Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11

Transvaal and the South African Republic

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 and delete per nominator. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Nine articles total in this tree, with the South African Republic categories under Transvaal. There's enough in the South African Republic tree (7 articles) to justify splitting it out to centuries, probably, if not for the fact that the whole republic existed within one century. Transvaal only has two articles in it. This merge/delete nomination would condense everything to Category:Establishments in Transvaal and Category:Establishments in the South African Republic, with the latter being a sub-category of the former. ~ Rob Talk 21:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. Over 20 categories for 9 articles is far too many, while 2 categories is fair enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Support. A reasonable, well-judged proposal. -- PanchoS ( talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (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:Photo sharing

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: not moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category is actually about the sharing of images - not just photographs. One could also create a new category but in my view that would be undue here as these categories would overlap way too much - almost all entries of the current category would need to be copied over (except a handful of entries like 500px; note that image-sharing communities are typically also photo-sharing communities so most entries would really need to be in both categories). Note that even if a new category would be considered appropriate here that can still be done (and more easily so) after the category got moved. (Alternative name: Category:Picture sharing) Fixuture ( talk) 20:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ RevelationDirect: Nice find - I actually forgot I made a post about it already. It doesn't change anything though as I got no reply and this is the normal way to propose moving a category....or at least I thought until now: I guess one should only request a renaming here if the entries of the category don't need to moved over? When would that be useful? Isn't the only use of this then category-renamings which entail removing or changing the category from most of its articles? -- Fixuture ( talk) 20:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose The Move Request template usually brings in some more input to come to a consensus on article naming. In general, I favor having category names match the wording and scope of the main article because it makes the inclusion criteria clearer for editors and the navigation clearer for readers. I generally oppose category renames that are trying to bypass a consensus for the name of the main article but other editors in CFD might feel differently. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:39, 12 June 2016 (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:Wikipedia categories named after Wikipedia categories

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: speedy delete. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: What exactly is the meaning of this category? ( User:Mercurywoodrose) Also it only has one entry. Fixuture ( talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The edit summary by the creator is "creating vital category in the epo cat tree (more of a pile of branches, not connected to each other, but you get the idea)". If categories aren't connected to each other even from the creator's perspective, I'm not seeing a administrative benefit to keeping this category. RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • joke, im sorry, i let my personal feelings override my editorial professionalism. i hate the eponymous category "tree", and wanted to express it, but of course this is technically vandalism. ***Delete*** as creator, who has no rationale for keeping it. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • @ Mercurywoodrose: Thanks for conceding. Yes, in a way this is vandalism, but no, we're not devoid of humour. How about speedy deleting it per WP:G7? -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I've removed the parent cats on that basis. This is a waste of everyone's time. And it's only because he's an experienced editor with no other track record of disruptive editing that I'm aware of, that I'm not applying a level one warning. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete serves no purpose other than the purpose it's currently serving. ;-) Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:20, 13 June 2016 (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:Children's charities based in England and Wales

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. Both the proposed merge and the alternative split lead to the same result of straight deletion of this category, because Category:Children's charities based in England is the only content and this is already in Category:Children's charities based in the United Kingdom‎. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous and non-defining. The charities are either based in England or in Wales. Rathfelder ( talk) 07:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the nom wants to merge to UK, while Necrothesp wants to split England from Wales. Personally, I think both proposals are reasonable. The single jurisdiction of England and Wales doesn't keep us from subdividing into the constituent "countries", as is done with most other categories. -- PanchoS ( talk) 02:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • In general we do split the United Kingdom into its constituent parts for most purposes. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed to differentiate between splitting these up and merging them to the UK.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 17:59, 11 June 2016 (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:Mental structures

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) 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Another May 2008 Stefanomione category that lumps together a variety of cognition and intelligence-related topics into something that, tellingly, has no main article. It survived a 2010 rename discussion as no consensus, but I think the best solution all along would have been deletion, on the basis on the arbitrary nature of topics tossed together. The category has three subcats: Category:Knowledge representation, which according to its main article Knowledge representation and reasoning is a term from computing and so is not "mental" at all; Category:Scientific theories; and the very flawed Category:Units of information (cognitive processes), nominated below. There simply isn't the basis for a coherent accessible category for our readers, at least until such time as someone creates Mental structure to explain what the heck this is. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:43, 11 June 2016 (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:Works based on the Holy Grail legend

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. There's no consensus to delete. The arguments to merge weren't convincing to other editors, especially because certain works contain the object of the Holy Grail but aren't based on the Arthurian legend. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: After some thought and coffee, it seems to me that this is a reasonable solution to what to do with Stefanomone's other outlier category for Holy Grail-related works. I see that it was renamed minorly in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_24#Works_inspired_by. I think Foo in fiction is probably best because the Grail is an object and narrative device, whereas all the other categories in the 2012 Cfd were all for Works based on literary characters, i.e., protagonists. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as proposed. The scope of the category will be clearer. Pichpich ( talk) 17:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Works based on Arthurian legends. This is about the quest for the Holy Grail, and the personages involved in said quest. Not so much the object itself. If no consensus to merge, then Keep as a subcat of Category:Works based on Arthurian legends, since, as noted at Galahad, the Grail legend is a late addition to the Arthurian legendarium. - jc37 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • But surely there are a LOT of adaptations of Arthurian legend that don't involve the grail? The Sword in the Stone (novel) and many adaptations of it; anything with Merlin, Excalibur, etc. but not the grail. So I don't see how a straight-up merge would work. To take up your point about the quest, Quest for the Holy Grail has existed as a redirect since 2004. Maybe that could be a basis for a rename if we have to add a word or two to make the Works based on foo construction work? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. The Grail also appears in non-Arthurian fiction such as the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) and the novel The Silver Chalice (1952). One features the Holy Grail in the 20th century, the other features a fictional history of the Grail in the 1st century. Arthur and his cast of characters are not involved at all. Dimadick ( talk) 10:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename' per nom - I don't think we could classify Monty Python and the Holy Grail as "Arthurian fiction" because it's clearly derivative, but it's pretty clearly got the Grail in it. There's probably a Dan Brown movie or three that references it too. MSJapan ( talk) 07:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete putting a slew of films that have something to do with the holy grail together would be like putting together a Category:BMW cars in fiction with all the movies featuring BMWs together. Are there reliable sources that say that the holy grail defines these works (if so, remove other - apparently non-defining things), and one can always find sources for things like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is defined by Harrison Ford or Sean Connery, but we'd never categorize that film based on its defining actors. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:24, 13 June 2016 (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:Imperialism terminology

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. I'll make sure that the contents are in Category:Imperialism or an appropriate subcategory of it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In this one, Stefanomione has quite simply misunderstood how the structure Fooian terminology works. Category:Political terminology or subcats would be where any bona fide entries are found. Terminology used to describe colonialism or imperialism belongs in the field of study or ideology in which the terms are used -- not the "y" being addressed. (i.e., Category:Watergate scandal isn't "Republicanism terminology") Added to that, a great deal of the category such as Category:Former empires and Category:Overseas empires isn't terminology at all, simply subtopics. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:31, 11 June 2016 (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:Units of morphological analysis

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Two categories created simultaneously by Stefanomione for linguistic morphology-related sub-units, but with no clear reason why some are split off into morphological analysis. I should point out that Morphology (linguistics) is the actual name of the main article, so if someone wants to rename, as well, fine with me. Again, I'm open to other or more broader solutions, too, but if no one has any yet we could just regard this as a sensible first step. Also, I would really welcome any expert input: I have a M.A. in English literature but I shied away from the more structural stuff. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, neither of the three articles is really about linguistic morphology. Alternatively we might upmerge to Category:Morphology however that parent category should perhaps not exist either, since Morphology is a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Certainly, deletion would be fine by me. Again, I just wanted to propose a most modest first step, since this is an area in which I have only a passing knowledge. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Amazingly, Category:Morphology, survived a CFD in 2014 - perhaps now (or maybe after this CFD completes) is a good time to have another go at that category. DexDor (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2016 (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:Dictionaries of sociology

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 per nominator, without prejudice to PanchoS's suggestion of creating and populating Category:Dictionaries of social sciences. Creating a new category doesn't require explicit prior consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one member in the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: Apart from sociology, political science, economics, psychology and law are usually considered social sciences. The existing Category:Law dictionaries should of course be kept intact as a subcategory. There should be dozens (!) of dictionaries in this area sufficiently notable to have an article. -- PanchoS ( talk) 21:16, 18 June 2016 (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:Dictionaries of economics

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 per nominator, without prejudice to PanchoS's suggestion of creating and populating Category:Dictionaries of social sciences. Creating a new category doesn't require explicit prior consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one member. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:18, 11 June 2016 (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:Units of information (cognitive processes)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Also created by Stefanomione back in 2008 I'm surprised no one has challenged this category before, if only on the basis of the daft name. Unsurprisingly, we do not have a main article Units of information (cognitive processes). The category as currently composed mixes abstract concepts (concepts, memes) with units of morphology, which is to say, the study of the smallest units of linguistic meaning. Seems to me to be another example of WP:ARBITRARYCAT, of his tossing together unrelated things so as to sketch out his sweeping vision of "this is how we think..." But of course, no one here has ever thought quite like Stefanomione, thank god. I'm very open to other solutions for this Cfd, short of deletion, certainly. I daresay there's a lot of other early work from him in the fields of linguistics and narratology in need of cleanup. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:17, 11 June 2016 (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:Linguistic units of information

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: upmerge. This is just a container category to hold two subcategories, and the WP:SMALLCAT arguments are strong based on how that guideline is typically applied. Upmerging still keeps the semantic units and narrative units split out from the larger category, so concerns that there are a meaningful difference between these two categories aren't very convincing; we don't lose anything by eliminating the container category, since the sub-categories will still exist. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 15:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge An unnecessary category level created by Stefanomione back in May 2008. Except perhaps for phonetics, which studies the physical sound characteristics of language, linguistics as a study of language is the study of the transmission of "information" in language, no? Moreover, the addition of Category:Narrative units here is in error, in that things like television episodes and film scenes are not linguistic units in the true sense of the word, but that can be cleaned up. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, because of the nominator's flawed premise. See Colorless green ideas sleep furiously for an explanation of why linguistics distinguishes between syntax and semantics ... and why information is not the only thing measured in linguistics. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not surprised if it's "flawed": as I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, this is not my area. I had been enrolled in a post-graduate course on this stuff (taught by New Yorker writer Adam Gopnick's dad) and couldn't drop it fast enough. But here's the thing: semantics is described expressly as "the study of meaning..." not information. The word "information" is never used in the main article in its linguistics section. So if this were to be kept, shouldn't it be Category:Linguistic units of meaning? Syntax, is "the set of rules, principles, and processes that govern the structure of sentences in a given language, specifically word order." Which seems to me to be no less information, which is described broadly and simply as "that which informs... that from which data and knowledge can be derived." So I rather think the oppose is based on a flawed premise, and a merge, no matter my semantical failings, is the way to go. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Despite BHG's point immediately above, I still think that the division here is unnecessary and that everything in both categories can comfortably and most conveniently rest in Category:Linguistic units. And I think it's true that Category:Narrative units does not belong at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2016 (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:Works about the Holy Grail legend

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 as per nom. There is no consensus to delete. The arguments for renaming are based on WP:CATNAME, which suggests we categorize based on the article names. The oppose argument doesn't refute this application of CATNAME and it's not clear what argument he's making against renaming. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 15:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Created by Stefanomione in May 2016, the parent category is simply Category:Holy Grail and main article is Holy Grail. There is no article called the Holy Grail legend. As for the related category, Category:Works based on the Holy Grail legend, which include such things Monty Python's justly famous film, I have suggested an alternative name in a separate nomination, above. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename the extra 'legend' is not all that helpful so matching the main article seems like the way to go. Pichpich ( talk) 17:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - The article concerning the legend is at Holy Grail. While Category:Arthurian literature (and subcats) probably needs too be split in that it combines works "based on", with works "about", that is where this would be an appropriate subcat. - jc37 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Then my question remains: if the "article concerning the legend is at Holy Grail," why do you seem to be supporting the need to add the word "legend," as has been done here (if I understand you correctly) ? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the same reasons I stated in the other holy grail category above. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom, remove "legend" to align with main article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:24, 18 June 2016 (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:Flora and fauna of Rajasthan

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: split. Given DexDor's comment that "it's not reasonable to request that the admin who closes the CFD do a split", I will leave it to DexDor and PanchoS to do the split. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We don't generally have "Flora and fauna" categories so such categories (these are the only 3) don't fit the wider category structure and hence have been placed under one/both of fauna/flora cats (causing incorrect categorization). This layer of categorization is unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I've no objection to splitting to Category:Flora of Madhya Pradesh etc and that can be done before or after any removal of the flora&fauna level (although we are generally moving away from attempting to encode the distribution of species in categories). The number of articles in these categories is not large and all I've checked are (where appropriate) already in at least one flora/fauna category. IMO, it's not reasonable to request that the admin who closes the CFD do a split. The wording "disproportionately radical proposal that would damage established category structures" is a strange way to describe this nomination - the whole point is that Flora-and-fauna-of-<place> is not an established category structure. DexDor (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ DexDor: Just a short answer: Category:Biota of India is an established scheme though and already had some per-state subdivisions, so a reasonable rename target would have been Category:Biota of Rajasthan, but it didn't come to my mind either. I renamed it accordingly, but didn't remove the badge, so it may still be deleted. You're right in that my comment was a bit over the top, and I'm sorry about that. No hard feelings from my side… :) - PanchoS ( talk) 16:55, 22 June 2016 (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:Charitable foundations based in 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: As far as I know all the foundations are charitable Rathfelder ( talk) 09:41, 11 June 2016 (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:Malteser International

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 to all parents. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to all parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains an eponymous article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Support. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:44, 11 June 2016 (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.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

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 and delete per nominator. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article in this whole tree. ~ Rob Talk 05:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. How is it that we can support this ridiculous level of subcategorisation, which is part of an extensive tree structure, yet must make an exception for Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Réunion, because it is part of an extensive tree structure? I'm baffled at the inconsistency of the application of the logic. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. And there are more countries like this. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:55, 21 June 2016 (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.

Durrani Empire

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 and delete per nominator.
The alt merge proposal by PanchoS affects the categorisation of only 2 articles ( Afghan National Army and Durrani dynasty), so I will leave it to Panchos and the nominator User:BU Rob13 to recategorise those articles as they see fit. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only two articles in this establishments tree. ~ Rob Talk 05:05, 11 June 2016 (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.

Carolingian Empire

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 and delete per PanchoS's alternative proposal, which is slightly restrained version of the nominator's plan. There is not quite a consensus for the full plan set out by the nominator BU Rob13, but I think that Panchos's plan is the solution which will satisfy most of the concerns of most participants in this discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Five pages total here in the establishments categories, and there are no pages in the whole history tree, just the establishment categories. If we kept the History category, it would just provide an extra layer of categorization. ~ Rob Talk 04:04, 11 June 2016 (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:Blue Ribbon Award (railway) 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
Every year, the Japan Rail Fan Club gives out these awards to two different models of trains that began to be manufactured in Japan the prior year. (By "models" I mean versions of full-size trains, not toy trains.) Japan does have several manufacturers, but not that many models come out each year and the awards don't seem defining to the articles. For comparison, we don't categorize individual car models under any of the Category:Motor vehicle awards. The winning trains are already listed here and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified DAJF as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Trains. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Winners are listed in the awards article. -- Green C 02:19, 11 June 2016 (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:Rotary Foundation fellows

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:OCASSOC
This category comingles recipients of different Rotary awards together. Emily Dolvin is an Emily Watt Fellow, Greg G. Guidry International Understanding Fellow, Omid Memarian is a Peace Fellow, Loretta Napoleoni is a Rotary Scholar, Mike Synar is an International Scholar and Paul Volcker is an Ambassadorial Fellow. By far the most common "award" is the Paul Harris Fellow which is automatically given to anybody who donates $1,000 to the Rotary Foundation. The articles generally mention some Rotary award in a list of other honors but it doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Richard David Ramsey as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Organizations. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:11, 11 June 2016 (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.

Awards automatically issued to the Monarch of Kedah

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) 05:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC generally, WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
Abdul Halim of Kedah is the the inherited religious leader of a state within the country Malaysia, which automatically entitles him to a number of "Grand Master" titles and medals. Here is a picture of him wearing all his official medals. Mr. Halim is known for being the monarch of Kedah, which is why he is already in Category:Monarchs of Kedah. A few categories also contain his father, but here again they're not defining and growth potential is limited. To see what a mess this creates, take a look at the bottom of the article. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: The notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Malaysia. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Background We deleted a similar automatic "Grand Master" category that is automatically given to the Dutch monarch here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. OverCat at the highest levels. -- Green C 02:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Promotional categorisation. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:47, 11 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_11&oldid=1084319322"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 10 June 12 >

June 11

Transvaal and the South African Republic

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 and delete per nominator. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:58, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Nine articles total in this tree, with the South African Republic categories under Transvaal. There's enough in the South African Republic tree (7 articles) to justify splitting it out to centuries, probably, if not for the fact that the whole republic existed within one century. Transvaal only has two articles in it. This merge/delete nomination would condense everything to Category:Establishments in Transvaal and Category:Establishments in the South African Republic, with the latter being a sub-category of the former. ~ Rob Talk 21:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply

Support per nom. Over 20 categories for 9 articles is far too many, while 2 categories is fair enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:14, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply

  • Support. A reasonable, well-judged proposal. -- PanchoS ( talk) 08:33, 15 June 2016 (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:Photo sharing

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: not moved. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category is actually about the sharing of images - not just photographs. One could also create a new category but in my view that would be undue here as these categories would overlap way too much - almost all entries of the current category would need to be copied over (except a handful of entries like 500px; note that image-sharing communities are typically also photo-sharing communities so most entries would really need to be in both categories). Note that even if a new category would be considered appropriate here that can still be done (and more easily so) after the category got moved. (Alternative name: Category:Picture sharing) Fixuture ( talk) 20:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ RevelationDirect: Nice find - I actually forgot I made a post about it already. It doesn't change anything though as I got no reply and this is the normal way to propose moving a category....or at least I thought until now: I guess one should only request a renaming here if the entries of the category don't need to moved over? When would that be useful? Isn't the only use of this then category-renamings which entail removing or changing the category from most of its articles? -- Fixuture ( talk) 20:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Oppose The Move Request template usually brings in some more input to come to a consensus on article naming. In general, I favor having category names match the wording and scope of the main article because it makes the inclusion criteria clearer for editors and the navigation clearer for readers. I generally oppose category renames that are trying to bypass a consensus for the name of the main article but other editors in CFD might feel differently. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:39, 12 June 2016 (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:Wikipedia categories named after Wikipedia categories

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: speedy delete. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: What exactly is the meaning of this category? ( User:Mercurywoodrose) Also it only has one entry. Fixuture ( talk) 19:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The edit summary by the creator is "creating vital category in the epo cat tree (more of a pile of branches, not connected to each other, but you get the idea)". If categories aren't connected to each other even from the creator's perspective, I'm not seeing a administrative benefit to keeping this category. RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • joke, im sorry, i let my personal feelings override my editorial professionalism. i hate the eponymous category "tree", and wanted to express it, but of course this is technically vandalism. ***Delete*** as creator, who has no rationale for keeping it. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 05:27, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
      • @ Mercurywoodrose: Thanks for conceding. Yes, in a way this is vandalism, but no, we're not devoid of humour. How about speedy deleting it per WP:G7? -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:01, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
        • I've removed the parent cats on that basis. This is a waste of everyone's time. And it's only because he's an experienced editor with no other track record of disruptive editing that I'm aware of, that I'm not applying a level one warning. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:17, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete serves no purpose other than the purpose it's currently serving. ;-) Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:20, 13 June 2016 (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:Children's charities based in England and Wales

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. Both the proposed merge and the alternative split lead to the same result of straight deletion of this category, because Category:Children's charities based in England is the only content and this is already in Category:Children's charities based in the United Kingdom‎. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous and non-defining. The charities are either based in England or in Wales. Rathfelder ( talk) 07:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Note that the nom wants to merge to UK, while Necrothesp wants to split England from Wales. Personally, I think both proposals are reasonable. The single jurisdiction of England and Wales doesn't keep us from subdividing into the constituent "countries", as is done with most other categories. -- PanchoS ( talk) 02:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • In general we do split the United Kingdom into its constituent parts for most purposes. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed to differentiate between splitting these up and merging them to the UK.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob Talk 17:59, 11 June 2016 (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:Mental structures

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) 04:46, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Another May 2008 Stefanomione category that lumps together a variety of cognition and intelligence-related topics into something that, tellingly, has no main article. It survived a 2010 rename discussion as no consensus, but I think the best solution all along would have been deletion, on the basis on the arbitrary nature of topics tossed together. The category has three subcats: Category:Knowledge representation, which according to its main article Knowledge representation and reasoning is a term from computing and so is not "mental" at all; Category:Scientific theories; and the very flawed Category:Units of information (cognitive processes), nominated below. There simply isn't the basis for a coherent accessible category for our readers, at least until such time as someone creates Mental structure to explain what the heck this is. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:43, 11 June 2016 (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:Works based on the Holy Grail legend

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. There's no consensus to delete. The arguments to merge weren't convincing to other editors, especially because certain works contain the object of the Holy Grail but aren't based on the Arthurian legend. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 15:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: After some thought and coffee, it seems to me that this is a reasonable solution to what to do with Stefanomone's other outlier category for Holy Grail-related works. I see that it was renamed minorly in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_August_24#Works_inspired_by. I think Foo in fiction is probably best because the Grail is an object and narrative device, whereas all the other categories in the 2012 Cfd were all for Works based on literary characters, i.e., protagonists. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as proposed. The scope of the category will be clearer. Pichpich ( talk) 17:00, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Merge to Category:Works based on Arthurian legends. This is about the quest for the Holy Grail, and the personages involved in said quest. Not so much the object itself. If no consensus to merge, then Keep as a subcat of Category:Works based on Arthurian legends, since, as noted at Galahad, the Grail legend is a late addition to the Arthurian legendarium. - jc37 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • But surely there are a LOT of adaptations of Arthurian legend that don't involve the grail? The Sword in the Stone (novel) and many adaptations of it; anything with Merlin, Excalibur, etc. but not the grail. So I don't see how a straight-up merge would work. To take up your point about the quest, Quest for the Holy Grail has existed as a redirect since 2004. Maybe that could be a basis for a rename if we have to add a word or two to make the Works based on foo construction work? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 20:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. The Grail also appears in non-Arthurian fiction such as the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989) and the novel The Silver Chalice (1952). One features the Holy Grail in the 20th century, the other features a fictional history of the Grail in the 1st century. Arthur and his cast of characters are not involved at all. Dimadick ( talk) 10:08, 12 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename' per nom - I don't think we could classify Monty Python and the Holy Grail as "Arthurian fiction" because it's clearly derivative, but it's pretty clearly got the Grail in it. There's probably a Dan Brown movie or three that references it too. MSJapan ( talk) 07:18, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete putting a slew of films that have something to do with the holy grail together would be like putting together a Category:BMW cars in fiction with all the movies featuring BMWs together. Are there reliable sources that say that the holy grail defines these works (if so, remove other - apparently non-defining things), and one can always find sources for things like Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is defined by Harrison Ford or Sean Connery, but we'd never categorize that film based on its defining actors. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:24, 13 June 2016 (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:Imperialism terminology

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. I'll make sure that the contents are in Category:Imperialism or an appropriate subcategory of it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: In this one, Stefanomione has quite simply misunderstood how the structure Fooian terminology works. Category:Political terminology or subcats would be where any bona fide entries are found. Terminology used to describe colonialism or imperialism belongs in the field of study or ideology in which the terms are used -- not the "y" being addressed. (i.e., Category:Watergate scandal isn't "Republicanism terminology") Added to that, a great deal of the category such as Category:Former empires and Category:Overseas empires isn't terminology at all, simply subtopics. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:31, 11 June 2016 (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:Units of morphological analysis

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Two categories created simultaneously by Stefanomione for linguistic morphology-related sub-units, but with no clear reason why some are split off into morphological analysis. I should point out that Morphology (linguistics) is the actual name of the main article, so if someone wants to rename, as well, fine with me. Again, I'm open to other or more broader solutions, too, but if no one has any yet we could just regard this as a sensible first step. Also, I would really welcome any expert input: I have a M.A. in English literature but I shied away from the more structural stuff. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete, neither of the three articles is really about linguistic morphology. Alternatively we might upmerge to Category:Morphology however that parent category should perhaps not exist either, since Morphology is a disambiguation page. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:03, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Certainly, deletion would be fine by me. Again, I just wanted to propose a most modest first step, since this is an area in which I have only a passing knowledge. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 21:44, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Amazingly, Category:Morphology, survived a CFD in 2014 - perhaps now (or maybe after this CFD completes) is a good time to have another go at that category. DexDor (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2016 (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:Dictionaries of sociology

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 per nominator, without prejudice to PanchoS's suggestion of creating and populating Category:Dictionaries of social sciences. Creating a new category doesn't require explicit prior consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one member in the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • @ Marcocapelle: Apart from sociology, political science, economics, psychology and law are usually considered social sciences. The existing Category:Law dictionaries should of course be kept intact as a subcategory. There should be dozens (!) of dictionaries in this area sufficiently notable to have an article. -- PanchoS ( talk) 21:16, 18 June 2016 (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:Dictionaries of economics

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 per nominator, without prejudice to PanchoS's suggestion of creating and populating Category:Dictionaries of social sciences. Creating a new category doesn't require explicit prior consensus. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one member. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:18, 11 June 2016 (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:Units of information (cognitive processes)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Also created by Stefanomione back in 2008 I'm surprised no one has challenged this category before, if only on the basis of the daft name. Unsurprisingly, we do not have a main article Units of information (cognitive processes). The category as currently composed mixes abstract concepts (concepts, memes) with units of morphology, which is to say, the study of the smallest units of linguistic meaning. Seems to me to be another example of WP:ARBITRARYCAT, of his tossing together unrelated things so as to sketch out his sweeping vision of "this is how we think..." But of course, no one here has ever thought quite like Stefanomione, thank god. I'm very open to other solutions for this Cfd, short of deletion, certainly. I daresay there's a lot of other early work from him in the fields of linguistics and narratology in need of cleanup. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 13:17, 11 June 2016 (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:Linguistic units of information

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: upmerge. This is just a container category to hold two subcategories, and the WP:SMALLCAT arguments are strong based on how that guideline is typically applied. Upmerging still keeps the semantic units and narrative units split out from the larger category, so concerns that there are a meaningful difference between these two categories aren't very convincing; we don't lose anything by eliminating the container category, since the sub-categories will still exist. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 15:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge An unnecessary category level created by Stefanomione back in May 2008. Except perhaps for phonetics, which studies the physical sound characteristics of language, linguistics as a study of language is the study of the transmission of "information" in language, no? Moreover, the addition of Category:Narrative units here is in error, in that things like television episodes and film scenes are not linguistic units in the true sense of the word, but that can be cleaned up. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 12:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, because of the nominator's flawed premise. See Colorless green ideas sleep furiously for an explanation of why linguistics distinguishes between syntax and semantics ... and why information is not the only thing measured in linguistics. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not surprised if it's "flawed": as I've mentioned elsewhere on this page, this is not my area. I had been enrolled in a post-graduate course on this stuff (taught by New Yorker writer Adam Gopnick's dad) and couldn't drop it fast enough. But here's the thing: semantics is described expressly as "the study of meaning..." not information. The word "information" is never used in the main article in its linguistics section. So if this were to be kept, shouldn't it be Category:Linguistic units of meaning? Syntax, is "the set of rules, principles, and processes that govern the structure of sentences in a given language, specifically word order." Which seems to me to be no less information, which is described broadly and simply as "that which informs... that from which data and knowledge can be derived." So I rather think the oppose is based on a flawed premise, and a merge, no matter my semantical failings, is the way to go. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 14:51, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support. Despite BHG's point immediately above, I still think that the division here is unnecessary and that everything in both categories can comfortably and most conveniently rest in Category:Linguistic units. And I think it's true that Category:Narrative units does not belong at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2016 (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:Works about the Holy Grail legend

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 as per nom. There is no consensus to delete. The arguments for renaming are based on WP:CATNAME, which suggests we categorize based on the article names. The oppose argument doesn't refute this application of CATNAME and it's not clear what argument he's making against renaming. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 15:15, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Created by Stefanomione in May 2016, the parent category is simply Category:Holy Grail and main article is Holy Grail. There is no article called the Holy Grail legend. As for the related category, Category:Works based on the Holy Grail legend, which include such things Monty Python's justly famous film, I have suggested an alternative name in a separate nomination, above. Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 15:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename the extra 'legend' is not all that helpful so matching the main article seems like the way to go. Pichpich ( talk) 17:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - The article concerning the legend is at Holy Grail. While Category:Arthurian literature (and subcats) probably needs too be split in that it combines works "based on", with works "about", that is where this would be an appropriate subcat. - jc37 19:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
    • Then my question remains: if the "article concerning the legend is at Holy Grail," why do you seem to be supporting the need to add the word "legend," as has been done here (if I understand you correctly) ? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 19:48, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the same reasons I stated in the other holy grail category above. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 18:25, 13 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom, remove "legend" to align with main article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:24, 18 June 2016 (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:Flora and fauna of Rajasthan

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: split. Given DexDor's comment that "it's not reasonable to request that the admin who closes the CFD do a split", I will leave it to DexDor and PanchoS to do the split. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: We don't generally have "Flora and fauna" categories so such categories (these are the only 3) don't fit the wider category structure and hence have been placed under one/both of fauna/flora cats (causing incorrect categorization). This layer of categorization is unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 10:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
I've no objection to splitting to Category:Flora of Madhya Pradesh etc and that can be done before or after any removal of the flora&fauna level (although we are generally moving away from attempting to encode the distribution of species in categories). The number of articles in these categories is not large and all I've checked are (where appropriate) already in at least one flora/fauna category. IMO, it's not reasonable to request that the admin who closes the CFD do a split. The wording "disproportionately radical proposal that would damage established category structures" is a strange way to describe this nomination - the whole point is that Flora-and-fauna-of-<place> is not an established category structure. DexDor (talk) 04:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
@ DexDor: Just a short answer: Category:Biota of India is an established scheme though and already had some per-state subdivisions, so a reasonable rename target would have been Category:Biota of Rajasthan, but it didn't come to my mind either. I renamed it accordingly, but didn't remove the badge, so it may still be deleted. You're right in that my comment was a bit over the top, and I'm sorry about that. No hard feelings from my side… :) - PanchoS ( talk) 16:55, 22 June 2016 (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:Charitable foundations based in 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: As far as I know all the foundations are charitable Rathfelder ( talk) 09:41, 11 June 2016 (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:Malteser International

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 to all parents. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:29, 21 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge to all parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, it only contains an eponymous article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Support. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:44, 11 June 2016 (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.

South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands

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 and delete per nominator. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:04, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only one article in this whole tree. ~ Rob Talk 05:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:43, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. How is it that we can support this ridiculous level of subcategorisation, which is part of an extensive tree structure, yet must make an exception for Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Réunion, because it is part of an extensive tree structure? I'm baffled at the inconsistency of the application of the logic. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:34, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. And there are more countries like this. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:55, 21 June 2016 (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.

Durrani Empire

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 and delete per nominator.
The alt merge proposal by PanchoS affects the categorisation of only 2 articles ( Afghan National Army and Durrani dynasty), so I will leave it to Panchos and the nominator User:BU Rob13 to recategorise those articles as they see fit. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Only two articles in this establishments tree. ~ Rob Talk 05:05, 11 June 2016 (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.

Carolingian Empire

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 and delete per PanchoS's alternative proposal, which is slightly restrained version of the nominator's plan. There is not quite a consensus for the full plan set out by the nominator BU Rob13, but I think that Panchos's plan is the solution which will satisfy most of the concerns of most participants in this discussion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Five pages total here in the establishments categories, and there are no pages in the whole history tree, just the establishment categories. If we kept the History category, it would just provide an extra layer of categorization. ~ Rob Talk 04:04, 11 June 2016 (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:Blue Ribbon Award (railway) 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
Every year, the Japan Rail Fan Club gives out these awards to two different models of trains that began to be manufactured in Japan the prior year. (By "models" I mean versions of full-size trains, not toy trains.) Japan does have several manufacturers, but not that many models come out each year and the awards don't seem defining to the articles. For comparison, we don't categorize individual car models under any of the Category:Motor vehicle awards. The winning trains are already listed here and here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified DAJF as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Trains. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Winners are listed in the awards article. -- Green C 02:19, 11 June 2016 (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:Rotary Foundation fellows

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 22 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:OCASSOC
This category comingles recipients of different Rotary awards together. Emily Dolvin is an Emily Watt Fellow, Greg G. Guidry International Understanding Fellow, Omid Memarian is a Peace Fellow, Loretta Napoleoni is a Rotary Scholar, Mike Synar is an International Scholar and Paul Volcker is an Ambassadorial Fellow. By far the most common "award" is the Paul Harris Fellow which is automatically given to anybody who donates $1,000 to the Rotary Foundation. The articles generally mention some Rotary award in a list of other honors but it doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Richard David Ramsey as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Organizations. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:11, 11 June 2016 (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.

Awards automatically issued to the Monarch of Kedah

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) 05:05, 19 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC generally, WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
Abdul Halim of Kedah is the the inherited religious leader of a state within the country Malaysia, which automatically entitles him to a number of "Grand Master" titles and medals. Here is a picture of him wearing all his official medals. Mr. Halim is known for being the monarch of Kedah, which is why he is already in Category:Monarchs of Kedah. A few categories also contain his father, but here again they're not defining and growth potential is limited. To see what a mess this creates, take a look at the bottom of the article. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: The notified Mimich as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Malaysia. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Background We deleted a similar automatic "Grand Master" category that is automatically given to the Dutch monarch here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:09, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. OverCat at the highest levels. -- Green C 02:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Promotional categorisation. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:47, 11 June 2016 (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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_11&oldid=1084319322"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE