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.
DeleteImmoralMorally dubious speculation. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 12:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)15:09, 16 August 2022 (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:Star Wars CGI characters
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: For the same reason as the merge of
Category:CGI characters,
WP:NONDEF. A name change would expand the scope more.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 19:08, 13 August 2022 (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:Disney CGI characters
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 per above. ―
Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 01:02, 15 August 2022 (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:1600 establishments in Africa
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:Manual merge, only the article, not the subcat.
Dahomey was established as a kingdom in the early C17; 1600 is spurious precision. The Ottoman subcat contains only Europe content, so should not be merged. –
FayenaticLondon 11:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, apparently we do not have any articles with establishments in Africa exactly in the year 1600. Siblings e.g. 1602 and 1608 may be nominated for deletion as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment the year 1600 is part of the 16th century, while the year 1601 is part of the 17th century. (just as 2000 is part of the 20th century while 2001 is the first year of the new millennium) --
64.229.88.43 (
talk) 00:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Support -- The status of Dahomey (the sole article) was discussed the other day. Its foundation was c.1600 and it certainly existed by c.1620. The category thus has a spurious precision, when we do not know any precise date.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:33, 14 August 2022 (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:Suicide in film
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 That the films depict one or more suicides does not mean that their main topic is suicide.
Dimadick (
talk) 05:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
That is exactly the reason why a manual merge is proposed, in order to purge films that do not have it as a main topic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:02, 18 August 2022 (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:Siverskyi Donets
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: Per parent article
Donets and also for neutrality, the river passes through both Russia and Ukraine but Siverskyi Donets is the Ukrainian form.
SuperΨDro 08:43, 13 August 2022 (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:merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:03, 13 August 2022 (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:Marcos Administration cabinet members
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 per nom. Besides I think it should be "administration" rather than "Administration" but that obviously applies to all siblings too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:22, 14 August 2022 (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:Marcos Administration personnel
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 per nom. Besides I wonder whether we should categorize non-cabinet members by afministration but that obviously applies to all siblings too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:25, 14 August 2022 (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:Aircraft manufacturers of Austria-Hungary
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles, and we do not have a developed tree of aircraft manufacturers by former country.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I think that would make it needlessly complicated. Hungary kept a status as a semi-independent kingdom within the composite state of Austria-Hungary, much more so than e.g. Bohemia, so there would not be much harm in having them added to Hungarian categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, those Austrian-Hungarian parent categories are wholly redundant and will naturally become empty by this proposal.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:42, 13 August 2022 (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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. –
FayenaticLondon 19:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Since there is no requirement that user pages have descriptions of any size, there is absolutely no purpose to this category, which does not help in the maintenance of Wikipedia in any way.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 04:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Actually, it does pick up user drafts, which may well not be tagged & categorised as such (i.e. with {{user draft}}). Many of these could be blanked, redirected or deleted as
WP:COPYARTICLE. So this category could be useful for that. –
FayenaticLondon 12:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This category was appearing on pages that transcluded {{User page}}. I have put "noinclude" codes around {{short description}} in that template, which may remove a lot of the current 66,409 pages. –
FayenaticLondon 12:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The template change has indeed removed more than half of the category contents. The remainder are worth checking – some are old copy articles with edits still worth making live; others are eligible for speedy deletion under
WP:CSD#G5. –
FayenaticLondon 21:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The nomination appears to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of the category, since a
short description is a specific thing, and has nothing to do with the length of the description. Delete anyway, as "pages in namespace X using template Y" categories are redundant to
Special:WhatLinksHere.
* Pppery *it has begun... 14:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
That seems a fair comment. For convenience, the full link is
[1] –
FayenaticLondon 14:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Category:Articles with short description is at least non-redundant since it excludes disambiguation pages and possibly a few other cases I've forgotten. The rest are equally redundant. That aside, the original purpose of
Category:Articles with short description was to show the WMF that there were 2 million articles with short descriptions so they could finally turn off displaying Wikidata descriptions here, and it doesn't seem to have a clear function now that that goal has been met. This would need another CfD.
* Pppery *it has begun... 20:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 00:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree that there's no apparent purpose for this category: user pages don't require shortdescs, so a list of the pages that have them isn't useful. Some of the other non-mainspace categories can probably go as well, but I don't support deleting
Category:Articles with short description: the WhatLinksHere approaches misses the hundreds of thousands of articles that have a short description specified via the infobox template, so the category is the only good way to determine which articles still need a shortdesc.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 07:58, 18 August 2022 (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.
DeleteImmoralMorally dubious speculation. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 12:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)15:09, 16 August 2022 (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:Star Wars CGI characters
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: For the same reason as the merge of
Category:CGI characters,
WP:NONDEF. A name change would expand the scope more.
ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (
ᴛ) 19:08, 13 August 2022 (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:Disney CGI characters
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 per above. ―
Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 01:02, 15 August 2022 (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:1600 establishments in Africa
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:Manual merge, only the article, not the subcat.
Dahomey was established as a kingdom in the early C17; 1600 is spurious precision. The Ottoman subcat contains only Europe content, so should not be merged. –
FayenaticLondon 11:16, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Support, apparently we do not have any articles with establishments in Africa exactly in the year 1600. Siblings e.g. 1602 and 1608 may be nominated for deletion as well.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:31, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Comment the year 1600 is part of the 16th century, while the year 1601 is part of the 17th century. (just as 2000 is part of the 20th century while 2001 is the first year of the new millennium) --
64.229.88.43 (
talk) 00:07, 14 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Support -- The status of Dahomey (the sole article) was discussed the other day. Its foundation was c.1600 and it certainly existed by c.1620. The category thus has a spurious precision, when we do not know any precise date.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 19:33, 14 August 2022 (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:Suicide in film
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 That the films depict one or more suicides does not mean that their main topic is suicide.
Dimadick (
talk) 05:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)reply
That is exactly the reason why a manual merge is proposed, in order to purge films that do not have it as a main topic.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:02, 18 August 2022 (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:Siverskyi Donets
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: Per parent article
Donets and also for neutrality, the river passes through both Russia and Ukraine but Siverskyi Donets is the Ukrainian form.
SuperΨDro 08:43, 13 August 2022 (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:merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:03, 13 August 2022 (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:Marcos Administration cabinet members
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 per nom. Besides I think it should be "administration" rather than "Administration" but that obviously applies to all siblings too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:22, 14 August 2022 (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:Marcos Administration personnel
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 per nom. Besides I wonder whether we should categorize non-cabinet members by afministration but that obviously applies to all siblings too.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:25, 14 August 2022 (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:Aircraft manufacturers of Austria-Hungary
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: merge, only two articles, and we do not have a developed tree of aircraft manufacturers by former country.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:34, 5 August 2022 (UTC)reply
I think that would make it needlessly complicated. Hungary kept a status as a semi-independent kingdom within the composite state of Austria-Hungary, much more so than e.g. Bohemia, so there would not be much harm in having them added to Hungarian categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Additional thoughts? Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 01:45, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes, those Austrian-Hungarian parent categories are wholly redundant and will naturally become empty by this proposal.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:42, 13 August 2022 (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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. –
FayenaticLondon 19:20, 21 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Since there is no requirement that user pages have descriptions of any size, there is absolutely no purpose to this category, which does not help in the maintenance of Wikipedia in any way.
Beyond My Ken (
talk) 04:36, 1 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Actually, it does pick up user drafts, which may well not be tagged & categorised as such (i.e. with {{user draft}}). Many of these could be blanked, redirected or deleted as
WP:COPYARTICLE. So this category could be useful for that. –
FayenaticLondon 12:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
This category was appearing on pages that transcluded {{User page}}. I have put "noinclude" codes around {{short description}} in that template, which may remove a lot of the current 66,409 pages. –
FayenaticLondon 12:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The template change has indeed removed more than half of the category contents. The remainder are worth checking – some are old copy articles with edits still worth making live; others are eligible for speedy deletion under
WP:CSD#G5. –
FayenaticLondon 21:06, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
The nomination appears to be a misunderstanding of the purpose of the category, since a
short description is a specific thing, and has nothing to do with the length of the description. Delete anyway, as "pages in namespace X using template Y" categories are redundant to
Special:WhatLinksHere.
* Pppery *it has begun... 14:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)reply
That seems a fair comment. For convenience, the full link is
[1] –
FayenaticLondon 14:33, 3 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Category:Articles with short description is at least non-redundant since it excludes disambiguation pages and possibly a few other cases I've forgotten. The rest are equally redundant. That aside, the original purpose of
Category:Articles with short description was to show the WMF that there were 2 million articles with short descriptions so they could finally turn off displaying Wikidata descriptions here, and it doesn't seem to have a clear function now that that goal has been met. This would need another CfD.
* Pppery *it has begun... 20:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
✗plicit 00:19, 13 August 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete. I agree that there's no apparent purpose for this category: user pages don't require shortdescs, so a list of the pages that have them isn't useful. Some of the other non-mainspace categories can probably go as well, but I don't support deleting
Category:Articles with short description: the WhatLinksHere approaches misses the hundreds of thousands of articles that have a short description specified via the infobox template, so the category is the only good way to determine which articles still need a shortdesc.
Extraordinary Writ (
talk) 07:58, 18 August 2022 (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.