Category:Poltava National Technical University faculty
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:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article which is already in several other faculty categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete for Now per
WP:SMALLCAT. No objection to recreating later if it ever gets up to 5+ direct articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 19:12, 1 July 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: in line with the CFD above, either Option 1 as listed above, to create consistency with the parent e.g.
Category:Architecture of the United States;
Support, because meanwhile denonyms are mainly used for people (nationality).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:36, 24 June 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.
People from Ukraine by former raions
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:.
Raions of Ukraine are the second-level administrative divisions of Ukraine, this is a tree of people by the former raions in Ukraine that were in place until 2020. We might recategorize all people by the new raions that were kept or estabished in that reform, but I do not think that is very necessary and besides it would lead to a huge amount of work, so the proposal is to just merge to first-level administrative divisions. Note that the importance of raions has been greatly reduced in the reform of 2020 and the number of articles per raion is often relatively small. In addition, this proposal does not touch the categorization of people by populated place, so it will only impact people in rural areas putting them in larger regions. At
WikiProject Ukraine there was little response and no opposition when this proposal was announced.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Certainly makes sense to me.
Ymblanter (
talk) 12:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
CommentCategory:People from Semenivka Raion (Chernihiv) is listed above but hasn't been tagged for this CFD discussion. Just noticed that it wasn't lighting up in pink and I thought the tag had been removed but it was never tagged in the first place. LizRead!Talk! 21:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks Liz, I have tagged it now.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 07:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle, there are a few red-linked categories (probably left over from moves). ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 31 July 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:Stars by type
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: Seems redundant. It is the only sub-category of
Category:Star types and appears to serve no function. It was created in 2018, and prior to that, its members were just members of
Category:Star types. I propose to get rid of it and return all of its members back to
Category:Star types.
Lithopsian (
talk) 15:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Notes: (1) this should have been proposed as a merge rather than deletion. (2) The parent category currently holds only generic articles on types of star, whereas the nominated category holds sub-cats of stars by type. I concur that in other hierarchies, this distinction has been abandoned, i.e. there are precedents for such a merge. (3) If merged, follow-up work should be done to merge the interwiki categories that have been copied from English Wikipedia, see
d:Q6864552 and
d:Q54811253 – ping me, I am willing. –
FayenaticLondon 10:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is a container of categories conforming to particular types of star, and it is useful for it to be separate from the parent category which contains articles on actual start types.--
Mvqr (
talk) 13:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:01, 24 June 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: Upmerge to parent, as it only contains one stub page. If not merged, rename to
Category:Micrococcaceae stubs per the above CFD. –
FayenaticLondon 19:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Support. Sort of. I say delete it. Since the suborder Micrococcineae is no longer in common use there is no need for the stub going forward. And Micrococcaceae isn't large enough to merit its own stub.
Ninjatacoshell (
talk) 03:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)reply
For the record, the above editor has merged the only member article into the suggested target,
[1] so deletion is now the same as merging. I have added the template to the nomination for deletion, which I should have done in the first place. –
FayenaticLondon 07:48, 26 June 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:Poltava National Technical University faculty
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:delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article which is already in several other faculty categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:43, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Delete for Now per
WP:SMALLCAT. No objection to recreating later if it ever gets up to 5+ direct articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 19:12, 1 July 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: in line with the CFD above, either Option 1 as listed above, to create consistency with the parent e.g.
Category:Architecture of the United States;
Support, because meanwhile denonyms are mainly used for people (nationality).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:36, 24 June 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.
People from Ukraine by former raions
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:.
Raions of Ukraine are the second-level administrative divisions of Ukraine, this is a tree of people by the former raions in Ukraine that were in place until 2020. We might recategorize all people by the new raions that were kept or estabished in that reform, but I do not think that is very necessary and besides it would lead to a huge amount of work, so the proposal is to just merge to first-level administrative divisions. Note that the importance of raions has been greatly reduced in the reform of 2020 and the number of articles per raion is often relatively small. In addition, this proposal does not touch the categorization of people by populated place, so it will only impact people in rural areas putting them in larger regions. At
WikiProject Ukraine there was little response and no opposition when this proposal was announced.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:34, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Certainly makes sense to me.
Ymblanter (
talk) 12:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
CommentCategory:People from Semenivka Raion (Chernihiv) is listed above but hasn't been tagged for this CFD discussion. Just noticed that it wasn't lighting up in pink and I thought the tag had been removed but it was never tagged in the first place. LizRead!Talk! 21:51, 6 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Thanks Liz, I have tagged it now.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 07:46, 7 July 2022 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle, there are a few red-linked categories (probably left over from moves). ― Qwerfjkltalk 18:40, 31 July 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:Stars by type
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: Seems redundant. It is the only sub-category of
Category:Star types and appears to serve no function. It was created in 2018, and prior to that, its members were just members of
Category:Star types. I propose to get rid of it and return all of its members back to
Category:Star types.
Lithopsian (
talk) 15:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Notes: (1) this should have been proposed as a merge rather than deletion. (2) The parent category currently holds only generic articles on types of star, whereas the nominated category holds sub-cats of stars by type. I concur that in other hierarchies, this distinction has been abandoned, i.e. there are precedents for such a merge. (3) If merged, follow-up work should be done to merge the interwiki categories that have been copied from English Wikipedia, see
d:Q6864552 and
d:Q54811253 – ping me, I am willing. –
FayenaticLondon 10:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This is a container of categories conforming to particular types of star, and it is useful for it to be separate from the parent category which contains articles on actual start types.--
Mvqr (
talk) 13:18, 14 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:01, 24 June 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: Upmerge to parent, as it only contains one stub page. If not merged, rename to
Category:Micrococcaceae stubs per the above CFD. –
FayenaticLondon 19:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)reply
Support. Sort of. I say delete it. Since the suborder Micrococcineae is no longer in common use there is no need for the stub going forward. And Micrococcaceae isn't large enough to merit its own stub.
Ninjatacoshell (
talk) 03:50, 26 June 2022 (UTC)reply
For the record, the above editor has merged the only member article into the suggested target,
[1] so deletion is now the same as merging. I have added the template to the nomination for deletion, which I should have done in the first place. –
FayenaticLondon 07:48, 26 June 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.