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 5 articles. Seafood companies is much better populated, and there is considerable overlap. If agreed the subcategories can speedily follow.
Rathfelder (
talk)
18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)reply
No problems, seeing that seafood is the larger category (better populated to me is an oxymoron), although I do not personally think that 'seafood' per se is a 'better' term.
JarrahTree23:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)reply
weak oppose While I recognise that there is a commonality there is also a distinction between seafood companies and fishing companies in that a seafood company doesnt necessarily engage in the physical activity fishing. Fishers are also a subset of primary producers, and seafarers. Seafood companies may not primary producers, nor will they be seafarers, additionally seafood companies can be exclusively wholesale suppliers, and retailers.
Gnangarra09:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep -- There is a clear distinction between companies that buy and market fish when it is caught and the fishermen who catch it. The fish commonly in my country (UK) goes through an auction market between. The problem is that most companies owning trawlers are too small to be notable. I am not clear how fish farming is organised, but suspect that this also does not involve notably large companies.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I was surprised how few articles there are about fishing companies. If we get more we could revisit this, but for the time being I think fishing companies as a subset of seafood companies, and some of them clearly catch or raise fish as well as selling them.
Rathfelder (
talk)
18:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree fishing companies are smaller than seafood companies, fishing companies are commonly involved in at sea events either as victims or as rescuers. The loss of vessels & crews are note worthy events, the fact that its a hole in Wikipedia's coverage doesnt change any that.
Gnangarra04:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)reply
The discussion convinces me that the issues raised in fact put question to either keep or merge - a common problem with a huge range of quite inappropriate category trees from the very beginning where maritime activities never had adequate review...(or since)
JarrahTree15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose These are occasionally overlapping but logically distinct concepts. For example, a company that makes rods for recreational fishing is not a seafood company.
SFB11:57, 15 September 2019 (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:Durham University cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jawaharlal Nehru Award laureates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons
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:Creative Commons (CC) is the organization; contributions are made under a
CC license. I am neutral on "contributing" versus "who contribute"—most of this tree uses "contributing" but there are more categories overall that use "who contribute" (see
here).
Also... While they are not part of this nomination, I would also appreciate thoughts about the subcategories. Which format should they use? (1)Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons #.#(2)Wikipedians contributing under a Creative Commons #.# license. (3)Wikipedians contributing under CC #.#. (4)Wikipedians contributing under a CC #.# license. If you would be kind enough to indicate 1, 2, 3, or 4, I will start a follow-up nomination once this one closes. (Pinging the category's creator,
User:HarJIT) --
Black Falcon(
talk)04:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support (A) as the most natural phrasing. I'd leave the idea of whether this tree should be split by specific license to the users actually making use of it.
SFB11:59, 15 September 2019 (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:Maney Publishing academic journals
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 Routledge is a T&F imprint. Randykitty's point is a good one, but the outcome should still be to eliminate the subject, but this may need to be done manually by categorising them according to their current imprint.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, the infoboxes in most of the articles still need to be updated. Once that is done, it will become clear which article should be moved to which category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
03:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Though some are published under the Routledge imprint, that imprint still belongs to T&F, thus recategorisation to T&F is valid. Let the topic experts categorise these articles more finely, if desired.
SFB12:01, 15 September 2019 (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:Mario Party games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Zone of the Enders games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in the French Empire
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.
Less people interested / more wikipedians interested distinction cannot be applied as criteria for nomination, I feel a uniform rule should apply to all category
Jethwarp (
talk)
05:52, 28 August 2019 (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:Listed buildings and structures
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: If there's supposed to be a distinction between these two categories, it's not evident. Not quite sure which way the merge should be done, but since the
Listed buildings article is UK-specific, I'm suggesting the older cat be retained in order to avoid confusion.
Paul_012 (
talk)
22:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
PS Most of the content which should probably fall under this tree is currently categorised under the sister cat
Category:Heritage registers by country. Ideally, there'd be a distinction between the categories containing the buildings and structures and the categories containing the list articles for each register, but since, in most cases, both seem to be categorised under the same eponymous categories (e.g.,
Category:Listed buildings in England contains both the subcats for the buildings and for the lists), perhaps we could forego the distinction and accept that everything be categorised under the same tree? --
Paul_012 (
talk)
22:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That makes sense. Also, subcategorising by country would probably be a better option, seeing as there don't seem to be any categories that cover international heritage registers. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
14:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support some merger but not necessarily as nom. The appropriate target would by one with a "by country" split (together with World Heritage sites. Listed buildings is indeed a UK concept, but it looks as if there is something similar in Hong Kong and several other countries. I think US has buildings on NHBR (I may have the term wrong). In England, the buildings appear on a list maintained by
Historic England; in Wales by CADW; and other bodies elsewhere. To say this is not a register is mere semantics (nit-picking). The next split below a national one should be by register. In UK siblings include registered parks and gardens and scheduled ancient monuments. The category suggested as a target is the parent to a tree that needs tidying up, so that there is only one Hong Kong child and one UK child. I appreciate that some of my suggested siblings do not necessarily concern buildings and structures.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Suggest merging both to
Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country as a container for various national categories. This target would need some restructuring. The headnote should explain that it is intended to include all forms of legal protection, whether formally listing, scheduling, or registering. Where a country has multiple registers (as UK does), there will need to be a national parent covering all the registers, etc. Part of my objective is to have something that American buildings on historical registers can be parented by.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:44, 8 September 2019 (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:Mamluk architecture in the Palestinian territories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Australian architecture by period
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; in the first case, the one sub-cat is already in the target, and in the second case, the one sub-cat is a style rather than a date range. –
FayenaticLondon06:44, 7 September 2019 (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:Fictional rogues
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.
Delete. I have removed one description, which was mischievously added by an anon (who also vandalised
Rogue Pictures). The remaining description "good at hissatsus" is unclear; if it refers to
hissatsu series, it does not seem suitable for categorisation. There are currently only three member pages. Consider emptying (not merging) and redirecting to
Category:Villains. –
FayenaticLondon07:31, 7 September 2019 (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:Fictional people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: Only 5 articles. Seafood companies is much better populated, and there is considerable overlap. If agreed the subcategories can speedily follow.
Rathfelder (
talk)
18:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)reply
No problems, seeing that seafood is the larger category (better populated to me is an oxymoron), although I do not personally think that 'seafood' per se is a 'better' term.
JarrahTree23:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)reply
weak oppose While I recognise that there is a commonality there is also a distinction between seafood companies and fishing companies in that a seafood company doesnt necessarily engage in the physical activity fishing. Fishers are also a subset of primary producers, and seafarers. Seafood companies may not primary producers, nor will they be seafarers, additionally seafood companies can be exclusively wholesale suppliers, and retailers.
Gnangarra09:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep -- There is a clear distinction between companies that buy and market fish when it is caught and the fishermen who catch it. The fish commonly in my country (UK) goes through an auction market between. The problem is that most companies owning trawlers are too small to be notable. I am not clear how fish farming is organised, but suspect that this also does not involve notably large companies.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)reply
I was surprised how few articles there are about fishing companies. If we get more we could revisit this, but for the time being I think fishing companies as a subset of seafood companies, and some of them clearly catch or raise fish as well as selling them.
Rathfelder (
talk)
18:45, 8 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Agree fishing companies are smaller than seafood companies, fishing companies are commonly involved in at sea events either as victims or as rescuers. The loss of vessels & crews are note worthy events, the fact that its a hole in Wikipedia's coverage doesnt change any that.
Gnangarra04:15, 9 September 2019 (UTC)reply
The discussion convinces me that the issues raised in fact put question to either keep or merge - a common problem with a huge range of quite inappropriate category trees from the very beginning where maritime activities never had adequate review...(or since)
JarrahTree15:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose These are occasionally overlapping but logically distinct concepts. For example, a company that makes rods for recreational fishing is not a seafood company.
SFB11:57, 15 September 2019 (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:Durham University cricketers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Jawaharlal Nehru Award laureates
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons
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:Creative Commons (CC) is the organization; contributions are made under a
CC license. I am neutral on "contributing" versus "who contribute"—most of this tree uses "contributing" but there are more categories overall that use "who contribute" (see
here).
Also... While they are not part of this nomination, I would also appreciate thoughts about the subcategories. Which format should they use? (1)Wikipedians contributing under Creative Commons #.#(2)Wikipedians contributing under a Creative Commons #.# license. (3)Wikipedians contributing under CC #.#. (4)Wikipedians contributing under a CC #.# license. If you would be kind enough to indicate 1, 2, 3, or 4, I will start a follow-up nomination once this one closes. (Pinging the category's creator,
User:HarJIT) --
Black Falcon(
talk)04:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support (A) as the most natural phrasing. I'd leave the idea of whether this tree should be split by specific license to the users actually making use of it.
SFB11:59, 15 September 2019 (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:Maney Publishing academic journals
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 Routledge is a T&F imprint. Randykitty's point is a good one, but the outcome should still be to eliminate the subject, but this may need to be done manually by categorising them according to their current imprint.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:37, 17 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment, the infoboxes in most of the articles still need to be updated. Once that is done, it will become clear which article should be moved to which category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
03:53, 12 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Though some are published under the Routledge imprint, that imprint still belongs to T&F, thus recategorisation to T&F is valid. Let the topic experts categorise these articles more finely, if desired.
SFB12:01, 15 September 2019 (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:Mario Party games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Zone of the Enders games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians interested in the French Empire
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.
Less people interested / more wikipedians interested distinction cannot be applied as criteria for nomination, I feel a uniform rule should apply to all category
Jethwarp (
talk)
05:52, 28 August 2019 (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:Listed buildings and structures
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: If there's supposed to be a distinction between these two categories, it's not evident. Not quite sure which way the merge should be done, but since the
Listed buildings article is UK-specific, I'm suggesting the older cat be retained in order to avoid confusion.
Paul_012 (
talk)
22:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
PS Most of the content which should probably fall under this tree is currently categorised under the sister cat
Category:Heritage registers by country. Ideally, there'd be a distinction between the categories containing the buildings and structures and the categories containing the list articles for each register, but since, in most cases, both seem to be categorised under the same eponymous categories (e.g.,
Category:Listed buildings in England contains both the subcats for the buildings and for the lists), perhaps we could forego the distinction and accept that everything be categorised under the same tree? --
Paul_012 (
talk)
22:58, 25 August 2019 (UTC)reply
That makes sense. Also, subcategorising by country would probably be a better option, seeing as there don't seem to be any categories that cover international heritage registers. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
14:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Support some merger but not necessarily as nom. The appropriate target would by one with a "by country" split (together with World Heritage sites. Listed buildings is indeed a UK concept, but it looks as if there is something similar in Hong Kong and several other countries. I think US has buildings on NHBR (I may have the term wrong). In England, the buildings appear on a list maintained by
Historic England; in Wales by CADW; and other bodies elsewhere. To say this is not a register is mere semantics (nit-picking). The next split below a national one should be by register. In UK siblings include registered parks and gardens and scheduled ancient monuments. The category suggested as a target is the parent to a tree that needs tidying up, so that there is only one Hong Kong child and one UK child. I appreciate that some of my suggested siblings do not necessarily concern buildings and structures.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)reply
Suggest merging both to
Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country as a container for various national categories. This target would need some restructuring. The headnote should explain that it is intended to include all forms of legal protection, whether formally listing, scheduling, or registering. Where a country has multiple registers (as UK does), there will need to be a national parent covering all the registers, etc. Part of my objective is to have something that American buildings on historical registers can be parented by.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:44, 8 September 2019 (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:Mamluk architecture in the Palestinian territories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Australian architecture by period
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; in the first case, the one sub-cat is already in the target, and in the second case, the one sub-cat is a style rather than a date range. –
FayenaticLondon06:44, 7 September 2019 (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:Fictional rogues
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.
Delete. I have removed one description, which was mischievously added by an anon (who also vandalised
Rogue Pictures). The remaining description "good at hissatsus" is unclear; if it refers to
hissatsu series, it does not seem suitable for categorisation. There are currently only three member pages. Consider emptying (not merging) and redirecting to
Category:Villains. –
FayenaticLondon07:31, 7 September 2019 (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:Fictional people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.