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.
I've got no real view one way or another. However, you did use an out of date deletion argument from a previous discussion. For example, you argued that "Through the Looking Glass" wasn't in the category - but it was when you wrote that. It just wasn't back in January when the argument was previously used. To demonstrate how easy a fix it was, I just took two minutes to add the other missing articles. What should be further considered is that this isn't just a Star Trek issue. These categories also exist:
Category:Buffyverse crossovers,
Category:Doctor Who crossovers, which of course all sit within
Category:Crossover fiction. I would dare say that your argument that crossover fiction is artitrary would affect the main category, not just a group of Star Trek articles. Oh, and the query about Keiko O'Brien - not a crossover. She was a recurring character on one series, and then on another series. Otherwise, every episode of DS9 in which Miles O'Brien appears would also have to appear. But a fair argument would be whether "All Good Things..." would count as a crossover - after all, O'Brien was a main character on DS9 at the time but appeared on TNG. But again, I'll leave it up to others to decide whether or not crossover categories themselves should exist more generally.
Miyagawa (
talk) 20:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
As to your comment about Miles O'Brian, the linked article,
Star Trek crossovers, explicitly lists the transfer of Worf and the O'Brians to DS9, although it doesn't list their episodes (for obvious reasons). My point still stands - this can be handled in an article, not so well in a category.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Leaning Toward DeleteCrossover (fiction) can occur another franchise licenses characters (think of a lot of super hero cameos) but it also can involve public domain classics that inspire later writers, per the article. That is way too broad and too common to be defining as a broad category.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete only meaningful in universe, purely trivial in the real world. FANCRUFT.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:27, 6 September 2016 (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:Amphetamine alkaloids
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.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose at least until the question has been answered.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:31, 18 September 2016 (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:Methamphetamines
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.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
There are a lot of possible substituents that can be attached to the nitrogen atom other than the methyl group. For example: isopropyl (
isopropylamphetamine), ethyl (
etilamfetamine), butyl (
methylenedioxybutylamphetamine), hydroxy (
3,4-methylenedioxy-N-hydroxyamphetamine). For consistency, we should either have a category for all such substitute or else for none. Since neither of these categories are especially relevant with respect to SAR (
structure-activity relationship), I believe that it is better to delete (by merging) the only such category that we have currently.
By comparison,
Category:Cathinones is about a relevant chemical property by SAR and is mentioned as such in scientific literature. As an heuristic rule, the cathinone counterpart of releasing agents are typically reuptake inhibitors; cathinones are more lipophilic, are not monoamine receptor agonists and are not neurotoxic.
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:Carniolan theologians
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.
Object --
Carniola was one of the constituent duchies of the Austrian monarchy; it is now a substantial part of Slovenia. The Austrian monarchy covered a rather larger area than the present Austria, so that referring to these people as Austrian is misleading. On the other hand, we do not allow them to be categorised as Slovenian, because that is an anachronism. We have a lot of Carniolan occupational categories. Deletion should not be an option, because that is liable to orphan them from any ethnic category. We either need to find an acceptable merge (or rename) target for ALL or to keep them. My preference is to keep all these.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Expand & Rename if Kept The current category is too narrow and obscure to really aid navigation. If we're going to make a go of this concept, the missing
Category:Theologians of the Habsburg Monarchy category would be the right place to start.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Withdraw. I was merely looking at this category from the theologians perspective but I notice this category is (also) part of
Category:Carniolan people by occupation. I have similar doubts about that parent, but it doesn't make sense to delete just one occupation category in isolation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:22, 6 September 2016 (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:Censuses in Australia
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.
Sure, but there are no articles to place in this category.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Despite the assertion above, this cat is not capable having more content because, unlike the Canadian example used, there is a single article for all Australian censuses, with barely a paragraph for each. Only the 2016 census has more than that, and that was because it has been such a mess. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 09:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for Now The one article,
Census in Australia, is already well categorized and these categories are for articles on individual censuses not broad articles. If such articles ever appear, no objection to recreating the category.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree that we can create it again in future if more articles are created.
Mitch Ames (
talk) 07:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for now -- If we get articles on each individual census, we can re-create it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. Can be recreated when there is more than one or two articles to put in it.
Aoziwe (
talk) 10:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. If sections from the
Census in Australia ever get big enough to be split off into their own articles, then it may be worth recreating this category. - Evad37[
talk 03:08, 9 September 2016 (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:Power transmission operators
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.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT. Most countries only have one power transmission system operator, so having this scheme fully elaborated to all countries results in many one-article categories and is merely a hindrance to navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is a part of a large overall sub-categorization scheme and therefore
WP:SMALLCAT does not apply here.
Beagel (
talk) 08:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
That's exactly the point of the nomination: this topic is not suitable for having a large overall sub-categorization scheme.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
This is just an opinion, not a fact. At the moment there are 36 categories in the sub-categorization scheme. This is a proof that the sub-categorization scheme exists. Not all of these 36 categories are listed here which is a proof that the
WP:SMALLCAT argument is used without following the logic of the sub-categorization scheme.
Beagel (
talk) 16:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The logic is that one shouldn't nominate a single category from an overall scheme. In this case the whole scheme is nominated, that's different.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
As not all categories of the scheme are nominated, it is incorrect to say that the whole scheme is nominated. There are enough remaining categories to be considered as the scheme.
Beagel (
talk) 08:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Of course I left out the US and a few other countries that don't qualify for SMALLCAT. The discussion however is whether or not this should be an overall scheme.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
If you let these categories out, that means that you did not nominated the scheme but used only
WP:SMALLCAT argument. Remaining categories are enough to be considered as a scheme and if the scheme exists, it should be expanded to all countries which have relevant articles.
Beagel (
talk) 05:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not aware of a guideline that prohibits a scheme with a diffusion of only those few countries that have sufficient content. For example
Category:Statistical_organizations diffuses organizations of only three countries and that's perfectly alright.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support -- Cstegories that never can have more than one article are a waste of space. Most countries do not have multiple (rival) transmission operators.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:42, 4 September 2016 (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:Roman Catholic Church in Cambridge
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.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename and purge a little. Except for London and this category, we do not have any other "Roman Catholic Church in English city" or "Catholicism in English city" categories. The main reason that this Cambridge category is quite well-populated is because of the Catholic institutions and chaplains to the University of Cambridge. So let's be more precise about that.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep – there seem to be 2 churches and a school (at least) which are not connected with the University. Besides there aren't any other 'Catholicism at' categories.
Oculi (
talk) 11:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Further,
Category:Catholicism includes Eastern Orthodox, which as far as I know has not established much of a foothold in Cambridge in recent centuries.
Oculi (
talk) 22:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The tree of
Category:Catholicism is also used for Catholic people, buildings, organisations etc. that are not necessarily within the scope of the Catholic Church.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- This is misconceived. While some of the content is people who were Catholic chaplains and subsequently became notable, some of the content is completely unrelated to the university.
Category:Catholicism in Cambridge might fit.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
(as nom) I wouldn't be against this alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I am not convinced what is being categorized by here is defining enough and coherent enough to group all the subjects into one category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree that the coherence of the category is an issue (partly related to the university, partly to the city) so I wouldn't oppose deletion in the sense of upmerging to its parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:35, 18 September 2016 (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:Steamboat terminology
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.
Merge Per
WP:OVERLAPCAT All Wikipedia articles are about "terms" (aka article names) and then we use letters to construct meaning through language to explain that term/article name. It will aid navigation better for readers to group these terms by what they mean.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:09, 4 September 2016 (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:Steamboat articles by route
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: By convention we don't use the word "articles" in the names of categories for articles. Note: most of the articles in this category are articles like
Steamboats of Lake Okanagan. Other names for this category (e.g.
Category:Steamboats routes) could be considered. DexDor(talk) 05:19, 3 September 2016 (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:Fictional jewels
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: Some articles are technically not jewels; inclusive categories are better. --
Atvica (
talk) 04:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Several of the articles included are about fictional gems which are not used as jewelry. They are used as magical items.
Dimadick (
talk) 21:53, 17 September 2016 (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.
I've got no real view one way or another. However, you did use an out of date deletion argument from a previous discussion. For example, you argued that "Through the Looking Glass" wasn't in the category - but it was when you wrote that. It just wasn't back in January when the argument was previously used. To demonstrate how easy a fix it was, I just took two minutes to add the other missing articles. What should be further considered is that this isn't just a Star Trek issue. These categories also exist:
Category:Buffyverse crossovers,
Category:Doctor Who crossovers, which of course all sit within
Category:Crossover fiction. I would dare say that your argument that crossover fiction is artitrary would affect the main category, not just a group of Star Trek articles. Oh, and the query about Keiko O'Brien - not a crossover. She was a recurring character on one series, and then on another series. Otherwise, every episode of DS9 in which Miles O'Brien appears would also have to appear. But a fair argument would be whether "All Good Things..." would count as a crossover - after all, O'Brien was a main character on DS9 at the time but appeared on TNG. But again, I'll leave it up to others to decide whether or not crossover categories themselves should exist more generally.
Miyagawa (
talk) 20:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
As to your comment about Miles O'Brian, the linked article,
Star Trek crossovers, explicitly lists the transfer of Worf and the O'Brians to DS9, although it doesn't list their episodes (for obvious reasons). My point still stands - this can be handled in an article, not so well in a category.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:26, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Leaning Toward DeleteCrossover (fiction) can occur another franchise licenses characters (think of a lot of super hero cameos) but it also can involve public domain classics that inspire later writers, per the article. That is way too broad and too common to be defining as a broad category.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:01, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete only meaningful in universe, purely trivial in the real world. FANCRUFT.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:27, 6 September 2016 (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:Amphetamine alkaloids
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.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose at least until the question has been answered.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:31, 18 September 2016 (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:Methamphetamines
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.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
There are a lot of possible substituents that can be attached to the nitrogen atom other than the methyl group. For example: isopropyl (
isopropylamphetamine), ethyl (
etilamfetamine), butyl (
methylenedioxybutylamphetamine), hydroxy (
3,4-methylenedioxy-N-hydroxyamphetamine). For consistency, we should either have a category for all such substitute or else for none. Since neither of these categories are especially relevant with respect to SAR (
structure-activity relationship), I believe that it is better to delete (by merging) the only such category that we have currently.
By comparison,
Category:Cathinones is about a relevant chemical property by SAR and is mentioned as such in scientific literature. As an heuristic rule, the cathinone counterpart of releasing agents are typically reuptake inhibitors; cathinones are more lipophilic, are not monoamine receptor agonists and are not neurotoxic.
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:Carniolan theologians
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.
Object --
Carniola was one of the constituent duchies of the Austrian monarchy; it is now a substantial part of Slovenia. The Austrian monarchy covered a rather larger area than the present Austria, so that referring to these people as Austrian is misleading. On the other hand, we do not allow them to be categorised as Slovenian, because that is an anachronism. We have a lot of Carniolan occupational categories. Deletion should not be an option, because that is liable to orphan them from any ethnic category. We either need to find an acceptable merge (or rename) target for ALL or to keep them. My preference is to keep all these.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:35, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Expand & Rename if Kept The current category is too narrow and obscure to really aid navigation. If we're going to make a go of this concept, the missing
Category:Theologians of the Habsburg Monarchy category would be the right place to start.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:34, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Withdraw. I was merely looking at this category from the theologians perspective but I notice this category is (also) part of
Category:Carniolan people by occupation. I have similar doubts about that parent, but it doesn't make sense to delete just one occupation category in isolation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:22, 6 September 2016 (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:Censuses in Australia
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.
Sure, but there are no articles to place in this category.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Despite the assertion above, this cat is not capable having more content because, unlike the Canadian example used, there is a single article for all Australian censuses, with barely a paragraph for each. Only the 2016 census has more than that, and that was because it has been such a mess. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 09:05, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for Now The one article,
Census in Australia, is already well categorized and these categories are for articles on individual censuses not broad articles. If such articles ever appear, no objection to recreating the category.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree that we can create it again in future if more articles are created.
Mitch Ames (
talk) 07:53, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for now -- If we get articles on each individual census, we can re-create it.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete for now. Can be recreated when there is more than one or two articles to put in it.
Aoziwe (
talk) 10:52, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. If sections from the
Census in Australia ever get big enough to be split off into their own articles, then it may be worth recreating this category. - Evad37[
talk 03:08, 9 September 2016 (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:Power transmission operators
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.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT. Most countries only have one power transmission system operator, so having this scheme fully elaborated to all countries results in many one-article categories and is merely a hindrance to navigation.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is a part of a large overall sub-categorization scheme and therefore
WP:SMALLCAT does not apply here.
Beagel (
talk) 08:21, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
That's exactly the point of the nomination: this topic is not suitable for having a large overall sub-categorization scheme.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
This is just an opinion, not a fact. At the moment there are 36 categories in the sub-categorization scheme. This is a proof that the sub-categorization scheme exists. Not all of these 36 categories are listed here which is a proof that the
WP:SMALLCAT argument is used without following the logic of the sub-categorization scheme.
Beagel (
talk) 16:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The logic is that one shouldn't nominate a single category from an overall scheme. In this case the whole scheme is nominated, that's different.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
As not all categories of the scheme are nominated, it is incorrect to say that the whole scheme is nominated. There are enough remaining categories to be considered as the scheme.
Beagel (
talk) 08:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Of course I left out the US and a few other countries that don't qualify for SMALLCAT. The discussion however is whether or not this should be an overall scheme.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
If you let these categories out, that means that you did not nominated the scheme but used only
WP:SMALLCAT argument. Remaining categories are enough to be considered as a scheme and if the scheme exists, it should be expanded to all countries which have relevant articles.
Beagel (
talk) 05:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)reply
I'm not aware of a guideline that prohibits a scheme with a diffusion of only those few countries that have sufficient content. For example
Category:Statistical_organizations diffuses organizations of only three countries and that's perfectly alright.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support -- Cstegories that never can have more than one article are a waste of space. Most countries do not have multiple (rival) transmission operators.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:42, 4 September 2016 (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:Roman Catholic Church in Cambridge
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.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:rename and purge a little. Except for London and this category, we do not have any other "Roman Catholic Church in English city" or "Catholicism in English city" categories. The main reason that this Cambridge category is quite well-populated is because of the Catholic institutions and chaplains to the University of Cambridge. So let's be more precise about that.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Keep – there seem to be 2 churches and a school (at least) which are not connected with the University. Besides there aren't any other 'Catholicism at' categories.
Oculi (
talk) 11:35, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Further,
Category:Catholicism includes Eastern Orthodox, which as far as I know has not established much of a foothold in Cambridge in recent centuries.
Oculi (
talk) 22:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
The tree of
Category:Catholicism is also used for Catholic people, buildings, organisations etc. that are not necessarily within the scope of the Catholic Church.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- This is misconceived. While some of the content is people who were Catholic chaplains and subsequently became notable, some of the content is completely unrelated to the university.
Category:Catholicism in Cambridge might fit.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)reply
(as nom) I wouldn't be against this alternative.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Delete I am not convinced what is being categorized by here is defining enough and coherent enough to group all the subjects into one category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Agree that the coherence of the category is an issue (partly related to the university, partly to the city) so I wouldn't oppose deletion in the sense of upmerging to its parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:35, 18 September 2016 (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:Steamboat terminology
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.
Merge Per
WP:OVERLAPCAT All Wikipedia articles are about "terms" (aka article names) and then we use letters to construct meaning through language to explain that term/article name. It will aid navigation better for readers to group these terms by what they mean.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:09, 4 September 2016 (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:Steamboat articles by route
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: By convention we don't use the word "articles" in the names of categories for articles. Note: most of the articles in this category are articles like
Steamboats of Lake Okanagan. Other names for this category (e.g.
Category:Steamboats routes) could be considered. DexDor(talk) 05:19, 3 September 2016 (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:Fictional jewels
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: Some articles are technically not jewels; inclusive categories are better. --
Atvica (
talk) 04:22, 3 September 2016 (UTC)reply
Support Several of the articles included are about fictional gems which are not used as jewelry. They are used as magical items.
Dimadick (
talk) 21:53, 17 September 2016 (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.