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, very sensible. Thanks for giving the history. –
FayenaticLondon 09:56, 8 November 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:Characters created by J. J. Abrams
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: How do we know that Abrams created every character in Lost, Fringe, and Alias? He may have co-created the shows and served as an Executive Producer but these shows lasted for years and Abrams most likely had less input as they went on. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom's rationale... seems like a relatively impossible property to verify. The category is probably more accurately "Characters from works created by J. J. Abrams", which is of dubious value. —
Joeyconnick (
talk) 18:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as above. It's interesting to note that no-one has created redirects for Jaylah or Krall from Star Trek Beyond, which I was expecting to see here. Some things do change. –
FayenaticLondon 09:59, 8 November 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:Spain under-20 international footballers
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.
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 16:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Support – the existence of this category would lead to hundreds more unnecessary ones being created for every country's under-16s, under-17s etc. etc.
Jellyman (
talk) 07:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - as per Jellyman's rationale. It makes far more sense to place them all together.
Randomeditor1000 (
talk) 13:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Inter&anthro: as explained, the long-establish ed convention for youth categories is to have the most senior youth level (either U20 or U21, depending on confederation - but for Spain, in UEFA, that is U21 and not U20) and then just 'youth' for everything below that. This category has been created and populated in error.
GiantSnowman 19:29, 12 November 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:Wrocław University of Technology
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: The main article is
Wrocław University of Science and Technology. Is there some reason for using different names? Seeing that it's a potential translation issue (the Polish name for this subject is
pl:Politechnika Wrocławska), I didn't want to submit this for a speedy rename.
Nyttend (
talk) 15:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak support, initially I was planning to recommend an RM on the article, but this university advertises itself in English under the extended name including Science
[1].
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:42, 6 November 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:Performing groups disestablished in the 2010s
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: Has only one entry.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 15:25, 6 November 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:NASCAR teams established in 2005
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: Only has one entry.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 14:09, 6 November 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:Dead (band) albums
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: Albums category for an artist without an article. The entries here are two split albums that redirect to another notable band but with no info about the releases or this band. I removed the other parent categories except for "Albums by artist" since no sourceable info exists on the band in the English Wikipedia to be able to place it in genre/nationality categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete for the reasons stated by the nominator. I also recommend deleting the redirects for the album titles as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 16:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - I've been going through this editor's contributions and a dozen empty categories they have created. There are also plenty of ones that only contain one or two redirects. There are also categories like this for albums by bands who do not have their own Wikipedia articles. Dig into their contributions for new categories and you will find other ones similar to this one. I've left a note for the editor and he's been quite active this week so maybe he will offer a response and rationale. LizRead!Talk! 04:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the category, as there is not an actual article about any of this band's recordings. However, I would not delete the redirects, as it is possible that somebody might search for them, or link to them from an article on a participating band/musician. –
FayenaticLondon 10:06, 8 November 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:Gut (band) albums
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: There are 17 redirected album titles in this category (and only those titles), all of which redirect to the main article,
Gut (band), which offers little to no info about these albums beyond a discography section. Categorization of redirects can be useful but not when the entire set within the category point to the same article with nothing to say about those topics. As a reader, I find it extremely frustrating when clicking through such categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - the redirects should also be deleted as there is no useful content for any of them.
Oculi (
talk) 16:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the category for the reasons stated by the nominator. The large number of redirects for album titles is a bit ridiculous, but they may all be valid search terms for whoever is interested in this band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the category, as there is not an actual article about any of this band's recordings. However, I would not delete the redirects, as it is possible that somebody might search for them, or link to them from an article on a participating band/musician. –
FayenaticLondon 10:05, 8 November 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:Organisations based in the European Union
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a rather tentative suggestion, but I think the point of this category is not about where the organisations are based, but about how they relate to the EU - and this would include a lot of lobbying, thinktank and commercial organisations.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Category:Organisations based in Europe includes thousands of articles, and is considerably wider, geographically speaking. There are actually quite a lot of organisations which relate to the EU, but there isn't a category for them.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)reply
What type of relationships with the EU are they about?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)reply
There are actually only two articles in the category at the moment, but I've just found
Category:Cross-European advocacy groups which I think is the same general idea, although there isn't an article to tell me what exactly is meant. I don't like its title because I don't know what it is supposed to mean, and of course even the term European is ambiguous. There is also
Category:Pan-European trade and professional organisations. Maybe Pan-European and Cross-European mean the same? So I think we need at least a category relating to the EU, and perhaps another one (or more?), for organisations relating other, wider, conceptions of Europe. I guess most of the organisations I'm thinking about are based in Europe - in fact most are based in Brussels - but where they are based in not the basis of the category.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)reply
That is for official organisations which are part of the EU. There are large numbers of lobbying and advocacy groups and the like which dont belong there.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
For sure advocacy groups don't belong there. But do they belong in a EU category at all? Can you give some examples of advocacy groups that exclusively lobby within EU government bodies?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I have now tagged the Trade unions category for merger. –
FayenaticLondon 08:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Repurpose. There's definitely scope for a category related to the EU, but also scope for one for organisations based in the EU. The latter should merely be a container category for "Organisations based in France", "Organisations based in Finland", etc., while the former should contain the organisations themselves.
Nyttend (
talk) 15:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
PreferCategory:Organisations related to the European Union. I think Pan-European political parties will be about political groupings in EU Parliament. Trades Unions are do not tend to be multi-national, so that that part will merely be parenting national items and perhaps Europe-wide coalitions of them.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:50, 8 November 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:split, the word 'classical' is normally used only for the Greek and Roman civilizations as such (besides
Classical Greece preceded
Hellenism), I have never seen it been used for countries in the Middle East in the Hellenistic or Roman era. Since we already have a Greek and Roman category in this case, the content can simply be dispersed. This is a follow-up on
this earlier discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks, yes, I've added this to the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - while Israel in the Roman era may imply to the Hasmonean Kingdom and Palestine in the Roman era may imply Roman Palaestina, the State of Palestine in the Roman era is a completely anachronistic notion. I do not like anachronistic categories. Period.
GreyShark (
dibra) 07:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Palestine in the Greco-Roman era of which the Roman can be a subcat; there was neither an Israel or State of Palestine during the Greco-Roman era, and we have used "Palestine" for the English version of "Palestina".
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 17:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Israel/Palestine was first occupied by the Syrians (Seleucids), then independent, and finally conquered by the Romans. Having a parent category for these three very different periods (other than an Ancient parent category) makes little sense.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)reply
These alternatives wrongly conflates a "by region" tree structure with a "by modern state" tree structure. The two should be kept separate. This nom is about the region. Open separate discussions for the "by state" questions please. They also wrongly conflate different time periods when entirely different cultural pressures were brought to bear on the regions under discussion.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 10:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:22, 6 November 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:Classical Syria
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:merge per
WP:OVERLAPCAT, based on the category content this is apparently about the post-Seleucid, hence Roman, period in Syrian history. Further rationale see nomination below. This is a follow-up on
this earlier discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Classical Syria may imply Hellenistic
Coele-Syria,
Roman Syria as well as
Byzantine Syria. May either be a disambig category or a group category on its own right (as it is now).
GreyShark (
dibra) 07:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
What do you mean with "may imply"? Is it a characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having, per
WP:DEFINING?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
This suggests it was a single era, which is factually incorrect. In the Hellenistic period Syria was not Greek, it was an independent country and just had Greek cultural influences. That changed entirely when the Romans occupied the country.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:20, 6 November 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:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles
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 exact meaning of this category is unclear, but it certainly isn't the same thing as container categories. For example, categories for dab/talk pages should not contain articles but are not necessarily container categories. DexDor(talk) 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Struck vote, below comments may give more food for thought.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: I doubt that this category is actually helpful and would lean towards deletion, but a better rationale might be helpful.
Catrìona (
talk) 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as afaics this category is confusing without being useful for anything. It's confusing because it's not clear whether it's supposed to be for categories that shouldn't contain articles or only for articles that shouldn't directly contain articles. This category doesn't (e.g. from looking at inlinks to it) appear to be being used in any processes. I haven't found this category useful (e.g. when creating
User:DexDor/NSCat). DexDor(talk) 20:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - it is certainly confusing.
Category:Set categories (which should be enormous but isn't) should be removed. There are categories of images and audio files which should be added. No idea whether it could be useful.
Oculi (
talk) 01:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)reply
It is highly confusing to have
Category:Set categories as a direct subcategory of
Category:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles because a set category is meant to contain articles. As the header says, "a set category is essentially a list of members of a particular group. A set category should only contain pages that are members of the group, lists of members of the group and subcategories containing those things." Instead, this category is a container category and should be in
Category:Container categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
See my comment above re what's unclear about the category scope. Would you be in favour of similar "should not contain" categories (rather than or instead of lists) for dab pages, templates, talk pages, user pages ...? DexDor(talk) 22:03, 10 November 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:People associated with oil shale
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename as nominated.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. Not sure if
Alexander Carnegie Kirk,
Alexander Selligue and
Fredrik Ljungström (not included in this category but should be) will fit in this category any more if renamed. They are engineers who developed shale oil extraction technology, not oil shale researchers. Renaming will exclude also oil shale industrialists and business persons if relevant articles would be created in the future.
Beagel (
talk) 17:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Support creation of
Category:Oil shale researchers (somewhere below
Category:Researchers), moving appropriate articles down into it and then upmerging the "associated with" category. If rename-and-tidyup achieves the same thing then support. DexDor(talk) 17:14, 11 November 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.
Rename, very sensible. Thanks for giving the history. –
FayenaticLondon 09:56, 8 November 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:Characters created by J. J. Abrams
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: How do we know that Abrams created every character in Lost, Fringe, and Alias? He may have co-created the shows and served as an Executive Producer but these shows lasted for years and Abrams most likely had less input as they went on. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:03, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom's rationale... seems like a relatively impossible property to verify. The category is probably more accurately "Characters from works created by J. J. Abrams", which is of dubious value. —
Joeyconnick (
talk) 18:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as above. It's interesting to note that no-one has created redirects for Jaylah or Krall from Star Trek Beyond, which I was expecting to see here. Some things do change. –
FayenaticLondon 09:59, 8 November 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:Spain under-20 international footballers
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.
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 16:37, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Support – the existence of this category would lead to hundreds more unnecessary ones being created for every country's under-16s, under-17s etc. etc.
Jellyman (
talk) 07:45, 7 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Support - as per Jellyman's rationale. It makes far more sense to place them all together.
Randomeditor1000 (
talk) 13:42, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Inter&anthro: as explained, the long-establish ed convention for youth categories is to have the most senior youth level (either U20 or U21, depending on confederation - but for Spain, in UEFA, that is U21 and not U20) and then just 'youth' for everything below that. This category has been created and populated in error.
GiantSnowman 19:29, 12 November 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:Wrocław University of Technology
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: The main article is
Wrocław University of Science and Technology. Is there some reason for using different names? Seeing that it's a potential translation issue (the Polish name for this subject is
pl:Politechnika Wrocławska), I didn't want to submit this for a speedy rename.
Nyttend (
talk) 15:52, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Weak support, initially I was planning to recommend an RM on the article, but this university advertises itself in English under the extended name including Science
[1].
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:42, 6 November 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:Performing groups disestablished in the 2010s
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: Has only one entry.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 15:25, 6 November 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:NASCAR teams established in 2005
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: Only has one entry.
...William, is the complaint department really on
the roof? 14:09, 6 November 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:Dead (band) albums
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: Albums category for an artist without an article. The entries here are two split albums that redirect to another notable band but with no info about the releases or this band. I removed the other parent categories except for "Albums by artist" since no sourceable info exists on the band in the English Wikipedia to be able to place it in genre/nationality categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete for the reasons stated by the nominator. I also recommend deleting the redirects for the album titles as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 16:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - I've been going through this editor's contributions and a dozen empty categories they have created. There are also plenty of ones that only contain one or two redirects. There are also categories like this for albums by bands who do not have their own Wikipedia articles. Dig into their contributions for new categories and you will find other ones similar to this one. I've left a note for the editor and he's been quite active this week so maybe he will offer a response and rationale. LizRead!Talk! 04:45, 8 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the category, as there is not an actual article about any of this band's recordings. However, I would not delete the redirects, as it is possible that somebody might search for them, or link to them from an article on a participating band/musician. –
FayenaticLondon 10:06, 8 November 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:Gut (band) albums
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: There are 17 redirected album titles in this category (and only those titles), all of which redirect to the main article,
Gut (band), which offers little to no info about these albums beyond a discography section. Categorization of redirects can be useful but not when the entire set within the category point to the same article with nothing to say about those topics. As a reader, I find it extremely frustrating when clicking through such categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete - the redirects should also be deleted as there is no useful content for any of them.
Oculi (
talk) 16:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the category for the reasons stated by the nominator. The large number of redirects for album titles is a bit ridiculous, but they may all be valid search terms for whoever is interested in this band. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs) 16:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete the category, as there is not an actual article about any of this band's recordings. However, I would not delete the redirects, as it is possible that somebody might search for them, or link to them from an article on a participating band/musician. –
FayenaticLondon 10:05, 8 November 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:Organisations based in the European Union
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a rather tentative suggestion, but I think the point of this category is not about where the organisations are based, but about how they relate to the EU - and this would include a lot of lobbying, thinktank and commercial organisations.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Category:Organisations based in Europe includes thousands of articles, and is considerably wider, geographically speaking. There are actually quite a lot of organisations which relate to the EU, but there isn't a category for them.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)reply
What type of relationships with the EU are they about?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)reply
There are actually only two articles in the category at the moment, but I've just found
Category:Cross-European advocacy groups which I think is the same general idea, although there isn't an article to tell me what exactly is meant. I don't like its title because I don't know what it is supposed to mean, and of course even the term European is ambiguous. There is also
Category:Pan-European trade and professional organisations. Maybe Pan-European and Cross-European mean the same? So I think we need at least a category relating to the EU, and perhaps another one (or more?), for organisations relating other, wider, conceptions of Europe. I guess most of the organisations I'm thinking about are based in Europe - in fact most are based in Brussels - but where they are based in not the basis of the category.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)reply
That is for official organisations which are part of the EU. There are large numbers of lobbying and advocacy groups and the like which dont belong there.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
For sure advocacy groups don't belong there. But do they belong in a EU category at all? Can you give some examples of advocacy groups that exclusively lobby within EU government bodies?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:49, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
I have now tagged the Trade unions category for merger. –
FayenaticLondon 08:28, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Repurpose. There's definitely scope for a category related to the EU, but also scope for one for organisations based in the EU. The latter should merely be a container category for "Organisations based in France", "Organisations based in Finland", etc., while the former should contain the organisations themselves.
Nyttend (
talk) 15:55, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
PreferCategory:Organisations related to the European Union. I think Pan-European political parties will be about political groupings in EU Parliament. Trades Unions are do not tend to be multi-national, so that that part will merely be parenting national items and perhaps Europe-wide coalitions of them.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:50, 8 November 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:split, the word 'classical' is normally used only for the Greek and Roman civilizations as such (besides
Classical Greece preceded
Hellenism), I have never seen it been used for countries in the Middle East in the Hellenistic or Roman era. Since we already have a Greek and Roman category in this case, the content can simply be dispersed. This is a follow-up on
this earlier discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:39, 23 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Thanks, yes, I've added this to the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:02, 25 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - while Israel in the Roman era may imply to the Hasmonean Kingdom and Palestine in the Roman era may imply Roman Palaestina, the State of Palestine in the Roman era is a completely anachronistic notion. I do not like anachronistic categories. Period.
GreyShark (
dibra) 07:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Palestine in the Greco-Roman era of which the Roman can be a subcat; there was neither an Israel or State of Palestine during the Greco-Roman era, and we have used "Palestine" for the English version of "Palestina".
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 17:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Israel/Palestine was first occupied by the Syrians (Seleucids), then independent, and finally conquered by the Romans. Having a parent category for these three very different periods (other than an Ancient parent category) makes little sense.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:55, 29 October 2018 (UTC)reply
These alternatives wrongly conflates a "by region" tree structure with a "by modern state" tree structure. The two should be kept separate. This nom is about the region. Open separate discussions for the "by state" questions please. They also wrongly conflate different time periods when entirely different cultural pressures were brought to bear on the regions under discussion.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 10:41, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:22, 6 November 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:Classical Syria
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:merge per
WP:OVERLAPCAT, based on the category content this is apparently about the post-Seleucid, hence Roman, period in Syrian history. Further rationale see nomination below. This is a follow-up on
this earlier discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Classical Syria may imply Hellenistic
Coele-Syria,
Roman Syria as well as
Byzantine Syria. May either be a disambig category or a group category on its own right (as it is now).
GreyShark (
dibra) 07:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
What do you mean with "may imply"? Is it a characteristic that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having, per
WP:DEFINING?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:49, 26 October 2018 (UTC)reply
This suggests it was a single era, which is factually incorrect. In the Hellenistic period Syria was not Greek, it was an independent country and just had Greek cultural influences. That changed entirely when the Romans occupied the country.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:40, 29 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:20, 6 November 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:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles
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 exact meaning of this category is unclear, but it certainly isn't the same thing as container categories. For example, categories for dab/talk pages should not contain articles but are not necessarily container categories. DexDor(talk) 20:25, 6 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Struck vote, below comments may give more food for thought.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:50, 6 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment: I doubt that this category is actually helpful and would lean towards deletion, but a better rationale might be helpful.
Catrìona (
talk) 20:09, 6 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete as afaics this category is confusing without being useful for anything. It's confusing because it's not clear whether it's supposed to be for categories that shouldn't contain articles or only for articles that shouldn't directly contain articles. This category doesn't (e.g. from looking at inlinks to it) appear to be being used in any processes. I haven't found this category useful (e.g. when creating
User:DexDor/NSCat). DexDor(talk) 20:34, 6 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment - it is certainly confusing.
Category:Set categories (which should be enormous but isn't) should be removed. There are categories of images and audio files which should be added. No idea whether it could be useful.
Oculi (
talk) 01:54, 7 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)reply
It is highly confusing to have
Category:Set categories as a direct subcategory of
Category:Wikipedia categories that should not contain articles because a set category is meant to contain articles. As the header says, "a set category is essentially a list of members of a particular group. A set category should only contain pages that are members of the group, lists of members of the group and subcategories containing those things." Instead, this category is a container category and should be in
Category:Container categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
See my comment above re what's unclear about the category scope. Would you be in favour of similar "should not contain" categories (rather than or instead of lists) for dab pages, templates, talk pages, user pages ...? DexDor(talk) 22:03, 10 November 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:People associated with oil shale
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename as nominated.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Comment. Not sure if
Alexander Carnegie Kirk,
Alexander Selligue and
Fredrik Ljungström (not included in this category but should be) will fit in this category any more if renamed. They are engineers who developed shale oil extraction technology, not oil shale researchers. Renaming will exclude also oil shale industrialists and business persons if relevant articles would be created in the future.
Beagel (
talk) 17:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:07, 6 November 2018 (UTC)reply
Support creation of
Category:Oil shale researchers (somewhere below
Category:Researchers), moving appropriate articles down into it and then upmerging the "associated with" category. If rename-and-tidyup achieves the same thing then support. DexDor(talk) 17:14, 11 November 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.