk) 20:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- OPTION A: (singular) "Category:Shooting sport"
- or OPTION B: (plural) "Category:Shooting sports"
- Nominator's rationale: The phrase "Shooting in FooCountry" is ambiguous, because it can reasonably be read to include school shootings and other forms of gun crime. The scope of these categories is for shooting sport, as defined by a hatnote on each category page. It would be better to make the scope explicit in the title, following both the head article Shooting sport and the containing Category:Shooting sports by country (parent Category:Shooting sports).
- I can see arguments in favour of both the singular and the plural forms, so I have listed the both as options. So far, I have no preference between them; both resolve the ambiguity, so either is fine by me.--
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 13:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Several editors below make a good case for preferring the plural form (Option B), and I am persuaded by it. I still support either option, but now prefer "B". -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note: all categories tagged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Support – it should be 'sport' or 'sports' depending on the country, following the rule established in Category:Sport by country and sport. Oculi ( talk) 02:39, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- :Actually, as a User:en-gb, this is one of those occasions where that rule doesn't apply. To these British English ears it feels more natural to refer to shooting sports - biathlon versus target shooting versus "hunting" are a group of distinct sports rather than the collective noun for a single sport. Le Deluge ( talk) 17:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support, though Option B sounds better to me. We have the slight discrepancy that the top level category is Category:Shooting sports but the main article is Shooting sport. Because the article lists a variety of sports, I think "sports" is more correct in the circumstances. Sionk ( talk) 11:17, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Option B. There are multiple sports involving shooting. Dimadick ( talk) 07:25, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support Option B. Plural is better. A definite improvement over plain "shooting". Felsic2 ( talk) 16:40, 3 January 2017 (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.
Category:Corporate finance
- 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 Category:Corporate finance and governance as a pointless layer. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Corporate finance to Category:Corporate finance and governance
- Nominator's rationale: merge, the target consists only of two subcategories, so there is one redundant category layer. In addition the nominated category and the target category have the same JEL tag on the category page. (A reverse merge is also possible.)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:42, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Disagree.The
Category:Corporate finance and governance should go and the
Category:Corporate finance and
Category:Corporate governance should stay.
Category:Corporate finance and governance does not serve any purpose.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 23:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Fair enough, that's what I meant with a reverse merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 01:15, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Disagree.The
Category:Corporate finance and governance should go and the
Category:Corporate finance and
Category:Corporate governance should stay.
Category:Corporate finance and governance does not serve any purpose.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 23:44, 31 December 2016 (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.
Category:Order of the Colonial Empire
- 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: Relisted at CFD 2017 February 6. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Order of the Colonial Empire
- Propose Deleting Category:Grand Crosses of the Order of the Colonial Empire
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
- The Order of the Colonial Empire was an award for residents of Portugal's colonial empire. The three articles we have listed are Mozambique Company (which makes sense although it's already well categorized), George V, and Prince George, Duke of Kent. I haven't found a source that says why two British royals received the award but neither is defined by Portugal's colonies. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note:
Notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to
WikiProject Portugal. –
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:32, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- The Portuguese wikipedia says the canonical source of the recipient is here. You have to select between "cidadãos nacionais" (national citizens) or "cidadãos estrangeiros" (foreign citizens) on the bottom left menu. From a quick google search on a couple of recipients, it is a defining characteristic of Salazar, but not of Eça de Queiroz. Therefore, I'd rather have it kept.
-
Order of the Colonial Empire#Notable Recipients should be expanded. Regards,
Comte0 (
talk) 14:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Reply As the President and Prime Minister of Portugal, Salazar was either awarded or gave himself 4 official medals and doesn't seem to have ever lived in a Portuguese colony. We obviously look at WP:DEFINING differently. (We agree on expanding Order of the Colonial Empire#Notable Recipients though; I added both articles you mentioned.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment Clearly this wasn't a purely colonial decoration, although it was perhaps more so than say the
Category:Order of the British Empire. However, for someone in Mozambique or Cape Verde I'd suggest that certainly the higher levels of this (certainly Grand Officer, perhaps lower) were at least as defining as
Category:Congressional Gold Medal recipients or some of the
Category:Order of the British Empire recipients. Whether that is defining enough for Wikipedia I leave to others, but without getting too
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-y I think we should at least be consistent on high-level civilian decorations, and not have one rule for the US/UK and another for "foreigners in Africa". Broadly it seems to be that the top levels of civilian awards are considered defining, roughly of a level equivalent to British knighthoods, of which ~60 are awarded per year in a population of 60 million. So I'd suggest a loose "1 in a million" rule when it comes to these things, I'm not sure where that would put the cut-off here.
Le Deluge (
talk) 17:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Note that we categorise all levels of the Order of the British Empire and all the other British honours, from lowest to highest. So this is actually a non-issue. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. An order apparently awarded for merit. A few honorary awards do not make it invalid. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:14, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete The order is not defining to anyone who got it.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 03:17, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- And you would know that how? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I actually have no idea if this award would be defining for the colonial people for which it was intended. We don't have any of those articles to look at, either because the recipients are not notable or because African biographies are under-represented in Wikipedia. But, ultimately, categories are designed to aid navigation and readers clicking on this one would probably be looking for biographies of people in Africa or Asia but all they would find today would be high-ranking Europeans. (If and when these other biography articles show up, that would be a good point to re-evaluate.)
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- I think you'll find that it was predominantly aimed at Portuguese people serving in the colonies, not people from the colonial territories. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:59, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I actually have no idea if this award would be defining for the colonial people for which it was intended. We don't have any of those articles to look at, either because the recipients are not notable or because African biographies are under-represented in Wikipedia. But, ultimately, categories are designed to aid navigation and readers clicking on this one would probably be looking for biographies of people in Africa or Asia but all they would find today would be high-ranking Europeans. (If and when these other biography articles show up, that would be a good point to re-evaluate.)
RevelationDirect (
talk) 03:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete, the order is not defining for the articles that are in this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:42, 3 February 2017 (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.
Category:Recipients of the Order of Pahlevi
- 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 (non-admin closure) f eminist 09:34, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Recipients of the Order of Pahlevi
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
- When foreign heads of state visited Iran, they would receive Order of Pahlevi as a souvenir from the government as part of the official welcome. For instance, George VI is in Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom, which is how he got this award, and there are not shortage of other non-defining foreign awards at the bottom of the George VI article. If we delete this category, the recipients will still be listed here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note:
Notified Folks at 137 as the apparent category creator and I added this discussion to
WikiProject Iran. –
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Background We deleted medals given to foreign officials by Venezuela and Afghanistan here and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete When Olav V of Norway has 20 lines of categories (not just 20 categories, more like 60 categories) something is not right. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete as non defining. K.e.coffman ( talk) 06:33, 22 January 2017 (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.
Category:British zombie comedy films
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:55, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:British zombie comedy films to Category:British zombie films
- Nominator's rationale: With so few entries in both cats, sub-categorization seems needless. 2600:1008:B044:86A7:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 ( talk) 01:30, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per nom Small category. Dimadick ( talk) 23:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Question shouldn't also be upmerged to the other two parent categories? If not, why not? Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:43, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep It's a relevant intersection. If it is upmerged, it would have to be to Category:Zombie comedy films as well. Jim Michael ( talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (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.
Category:Wikipedians who put really really long redlinked categories at the bottom of their userpage as a conversation piece
- 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 but don't empty. Early closure per
WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 07:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
- The category page itself was one of
a series created by
User:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages.
That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory?
Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question.
So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion.
WP:RFC is thataway, folks. --- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is a bad joke gone badly wrong - the "redlinked" is a clue that this category was never supposed to actually exist and was simply a way of trying to "out-EEng"
EEng.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- So now I'm a punchline.
E
Eng 00:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- A horse gets pulled up to arb. Everyone says "why the long face?"
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 00:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, this CfD stuff is a whole new world of crazy I didn't even know existed. Just above we've got someone worrying about whether Category:British zombie comedy films should be merged to Category:British zombie films. Talk about deck chairs on the Titanic!
E
Eng 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, crazy that a legitimate CfD entry somehow slipped into this chat page. -- 2600:1008:B044:86A7:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 ( talk) 02:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, this CfD stuff is a whole new world of crazy I didn't even know existed. Just above we've got someone worrying about whether Category:British zombie comedy films should be merged to Category:British zombie films. Talk about deck chairs on the Titanic!
E
Eng 02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- A horse gets pulled up to arb. Everyone says "why the long face?"
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 00:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- So now I'm a punchline.
E
Eng 00:51, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete – User:Rathfelder who created most of the categories in Category:Idiosyncratic Wikipedians would do everyone a favour by deleting them using db-author. Oculi ( talk) 01:25, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete ridiculously long title and obviously made as a joke. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:49, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- I didn't really create any of them except the idiosycratic one - which I will defend, as I think its useful. All the others I merely regularised. I don't object to people making jokes. What I object to is having them all appear as red links in the list of categories. If they are to be deleted I want them deleted from the pages where they exist. Rathfelder ( talk) 10:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Comment see also this related discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:56, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Delete Violates WP:USERCAT as a joke category. Also possibly substantially similar enough to be speedyable per G4 per this discussion. VegaDark ( talk) 10:49, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete It's obviously meant to remain red. See also: [1] AlexEng( TALK) 23:59, 5 January 2017 (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.
Category:Women scientists by century
- 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. Bduke (Discussion) 06:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Hierarchy was 'Women scientists by period' > Women scientists by century, Ancient women scientists, Medieval scientists. (1) While a century can be conceived as a subunit of a longer period, it is also a period in it's own right so it is a redundant level. (2) There are only going to be about 8 subcats in the Period (Ancient, Medieval, 15th, 16th, etc.) so it is unnecessary and cumbersome to create the "by century" sub category. (3) An individual may conceive of the centuries to be subunits in their own mental hierarchy but that does not mean the wiki categories need to mirror that instead of being pragmatic JBVaughan ( talk) 00:24, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Note The category had been depopulated, so I have repopulated it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:34, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep, to ensure that the whole set remains together in the vy-century category tree. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
- Keep This is part of the wider people by century category tree. Dimadick ( talk) 00:00, 2 January 2017 (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.