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:Multiple citizenship
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: Doesnt merit a separate category. It inappropriately attracts articles about individuals with dual citizenship. I think only 4 of the articles belong and the biographies should be purged.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose the concept is notable and distinct, but having multiple citizenship is not defining to those who have them (many people do, and those with means can buy one from numerous countries, and we don't categorize people by how much money they have, much less how they spend it).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Having purged the biographies there are 2 articles about Australian constitutional law and one, apart from the eponymous article, about multiple citizenship. I dont think there is much potential for growth because any new articles will actually be about the constitutional law of a particular state, not about the wider topic.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I dont think they are usefully categorised there. Law of nationality is different in each country. I would move the Australian articles to
Category:Australian nationality law. Legally speaking I think Nationality is preferable as a topic category. But I'm more worried about this filling up with biographies. If we really think it's worth keeping separately from
Category:Citizenship, with only 4 articles can we take up
Marcocapelle's suggestion and rename it?
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Of course law of nationality is different in each country. But we don't exclude other topics from a relevant category just because it's done differently in different countries. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:07, 28 June 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:Cha-cha-cha
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.
Oppose First of all, the category is about the music, its musicians, compositions, albums, etc. No article tagged with this category is about the dance/choreographic aspects of the genre (except for
Dancing baby which should probably be removed). Therefore, the category should either stay as is or, if anything, be renamed
Category:Cha-cha-cha (music). However, it makes no sense to separate the dance and music articles into different categories. Cha-cha-cha just happens to be one of those music genres that has its own homonymous dance, like
mambo and
rumba. Music and dance go hand in hand, so splitting or renaming this category seems like a very bad idea, especially when there are no other articles related to the cha-cha-cha dance. I definitely agree that
WP:OVERLAPCAT applies in this case (and I also agree that the dance and music articles should probably be merged; this has been suggested several times after a user boldly split them in 2005). As for its ambiguity, all articles in the dab page are named after the music genre, so I don't think the current category title is problematic. After all, the dab page exists to disambiguate the music and the dance; if there was a single music/dance article, it would be the primary topic for sure! Thus, WP:OVERLAPCAT abolishes any possible ambiguity, unless you think that a combined music/dance article wouldn't be primary topic (they both account for well over 90% of the views). Finally, a small detail: the dance was derived from the music, not the other way around (
source).
Neodop (
talk)
23:43, 25 June 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:Central Germany
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.
Keep but merge the two main articles. I can entirely see why this was nominated, however on investigation the problems lie elsewhere. Firstly, the category was never properly populated - I have now rectified that. Secondly, there should only be one main article entitled "
Central Germany", not the present two. Basically
Central Germany (geography) and
Central Germany (cultural area) should be merged as they are on de.wiki. As the former is little more than a stub, I am happy to do this. Thank you for flagging this up. HTH.
Bermicourt (
talk)
21:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment does or did the German government give "Central Germany" status, like the US does the
Category:Midwestern United States. Or does academia agree what the definition of a distinct Central Germany? If so, keeping it makes sense, if not, it becomes subjective what belongs and what doesn't and thus categorizing on that subjective basis would be improper.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The current category structure is a right mess e.g. with this category forming a category loop with
Category:Saxony. It's much better to categorize by actual German states (clearly defined). The pages in this category will still be well categorized if this category is deleted. DexDor(talk)06:56, 27 June 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:Molluscs of Nicaragua
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:Equus Award winners
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:Pakistani music 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.
Delete seems to not be part of a general classification thus we avoid determining whether albums have nationalities. At some point, we should discuss the children of
Category:Albums by artist nationality which seem very under utilized and whether those should all be limited to subcategories only or whether it has usefulness.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:32, 26 June 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:Armaan Malik
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:Jubin Nautiyal
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.
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:Campeonato Brasileiro
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:Wives of Vice Presidents of the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support, since I actually tried to nominate this category for deletion yesterday for the same rationale, but according to the edit preview, it would not have been listed on this discussion log correctly.--
TommyBoy (
talk)
19:55, 25 June 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:Hollow Earth theory and Category:Flat Earth theory
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. The main policy-based rationale in this case would be
WP:C2D, that the category to match the head article. This closure is not an endorsement of the nom's original rationale. bibliomaniac1502:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A theory doesn't have to be a scientific theory, and removing the word is an assertion of POV on the part of Wikipedia. Besides which,
Hollow Earthactually was a scientific theory. It was proposed by
Edmond Halley, a highly regarded scientist,
Fellow of the Royal Society, and the
Astronomer Royal.
Flat Earth was a pevrfectly acceptable belief amongst natural philosophers (who would now be called scientists) in Classical Greek times and was probably the only belief before then. Neither principle article concentrates on the ridiculous beliefs of modern new-age dickheads, so the nominator's rationale is based on demonstrably false assertions. Next time try applying the
scientific method to your claims, particularly the principle of
falsifiability.
SpinningSpark11:07, 25 June 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:Binary logic
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:Binary logic is a disambiguation page, whose main topic is
boolean logic. This category contains only three articles on electronic device which employ binary logic, and it has no sub-categories ... so no way is a remotely complete grouping of content related to binary logic. I don't know enough about this topic to decide what the solution is ... but I can see that something needs fixing. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
No big deal if removed at all. All practically used logic hardware is binary/boolean; the few non-binary types are either failed exotics of the past or ivory-tower constructs of the present.
Retired electrician (
talk)
08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The first thing to say here is that binary arithmetic is not synonymous with binary/boolean logic. In arithmetic 1+1=2, or in binary, 1+1=10. In boolean logic 1+1=1. There is a case here for having a category, perhaps named
category:logic circuits, that is intermediate in the hierarchy between
category:logic gates and
category:digital circuits for circuits that are more complex than, or built of, basic logic gates.
Binary decoder would fit into that category, as would
majority function for instance.
However, as currently organised,
category:binary logic is fulfilling no useful purpose, so unless someone wants to take on the task of populating the category I suggested above, then I'm for getting rid of it. It makes no sense whatever that
adder (electronics) and
subtractor are in binary logic but
adder-subtractor is in binary arithmetic. The third entry,
binary decoder does not belong in the binary arithmetic category, but is already otherwise suitably categorised.
SpinningSpark10:14, 25 June 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:Bucephala
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.
Option A. I think our normal practice is to use scientific name for the category even where the article is at the common name. DexDor(talk)05:12, 25 June 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:Indian State Government Engineering Colleges
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:Whalers
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.
It's perverse to have the people categorised under the same term as we use for ships, so we need some disambiguation. I have no preference between "Whalers (people)" and "People in whaling", and I am open to other ideas ... so long as we disambiguate somehow. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Support option B. I suspect there are people connected with the industry onshore (e.g., whaling company managers) who are categorised.
Grutness...wha?03:43, 25 June 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:Warner
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 - It's a category that's way too ambiguous. Although most people would think of
WarnerMedia, I'd say delete, as it would be way to confusing as one word for that specific instance, just as it is now. Koridas talk?02:45, 25 June 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:The Hitcher
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. If other articles regarding the film series are created, there's no prejudice towards recreating the category. bibliomaniac1500:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Usually I would support delete, but in this case there are three films of this series, which makes it perfectly possible to make a film series article and possibly a character article about the villain (whom is quite iconic).
★Trekker (
talk)
19:51, 2 July 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:The Essential
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: Disambiguation. This a category for a series of compilation albums (
The Essential Lou Reed etc) released by Sony's
Legacy Recordings division ... but other companies have also released albums with similar names, so some disambiguation is needed to clarify the scope, and stress that this is not just a generic
WP:SHAREDNAME category. I have tried to find a dab which isn't too verbose, but other editors may have better ideas.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Do distinct compilations for diverse artists such as the Backstreet Boys, Herbie Hancock, and Ozzy Osbourne really need to be categorized based on the way a record label markets their back catalog? I might nominate
Category:Gold series albums and
Category:Playlist compilation albums, among others, pending the outcome of this discussion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:21, 25 June 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:Somali-language newspapers published in Somaliland
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.
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:Multiple citizenship
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: Doesnt merit a separate category. It inappropriately attracts articles about individuals with dual citizenship. I think only 4 of the articles belong and the biographies should be purged.
Rathfelder (
talk)
21:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose the concept is notable and distinct, but having multiple citizenship is not defining to those who have them (many people do, and those with means can buy one from numerous countries, and we don't categorize people by how much money they have, much less how they spend it).
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Having purged the biographies there are 2 articles about Australian constitutional law and one, apart from the eponymous article, about multiple citizenship. I dont think there is much potential for growth because any new articles will actually be about the constitutional law of a particular state, not about the wider topic.
Rathfelder (
talk)
22:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)reply
I dont think they are usefully categorised there. Law of nationality is different in each country. I would move the Australian articles to
Category:Australian nationality law. Legally speaking I think Nationality is preferable as a topic category. But I'm more worried about this filling up with biographies. If we really think it's worth keeping separately from
Category:Citizenship, with only 4 articles can we take up
Marcocapelle's suggestion and rename it?
Rathfelder (
talk)
13:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Of course law of nationality is different in each country. But we don't exclude other topics from a relevant category just because it's done differently in different countries. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:07, 28 June 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:Cha-cha-cha
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.
Oppose First of all, the category is about the music, its musicians, compositions, albums, etc. No article tagged with this category is about the dance/choreographic aspects of the genre (except for
Dancing baby which should probably be removed). Therefore, the category should either stay as is or, if anything, be renamed
Category:Cha-cha-cha (music). However, it makes no sense to separate the dance and music articles into different categories. Cha-cha-cha just happens to be one of those music genres that has its own homonymous dance, like
mambo and
rumba. Music and dance go hand in hand, so splitting or renaming this category seems like a very bad idea, especially when there are no other articles related to the cha-cha-cha dance. I definitely agree that
WP:OVERLAPCAT applies in this case (and I also agree that the dance and music articles should probably be merged; this has been suggested several times after a user boldly split them in 2005). As for its ambiguity, all articles in the dab page are named after the music genre, so I don't think the current category title is problematic. After all, the dab page exists to disambiguate the music and the dance; if there was a single music/dance article, it would be the primary topic for sure! Thus, WP:OVERLAPCAT abolishes any possible ambiguity, unless you think that a combined music/dance article wouldn't be primary topic (they both account for well over 90% of the views). Finally, a small detail: the dance was derived from the music, not the other way around (
source).
Neodop (
talk)
23:43, 25 June 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:Central Germany
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.
Keep but merge the two main articles. I can entirely see why this was nominated, however on investigation the problems lie elsewhere. Firstly, the category was never properly populated - I have now rectified that. Secondly, there should only be one main article entitled "
Central Germany", not the present two. Basically
Central Germany (geography) and
Central Germany (cultural area) should be merged as they are on de.wiki. As the former is little more than a stub, I am happy to do this. Thank you for flagging this up. HTH.
Bermicourt (
talk)
21:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment does or did the German government give "Central Germany" status, like the US does the
Category:Midwestern United States. Or does academia agree what the definition of a distinct Central Germany? If so, keeping it makes sense, if not, it becomes subjective what belongs and what doesn't and thus categorizing on that subjective basis would be improper.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. The current category structure is a right mess e.g. with this category forming a category loop with
Category:Saxony. It's much better to categorize by actual German states (clearly defined). The pages in this category will still be well categorized if this category is deleted. DexDor(talk)06:56, 27 June 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:Molluscs of Nicaragua
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:Equus Award winners
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:Pakistani music 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.
Delete seems to not be part of a general classification thus we avoid determining whether albums have nationalities. At some point, we should discuss the children of
Category:Albums by artist nationality which seem very under utilized and whether those should all be limited to subcategories only or whether it has usefulness.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
00:32, 26 June 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:Armaan Malik
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:Jubin Nautiyal
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.
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:Campeonato Brasileiro
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:Wives of Vice Presidents of the United States
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Support, since I actually tried to nominate this category for deletion yesterday for the same rationale, but according to the edit preview, it would not have been listed on this discussion log correctly.--
TommyBoy (
talk)
19:55, 25 June 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:Hollow Earth theory and Category:Flat Earth theory
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. The main policy-based rationale in this case would be
WP:C2D, that the category to match the head article. This closure is not an endorsement of the nom's original rationale. bibliomaniac1502:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. A theory doesn't have to be a scientific theory, and removing the word is an assertion of POV on the part of Wikipedia. Besides which,
Hollow Earthactually was a scientific theory. It was proposed by
Edmond Halley, a highly regarded scientist,
Fellow of the Royal Society, and the
Astronomer Royal.
Flat Earth was a pevrfectly acceptable belief amongst natural philosophers (who would now be called scientists) in Classical Greek times and was probably the only belief before then. Neither principle article concentrates on the ridiculous beliefs of modern new-age dickheads, so the nominator's rationale is based on demonstrably false assertions. Next time try applying the
scientific method to your claims, particularly the principle of
falsifiability.
SpinningSpark11:07, 25 June 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:Binary logic
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:Binary logic is a disambiguation page, whose main topic is
boolean logic. This category contains only three articles on electronic device which employ binary logic, and it has no sub-categories ... so no way is a remotely complete grouping of content related to binary logic. I don't know enough about this topic to decide what the solution is ... but I can see that something needs fixing. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
No big deal if removed at all. All practically used logic hardware is binary/boolean; the few non-binary types are either failed exotics of the past or ivory-tower constructs of the present.
Retired electrician (
talk)
08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
The first thing to say here is that binary arithmetic is not synonymous with binary/boolean logic. In arithmetic 1+1=2, or in binary, 1+1=10. In boolean logic 1+1=1. There is a case here for having a category, perhaps named
category:logic circuits, that is intermediate in the hierarchy between
category:logic gates and
category:digital circuits for circuits that are more complex than, or built of, basic logic gates.
Binary decoder would fit into that category, as would
majority function for instance.
However, as currently organised,
category:binary logic is fulfilling no useful purpose, so unless someone wants to take on the task of populating the category I suggested above, then I'm for getting rid of it. It makes no sense whatever that
adder (electronics) and
subtractor are in binary logic but
adder-subtractor is in binary arithmetic. The third entry,
binary decoder does not belong in the binary arithmetic category, but is already otherwise suitably categorised.
SpinningSpark10:14, 25 June 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:Bucephala
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.
Option A. I think our normal practice is to use scientific name for the category even where the article is at the common name. DexDor(talk)05:12, 25 June 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:Indian State Government Engineering Colleges
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:Whalers
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.
It's perverse to have the people categorised under the same term as we use for ships, so we need some disambiguation. I have no preference between "Whalers (people)" and "People in whaling", and I am open to other ideas ... so long as we disambiguate somehow. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Support option B. I suspect there are people connected with the industry onshore (e.g., whaling company managers) who are categorised.
Grutness...wha?03:43, 25 June 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:Warner
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 - It's a category that's way too ambiguous. Although most people would think of
WarnerMedia, I'd say delete, as it would be way to confusing as one word for that specific instance, just as it is now. Koridas talk?02:45, 25 June 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:The Hitcher
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. If other articles regarding the film series are created, there's no prejudice towards recreating the category. bibliomaniac1500:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep Usually I would support delete, but in this case there are three films of this series, which makes it perfectly possible to make a film series article and possibly a character article about the villain (whom is quite iconic).
★Trekker (
talk)
19:51, 2 July 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:The Essential
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: Disambiguation. This a category for a series of compilation albums (
The Essential Lou Reed etc) released by Sony's
Legacy Recordings division ... but other companies have also released albums with similar names, so some disambiguation is needed to clarify the scope, and stress that this is not just a generic
WP:SHAREDNAME category. I have tried to find a dab which isn't too verbose, but other editors may have better ideas.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Do distinct compilations for diverse artists such as the Backstreet Boys, Herbie Hancock, and Ozzy Osbourne really need to be categorized based on the way a record label markets their back catalog? I might nominate
Category:Gold series albums and
Category:Playlist compilation albums, among others, pending the outcome of this discussion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me18:21, 25 June 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:Somali-language newspapers published in Somaliland
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.