Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 23 February 25 >

February 24

Category:United States speculative presidential candidates, 2016

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. czar 17:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Same creator as Category:United States speculative presidential candidates, 2020. This is not a defining characteristic. For those who actually entered the race, we have Category:United States presidential candidates, 2016. And "Potential candidates who did not run" are already listed at the appropriate pages ( Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016, etc. Neutrality talk 23:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no solid basis and not a defining characteristic Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Speculated by whom? Based on what? Being a speculated candidate in the 2016 election is not a defining characteristic. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:41, 25 February 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:United States speculative presidential candidates, 2020

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. There may or may not be case for an article about speculation on possible 2020 candidates, but that's a separate issue. In the meantime, there is clear consensus that this WP:CRYSTAL exercise is not a WP:DEFINING attribute of the people so categorised. And it's WP:SNOWing here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: BLP, not defining, speculation or original research (it's like some Wikipedia is making predictions about peoples lives, and even if it's from some report, it's obviously speculation and not defining -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 21:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
per your own links: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" The forecasts and theories are verifiable, running for president is of wide interest, speculation with sources are allowable. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 00:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was just combing through the filing instructions to nominate this category myself. The creator has tagged pretty much any American politician who is alive at the moment, it is an indiscriminate scattershot ranging from Hillary Clinton (she has not stated a desire to run) to Bernie (he'd be 80!) to Val Demings, a 2-term House Rep. A newspaper with a "what if...?" column about 2020 aspirations is not a defining characteristic to categorize people. ValarianB ( talk) 21:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Per WP:CRYSTAL"All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. ...Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" Presidential aspirations are notable, presidential candidates are of wide interest. No opinion of the editor was inserted. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 00:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Each subject had at least two articles written in regards to their potential 2020 candidacy, published sources exist for all of them, and they are referenced in /info/en/?search=United_States_presidential_election,_2020 MeropeRiddle ( talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entitiesare allowable per WP:CRYSTAL, What exactly is wrong with an article about thirteen women that should run for president? MeropeRiddle ( talk) 00:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The fact that it's crap musings. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 04:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of these politicians. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per others, there's really nothing that stitches these people together other than an article that wonders if they'll run. TheValeyard ( talk) 23:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete violates WP:CRYSTAL and has no verifiable basis at the moment Snuggums ( talk / edits) 23:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Per WP:CRYSTAL"All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. ...Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" Presidential aspirations are notable, presidential candidates are of wide interest. No opinion of the editor was inserted. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 00:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User is delving into the past as well, creating one of these for 2016. I don't know how to link it as it wants to add this discussion to the category if I preview this edit. Just search their edit history. Plain text - "Category:United States speculative presidential candidates, 2016". TheValeyard ( talk) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per everybody else and WP:CRYSTAL. Unverifiable and speculative; hundreds of names could be added to this cat. Kill it now before it proliferates. -- Seduisant ( talk) 01:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Adding to the chorus of objections per WP:CRYSTAL. But how did this template even get this far? It admits to being speculative, which we don't do. And sources at this point are a bit hinky too: because they're usually just some writer's opinion piece. Not much to go on. At best, we should probably table this template for a couple years. Otherwise this is likely to get out of hand very quickly. For some, it already has. X4n6 ( talk) 05:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic. Neutrality talk 06:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – very unlikely a defining characteristic for any politician. Politrukki ( talk) 10:27, 25 February 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:Sig Sauer P227

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). Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Cat created for a single page; unclear that anything else would ever go here. — swpb T 20:24, 24 February 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:United States presidential candidates, 2020

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. czar 17:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:TOOSOON. There are no declared candidates in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, including Trump. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, There are declared candidates. Trump declared in January 2017. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, there are no candidates. Some statement about a future candidacy is not a defining characteristic of a politician. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Individuals included in this section have their own Wikipedia page and either formally announced their candidacy or filed as a candidate with Federal Election Commission (FEC) (for other than exploratory purposes). Your opinion on their candidacy being a 'musing' is your own speculation, and is not relevant to the purpose of the category which is actual registered candidates that have their own wikipedia page. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 23:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete too soon without any official announcements Snuggums ( talk / edits) 23:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not needed before the 2018 midterms. TOOSOON/CRYSTAL. p b p 23:43, 24 February 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:Dead astronauts

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Simple intersection of profession and not living_people; no precedent for other professions Jason A. Quest ( talk) 18:47, 24 February 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:Planetary systems by number of confirmed planets

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. This close is no bar to early re-nomination as suggested below. – Fayenatic London 13:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: What is the use of this? Do we need categories for all numbers of all things? Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 14:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Frankly, how many planets there are in a system is currently a matter of speculation and guesswork (even moreso than the number in our own), not a defining characteristic of verifiable fact. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 19:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if we are keeping Category:Planetary systems with three confirmed planets‎ etc, then we may as well retain the organising category for categories. Perhaps the wrong thing has been nominated here, and the CategoryPlanetary systems with X confirmed planets‎ categories were intended to be deleted, with X from one to eight. We may as well delete the category for eight, as there are no articles in it. For these categories information could easily change over time as more planets are found in a system, so I do agree that the information is non defining. The category for "one" is pretty useless, as most will be like that. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, the original CfD was the Category:Planetary systems with eight confirmed planets, which is being discussed here (I wrote there my opinion about that case). I created yesterday that category, and added the Solar System (as the first of a list which will obviously grow shortly). The nominator opted for adding the parent category (this one) for deletion (which is an interesting debate, in my opinion), so here we are. Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 23:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
So, this is the current usage for these cases. Draw your own conclusions! Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The number of items found to date in a location is not defining in the way that the design parameters of an aircraft, train, knot, or chemical are.
Replying the previous unsigned comment: is an opinion, and I agree with the first part. For example, it would be of little use classifying countries by number of capital cities. Even if a country has not an official capital, it is still a country. However, a planet is not any random item for a planetary system: if a planetary system has no planets, then it is not a planetary system. To avoid overcategorisation, I am more inclined to merge together subcategories having four or more planets, in a similar way as Category:Heterocyclic compounds (4 or more rings). That would make the category more stable as new, larger planetary systems are discovered. I am more interested however in discussing if it would be of interest having categories such as Planetary systems including terrestrial planets, or Planetary systems including planets in the habitable zone, for example, which would be meaningful for other scientific reasons (however, I know, this is not the place to discuss that). Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 12:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think having a category for multiple systems sort of like Category:Multiple star systems is a more sensible option: you don't have to create new categories (if multi-planet systems past 8 are confirmed), or when new planets around existing systems are discovered, then you don't have to re-categorize it, just add a new sortkey. Loooke ( talk) 02:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think it's worthwhile having categories for systems with large numbers of known planets. It's certainly valuable for navigation to find e.g. other systems with six or seven planets. On the other hand, there is very little value in the low numbers; the number of systems with one or two known planets is huge and there's no obvious reason why anyone would use those categories. I'm unsure whether we should draw a line somewhere, and if so where it should be. Having this category above the others does make sense. Modest Genius talk 11:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not a particularly useful category, especially since the number is subject to change over time. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep per User:Graeme Bartlett. A fresh nomination for this category in conjunction with its subcategories would be a suitable next step. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:32, 3 March 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:House of Abhakara

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: insufficient consensus to merge, so rename . – Fayenatic London 06:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Also:

No reliable sources appear to use the "House of Name" construct for Thai royally descended families. Google Books searches reveal some results for "Name family", but almost none for "House of Name" (and the Google web results that turn up for "House of Name" are almost entirely Wikipedia mirrors). Paul_012 ( talk) 11:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Upmerging to Chakri dynasty would only be appropriate for articles whose subjects are also royalty, i.e. of mom chao rank and above. I'm not quite sure how NONDEF and SMALLCAT should apply to some of these (e.g. the Paribatra cat, currently with six members), given that we have plenty of family categories. (Compare others under Category:Thai families.) Even if merging is preferred I would still like some agreement on the proper format, since these categories are currently underpopulated and several would obviously warrant inclusion when more articles have been created. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 22:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note: If the above suggestion is followed, the categories should be deleted rather than upmerging, since the appropriate articles are already categorised under the Chakri dynasty cat. Also, the suggestion isn't applicable to the Sundarakul na Jolburi cat, which is unrelated to the Chakri dynasty. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:04, 2 March 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.

Years in Northern+Southern California

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. Timrollpickering 11:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Propose merging:
40 by-year and by-decade subcats
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia has very extensive coverage of California, and the state's population of ~39 million is about the same as the combined total of the 14 smallest members states of the European Union. So I can see a case for splitting the California-wide by-year/decade/century categories. However, I don't think that this Northern California/ Southern California divide is a good way to do it:
  1. Splitting California into two subsections won't make a huge difference to the size of the categories. A more significant difference is already made by the already-extant subcategories for the major population centres of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and 5 other cities (see e.g. Category:20th century in California by city). Those cities are the state's major hubs of economic and cultural activity (and hence of notable events), so the intermediate North/South split won't add much to the benefits of by-city categorisation.
  2. These are informal regions, so the boundary between Southern and Northern CA is ill-defined. That's a recipe for headaches, and for disputes between good-faith editors.
  3. A split which doesn't reflect administrative divisions will lead to many categorisation dilemmas, as editors struggle to agree just how much an event is linked to one half of the state while they decide whether to categorise it under Northern CA, Southern CA, or in the parent all-CA category, or in more than one of the three.
This category scheme is still relatively young and undeveloped, so I thought it best to seek a consensus on its fate now, before more work is done to build it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:06, 24 February 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.

1 (number)

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, at least for now. First categories like Category:11 and Category:6 establishments should be nominated on this platform for rename to AD format. If and after those categories are renamed, a new discussion about the four categories below is possible. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Pages 1 (number)– 9 (number) were recently moved to 1– 9 as the primary topic after an RfC and RM. As such, the categories should reflect this. The target names are currently empty and years are at Category:AD 1, etc. I'm not particularly sure why this was declined as a speedy. Laurdecl talk 05:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
copy of speedy discussion
  • Oppose per the reasons I set out at speedy, above: that the bare number is ambiguous with the year categories which occupied that slot until 2 months ago, and removing the disambiguator will lead to miscategorisation. (It's odd that the nominator didn't take in the explanation at speedy, but there we are).
    Those year categories were renamed from the bare number to use an AD prefix (e.g. Category:4 → Category:AD 4) after a poorly-attended discussion at Talk:AD 1#Categories. This was a followup to an RFC which led to the renaming of the articles. The categories should not have been renamed without a CFD discussion, and should have been properly tagged etc, but I generally support reducing ambiguity in category names, so I accept the result. However, putting the number category into the recently vacated slot will lead to miscategorisation.
    So instead of these proposed renames, Category:1, Category:2, Category:3 and Category:4 should be become disambiguation pages using {{ category ambiguous}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Pinging JFG who moved the categories, so they can explain. Laurdecl talk 06:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support (pinged) – This move looks obvious to me. Two well-attended RfC in August–October 2016 and October–December 2016 determined that articles titled 1 to 100 should not be about years any longer. Accordingly they were moved to AD 1… AD 100, after much preparatory work and cleanup. More recently, it was debated whether those article titles should be about numbers or should be disambig pages. Two RfCs decided that 1… 10 have the numbers as primary topic, so that 1 (number)… 10 (number) were moved accordingly. Soon there will be further discussions about titles 11 to 100, which until now are either dab pages or legacy pointers to the years. The categories should follow article naming, as determined by careful and wide-ranging editor discussion. I moved the AD categories in that spirit, I wasn't really aware of the CFD process and I'm sorry for not going through this — I thought category names followed automatically the outcomes of article titling RfCs — and some regulars here have noted it was the correct thing to do per WP:IAR. — JFG talk 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ JFG: The article names were clearly decided through a well-attended RFC process, but only 2 editors supported the decision to rename categories. As above, I think renaming the year categories has worked out well, but a decision of two editors in a poorly advertised and attended discussion is not a consensus for moving the year categories, which is why this discussion here is needed.
      WP:C2D (concordance between a particular category's name and a related page's name) applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous. In this case, the number is the primary topic, but it is ambiguous ... and ambiguous category names cause categorisation errors. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose – Category:1 is to be a number and Category:11 a year? That is absurd. I am not in favour of the existence of either Category:1 or Category:11 as numbers or years as the name is barely comprehensible without some sort of clue. Oculi ( talk) 10:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Category:11 should not be a year. It's a legacy category from the time before early AD years were moved to AD 1… AD 100. In my opinion it should be deleted. The appropriate year category should be Category:AD 11, containing events that happened in that year, but I see it was recently moved back to the Category:11 title; pinging wbm1058 for input. — JFG talk 09:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You seem to have quit there, and walked away to work on other things. There's no record in the logs that Category:AD 12 was ever created. Several navigation templates needed to be updated in coordination with these moves, as I've pointed out at Talk:AD 1#Post-RfC tasks. Only a week ago, I updated {{ BDYearsInDecade}}, {{ Decade category header}}, Template:Years in century/row, {{ BDYearsInDecade}} and {{ Year by category}}. I have no objection to moving more categories for AD 11 and beyond, if it's done without breaking things. The templates need to still work properly. Moving categories has never been a priority of mine, and I've only done this work as I felt compelled to pick up dropped balls. Of course, this CfD is happening less than 10 days after I deleted those categories, which had been left hanging as soft-redirects because of the unfinished template work. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose substantially along the lines of Oculi; numbers have traditionally been located at "digits (number)" whilst years have been just the digits. Categories should match unless there is some overriding reason not to, and none has been suggested. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Carlossuarez46: and Oculi: The number pages have been moved. 1 (number) is now a redirect to 1. This CfD is to make the categories match the articles. Laurdecl talk 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I am aware that the pages have been moved. The names are ambiguous wherever the pages are and category names cannot sustain ambiguity. Oculi ( talk) 23:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      • There are also pages Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, which increases the confusion. Oculi ( talk) 09:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Carlossuarez46: You say the categories should match the pages and that is what this CfD is for. Do you mean to support? Laurdecl talk 07:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, for now. Too soon. This is pushing too close up against categories such as Category:6 establishments (which is not about the establishment of "6" as a number) and Category:6 by continent. We need a larger buffer zone of ambiguity. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Logically, Category:6 establishments and friends should be renamed Category:AD 6 establishments… — JFG talk 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong support Categories should follow article names. Ppp ery 23:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • WP:C2D makes clear that this is not automatic when ambiguity arises. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      • C2D is a speedy renaming criteria, it has nothing to do with this CfD. Laurdecl talk 07:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
        • A renaming criterion has no bearing on a rename proposal? Cfd will have to be rethought. Oculi ( talk) 11:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
          • C2D is a speedy renaming criteria, it has nothing to do with this CfD. Laurdecl talk 08:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: I find myself agreeing with the comments of BrownHairedGirl. Also, the article 1 is about the number "one", whereas the articles in category:1 (number) are predominantly articles dealing with some aspect of "oneness") so there is no one-to-one (ahem!) correspondence between the subject matter of those two pages thus no need for an identical title. (Since it has been mentioned, I would support further changes such as "37" to "AD 37" for years in the first century and within closely related pages such as the year categories there is some inconsistency between usage of "AD 6" and "6 AD" style: usage in the pages should follow the titles and thus be consistent.) -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:33, 27 February 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.

Astronomical objects discovered

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 06:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 2 articles per category, on average. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. The first item in the first category is said to have been known "at least since", it was included in a star chart publication in the 2nd century, but we have no clear indication that astronomers before then didn't know of it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:54, 26 March 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.

Medieval chess

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 2 articles per category, on average. Articles may also be moved to the corresponding century category if they aren't already in that tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Chess took on its modern rules in 15th century, before then it's not really the same game. MaxBrowne ( talk) 09:57, 24 February 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.

Princeton University alumni by decade

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 13:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Alumni by decade. If anything, they could be diffused by century but I don't know that's necessary either. Note that other old universities have single alumni categories, such as Category:Harvard University alumni. Also note that there are 650+ in the main category now. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
As the editor who split these categories up, I am not opposed to them being merged back into the parent category. I thought it would be a useful way of splitting the very large category into smaller chunks. -- MainlyTwelve ( talk) 16:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom; nearly any category can be split up this way but we usually don't so that they retain their usefulness - another reason why boolean searching would be a good idea. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per above. Neutrality talk 05:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. It doesn't matter what year someone graduated from an institution per WP:NOTDEFINING. Furthermore, it would not aid navigation to the reader in any way (in fact it would make navigation while looking for other alumni much more difficult). Jrcla2 ( talk) 03:12, 28 February 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.

Related Indian Jain monk categories--bundled together

Category:Indian Jain monks 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: merge to Indian Jain monks, Jain monks by century and Indian monks by century. Oh, and now there is also Indian Jains by century, so the contents will be merged there too, although that hierarchy may also be challenged later.
As for the suggested grouping by historical period: comparing this to sibling hierarchies, we have a by-period structure for Christian saints by period, but not currently for monks; Category:Christian monks is subdivided by century (and separately by nationality). – Fayenatic London 22:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge as appropriate (i.e. Jain monks by century and Indian monks by century). There's no need for this triple intersection: virtually all Jain monks are Indian and we don't need a scheme for monks by religion, century, and nationality. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural comment. The nomination as set out simply removes a container category. If the nominator intends to merge or delete the by-century subcats, the proposed actions should be listed above, and the categories tagged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • More procedural comment, the subcategories have been tagged now but wrongly, they indicate "delete" instead of "merge", hence the merge target is unspecified, and the categories and merge targets are not listed here either. That makes it impossible for an admin to close the discussion in the way that nominator intends. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support upmerge but hangon? Do Indian Jains first? @ Koavf and Marcocapelle: We have a clear case of WP:OVERCAT here - this is a religion that flourished around the time of the Roman Empire, yet we have 13 articles in 9 categories BC, and 27 articles in 8 categories in the 1st century AD. We have 22 articles in 7 categories up to the 19th century, then 28 in the 20th century and 17 in the 21st. So even if we lumped them all together, we'd only be looking at 80 articles - hardly too many for a combined category without any century subcats. If you wanted to split it up, one could do it like Category:Indian astronomers with Ancient... and Medieval... divisions. So I think there's a clear case for some kind of merger, but maybe sort out the Indian Jain thing below first? Mind you, it would be nice to get on with it, there's a bunch of old Indian monks hanging round red-link categories at the moment that probably don't want to be created. Le Deluge ( talk) 19:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'd definitely support merging to Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Bear in mind that this is northern India, so the natural division is Ancient, Medieval, colonial India and independent India. But to be honest the first two are the interesting ones given when Jainism was at its peak - in music terms the Jains of ancient and medieval times were Elvis and the Beatles, whereas the more recent ones are one-hit wonders... To be honest, 80 in a category is fine, it doesn't need dividing. Le Deluge ( talk) 19:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You're right it should be aligned with the natural division in India, there's probably also a Mughal period in between. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:25, 12 March 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:Indian Jain monks
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. – Fayenatic London 19:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge as appropriate (to Indian monks and Jain monks). Virtually all Jains--especially monks--are Indian. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is clearly a matter of perspective: within Jain, Indian is not defining; however within Indian, Jain is defining. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • That's not how WP:DEFINING works - by analogy you would say that within males, astronauts are defining therefore we should have Category:male astronauts - and that is explicitly excluded. It's the first word that is the adjective that modifies the second word or phrase, so the defining-ness only goes one way. Le Deluge ( talk) 19:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The reason that we don't have a male astronauts category is that we keep to WP:CATEGRS, that has nothing to do with order of words. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:26, 12 March 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:Indian monks 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: no consensus. Checking the dates of the contents, it can be seen that at the time of the nomination, the category only contained Indian Jain monks by century. it now also has sub-categories by century; these were added on 27 February, and negate the original rationale. To delete, a fresh nomination would be required, including those sub-categories. – Fayenatic London 15:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for the triple intersection of nationality, monk-hood, and century, plus the only subcat (also nominated) is pretty redundant. Upmerge as appropriate to Indian monks and monks by century for appropriate subcats. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Proposed cats already has too much of pages and cats and must be subcategorised. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 11:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural oppose, none of the subcategories have been tagged. Just deleting the top category without merging the subcategories is completely meaningless. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:44, 2 March 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_24&oldid=1074860277"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 23 February 25 >

February 24

Category:United States speculative presidential candidates, 2016

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. czar 17:12, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Same creator as Category:United States speculative presidential candidates, 2020. This is not a defining characteristic. For those who actually entered the race, we have Category:United States presidential candidates, 2016. And "Potential candidates who did not run" are already listed at the appropriate pages ( Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016, Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016, etc. Neutrality talk 23:56, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete no solid basis and not a defining characteristic Snuggums ( talk / edits) 05:04, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:44, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Speculated by whom? Based on what? Being a speculated candidate in the 2016 election is not a defining characteristic. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 17:41, 25 February 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:United States speculative presidential candidates, 2020

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. There may or may not be case for an article about speculation on possible 2020 candidates, but that's a separate issue. In the meantime, there is clear consensus that this WP:CRYSTAL exercise is not a WP:DEFINING attribute of the people so categorised. And it's WP:SNOWing here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:30, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: BLP, not defining, speculation or original research (it's like some Wikipedia is making predictions about peoples lives, and even if it's from some report, it's obviously speculation and not defining -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 21:07, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
per your own links: "All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced. It is not appropriate for editors to insert their own opinions or analyses. Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" The forecasts and theories are verifiable, running for president is of wide interest, speculation with sources are allowable. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 00:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I was just combing through the filing instructions to nominate this category myself. The creator has tagged pretty much any American politician who is alive at the moment, it is an indiscriminate scattershot ranging from Hillary Clinton (she has not stated a desire to run) to Bernie (he'd be 80!) to Val Demings, a 2-term House Rep. A newspaper with a "what if...?" column about 2020 aspirations is not a defining characteristic to categorize people. ValarianB ( talk) 21:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Per WP:CRYSTAL"All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. ...Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" Presidential aspirations are notable, presidential candidates are of wide interest. No opinion of the editor was inserted. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 00:38, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Each subject had at least two articles written in regards to their potential 2020 candidacy, published sources exist for all of them, and they are referenced in /info/en/?search=United_States_presidential_election,_2020 MeropeRiddle ( talk) 23:14, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entitiesare allowable per WP:CRYSTAL, What exactly is wrong with an article about thirteen women that should run for president? MeropeRiddle ( talk) 00:47, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The fact that it's crap musings. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 04:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of these politicians. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per others, there's really nothing that stitches these people together other than an article that wonders if they'll run. TheValeyard ( talk) 23:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete violates WP:CRYSTAL and has no verifiable basis at the moment Snuggums ( talk / edits) 23:29, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Per WP:CRYSTAL"All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. ...Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" Presidential aspirations are notable, presidential candidates are of wide interest. No opinion of the editor was inserted. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 00:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment User is delving into the past as well, creating one of these for 2016. I don't know how to link it as it wants to add this discussion to the category if I preview this edit. Just search their edit history. Plain text - "Category:United States speculative presidential candidates, 2016". TheValeyard ( talk) 23:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per everybody else and WP:CRYSTAL. Unverifiable and speculative; hundreds of names could be added to this cat. Kill it now before it proliferates. -- Seduisant ( talk) 01:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Adding to the chorus of objections per WP:CRYSTAL. But how did this template even get this far? It admits to being speculative, which we don't do. And sources at this point are a bit hinky too: because they're usually just some writer's opinion piece. Not much to go on. At best, we should probably table this template for a couple years. Otherwise this is likely to get out of hand very quickly. For some, it already has. X4n6 ( talk) 05:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic. Neutrality talk 06:31, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – very unlikely a defining characteristic for any politician. Politrukki ( talk) 10:27, 25 February 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:Sig Sauer P227

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). Marcocapelle ( talk) 02:19, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Cat created for a single page; unclear that anything else would ever go here. — swpb T 20:24, 24 February 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:United States presidential candidates, 2020

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. czar 17:28, 7 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:TOOSOON. There are no declared candidates in the 2020 U.S. presidential election, including Trump. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 19:55, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, There are declared candidates. Trump declared in January 2017. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 20:41, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, there are no candidates. Some statement about a future candidacy is not a defining characteristic of a politician. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Individuals included in this section have their own Wikipedia page and either formally announced their candidacy or filed as a candidate with Federal Election Commission (FEC) (for other than exploratory purposes). Your opinion on their candidacy being a 'musing' is your own speculation, and is not relevant to the purpose of the category which is actual registered candidates that have their own wikipedia page. MeropeRiddle ( talk) 23:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete too soon without any official announcements Snuggums ( talk / edits) 23:35, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not needed before the 2018 midterms. TOOSOON/CRYSTAL. p b p 23:43, 24 February 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:Dead astronauts

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Simple intersection of profession and not living_people; no precedent for other professions Jason A. Quest ( talk) 18:47, 24 February 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:Planetary systems by number of confirmed planets

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. This close is no bar to early re-nomination as suggested below. – Fayenatic London 13:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: What is the use of this? Do we need categories for all numbers of all things? Isambard Kingdom ( talk) 14:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Frankly, how many planets there are in a system is currently a matter of speculation and guesswork (even moreso than the number in our own), not a defining characteristic of verifiable fact. - Jason A. Quest ( talk) 19:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep if we are keeping Category:Planetary systems with three confirmed planets‎ etc, then we may as well retain the organising category for categories. Perhaps the wrong thing has been nominated here, and the CategoryPlanetary systems with X confirmed planets‎ categories were intended to be deleted, with X from one to eight. We may as well delete the category for eight, as there are no articles in it. For these categories information could easily change over time as more planets are found in a system, so I do agree that the information is non defining. The category for "one" is pretty useless, as most will be like that. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 22:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Actually, the original CfD was the Category:Planetary systems with eight confirmed planets, which is being discussed here (I wrote there my opinion about that case). I created yesterday that category, and added the Solar System (as the first of a list which will obviously grow shortly). The nominator opted for adding the parent category (this one) for deletion (which is an interesting debate, in my opinion), so here we are. Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 23:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
So, this is the current usage for these cases. Draw your own conclusions! Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 23:13, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
The number of items found to date in a location is not defining in the way that the design parameters of an aircraft, train, knot, or chemical are.
Replying the previous unsigned comment: is an opinion, and I agree with the first part. For example, it would be of little use classifying countries by number of capital cities. Even if a country has not an official capital, it is still a country. However, a planet is not any random item for a planetary system: if a planetary system has no planets, then it is not a planetary system. To avoid overcategorisation, I am more inclined to merge together subcategories having four or more planets, in a similar way as Category:Heterocyclic compounds (4 or more rings). That would make the category more stable as new, larger planetary systems are discovered. I am more interested however in discussing if it would be of interest having categories such as Planetary systems including terrestrial planets, or Planetary systems including planets in the habitable zone, for example, which would be meaningful for other scientific reasons (however, I know, this is not the place to discuss that). Eynar Oxartum ( talk) 12:09, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I think having a category for multiple systems sort of like Category:Multiple star systems is a more sensible option: you don't have to create new categories (if multi-planet systems past 8 are confirmed), or when new planets around existing systems are discovered, then you don't have to re-categorize it, just add a new sortkey. Loooke ( talk) 02:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I think it's worthwhile having categories for systems with large numbers of known planets. It's certainly valuable for navigation to find e.g. other systems with six or seven planets. On the other hand, there is very little value in the low numbers; the number of systems with one or two known planets is huge and there's no obvious reason why anyone would use those categories. I'm unsure whether we should draw a line somewhere, and if so where it should be. Having this category above the others does make sense. Modest Genius talk 11:54, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: not a particularly useful category, especially since the number is subject to change over time. Praemonitus ( talk) 19:22, 1 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural keep per User:Graeme Bartlett. A fresh nomination for this category in conjunction with its subcategories would be a suitable next step. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:32, 3 March 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:House of Abhakara

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: insufficient consensus to merge, so rename . – Fayenatic London 06:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Also:

No reliable sources appear to use the "House of Name" construct for Thai royally descended families. Google Books searches reveal some results for "Name family", but almost none for "House of Name" (and the Google web results that turn up for "House of Name" are almost entirely Wikipedia mirrors). Paul_012 ( talk) 11:58, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply

  • Upmerging to Chakri dynasty would only be appropriate for articles whose subjects are also royalty, i.e. of mom chao rank and above. I'm not quite sure how NONDEF and SMALLCAT should apply to some of these (e.g. the Paribatra cat, currently with six members), given that we have plenty of family categories. (Compare others under Category:Thai families.) Even if merging is preferred I would still like some agreement on the proper format, since these categories are currently underpopulated and several would obviously warrant inclusion when more articles have been created. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 22:07, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Note: If the above suggestion is followed, the categories should be deleted rather than upmerging, since the appropriate articles are already categorised under the Chakri dynasty cat. Also, the suggestion isn't applicable to the Sundarakul na Jolburi cat, which is unrelated to the Chakri dynasty. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 21:04, 2 March 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.

Years in Northern+Southern California

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. Timrollpickering 11:52, 3 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Propose merging:
40 by-year and by-decade subcats
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia has very extensive coverage of California, and the state's population of ~39 million is about the same as the combined total of the 14 smallest members states of the European Union. So I can see a case for splitting the California-wide by-year/decade/century categories. However, I don't think that this Northern California/ Southern California divide is a good way to do it:
  1. Splitting California into two subsections won't make a huge difference to the size of the categories. A more significant difference is already made by the already-extant subcategories for the major population centres of Los Angeles and San Francisco, and 5 other cities (see e.g. Category:20th century in California by city). Those cities are the state's major hubs of economic and cultural activity (and hence of notable events), so the intermediate North/South split won't add much to the benefits of by-city categorisation.
  2. These are informal regions, so the boundary between Southern and Northern CA is ill-defined. That's a recipe for headaches, and for disputes between good-faith editors.
  3. A split which doesn't reflect administrative divisions will lead to many categorisation dilemmas, as editors struggle to agree just how much an event is linked to one half of the state while they decide whether to categorise it under Northern CA, Southern CA, or in the parent all-CA category, or in more than one of the three.
This category scheme is still relatively young and undeveloped, so I thought it best to seek a consensus on its fate now, before more work is done to build it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:06, 24 February 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.

1 (number)

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, at least for now. First categories like Category:11 and Category:6 establishments should be nominated on this platform for rename to AD format. If and after those categories are renamed, a new discussion about the four categories below is possible. ( non-admin closure) Marcocapelle ( talk) 11:56, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Pages 1 (number)– 9 (number) were recently moved to 1– 9 as the primary topic after an RfC and RM. As such, the categories should reflect this. The target names are currently empty and years are at Category:AD 1, etc. I'm not particularly sure why this was declined as a speedy. Laurdecl talk 05:38, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
copy of speedy discussion
  • Oppose per the reasons I set out at speedy, above: that the bare number is ambiguous with the year categories which occupied that slot until 2 months ago, and removing the disambiguator will lead to miscategorisation. (It's odd that the nominator didn't take in the explanation at speedy, but there we are).
    Those year categories were renamed from the bare number to use an AD prefix (e.g. Category:4 → Category:AD 4) after a poorly-attended discussion at Talk:AD 1#Categories. This was a followup to an RFC which led to the renaming of the articles. The categories should not have been renamed without a CFD discussion, and should have been properly tagged etc, but I generally support reducing ambiguity in category names, so I accept the result. However, putting the number category into the recently vacated slot will lead to miscategorisation.
    So instead of these proposed renames, Category:1, Category:2, Category:3 and Category:4 should be become disambiguation pages using {{ category ambiguous}}. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:12, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Pinging JFG who moved the categories, so they can explain. Laurdecl talk 06:23, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support (pinged) – This move looks obvious to me. Two well-attended RfC in August–October 2016 and October–December 2016 determined that articles titled 1 to 100 should not be about years any longer. Accordingly they were moved to AD 1… AD 100, after much preparatory work and cleanup. More recently, it was debated whether those article titles should be about numbers or should be disambig pages. Two RfCs decided that 1… 10 have the numbers as primary topic, so that 1 (number)… 10 (number) were moved accordingly. Soon there will be further discussions about titles 11 to 100, which until now are either dab pages or legacy pointers to the years. The categories should follow article naming, as determined by careful and wide-ranging editor discussion. I moved the AD categories in that spirit, I wasn't really aware of the CFD process and I'm sorry for not going through this — I thought category names followed automatically the outcomes of article titling RfCs — and some regulars here have noted it was the correct thing to do per WP:IAR. — JFG talk 09:02, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ JFG: The article names were clearly decided through a well-attended RFC process, but only 2 editors supported the decision to rename categories. As above, I think renaming the year categories has worked out well, but a decision of two editors in a poorly advertised and attended discussion is not a consensus for moving the year categories, which is why this discussion here is needed.
      WP:C2D (concordance between a particular category's name and a related page's name) applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous. In this case, the number is the primary topic, but it is ambiguous ... and ambiguous category names cause categorisation errors. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:39, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose – Category:1 is to be a number and Category:11 a year? That is absurd. I am not in favour of the existence of either Category:1 or Category:11 as numbers or years as the name is barely comprehensible without some sort of clue. Oculi ( talk) 10:03, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Category:11 should not be a year. It's a legacy category from the time before early AD years were moved to AD 1… AD 100. In my opinion it should be deleted. The appropriate year category should be Category:AD 11, containing events that happened in that year, but I see it was recently moved back to the Category:11 title; pinging wbm1058 for input. — JFG talk 09:43, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
You seem to have quit there, and walked away to work on other things. There's no record in the logs that Category:AD 12 was ever created. Several navigation templates needed to be updated in coordination with these moves, as I've pointed out at Talk:AD 1#Post-RfC tasks. Only a week ago, I updated {{ BDYearsInDecade}}, {{ Decade category header}}, Template:Years in century/row, {{ BDYearsInDecade}} and {{ Year by category}}. I have no objection to moving more categories for AD 11 and beyond, if it's done without breaking things. The templates need to still work properly. Moving categories has never been a priority of mine, and I've only done this work as I felt compelled to pick up dropped balls. Of course, this CfD is happening less than 10 days after I deleted those categories, which had been left hanging as soft-redirects because of the unfinished template work. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose substantially along the lines of Oculi; numbers have traditionally been located at "digits (number)" whilst years have been just the digits. Categories should match unless there is some overriding reason not to, and none has been suggested. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:24, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Carlossuarez46: and Oculi: The number pages have been moved. 1 (number) is now a redirect to 1. This CfD is to make the categories match the articles. Laurdecl talk 21:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      • I am aware that the pages have been moved. The names are ambiguous wherever the pages are and category names cannot sustain ambiguity. Oculi ( talk) 23:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      • There are also pages Category 1, Category 2, Category 3, which increases the confusion. Oculi ( talk) 09:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • @ Carlossuarez46: You say the categories should match the pages and that is what this CfD is for. Do you mean to support? Laurdecl talk 07:26, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, for now. Too soon. This is pushing too close up against categories such as Category:6 establishments (which is not about the establishment of "6" as a number) and Category:6 by continent. We need a larger buffer zone of ambiguity. wbm1058 ( talk) 14:07, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
Logically, Category:6 establishments and friends should be renamed Category:AD 6 establishments… — JFG talk 21:28, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Strong support Categories should follow article names. Ppp ery 23:43, 26 February 2017 (UTC) reply
    • WP:C2D makes clear that this is not automatic when ambiguity arises. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:31, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
      • C2D is a speedy renaming criteria, it has nothing to do with this CfD. Laurdecl talk 07:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
        • A renaming criterion has no bearing on a rename proposal? Cfd will have to be rethought. Oculi ( talk) 11:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC) reply
          • C2D is a speedy renaming criteria, it has nothing to do with this CfD. Laurdecl talk 08:18, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose: I find myself agreeing with the comments of BrownHairedGirl. Also, the article 1 is about the number "one", whereas the articles in category:1 (number) are predominantly articles dealing with some aspect of "oneness") so there is no one-to-one (ahem!) correspondence between the subject matter of those two pages thus no need for an identical title. (Since it has been mentioned, I would support further changes such as "37" to "AD 37" for years in the first century and within closely related pages such as the year categories there is some inconsistency between usage of "AD 6" and "6 AD" style: usage in the pages should follow the titles and thus be consistent.) -- Mirokado ( talk) 21:33, 27 February 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.

Astronomical objects discovered

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 06:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 2 articles per category, on average. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. The first item in the first category is said to have been known "at least since", it was included in a star chart publication in the 2nd century, but we have no clear indication that astronomers before then didn't know of it. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:54, 26 March 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.

Medieval chess

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:00, 4 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 2 articles per category, on average. Articles may also be moved to the corresponding century category if they aren't already in that tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:32, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Chess took on its modern rules in 15th century, before then it's not really the same game. MaxBrowne ( talk) 09:57, 24 February 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.

Princeton University alumni by decade

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 13:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme of Category:Alumni by decade. If anything, they could be diffused by century but I don't know that's necessary either. Note that other old universities have single alumni categories, such as Category:Harvard University alumni. Also note that there are 650+ in the main category now. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 03:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
As the editor who split these categories up, I am not opposed to them being merged back into the parent category. I thought it would be a useful way of splitting the very large category into smaller chunks. -- MainlyTwelve ( talk) 16:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom; nearly any category can be split up this way but we usually don't so that they retain their usefulness - another reason why boolean searching would be a good idea. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 16:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per above. Neutrality talk 05:39, 25 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. It doesn't matter what year someone graduated from an institution per WP:NOTDEFINING. Furthermore, it would not aid navigation to the reader in any way (in fact it would make navigation while looking for other alumni much more difficult). Jrcla2 ( talk) 03:12, 28 February 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.

Related Indian Jain monk categories--bundled together

Category:Indian Jain monks 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: merge to Indian Jain monks, Jain monks by century and Indian monks by century. Oh, and now there is also Indian Jains by century, so the contents will be merged there too, although that hierarchy may also be challenged later.
As for the suggested grouping by historical period: comparing this to sibling hierarchies, we have a by-period structure for Christian saints by period, but not currently for monks; Category:Christian monks is subdivided by century (and separately by nationality). – Fayenatic London 22:01, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge as appropriate (i.e. Jain monks by century and Indian monks by century). There's no need for this triple intersection: virtually all Jain monks are Indian and we don't need a scheme for monks by religion, century, and nationality. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural comment. The nomination as set out simply removes a container category. If the nominator intends to merge or delete the by-century subcats, the proposed actions should be listed above, and the categories tagged. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 06:21, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • More procedural comment, the subcategories have been tagged now but wrongly, they indicate "delete" instead of "merge", hence the merge target is unspecified, and the categories and merge targets are not listed here either. That makes it impossible for an admin to close the discussion in the way that nominator intends. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:32, 2 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support upmerge but hangon? Do Indian Jains first? @ Koavf and Marcocapelle: We have a clear case of WP:OVERCAT here - this is a religion that flourished around the time of the Roman Empire, yet we have 13 articles in 9 categories BC, and 27 articles in 8 categories in the 1st century AD. We have 22 articles in 7 categories up to the 19th century, then 28 in the 20th century and 17 in the 21st. So even if we lumped them all together, we'd only be looking at 80 articles - hardly too many for a combined category without any century subcats. If you wanted to split it up, one could do it like Category:Indian astronomers with Ancient... and Medieval... divisions. So I think there's a clear case for some kind of merger, but maybe sort out the Indian Jain thing below first? Mind you, it would be nice to get on with it, there's a bunch of old Indian monks hanging round red-link categories at the moment that probably don't want to be created. Le Deluge ( talk) 19:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • I'd definitely support merging to Ancient, Medieval and Early Modern. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Bear in mind that this is northern India, so the natural division is Ancient, Medieval, colonial India and independent India. But to be honest the first two are the interesting ones given when Jainism was at its peak - in music terms the Jains of ancient and medieval times were Elvis and the Beatles, whereas the more recent ones are one-hit wonders... To be honest, 80 in a category is fine, it doesn't need dividing. Le Deluge ( talk) 19:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • You're right it should be aligned with the natural division in India, there's probably also a Mughal period in between. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:25, 12 March 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:Indian Jain monks
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. – Fayenatic London 19:45, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge as appropriate (to Indian monks and Jain monks). Virtually all Jains--especially monks--are Indian. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:49, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • This is clearly a matter of perspective: within Jain, Indian is not defining; however within Indian, Jain is defining. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:12, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • That's not how WP:DEFINING works - by analogy you would say that within males, astronauts are defining therefore we should have Category:male astronauts - and that is explicitly excluded. It's the first word that is the adjective that modifies the second word or phrase, so the defining-ness only goes one way. Le Deluge ( talk) 19:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC) reply
  • The reason that we don't have a male astronauts category is that we keep to WP:CATEGRS, that has nothing to do with order of words. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:26, 12 March 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:Indian monks 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: no consensus. Checking the dates of the contents, it can be seen that at the time of the nomination, the category only contained Indian Jain monks by century. it now also has sub-categories by century; these were added on 27 February, and negate the original rationale. To delete, a fresh nomination would be required, including those sub-categories. – Fayenatic London 15:37, 18 March 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for the triple intersection of nationality, monk-hood, and century, plus the only subcat (also nominated) is pretty redundant. Upmerge as appropriate to Indian monks and monks by century for appropriate subcats. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 02:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Proposed cats already has too much of pages and cats and must be subcategorised. -- Pankaj Jain Capankajsmilyo ( talk · contribs · count) 11:37, 27 February 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Procedural oppose, none of the subcategories have been tagged. Just deleting the top category without merging the subcategories is completely meaningless. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:44, 2 March 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_24&oldid=1074860277"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE