Category:People associated with the Academy of Music in Kraków
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:upmerge per
WP:OCASSOC, needless to create this category with vague inclusion criteria while the contents fits perfectly well in the parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:59, 3 April 2017 (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:Articles on Wiki Photo Tours in Nigeria
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: This category is very unusual (afaics it's the only "Articles on Wiki Photo Tours in ..." category) and is putting talk pages into an article category. DexDor(talk)20:27, 3 April 2017 (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:Middlesex County College alumni
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.
Keep (with an instructional trout slap) Have you looked at the alumni listed at
Middlesex County College? have you scrolled through
Special:WhatLinksHere/Middlesex County College to see all the articles for alumni that link to the school? Where exactly did you look that you "could not find any other entries to populate it"? What makes the category "unnecessary"? Do you have a minimum number of entries that would convince you to withdraw the nomination?And the million-dollar question, Does this CfD comply with
WP:BEFORE?
Alansohn (
talk)
21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep and populate but the question is also why the category is still near-empty, almost a year after creation, while it's so easy to populate?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – it was easy to populate. One could also readily find 4 or 5 to populate
Category:Middlesex County College faculty. (One should perhaps administer a mild trout-slap to the trout-slapper above, who turns out to be the creator and non-populator of the category in question.)
Oculi (
talk)
08:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, as it's now been better-populated. Just a reminder to all editors that when you're creating a category, if you already know that there are 10 potential entries for it then it's your job to file all 10 of those entries in the new category right off the top — you can't just file one article in it and leave the other nine for other people to do, because other people won't have any way of knowing that the category exists to have the other nine people filed in it unless they happen to find it by chance. And you doubly don't get to chew other people out for not doing your job for you, either. So no, Tinton's not getting a trout for this...but Alansohn might.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually I do deserve a little "trout slap", haha, because I did not even look at the 'notable alumni' section, which I should have noticed. It was a careless move on my part. From now on, if we (as in all editors, including myself) create a category, we should take Bearcat's advice and fill it up with entries as best as we can. Also, if we see a category with only 1 or 2 entries, it'd be best to do a thorough
WP:Before search. Having said that, I would like to withdraw this nomination. Thank you all for your input.
Tinton5 (
talk)
00:33, 6 April 2017 (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:Canadian traditional music
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.
If it were needed, maybe that might have been the implication of my comment. But the actual implication if my comment is that it's not needed.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:56, 11 April 2017 (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:Relations of those involved in the Irish revolutionary period
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.
There is nothing in the name of the category that suggests such a demarcation, and even at that, the necessary level of consanguinity or legal relationship is undefined. —
swpbT12:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Notability is not inherited. Just because they're related to people who were involved means nothing. Anyway seems like a useless category, why would someone want to search things by this.
Canterbury Tailtalk18:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This seems to be about politicians who are related to the heroes of the Irish War of Liberation. The question has to be whether such a relations category is a sufficiently well-defined set to make a worthwhile category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:09, 9 April 2017 (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:Victory Day
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.
Comment: Victory Day appears to be a thing celebrated in most of the former Soviet countries, not just in Kazakhstan alone, so there actually are potential contents for this — the head article at
Victory Day (9 May) lists a good many things that could potentially be filed here, including standalone articles for many (although not all) of the individual Victory Day parades in
Moscow (although not generally anywhere else, and even the Astana one here is of at best questionable standalone notability). But nominator is correct that this category is badly named; the dab page at
Victory Day reveals that there are other completely unrelated public commemorations that are also called Victory Day, so if kept this would need to be renamed to a disambiguated title — and there's certainly an open question as to whether we would need a transnational catch-all category for all of the Soviet May 9 Victory Days in all of the former Soviet bloc. But it might be worth repurposing as a category specifically for the Russian version, which appears to be the only one that actually has much spinoff content beyond the main overview article.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:23, 6 April 2017 (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:Serbian period in the history of the Republic of Macedonia
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: In the
previous discussion (closed as no consensus) we were actually very close to a consensus to rename, since "create a new category and remove the old one" as commented in that discussion may well be interpreted as renaming.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)reply
It was part of Yugoslavia, but there is nothing against creating a subcategory for a historical region. It makes sense to do especially since we meanwhile know that an independent republic grew out of it and it may be important to understand its roots.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support in principle -- Macedonia was a province of Yugoslavia, so that this name change is appropriate in principle. The question of whether there is really enough content that is specifically about Macedonia (implying merger) is a separate one, and should be allowed to hold up the rename. Personally I am dubious whether there is enough content, so that I am neutralon the question of merger.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:21, 9 April 2017 (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:Silesian people
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:downmerge, although there is some debate about the possible existence of a Silesian ethnicity, we can in any case not verify for individual persons living in Silesia whether they would belong to that ethnicity or not.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. I'll acknowledge that there are some people who now identify themselves as being of Silesian nationality, but nominator is correct that the extent to which it constitutes a distinct ethnicity is debated at best. For starters, Silesia was historically populated by both ethnic Slavs and ethnic Germans — and this category includes people from both groups, which itself proves that this is being used as a "from the geographic region" category rather than a "possessing this ethnic identity" category. IOW, there's not a strong basis here for needing both an ethnic-demonym category and a people-from-region category; "People from Silesia" is all we need.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:18, 5 April 2017 (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:Ralph Patt
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Luftwaffe Luftflotten
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia files needing editor assistance at upload
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People associated with the Academy of Music in Kraków
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:upmerge per
WP:OCASSOC, needless to create this category with vague inclusion criteria while the contents fits perfectly well in the parent categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:59, 3 April 2017 (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:Articles on Wiki Photo Tours in Nigeria
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: This category is very unusual (afaics it's the only "Articles on Wiki Photo Tours in ..." category) and is putting talk pages into an article category. DexDor(talk)20:27, 3 April 2017 (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:Middlesex County College alumni
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.
Keep (with an instructional trout slap) Have you looked at the alumni listed at
Middlesex County College? have you scrolled through
Special:WhatLinksHere/Middlesex County College to see all the articles for alumni that link to the school? Where exactly did you look that you "could not find any other entries to populate it"? What makes the category "unnecessary"? Do you have a minimum number of entries that would convince you to withdraw the nomination?And the million-dollar question, Does this CfD comply with
WP:BEFORE?
Alansohn (
talk)
21:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep and populate but the question is also why the category is still near-empty, almost a year after creation, while it's so easy to populate?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:47, 4 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – it was easy to populate. One could also readily find 4 or 5 to populate
Category:Middlesex County College faculty. (One should perhaps administer a mild trout-slap to the trout-slapper above, who turns out to be the creator and non-populator of the category in question.)
Oculi (
talk)
08:35, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep, as it's now been better-populated. Just a reminder to all editors that when you're creating a category, if you already know that there are 10 potential entries for it then it's your job to file all 10 of those entries in the new category right off the top — you can't just file one article in it and leave the other nine for other people to do, because other people won't have any way of knowing that the category exists to have the other nine people filed in it unless they happen to find it by chance. And you doubly don't get to chew other people out for not doing your job for you, either. So no, Tinton's not getting a trout for this...but Alansohn might.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Actually I do deserve a little "trout slap", haha, because I did not even look at the 'notable alumni' section, which I should have noticed. It was a careless move on my part. From now on, if we (as in all editors, including myself) create a category, we should take Bearcat's advice and fill it up with entries as best as we can. Also, if we see a category with only 1 or 2 entries, it'd be best to do a thorough
WP:Before search. Having said that, I would like to withdraw this nomination. Thank you all for your input.
Tinton5 (
talk)
00:33, 6 April 2017 (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:Canadian traditional music
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.
If it were needed, maybe that might have been the implication of my comment. But the actual implication if my comment is that it's not needed.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:56, 11 April 2017 (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:Relations of those involved in the Irish revolutionary period
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.
There is nothing in the name of the category that suggests such a demarcation, and even at that, the necessary level of consanguinity or legal relationship is undefined. —
swpbT12:38, 5 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Notability is not inherited. Just because they're related to people who were involved means nothing. Anyway seems like a useless category, why would someone want to search things by this.
Canterbury Tailtalk18:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This seems to be about politicians who are related to the heroes of the Irish War of Liberation. The question has to be whether such a relations category is a sufficiently well-defined set to make a worthwhile category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:09, 9 April 2017 (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:Victory Day
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.
Comment: Victory Day appears to be a thing celebrated in most of the former Soviet countries, not just in Kazakhstan alone, so there actually are potential contents for this — the head article at
Victory Day (9 May) lists a good many things that could potentially be filed here, including standalone articles for many (although not all) of the individual Victory Day parades in
Moscow (although not generally anywhere else, and even the Astana one here is of at best questionable standalone notability). But nominator is correct that this category is badly named; the dab page at
Victory Day reveals that there are other completely unrelated public commemorations that are also called Victory Day, so if kept this would need to be renamed to a disambiguated title — and there's certainly an open question as to whether we would need a transnational catch-all category for all of the Soviet May 9 Victory Days in all of the former Soviet bloc. But it might be worth repurposing as a category specifically for the Russian version, which appears to be the only one that actually has much spinoff content beyond the main overview article.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:23, 6 April 2017 (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:Serbian period in the history of the Republic of Macedonia
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: In the
previous discussion (closed as no consensus) we were actually very close to a consensus to rename, since "create a new category and remove the old one" as commented in that discussion may well be interpreted as renaming.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)reply
It was part of Yugoslavia, but there is nothing against creating a subcategory for a historical region. It makes sense to do especially since we meanwhile know that an independent republic grew out of it and it may be important to understand its roots.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
18:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)reply
Support in principle -- Macedonia was a province of Yugoslavia, so that this name change is appropriate in principle. The question of whether there is really enough content that is specifically about Macedonia (implying merger) is a separate one, and should be allowed to hold up the rename. Personally I am dubious whether there is enough content, so that I am neutralon the question of merger.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:21, 9 April 2017 (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:Silesian people
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:downmerge, although there is some debate about the possible existence of a Silesian ethnicity, we can in any case not verify for individual persons living in Silesia whether they would belong to that ethnicity or not.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:11, 3 April 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. I'll acknowledge that there are some people who now identify themselves as being of Silesian nationality, but nominator is correct that the extent to which it constitutes a distinct ethnicity is debated at best. For starters, Silesia was historically populated by both ethnic Slavs and ethnic Germans — and this category includes people from both groups, which itself proves that this is being used as a "from the geographic region" category rather than a "possessing this ethnic identity" category. IOW, there's not a strong basis here for needing both an ethnic-demonym category and a people-from-region category; "People from Silesia" is all we need.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:18, 5 April 2017 (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:Ralph Patt
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Luftwaffe Luftflotten
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia files needing editor assistance at upload
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.