- 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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_15#Category:Musical_families, tagging the parent. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Remove soft redirect; populate
- Nominator's rationale: I see that this was merged as a result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_4#Musical_families. I've been working a bit in the area of Category:Show business families and we do have subcategories such as Category:Acting families, as well as Category:Family musical groups, for families that perform together. I don't believe the nominated category should be a soft redirect to Category:Show business families, but a bona fide category on its own, for there are good number of such families and I don't think they should be lumped in with the too-general "show business." I certainly disagree with the previous merge rational that there is "no such thing as a musical family" (yet, somehow, there are "acting families"?). Moreover, if such families include classical musicians, one may well say that are not in "show business." Are there still objections to populating this? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly I'd rather go the opposite direction and delete/upmerge
Category:Show business families as well. The only type of family where all members can consistently be linked to a sort of occupation is a royal family. Otherwise the categories just contain families that happen to have a good coverage of individual members on Wikipedia. Adding show business or musical in the category name is sometimes useful for disambiguation though.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see. That would mean
Category:Acting families goes too, then. Well, that certainly isn't what I had in mind but we shall see.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, if we're to upmerge
Category:Show business families why stop there? It seems to me other
Category:Families by profession and virtually all its contents would need to go, too. Something I would not support.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- As a mere random other example, half of Category:Weizsäcker family (political family) consists of politicians, the other half not. As half of the notable people in the family are politicians, politicians are only a small portion of the entirely family (including non-notable people). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, if we're to upmerge
Category:Show business families why stop there? It seems to me other
Category:Families by profession and virtually all its contents would need to go, too. Something I would not support.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see. That would mean
Category:Acting families goes too, then. Well, that certainly isn't what I had in mind but we shall see.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:30, 22 April 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.
- 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 and move articles as appropriate ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is odd in a category structure that's mostly just about individual presidencies. I think it makes sense to keep these in
Category:Cannabis in the United States, or maybe move them over to
Category:Cannabis law in the United States. Or does the idea of an "Issue by administration" category tree sound fine? --
BDD (
talk)
16:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- This cat was motivated by the creation of Cannabis policy of the Donald Trump administration, and I've suggested a catch-all article about US cannabis policies by president, and a specific one for Nixon (at least). Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney ( talk) 18:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per BDD -- There are three Nixon articles, but we are unlikely to get enough to merit separate categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:17, 22 April 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.
- 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: Upmerge. No prejudice against recreation if/when there are 5-6 members for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Query − people from New Jersey are organised by town, by village, by township, by city, by borough and by county (so far: see Category:People by populated place in New Jersey). Why are people from census-designated places ignored, unlike their compatriots in Louisiana, not to mention those from unincorporated communities (cf Category:People by unincorporated community in Alabama) or hamlets ( Category:People by hamlet in New York)? Oculi ( talk) 11:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- The determining factor for whether a category like this is warranted or not is not what class of place the community is, but the number of articles about people from that place that exist to be filed in it. A CDP can have such a category if the number of articles warrants it, but even in Louisiana it wouldn't automatically get one the moment there was just one person with an article. Bearcat ( talk) 15:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. No prejudice against recreation if and when there are five or six people to be filed here instead of just one or two. Bearcat ( talk) 15:37, 30 April 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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Unofficial works based on Peanuts (comic strip) to Category:Unofficial works based on Peanuts
Propose renaming Category:Peanuts (comic strip) to Category:Peanuts added 6 May
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. Trivialist ( talk) 10:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Category:Peanuts (comic strip). Subcats follow the parent cat. Oculi ( talk) 10:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Trivialist and Oculi: I've taken the liberty to add the parent category to the nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Really? – see Category:Peanuts. Oculi ( talk) 08:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Forget about it, very quickly :-*> Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Somehow I forgot to check if there was a Category:Peanuts in the first place; I withdraw my original nomination. Trivialist ( talk) 12:37, 6 May 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.
- 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, following
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_19#Category:Muslim_scholars and other recent changes to related categories. –
Fayenatic
London
09:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Muslim historians to Category:Muslim historians of Islam
- Nominator's rationale: narrowing category scope by renaming and purging, exclude Muslim historians from the category who are not a historian of Islam (i.e. exclude a trivial intersection). For example Abu'l-Fida wrote a book about world history and Al-Nuwayri wrote about military history (Mongols conquest of Syria). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: @ Marcocapelle: IMHO it would be better to tag and list the many national sub-categories along with this one. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Fayenatic london: Provided there is consensus for a rename I had in mind to bring the national sub-categories to CfD in a later stage (no speedy), with two options: A. rename and purge; B. upmerge and purge (per SMALLCAT). I thought it would become too complicated to include all of that right here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I see that many of them are so small that they may not be worth keeping. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: See also the only sibling category by religion, Hindu historians, nominated at 2017 May 8. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 8 May 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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. –
Fayenatic
London
13:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Shia Muslim scholars from Nishapur to parent categories
- Propose merging Category:Qur'an exegesis scholars from Nishapur to parent categories
- Propose merging Category:Arab people from Nishapur to Category:Iranian Arab people
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, these are very narrow intersections. Not even Category:People from Tehran is diffused like this. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom, WP:OVERCAT. Brandmeister talk 08:40, 23 April 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.
- 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: speedy delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: User moved category to Category:Gautama Buddha family (notice the corrected typo in "Gautama"). The category with the typo is now empty and should be deleted because of the typo. — Gestrid ( talk) 05:28, 21 April 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.
- 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: upmerge to Category:Liberal parties in the United Kingdom ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Malformed and irredeemable category, that has accumulated unrelated members that should not be categorised together. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- Three parties with the same name. This should be a dab-page, not a category. National Liberal Party (UK) redirects to National Liberal Party, which covers the ground. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Liberal parties in the United Kingdom. This is a clear case for overcategorization of unrelated subjects with shared names. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:22, 23 April 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.
- 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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_May_15#Category:Musical_families, tagging the parent. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
- Remove soft redirect; populate
- Nominator's rationale: I see that this was merged as a result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_4#Musical_families. I've been working a bit in the area of Category:Show business families and we do have subcategories such as Category:Acting families, as well as Category:Family musical groups, for families that perform together. I don't believe the nominated category should be a soft redirect to Category:Show business families, but a bona fide category on its own, for there are good number of such families and I don't think they should be lumped in with the too-general "show business." I certainly disagree with the previous merge rational that there is "no such thing as a musical family" (yet, somehow, there are "acting families"?). Moreover, if such families include classical musicians, one may well say that are not in "show business." Are there still objections to populating this? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 18:00, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Honestly I'd rather go the opposite direction and delete/upmerge
Category:Show business families as well. The only type of family where all members can consistently be linked to a sort of occupation is a royal family. Otherwise the categories just contain families that happen to have a good coverage of individual members on Wikipedia. Adding show business or musical in the category name is sometimes useful for disambiguation though.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
09:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see. That would mean
Category:Acting families goes too, then. Well, that certainly isn't what I had in mind but we shall see.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, if we're to upmerge
Category:Show business families why stop there? It seems to me other
Category:Families by profession and virtually all its contents would need to go, too. Something I would not support.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- As a mere random other example, half of Category:Weizsäcker family (political family) consists of politicians, the other half not. As half of the notable people in the family are politicians, politicians are only a small portion of the entirely family (including non-notable people). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
- In fact, if we're to upmerge
Category:Show business families why stop there? It seems to me other
Category:Families by profession and virtually all its contents would need to go, too. Something I would not support.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- I see. That would mean
Category:Acting families goes too, then. Well, that certainly isn't what I had in mind but we shall see.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
13:30, 22 April 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.
- 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 and move articles as appropriate ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:16, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is odd in a category structure that's mostly just about individual presidencies. I think it makes sense to keep these in
Category:Cannabis in the United States, or maybe move them over to
Category:Cannabis law in the United States. Or does the idea of an "Issue by administration" category tree sound fine? --
BDD (
talk)
16:23, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- This cat was motivated by the creation of Cannabis policy of the Donald Trump administration, and I've suggested a catch-all article about US cannabis policies by president, and a specific one for Nixon (at least). Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney ( talk) 18:13, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Merge per BDD -- There are three Nixon articles, but we are unlikely to get enough to merit separate categories. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:17, 22 April 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.
- 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: Upmerge. No prejudice against recreation if/when there are 5-6 members for it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:05, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:35, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Query − people from New Jersey are organised by town, by village, by township, by city, by borough and by county (so far: see Category:People by populated place in New Jersey). Why are people from census-designated places ignored, unlike their compatriots in Louisiana, not to mention those from unincorporated communities (cf Category:People by unincorporated community in Alabama) or hamlets ( Category:People by hamlet in New York)? Oculi ( talk) 11:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- The determining factor for whether a category like this is warranted or not is not what class of place the community is, but the number of articles about people from that place that exist to be filed in it. A CDP can have such a category if the number of articles warrants it, but even in Louisiana it wouldn't automatically get one the moment there was just one person with an article. Bearcat ( talk) 15:37, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom. No prejudice against recreation if and when there are five or six people to be filed here instead of just one or two. Bearcat ( talk) 15:37, 30 April 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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:06, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Unofficial works based on Peanuts (comic strip) to Category:Unofficial works based on Peanuts
Propose renaming Category:Peanuts (comic strip) to Category:Peanuts added 6 May
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary disambiguation. Trivialist ( talk) 10:09, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Keep per Category:Peanuts (comic strip). Subcats follow the parent cat. Oculi ( talk) 10:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Trivialist and Oculi: I've taken the liberty to add the parent category to the nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:24, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Really? – see Category:Peanuts. Oculi ( talk) 08:55, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Forget about it, very quickly :-*> Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
- Somehow I forgot to check if there was a Category:Peanuts in the first place; I withdraw my original nomination. Trivialist ( talk) 12:37, 6 May 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.
- 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, following
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_19#Category:Muslim_scholars and other recent changes to related categories. –
Fayenatic
London
09:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Muslim historians to Category:Muslim historians of Islam
- Nominator's rationale: narrowing category scope by renaming and purging, exclude Muslim historians from the category who are not a historian of Islam (i.e. exclude a trivial intersection). For example Abu'l-Fida wrote a book about world history and Al-Nuwayri wrote about military history (Mongols conquest of Syria). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:36, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: @ Marcocapelle: IMHO it would be better to tag and list the many national sub-categories along with this one. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- @ Fayenatic london: Provided there is consensus for a rename I had in mind to bring the national sub-categories to CfD in a later stage (no speedy), with two options: A. rename and purge; B. upmerge and purge (per SMALLCAT). I thought it would become too complicated to include all of that right here. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Fair enough. I see that many of them are so small that they may not be worth keeping. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: See also the only sibling category by religion, Hindu historians, nominated at 2017 May 8. – Fayenatic London 21:38, 8 May 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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. –
Fayenatic
London
13:27, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Shia Muslim scholars from Nishapur to parent categories
- Propose merging Category:Qur'an exegesis scholars from Nishapur to parent categories
- Propose merging Category:Arab people from Nishapur to Category:Iranian Arab people
- Nominator's rationale: upmerge, these are very narrow intersections. Not even Category:People from Tehran is diffused like this. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:25, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Upmerge per nom, WP:OVERCAT. Brandmeister talk 08:40, 23 April 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.
- 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: speedy delete ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:49, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: User moved category to Category:Gautama Buddha family (notice the corrected typo in "Gautama"). The category with the typo is now empty and should be deleted because of the typo. — Gestrid ( talk) 05:28, 21 April 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.
- 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: upmerge to Category:Liberal parties in the United Kingdom ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:27, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Malformed and irredeemable category, that has accumulated unrelated members that should not be categorised together. DuncanHill ( talk) 01:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
- Delete -- Three parties with the same name. This should be a dab-page, not a category. National Liberal Party (UK) redirects to National Liberal Party, which covers the ground. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:22, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
- Upmerge to Category:Liberal parties in the United Kingdom. This is a clear case for overcategorization of unrelated subjects with shared names. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:22, 23 April 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.