Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 15 November 17 >

November 16

Category:Churches in Small City X

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These are all small categories (3 articles or fewer) that are unlikely to grow. TM 22:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. What harm does it do to have these categories? Zigzig20s ( talk) 00:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Per WP:SMALLCAT, these are categories with little potential for reaching the standard of 5 or more articles. I've not included categories with 4 articles within them as they are close to meeting the standard.-- TM 01:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Beverly Hills has a Church of Christ, Scientist... Zigzig20s ( talk) 02:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- The general rule is that most local churches are NN. The fact that a town may have more churches apart from those with articles is thus not a reason for keeping categories that are too small. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Small categories like these hinder navigation by introducing multiple levels of categorization for few articles. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:13, 24 November 2017 (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:Birds of Iraq

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 and salt. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories have been previously deleted ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories) and have been re-created without (afaics) any discussion. Note: Lists (e.g. List of birds of Iraq) are a much better way to record this information. Suggest salt. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The endemic subcategory should be placed under Category:Birds of the Middle East. DexDor (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge – per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories (which were merges rather than delete). Oculi ( talk) 22:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    I don't object to an upmerge, but it's probably unnecessary as these categories have previously been upmerged. DexDor (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Iraq, weak upmerge on Socotra - as a fairly isolated island, it's easier to separate out from the other areas of the region. Grutness... wha? 01:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Iraq, Oppose Socotra (which was not tagged for CfD, I have fixed that for you). Socotra should not have been included in that previous AfD, as, unlike all of the other nominations there, which were in fact perfectly cromulent, it is not a by-nationality category, but a by-geography category. Islands often have distinct faunas, and by-geography cats are entirely reasonable, particarly as at a glance there are 5 species endemic to the island - WP:DEFINING in its most literal sense as they are found nowhere else - and another that is only found there and on two tiny neighboring islands. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Iraq. Socotra consists of an endemic category, a sparrow endemic to one of its islands and a non-endemic bird. The sparrow probably needs to be moved to the endemic category and the whole then upmerged, so that the endemic one comes directly under Middle East. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge both, the occurance of endemic species in Socotra is not a reason not to merge because Category:Endemic birds of Socotra is kept (not nominated) anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:19, 23 November 2017 (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:Amphibians of Jordan

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 all to [X] of the Middle East. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: That an animal (e.g. Desert monitor or European green toad) is found in a small (on a global scale) political-geographic area is WP:NON-DEFINING. Example previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Or upmerge the amphibians to a new category such as Category:Amphibians of the Middle East or Category:Amphibians of Western Asia. DexDor (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC) DexDor (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2017 (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:Manufacturers

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 will create a category disambiguation page per User:Marcocapelle's suggestion, but this should be considered an editorial action separate from the consensus in this discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous title, and the lone entry can be better categorized in one or more subcats of Category:People by occupation — swpb T go beyond 16:31, 16 November 2017 (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:Psychiatric specialities

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: keep. Removal of direct placement of the subcategories in Category:Psychiatry is left to editorial judgment. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: most of the subcategories are also in Psychiatry. Not a useful category. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "most of the subcategories are also in Psychiatry" So a better solution would be to remove them from Category:Psychiatry? Apokrif ( talk) 16:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    I can't see what is gained by listing them as a subcategory of subspecialities. Other subspecialities are not listed there, and it's not obvious what exactly constitutes a subspeciality, as opposed to a field of interest or research. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, I can't see what is wrong with this category, it is similar to e.g. Category:Economics by specialty and Category:Fields of mathematics. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle and especially Apokrif CN1 ( talk) 05:44, 20 November 2017 (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:Prison medicine

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:
Nominator's rationale: No useful distinction between the two categories. Many of the entries in prison medicine are to fictional characters Rathfelder ( talk) 08:04, 16 November 2017 (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:Films based on the Old Testament apocrypha

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to become more precise, these films are based on Book of Judith and Books of the Maccabees which are Deuterocanonical books. When renaming, the category should also be reparented. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support / Rename per nom. The new title is also more WP:NPOV, since people who consider these books to be canon might have been offended by the current title but approve of the proposed name. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  07:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support For NPOV reasons. Not considered apocrypha by all Christians. Dimadick ( talk) 16:47, 17 November 2017 (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:Non-rabbinic Jewish texts

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 after manually purging the Essene and Kabbalah categories, which are already in Category:Jewish mystical texts. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OCMISC, we usually don't classify things by what they are not. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • support with caveat I agree with the reason for upmerge, but part of the issue here is one could question whether some of the categories and texts involved do concern Jewish texts. Are the Samaritans Jews? Are Josephus's writings "Jewish" simply because he was? This seems to be a category of somewhat marginal texts as much as anything else. Mangoe ( talk) 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge but Kabbalah and Essene categories are already in one of its subcategories and may need to be purged first. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:13, 19 November 2017 (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:Galaxy Express 999

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 27#Category:Galaxy Express 999. ℯ xplicit 00:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 09:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: The category now contains 5 articles, not sure though if the fifth article belongs there. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:53, 24 November 2017 (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:Kaleido Star

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 09:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:38, 16 November 2017 (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:Insects of the Palestinian territories

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: That an animal (e.g. European badger) is found in a small (on a global scale) geographic area is WP:NON-DEFINING. Example previous CFDs: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Insects_of_Andorra. There may be scope for creating a category for animals that are endemic to the Palestinian territories. A merge to categories for Western Asia could also be considered. DexDor (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete Animals do not respect disputed Middle Eastern political boundaries. Mangoe ( talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as for other similar noms. The fauna of the territories will differ little from that of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon or Syria. Having a category like this for every country is a gross case of overcategorisation, leading to category clutter. As this is a re-creation, it needs to be salted. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment There are a few differences. For example the category includes the Be'er Sheva fringe-fingered lizard, an endangered species whose habitat range only consists of the Negev desert and neighboring areas in the Palestinian territories. Dimadick ( talk) 08:32, 22 November 2017 (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.

Medieval and early modern elections by year

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 as nominated. ℯ xplicit 00:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
more election categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories only have one or two articles. Note that the 18th-century categories don't require a second merge target since all articles are in an 18th-century by continent subcategory already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose in part -- No problem with the early cases, but after (say) 1500, I would prefer to see us merging to decades, not centuries, at least initially. There is more to populate these with. For example England had two general elections in 1640, which does not appear in the list. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all as nominated to XXth century elections and XXXX in politics, and consider splits by decade later. With regard to Peterkingiron's comment above, Category:16th-century elections has 27 member articles in total and Category:17th-century elections has 31 member articles in total, which on average is 2.7 and 3.1 articles per decade, respectively. I don't think that's quite sufficient to warrant implementing a decade-level scheme. @ Marcocapelle: In your nomination, why do you not propose merging categories for 1701 and later to Category:18th-century elections? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out! Cheers, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge some, or merge all? Further opinions needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 06:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all per nom and split excessively large century categories by decade per Black Falcon. I really don't like tiny content categories, and I think this merge would help significantly. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  07:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • With the proposed merge, all centuries will contain less than 30 direct articles per category, that is probably not excessively large. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2017 (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/2017_November_16&oldid=1138411339"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 15 November 17 >

November 16

Category:Churches in Small City X

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:45, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These are all small categories (3 articles or fewer) that are unlikely to grow. TM 22:19, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose. What harm does it do to have these categories? Zigzig20s ( talk) 00:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Per WP:SMALLCAT, these are categories with little potential for reaching the standard of 5 or more articles. I've not included categories with 4 articles within them as they are close to meeting the standard.-- TM 01:16, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Beverly Hills has a Church of Christ, Scientist... Zigzig20s ( talk) 02:07, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- The general rule is that most local churches are NN. The fact that a town may have more churches apart from those with articles is thus not a reason for keeping categories that are too small. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:59, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Small categories like these hinder navigation by introducing multiple levels of categorization for few articles. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:13, 24 November 2017 (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:Birds of Iraq

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 and salt. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:15, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These categories have been previously deleted ( Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories) and have been re-created without (afaics) any discussion. Note: Lists (e.g. List of birds of Iraq) are a much better way to record this information. Suggest salt. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
The endemic subcategory should be placed under Category:Birds of the Middle East. DexDor (talk) 15:19, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge – per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories (which were merges rather than delete). Oculi ( talk) 22:23, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    I don't object to an upmerge, but it's probably unnecessary as these categories have previously been upmerged. DexDor (talk) 06:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Iraq, weak upmerge on Socotra - as a fairly isolated island, it's easier to separate out from the other areas of the region. Grutness... wha? 01:09, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Iraq, Oppose Socotra (which was not tagged for CfD, I have fixed that for you). Socotra should not have been included in that previous AfD, as, unlike all of the other nominations there, which were in fact perfectly cromulent, it is not a by-nationality category, but a by-geography category. Islands often have distinct faunas, and by-geography cats are entirely reasonable, particarly as at a glance there are 5 species endemic to the island - WP:DEFINING in its most literal sense as they are found nowhere else - and another that is only found there and on two tiny neighboring islands. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Iraq. Socotra consists of an endemic category, a sparrow endemic to one of its islands and a non-endemic bird. The sparrow probably needs to be moved to the endemic category and the whole then upmerged, so that the endemic one comes directly under Middle East. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge both, the occurance of endemic species in Socotra is not a reason not to merge because Category:Endemic birds of Socotra is kept (not nominated) anyway. Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:19, 23 November 2017 (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:Amphibians of Jordan

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 all to [X] of the Middle East. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:50, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: That an animal (e.g. Desert monitor or European green toad) is found in a small (on a global scale) political-geographic area is WP:NON-DEFINING. Example previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Or upmerge the amphibians to a new category such as Category:Amphibians of the Middle East or Category:Amphibians of Western Asia. DexDor (talk) 06:21, 18 November 2017 (UTC) DexDor (talk) 14:35, 23 November 2017 (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:Manufacturers

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 will create a category disambiguation page per User:Marcocapelle's suggestion, but this should be considered an editorial action separate from the consensus in this discussion. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:44, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous title, and the lone entry can be better categorized in one or more subcats of Category:People by occupation — swpb T go beyond 16:31, 16 November 2017 (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:Psychiatric specialities

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: keep. Removal of direct placement of the subcategories in Category:Psychiatry is left to editorial judgment. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 02:58, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: most of the subcategories are also in Psychiatry. Not a useful category. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • "most of the subcategories are also in Psychiatry" So a better solution would be to remove them from Category:Psychiatry? Apokrif ( talk) 16:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    I can't see what is gained by listing them as a subcategory of subspecialities. Other subspecialities are not listed there, and it's not obvious what exactly constitutes a subspeciality, as opposed to a field of interest or research. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:03, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose, I can't see what is wrong with this category, it is similar to e.g. Category:Economics by specialty and Category:Fields of mathematics. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:12, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle and especially Apokrif CN1 ( talk) 05:44, 20 November 2017 (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:Prison medicine

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:
Nominator's rationale: No useful distinction between the two categories. Many of the entries in prison medicine are to fictional characters Rathfelder ( talk) 08:04, 16 November 2017 (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:Films based on the Old Testament apocrypha

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:54, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to become more precise, these films are based on Book of Judith and Books of the Maccabees which are Deuterocanonical books. When renaming, the category should also be reparented. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support / Rename per nom. The new title is also more WP:NPOV, since people who consider these books to be canon might have been offended by the current title but approve of the proposed name. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  07:34, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Support For NPOV reasons. Not considered apocrypha by all Christians. Dimadick ( talk) 16:47, 17 November 2017 (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:Non-rabbinic Jewish texts

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 after manually purging the Essene and Kabbalah categories, which are already in Category:Jewish mystical texts. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:01, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OCMISC, we usually don't classify things by what they are not. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • support with caveat I agree with the reason for upmerge, but part of the issue here is one could question whether some of the categories and texts involved do concern Jewish texts. Are the Samaritans Jews? Are Josephus's writings "Jewish" simply because he was? This seems to be a category of somewhat marginal texts as much as anything else. Mangoe ( talk) 15:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge but Kabbalah and Essene categories are already in one of its subcategories and may need to be purged first. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:13, 19 November 2017 (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:Galaxy Express 999

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 27#Category:Galaxy Express 999. ℯ xplicit 00:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 09:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:44, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  •  Comment: The category now contains 5 articles, not sure though if the fifth article belongs there. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:53, 24 November 2017 (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:Kaleido Star

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:47, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: With only four articles, all of which are already interlinked, this is too few members for categorization ( WP:SMALLCAT) — Farix ( t |  c) 09:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:38, 16 November 2017 (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:Insects of the Palestinian territories

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:46, 24 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: That an animal (e.g. European badger) is found in a small (on a global scale) geographic area is WP:NON-DEFINING. Example previous CFDs: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Insects_of_Andorra. There may be scope for creating a category for animals that are endemic to the Palestinian territories. A merge to categories for Western Asia could also be considered. DexDor (talk) 06:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete Animals do not respect disputed Middle Eastern political boundaries. Mangoe ( talk) 15:28, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:29, 18 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge as for other similar noms. The fauna of the territories will differ little from that of Israel, Jordan, Lebanon or Syria. Having a category like this for every country is a gross case of overcategorisation, leading to category clutter. As this is a re-creation, it needs to be salted. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:16, 19 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    • Comment There are a few differences. For example the category includes the Be'er Sheva fringe-fingered lizard, an endangered species whose habitat range only consists of the Negev desert and neighboring areas in the Palestinian territories. Dimadick ( talk) 08:32, 22 November 2017 (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.

Medieval and early modern elections by year

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 as nominated. ℯ xplicit 00:42, 27 November 2017 (UTC) reply
more election categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories only have one or two articles. Note that the 18th-century categories don't require a second merge target since all articles are in an 18th-century by continent subcategory already. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:37, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose in part -- No problem with the early cases, but after (say) 1500, I would prefer to see us merging to decades, not centuries, at least initially. There is more to populate these with. For example England had two general elections in 1640, which does not appear in the list. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all as nominated to XXth century elections and XXXX in politics, and consider splits by decade later. With regard to Peterkingiron's comment above, Category:16th-century elections has 27 member articles in total and Category:17th-century elections has 31 member articles in total, which on average is 2.7 and 3.1 articles per decade, respectively. I don't think that's quite sufficient to warrant implementing a decade-level scheme. @ Marcocapelle: In your nomination, why do you not propose merging categories for 1701 and later to Category:18th-century elections? -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:04, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, I see. Thanks for pointing that out! Cheers, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:30, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge some, or merge all? Further opinions needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 06:17, 16 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all per nom and split excessively large century categories by decade per Black Falcon. I really don't like tiny content categories, and I think this merge would help significantly. —  Mr. Guye ( talk) ( contribs)  07:31, 17 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • With the proposed merge, all centuries will contain less than 30 direct articles per category, that is probably not excessively large. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:45, 20 November 2017 (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/2017_November_16&oldid=1138411339"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE