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
WP:SMALLCAT that simply doesn't have enough notable articles to ever form a meaningful category.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 15:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment as nominator, I support an upmerge if it will help close this discussion.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 19:58, 14 October 2020 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Support the Benedictine Vulgate cannot be included in "Hebrew Bible versions and translations" since it includes deutrocanonical books that were sourced from Greek originals.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 11:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The category includes 9 articles, so
WP:SMALLCAT does not apply.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Support as proposed, since the Benedictine doesn't qualify for the other suggested category. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Support suggested merger -- The presence of deutrocanonical books should not affect this as there are parts of the "Hebrew Bible" that are in fact in Chaldean. LL's objection will best be resolved by ensuring that the article has categories appropriate to having editions of the apocrypha.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:09, 27 August 2020 (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.
Suburbs of Noosa Shire smallcats
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:manual deletion.
MER-C 18:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 5 subcats of
Category:Suburbs of Noosa Shire, Queensland, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (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.
Suburbs of Mount Isa smallcats
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:manual deletion.
MER-C 18:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:SMALLCAT. Both of these subcats of
Category:Suburbs of Mount Isa, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one other page.
In each case, the head article is already in
Category:Suburbs of Mount Isa (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in
Category:Suburbs of Mount Isa (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (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.
Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region smallcats
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:manual deletion.
MER-C 18:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 11 subcats of
Category:Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in
Category:Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in
Category:Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (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:RTT
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 to Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translateTimrollpickering (
talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation.
RTT is dab page, but this page is a Wikipedia maintenance category relating to the
WP:WikiProject Medicine/Translation_task_force. It needs renaming somehow, and "Wikipedia RTT" is just my opening suggestion. There may be better ideas. Note that the category is related to this tool
[1], which may need to be tweaked to support the rename.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 01:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)reply
According to the talk page "RTT" stands for "Ready to translate", so a better name should be "Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate" or something. --
Gonnym (
talk) 23:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)reply
That's fine by me. My main concern is that we disambiguate somehow. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisting comment: consensus is to rename, but to what?
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. I was actually gonna close this as a rename to the title Marcocapelle suggested (assuming that nearly two months of silence meant no real objections), but I wanted to let
Magnus Manske know about it and give him time to potentially fix up his tool that BHG linked to
[2]. But the relist is fine too; there's no rush. bibliomaniac15 17:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Addit to above: Please also take into account this related category:
Category:RTTEM. These are Wikiproject categories (Actually they are more like meta categories as the content relates to non-English Wikipedias) and I wonder if it is more appropriate to link to them on talk page space.--
Tom (LT) (
talk) 04:30, 10 October 2020 (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:Aboriginal Shire of Kowanyama
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. bibliomaniac15 21:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a current local government area and
WP:SMALLCAT does say "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" which is the case here. We have (or should have) categories for all current LGAs, because
Queensland is the
6th largest state in the world so we do need to have geographical sub-division. And given that this is an Indigenous Shire, this runs the risk of being perceived as culturally insensitive/offensive (particularly with the worldwide protests about #BlackLivesMatter)
Kerry (
talk) 06:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Kerry Raymond, this is about the 150th SMALLCAT created by you which I have CFDed in the last few days, as I cleaned up the forest of smallcats for Australian localities. It's a great pity that you didn't exercise some restraint in creating them, but it's nice to see you finally bothering to respond to one of the 27 notifications currently on your talk page. There is no benefit to anyone in having a category for every LGA if there aren't articles to populate them, and the geographical size of the state is irrelevant: per
WP:CAT, the primary purpose of categories is navigation, and a category of only one article is precisely zero help to navigation. The aboriginal status of this category is also irrelevant: other smallcats have also been nominated, e.g.
Category:Shire of Pittsworth (
CFD). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, all Aboriginal Shires in Queensland are exceptionally poorly populated. Would it make sense to merge them? Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I struck my previous comment. Kerry Raymond is right that the smallcat exception rule applies here ("unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"). Hence concur with the oppose.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:06, 23 August 2020 (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:1786 in Ohio
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:dual mergeTimrollpickering (
talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Dual merge. Good catch. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Dual merge is certainly the right answer.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:10, 27 August 2020 (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: This is a
WP:SMALLCAT that simply doesn't have enough notable articles to ever form a meaningful category.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 15:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment as nominator, I support an upmerge if it will help close this discussion.
Shooterwalker (
talk) 19:58, 14 October 2020 (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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Support the Benedictine Vulgate cannot be included in "Hebrew Bible versions and translations" since it includes deutrocanonical books that were sourced from Greek originals.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 11:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep The category includes 9 articles, so
WP:SMALLCAT does not apply.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Support as proposed, since the Benedictine doesn't qualify for the other suggested category. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Support suggested merger -- The presence of deutrocanonical books should not affect this as there are parts of the "Hebrew Bible" that are in fact in Chaldean. LL's objection will best be resolved by ensuring that the article has categories appropriate to having editions of the apocrypha.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:09, 27 August 2020 (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.
Suburbs of Noosa Shire smallcats
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:manual deletion.
MER-C 18:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 5 subcats of
Category:Suburbs of Noosa Shire, Queensland, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (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.
Suburbs of Mount Isa smallcats
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:manual deletion.
MER-C 18:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:SMALLCAT. Both of these subcats of
Category:Suburbs of Mount Isa, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one other page.
In each case, the head article is already in
Category:Suburbs of Mount Isa (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in
Category:Suburbs of Mount Isa (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (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.
Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region smallcats
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:manual deletion.
MER-C 18:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: per
WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 11 subcats of
Category:Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in
Category:Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in
Category:Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (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:RTT
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 to Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translateTimrollpickering (
talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation.
RTT is dab page, but this page is a Wikipedia maintenance category relating to the
WP:WikiProject Medicine/Translation_task_force. It needs renaming somehow, and "Wikipedia RTT" is just my opening suggestion. There may be better ideas. Note that the category is related to this tool
[1], which may need to be tweaked to support the rename.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 01:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)reply
According to the talk page "RTT" stands for "Ready to translate", so a better name should be "Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate" or something. --
Gonnym (
talk) 23:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)reply
That's fine by me. My main concern is that we disambiguate somehow. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisting comment: consensus is to rename, but to what?
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment. I was actually gonna close this as a rename to the title Marcocapelle suggested (assuming that nearly two months of silence meant no real objections), but I wanted to let
Magnus Manske know about it and give him time to potentially fix up his tool that BHG linked to
[2]. But the relist is fine too; there's no rush. bibliomaniac15 17:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Addit to above: Please also take into account this related category:
Category:RTTEM. These are Wikiproject categories (Actually they are more like meta categories as the content relates to non-English Wikipedias) and I wonder if it is more appropriate to link to them on talk page space.--
Tom (LT) (
talk) 04:30, 10 October 2020 (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:Aboriginal Shire of Kowanyama
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. bibliomaniac15 21:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose This is a current local government area and
WP:SMALLCAT does say "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" which is the case here. We have (or should have) categories for all current LGAs, because
Queensland is the
6th largest state in the world so we do need to have geographical sub-division. And given that this is an Indigenous Shire, this runs the risk of being perceived as culturally insensitive/offensive (particularly with the worldwide protests about #BlackLivesMatter)
Kerry (
talk) 06:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Kerry Raymond, this is about the 150th SMALLCAT created by you which I have CFDed in the last few days, as I cleaned up the forest of smallcats for Australian localities. It's a great pity that you didn't exercise some restraint in creating them, but it's nice to see you finally bothering to respond to one of the 27 notifications currently on your talk page. There is no benefit to anyone in having a category for every LGA if there aren't articles to populate them, and the geographical size of the state is irrelevant: per
WP:CAT, the primary purpose of categories is navigation, and a category of only one article is precisely zero help to navigation. The aboriginal status of this category is also irrelevant: other smallcats have also been nominated, e.g.
Category:Shire of Pittsworth (
CFD). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, all Aboriginal Shires in Queensland are exceptionally poorly populated. Would it make sense to merge them? Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)reply
I struck my previous comment. Kerry Raymond is right that the smallcat exception rule applies here ("unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"). Hence concur with the oppose.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:06, 23 August 2020 (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:1786 in Ohio
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:dual mergeTimrollpickering (
talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)reply
Dual merge. Good catch. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Dual merge is certainly the right answer.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:10, 27 August 2020 (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.