July 14
Category:Golfers from Leeds
- 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: merge. The articles are otherwise in appropriate subcategories of
Category:English golfers,
Category:English swimmers, and
Category:English cyclists.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 03:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Golfers from Leeds to Category:Sportspeople from Leeds
- 'Also nominating for merging- Category:Swimmers from Leeds to Category:Sportspeople from Leeds
- Category:Cyclists from Leeds to Category:Sportspeople from Leeds
- Nominator's rationale: Per multiple CFDs, here [1], here [2], here [3], here [4] here [5], here [6], and here [7] just being seven examples, we don't subcategorize sportspeople from Foo town/city by the type of athletes they are. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Over-categorisation. Nigej ( talk) 16:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per WP:OCLOCATION. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support but also merge to a Category:English golfers. This is the only case of this a split by place from this; similarly for swimmers. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note that all over these categories need to be merged to both parents:
- There is a persistent pattern in this nominator's proposals of proposing mergers to only one parent, which has the effect of removing articles from one category tree. In this case, the nom's proposals would remove all these sportspeople from the crucial category, which is that for the sport in which they are notable.
Please, WilliamJE, can you ensure that future nominations avoid this error? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Soviet football competition stubs
- 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; merge content as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: If all of the articles in the perm category and its subcategories were considered stubs, it would not be enough for half of the required article count for starting a stub category. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to Category:European football competition stubs. Dawynn ( talk) 18:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, also merge to Category:Soviet sport stubs. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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:History of women's rights in Ukraine
- 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: merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:History of women's rights in Ukraine to Category:Women's rights in Ukraine
- Nominator's rationale: Doesn't contain a single article, just the non-historical subcategory Category:Ukrainian women's rights activists. PanchoS ( talk) 17:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per
PanchoS. I now agree it is a rather redundant category. (I can not remember why I ever created the category....) —
Yulia Romero •
Talk to me! 17:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @ Yulia Romero: no problem – we can easily recreate once there's more, and more specific, content. Regards, PanchoS ( talk) 17:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge -- If the target becomes big enough to need a split, it can be split then, but "history of ... " categories are often better merged to their main subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Maine religious building and structure stubs
- 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; merge contents as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Someone has cleaned up the Maine church stub category. Only 4 articles, and I can find no other stubs. The religious building category only adds two more articles. Propose deleting these two categories. Upmerge template {{ Maine-church-stub}} to Category:Northeastern United States church stubs. Upmerge template {{ Maine-religious-struct-stub}} to Category:Northeastern United States religious building and structure stubs. Upmerge both templates also to Category:Maine building and structure stubs. Dawynn ( talk) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - while the church category was once large enough (in fact, in a report from last November it had 64 stubs), it's now too small to keep. The religious building and structure category was never really large enough to keep without the church category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Williams family
- 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. --
Tavix (
talk) 00:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Williams family to Category:Williams family (Nigeria)
- Nominator's rationale: Williams is a pretty common surname, and I doubt that this particular family would be the primary meaning. In the absence of an article about this family that we could match the category name to, I suggest disambiguating with a country of origin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename – the tennis players spring to mind and there is this Williams family who could clearly be collected together into a category (of futility similar to the one in question). Oculi ( talk) 13:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Or, delete - this is merely a father + 2 daughters, neither of whom is named Williams. Oculi ( talk) 17:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with deletion—but isn't that the point of family categories—to group people together who are part of the same family regardless of their surname? It's pretty common for women especially to change their surname during their lives, but they generally remain part of the same family after they do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete small category; articles are linked. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as small. If kept, rename to Category:Family of James Oladipo Williams. Since the other two members of the category are not using his surname, there may be a little merit in having a category. All three appear notable in their own right. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename The families appear to be organized in a hierarchy by nation. This helps avoid potential name-clashes. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - people should be categorized by what they are notable for (i.e. occupation) - thus categorizing them with articles about similar topics; who they are related to can/should be covered in normal article links. If not deleted then rename per nom. DexDor (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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:American Civil War deaths
- 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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Seems to be for exactly the same thing as Category:People killed in the American Civil War. Both categories were created within minutes of each other by the same editor; it's unclear what was intended in setting up one category as a parent for the other. I suggest deleting and redirecting to Category:People killed in the American Civil War. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support arguably Category:American Civil War deaths could include horses or whatnot, but I think that the nom makes sense as we don't have this distinction for the numerous other conflicts. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The name of the category as it currently stands could imply that this should include other casualties of the war, which were not actually killed by anyone. Our article on the
American Civil War gives some numbers on the Union Army dead from various causes. 110,070 people were either killed in action or received mortal wounds and died due to their injuries. 199,790 people died due to various diseases, though not all of these diseases were war-related. 24,866 people died in Confederate prison camps. 9,058 people died due to military-related accidents or drowning. 15,741 people died due to uncertain or unknown causes. Of the 359,528 dead of the Union Army, more than a half were not actually killed in combat.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's one way to interpret it. But I dunno, it's pretty easy to just say that "killed in the American Civil War" includes people who were killed as a result of anything closely related to the war, so I'm still not convinced that we need the distinction. The target category is not phrased "killed in combat" and doesn't need to be limited in that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- comment Dimadick is probably correct. Next are there any articles that go directly into this category? Hmains ( talk) 18:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge rather than delete: yes, they are the same thing. I would have thought it ought to be limited to deaths caused by the war, excluding (for example) an old woman who died in her bed in Maine, without hearing a shot fired in anger.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 13:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing to merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
July 14
Category:Golfers from Leeds
- 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: merge. The articles are otherwise in appropriate subcategories of
Category:English golfers,
Category:English swimmers, and
Category:English cyclists.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 03:50, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Golfers from Leeds to Category:Sportspeople from Leeds
- 'Also nominating for merging- Category:Swimmers from Leeds to Category:Sportspeople from Leeds
- Category:Cyclists from Leeds to Category:Sportspeople from Leeds
- Nominator's rationale: Per multiple CFDs, here [1], here [2], here [3], here [4] here [5], here [6], and here [7] just being seven examples, we don't subcategorize sportspeople from Foo town/city by the type of athletes they are. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:04, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support Over-categorisation. Nigej ( talk) 16:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per WP:OCLOCATION. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support but also merge to a Category:English golfers. This is the only case of this a split by place from this; similarly for swimmers. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:09, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Note that all over these categories need to be merged to both parents:
- There is a persistent pattern in this nominator's proposals of proposing mergers to only one parent, which has the effect of removing articles from one category tree. In this case, the nom's proposals would remove all these sportspeople from the crucial category, which is that for the sport in which they are notable.
Please, WilliamJE, can you ensure that future nominations avoid this error? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Soviet football competition stubs
- 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; merge content as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: If all of the articles in the perm category and its subcategories were considered stubs, it would not be enough for half of the required article count for starting a stub category. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to Category:European football competition stubs. Dawynn ( talk) 18:28, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support, also merge to Category:Soviet sport stubs. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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:History of women's rights in Ukraine
- 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: merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:History of women's rights in Ukraine to Category:Women's rights in Ukraine
- Nominator's rationale: Doesn't contain a single article, just the non-historical subcategory Category:Ukrainian women's rights activists. PanchoS ( talk) 17:22, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge per
PanchoS. I now agree it is a rather redundant category. (I can not remember why I ever created the category....) —
Yulia Romero •
Talk to me! 17:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- @ Yulia Romero: no problem – we can easily recreate once there's more, and more specific, content. Regards, PanchoS ( talk) 17:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge -- If the target becomes big enough to need a split, it can be split then, but "history of ... " categories are often better merged to their main subject. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
Maine religious building and structure stubs
- 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; merge contents as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:58, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Someone has cleaned up the Maine church stub category. Only 4 articles, and I can find no other stubs. The religious building category only adds two more articles. Propose deleting these two categories. Upmerge template {{ Maine-church-stub}} to Category:Northeastern United States church stubs. Upmerge template {{ Maine-religious-struct-stub}} to Category:Northeastern United States religious building and structure stubs. Upmerge both templates also to Category:Maine building and structure stubs. Dawynn ( talk) 11:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support - while the church category was once large enough (in fact, in a report from last November it had 64 stubs), it's now too small to keep. The religious building and structure category was never really large enough to keep without the church category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:44, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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:Williams family
- 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. --
Tavix (
talk) 00:18, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Williams family to Category:Williams family (Nigeria)
- Nominator's rationale: Williams is a pretty common surname, and I doubt that this particular family would be the primary meaning. In the absence of an article about this family that we could match the category name to, I suggest disambiguating with a country of origin. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename – the tennis players spring to mind and there is this Williams family who could clearly be collected together into a category (of futility similar to the one in question). Oculi ( talk) 13:57, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Or, delete - this is merely a father + 2 daughters, neither of whom is named Williams. Oculi ( talk) 17:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- I don't disagree with deletion—but isn't that the point of family categories—to group people together who are part of the same family regardless of their surname? It's pretty common for women especially to change their surname during their lives, but they generally remain part of the same family after they do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete small category; articles are linked. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete as small. If kept, rename to Category:Family of James Oladipo Williams. Since the other two members of the category are not using his surname, there may be a little merit in having a category. All three appear notable in their own right. Peterkingiron ( talk) 13:16, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- Rename The families appear to be organized in a hierarchy by nation. This helps avoid potential name-clashes. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:13, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
- Delete - people should be categorized by what they are notable for (i.e. occupation) - thus categorizing them with articles about similar topics; who they are related to can/should be covered in normal article links. If not deleted then rename per nom. DexDor (talk) 06:52, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
- 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:American Civil War deaths
- 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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:44, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Seems to be for exactly the same thing as Category:People killed in the American Civil War. Both categories were created within minutes of each other by the same editor; it's unclear what was intended in setting up one category as a parent for the other. I suggest deleting and redirecting to Category:People killed in the American Civil War. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:53, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Support arguably Category:American Civil War deaths could include horses or whatnot, but I think that the nom makes sense as we don't have this distinction for the numerous other conflicts. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:17, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
- Comment The name of the category as it currently stands could imply that this should include other casualties of the war, which were not actually killed by anyone. Our article on the
American Civil War gives some numbers on the Union Army dead from various causes. 110,070 people were either killed in action or received mortal wounds and died due to their injuries. 199,790 people died due to various diseases, though not all of these diseases were war-related. 24,866 people died in Confederate prison camps. 9,058 people died due to military-related accidents or drowning. 15,741 people died due to uncertain or unknown causes. Of the 359,528 dead of the Union Army, more than a half were not actually killed in combat.
Dimadick (
talk) 07:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- That's one way to interpret it. But I dunno, it's pretty easy to just say that "killed in the American Civil War" includes people who were killed as a result of anything closely related to the war, so I'm still not convinced that we need the distinction. The target category is not phrased "killed in combat" and doesn't need to be limited in that way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
- comment Dimadick is probably correct. Next are there any articles that go directly into this category? Hmains ( talk) 18:12, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
- Merge rather than delete: yes, they are the same thing. I would have thought it ought to be limited to deaths caused by the war, excluding (for example) an old woman who died in her bed in Maine, without hearing a shot fired in anger.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 13:19, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
- There's nothing to merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
- 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.