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: All the articles are about Jesuit organisations
Rathfelder (
talk) 23:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No problem. I had hoped that more development centres in Chile would come forth, but then they are more likely interested in Wikipedia in Spanish. There's no need for the new category of Jesuit development centres in Chile, they can just be in the Category:Jesuit development centres.
Jzsj (
talk) 23:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm perfectly happy with that.
Rathfelder (
talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: OK but they need a category linking the articles to Chile (Organisations in Chile, Catholic Church in Chile?)
Hugo999 (
talk) 04:37, 20 February 2018 (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:Social development centers
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: Complete overlap. All the articles are also in the Jesuit development centres category. No article to explain how either category is defined, but it seems a bit clearer to call them Jesuit development centres
Rathfelder (
talk) 23:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I instituted the category because the denomination "charities" implies handouts in the United States, and I hoped that others would redirect their organizations to this more accurate description. But it's not worth arguing, and these can simply be listed in other categories (like Jesuit development centres) without the added denomination of "social development".
Jzsj (
talk) 23:33, 16 February 2018 (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:Echinostomida
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:Echinostomida is now synonymised to
Plagiorchiida, and the category contains only the one re-direction page. Yours Truly,
HNdlROdU. Signed, 17:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC).reply
Procedural question. I know nothing about the topic, but I see that Echinostomida (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) was a substantive article for 10 years until the nominator @
HNdlROdU redirected it today. (It's better not use the
passive voice when describing one own's actions). I see no sign of discussion about this. Have I missed something? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 20:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support,
WoRMS agrees that Echinostomida is a synonym of Plagiorchiida.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 08:20, 17 February 2018 (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:Computer-related organizations
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: Enormous and ill-defined overlap
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. As the editor who created the former, I agree that the latter has a better name. —
Sebastian 11:28, 17 February 2018 (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:Charities established in 1946
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: two pages Charities established in ....
On their own they are not very helpful. Do we want a whole category tree like this?
Rathfelder (
talk) 16:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Upmerge rather than delete. Six members in the 1946 cat would be enough to keep. Perhaps
Category:Charities established in 1940s might be a target. Note that the redirect item perhaps needs to be replaced by its target (the result of a rename of the charity).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:11, 18 February 2018 (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:Cup of Russia
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: Consistency with common name of the competition since being renamed the Rostelecom Cup in 2009. Rostelecom Cup is used as the name for the competition by both the ISU (see
[2]) and third party news organizations (i.e
[3][4][5]). RA0808talkcontribs 15:31, 16 February 2018 (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:Leninsky Komsomol class of cargo ships
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.
Rename to match sister cats and parent article --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:13, 21 February 2018 (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:Manufacturing
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 One can produce goods and services and one can manufacture goods, but one doesn't manufacture services. For instance, I produce software and put it into production as a service to others, but calling this manufacturing would be stilted. At least from an economics POV,
Category:Manufacturing should be a subcat of
Category:Production and
Category:Production and manufacturing as synonyms really only makes sense in a goods/industrial context. --
Mark viking (
talk) 13:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
In common language, services are neither manufactured nor produced, they are offered or provided. The content of both categories seem to be equally skewed towards a goods/industrial context.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No, there are common counterexamples to that assertion. Software goes into production and developers speak of development and production environments. Movies are produced, not manufactured. A Broadway show goes into production and is not manufactured. This terminology seems common, see for instance,
Production (economics). Manufacturing creates goods, production creates utility. --
Mark viking (
talk) 19:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment -- As a historical author writing about the iron industry, I use the two words as antonyms, but frequently have trouble with those who regard them as synonyms. In the iron industry, iron was produced in furnaces and forges (using artificial power), it was then manufactured into nails, locks, hinges, knives, scythes and a host of other goods in a manual process (manufacture). However, I always have to explain they are antonyms, when doing so.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Production is one function of manufacturing. They are not the same thing at all.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment, we now have 3 different oppose arguments: manufacturing is a subset of production, production and manufacturing are subsequent processes, and production is a subset of manufacturing. That pretty much confirms that it is difficult to distinguish the two concepts.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:20, 25 February 2018 (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:Weather beacon
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.
Support This looks like an uncontroversial move, as there are multiple exemplars of beacons in the cat. --
Mark viking (
talk) 03:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. It is a set category.
Oculi (
talk) 10:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - having a weather beacon (for a period) is not a defining characteristic of a corporation, building etc. The eponymous article (which may need to be upmerged) contains a list. DexDor(talk) 07:08, 17 February 2018 (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:UAE Arabian Gulf Cup seasons
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: Procedural nomination. In January this category was tagged for speedy renaming by @
Bijanii after a slow move-war between Bijanii and @
UA3.
I have no idea which title is better, but
WP:CFDS is inapplicable because the title is clearly controversial, so I list it here without recommendation.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 02:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves.
GiantSnowman 11:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy suppport per C2D, to match parent article name.
GiantSnowman 11:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support When the related article is having a
WP:RM, they are having a large argument. But
WP:CFDS is improper.
Hhhhhkohhhhh (
talk) 02:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support to match parent article --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:14, 21 February 2018 (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:Valentine's Day food
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: Non-
defining inclusion criteria, for a category that just contains a few red sweets.
Ibadibam (
talk) 07:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Not just a random collection of red or pink food; current included articles do have some real world association with the holiday. Has potential for expansion.
ANDROS1337TALK 12:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - I was a bit hesitant on this one but, per Andros, the articles in here seem to have a concrete connection and one can imagine additional pages like boxed chocolates being added.
Chetsford (
talk) 02:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak delete, in article
Valentine's Day there is no section about food and the articles in this category don't mention any sources related to Valentine's Day either, which makes it rather questionable.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Actually, Valentine's Day is mentioned in all three current articles. Read the articles for yourself.
ANDROS1337TALK 15:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Sure, but I was referring to sources, not to the article texts.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)reply
delete I read the sources in the three articles, and found them unconvincing. They are not like a box of chocolates.
Mangoe (
talk) 19:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the current category as the inclusion criteria and the current contents are inappropriate (per NONDEF). No objection to creating a category in the future with tighter inclusion criteria IFF there are sufficient articles that do belong in it. DexDor(talk)
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:Pseudoconvex minimization
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:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the three categories jointly. No need to upmerge, the article is already in appropriate categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:34, 8 February 2018 (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:Songs from Carousel (musical)
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 to parent categories: I'm pretty sure this one is doomed to never break beyond being a
WP:SMALLCAT. Only three entries at present.
DonIago (
talk) 14:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Very weak delete - I'm actually quite surprised there's no article for a couple of the other songs in the musical (notably
June Is Bustin' Out All Over, currently a redirect). If merged, articles will also need to be added to the appropriate Rodgers and Hammerstein parents. I note that fully a quarter of the categories in the "by musical" tree have three or fewer articles. Are you regarding this as a test case?
Grutness...wha? 01:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. The purpose of a category is to collate and connect articles which wouldn't be otherwise collated, Obvious example are year births, or musicals, architects, albums by artist or label, but this category is (or at least should be) contained in the content of the relevant article. If you wanted a list of all the songs in Carousel, you'd look at Carousel and the existing articles with be blue-linked. Superfluous to requirements. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 13:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: All the articles are about Jesuit organisations
Rathfelder (
talk) 23:17, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No problem. I had hoped that more development centres in Chile would come forth, but then they are more likely interested in Wikipedia in Spanish. There's no need for the new category of Jesuit development centres in Chile, they can just be in the Category:Jesuit development centres.
Jzsj (
talk) 23:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I'm perfectly happy with that.
Rathfelder (
talk) 19:33, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: OK but they need a category linking the articles to Chile (Organisations in Chile, Catholic Church in Chile?)
Hugo999 (
talk) 04:37, 20 February 2018 (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:Social development centers
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: Complete overlap. All the articles are also in the Jesuit development centres category. No article to explain how either category is defined, but it seems a bit clearer to call them Jesuit development centres
Rathfelder (
talk) 23:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
I instituted the category because the denomination "charities" implies handouts in the United States, and I hoped that others would redirect their organizations to this more accurate description. But it's not worth arguing, and these can simply be listed in other categories (like Jesuit development centres) without the added denomination of "social development".
Jzsj (
talk) 23:33, 16 February 2018 (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:Echinostomida
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:Echinostomida is now synonymised to
Plagiorchiida, and the category contains only the one re-direction page. Yours Truly,
HNdlROdU. Signed, 17:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC).reply
Procedural question. I know nothing about the topic, but I see that Echinostomida (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views) was a substantive article for 10 years until the nominator @
HNdlROdU redirected it today. (It's better not use the
passive voice when describing one own's actions). I see no sign of discussion about this. Have I missed something? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 20:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support,
WoRMS agrees that Echinostomida is a synonym of Plagiorchiida.
Chiswick Chap (
talk) 08:20, 17 February 2018 (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:Computer-related organizations
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: Enormous and ill-defined overlap
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:29, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support. As the editor who created the former, I agree that the latter has a better name. —
Sebastian 11:28, 17 February 2018 (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:Charities established in 1946
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: two pages Charities established in ....
On their own they are not very helpful. Do we want a whole category tree like this?
Rathfelder (
talk) 16:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Upmerge rather than delete. Six members in the 1946 cat would be enough to keep. Perhaps
Category:Charities established in 1940s might be a target. Note that the redirect item perhaps needs to be replaced by its target (the result of a rename of the charity).
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:11, 18 February 2018 (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:Cup of Russia
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: Consistency with common name of the competition since being renamed the Rostelecom Cup in 2009. Rostelecom Cup is used as the name for the competition by both the ISU (see
[2]) and third party news organizations (i.e
[3][4][5]). RA0808talkcontribs 15:31, 16 February 2018 (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:Leninsky Komsomol class of cargo ships
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.
Rename to match sister cats and parent article --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:13, 21 February 2018 (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:Manufacturing
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 One can produce goods and services and one can manufacture goods, but one doesn't manufacture services. For instance, I produce software and put it into production as a service to others, but calling this manufacturing would be stilted. At least from an economics POV,
Category:Manufacturing should be a subcat of
Category:Production and
Category:Production and manufacturing as synonyms really only makes sense in a goods/industrial context. --
Mark viking (
talk) 13:52, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
In common language, services are neither manufactured nor produced, they are offered or provided. The content of both categories seem to be equally skewed towards a goods/industrial context.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:33, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
No, there are common counterexamples to that assertion. Software goes into production and developers speak of development and production environments. Movies are produced, not manufactured. A Broadway show goes into production and is not manufactured. This terminology seems common, see for instance,
Production (economics). Manufacturing creates goods, production creates utility. --
Mark viking (
talk) 19:04, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment -- As a historical author writing about the iron industry, I use the two words as antonyms, but frequently have trouble with those who regard them as synonyms. In the iron industry, iron was produced in furnaces and forges (using artificial power), it was then manufactured into nails, locks, hinges, knives, scythes and a host of other goods in a manual process (manufacture). However, I always have to explain they are antonyms, when doing so.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:18, 18 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment Production is one function of manufacturing. They are not the same thing at all.
Charlesjsharp (
talk) 22:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment, we now have 3 different oppose arguments: manufacturing is a subset of production, production and manufacturing are subsequent processes, and production is a subset of manufacturing. That pretty much confirms that it is difficult to distinguish the two concepts.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:20, 25 February 2018 (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:Weather beacon
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.
Support This looks like an uncontroversial move, as there are multiple exemplars of beacons in the cat. --
Mark viking (
talk) 03:57, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. It is a set category.
Oculi (
talk) 10:00, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - having a weather beacon (for a period) is not a defining characteristic of a corporation, building etc. The eponymous article (which may need to be upmerged) contains a list. DexDor(talk) 07:08, 17 February 2018 (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:UAE Arabian Gulf Cup seasons
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: Procedural nomination. In January this category was tagged for speedy renaming by @
Bijanii after a slow move-war between Bijanii and @
UA3.
I have no idea which title is better, but
WP:CFDS is inapplicable because the title is clearly controversial, so I list it here without recommendation.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 02:11, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves.
GiantSnowman 11:05, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Speedy suppport per C2D, to match parent article name.
GiantSnowman 11:06, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support When the related article is having a
WP:RM, they are having a large argument. But
WP:CFDS is improper.
Hhhhhkohhhhh (
talk) 02:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Support to match parent article --
Lenticel(
talk) 01:14, 21 February 2018 (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:Valentine's Day food
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: Non-
defining inclusion criteria, for a category that just contains a few red sweets.
Ibadibam (
talk) 07:45, 8 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep - Not just a random collection of red or pink food; current included articles do have some real world association with the holiday. Has potential for expansion.
ANDROS1337TALK 12:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak Keep - I was a bit hesitant on this one but, per Andros, the articles in here seem to have a concrete connection and one can imagine additional pages like boxed chocolates being added.
Chetsford (
talk) 02:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak delete, in article
Valentine's Day there is no section about food and the articles in this category don't mention any sources related to Valentine's Day either, which makes it rather questionable.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:56, 10 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Actually, Valentine's Day is mentioned in all three current articles. Read the articles for yourself.
ANDROS1337TALK 15:26, 12 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Sure, but I was referring to sources, not to the article texts.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:54, 12 February 2018 (UTC)reply
delete I read the sources in the three articles, and found them unconvincing. They are not like a box of chocolates.
Mangoe (
talk) 19:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the current category as the inclusion criteria and the current contents are inappropriate (per NONDEF). No objection to creating a category in the future with tighter inclusion criteria IFF there are sufficient articles that do belong in it. DexDor(talk)
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:Pseudoconvex minimization
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:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the three categories jointly. No need to upmerge, the article is already in appropriate categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:34, 8 February 2018 (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:Songs from Carousel (musical)
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 to parent categories: I'm pretty sure this one is doomed to never break beyond being a
WP:SMALLCAT. Only three entries at present.
DonIago (
talk) 14:16, 7 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Very weak delete - I'm actually quite surprised there's no article for a couple of the other songs in the musical (notably
June Is Bustin' Out All Over, currently a redirect). If merged, articles will also need to be added to the appropriate Rodgers and Hammerstein parents. I note that fully a quarter of the categories in the "by musical" tree have three or fewer articles. Are you regarding this as a test case?
Grutness...wha? 01:10, 16 February 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete. The purpose of a category is to collate and connect articles which wouldn't be otherwise collated, Obvious example are year births, or musicals, architects, albums by artist or label, but this category is (or at least should be) contained in the content of the relevant article. If you wanted a list of all the songs in Carousel, you'd look at Carousel and the existing articles with be blue-linked. Superfluous to requirements. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 13:32, 23 February 2018 (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.