February 11
Category:Wikipedia articles featured in films
- 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. If anyone wants to make a list, the category won't be much help: it contains only one article, Nocnitsa. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear. Is it for all Wikipedia articles mentioned in films? The only article here mentions that the creature is used in a 2017 film, which doesn't seem to fit that description. The category doesn't seem to serve any actual purpose.
Falling
Gravity 19:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia becomes a part of our daily lives and this finds reflection in movies, which feature articles from the encyclopedia. After noticing that for the third time in time spanning few years, I’ve decided to create this category for grouping any article that is 'playing a role' in a movie. The reasons:
- Documentation. I can imagine that, say a decade from now, someone will want to know how our 2000–2010s shaped movies. Then they will have a list of movies that featured one of the most important websites in human history.
- Maintenance. As with any website featured in a movie the affected Wikipedia articles may be a subject of increased interest in the time following movie release. This may bring both valuable edits, but also increased vandalism (including non-trivial one) and waves of edits made in good faith, but spreading misinformation. Knowing that an article is related to a movie may help when some decisions are to be made.
- The reason it contains only one entry is that I’ve decided to not include the other one ( Wolf Warrior) — the movie only copies text from an article, it plays no important role and Wikipedia itself is not even mentioned. I am, however, certain that it’s just a matter of time until there will be other titles good for that list.
- wikimpan ( Talk) 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia becomes a part of our daily lives and this finds reflection in movies, which feature articles from the encyclopedia. After noticing that for the third time in time spanning few years, I’ve decided to create this category for grouping any article that is 'playing a role' in a movie. The reasons:
- Listify iff it can make a list of more than one article. Wikimpan mentions that they have seen this "three times" but mentions the one article in the category and "the other one". What about the third article? A list could possibly be expended to include WP articles featured in television dramas and comedies, again iff there are a useful number of them. Grutness... wha? 00:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete – the one article the creator of this category is sure about is Nocnitsa. Now Nocnitsa is a legendary creature, not a wikipedia article, and presumably wikipedia has not invented the creature, and so a more accurate description of the category would be 'things with a wikipedia article which are mentioned in at least one film', which is nearly everything. Oculi ( talk) 09:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. We categorize by defining characteristics of the article's topic, not trivia about the article's page. Bearcat ( talk) 02:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Materials handling
- 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 to Category:Material-handling equipment. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, and in order to distinct this category more clearly from its parent Category:Material handling. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- No opinion yet, except to suggest Category:Material-handling equipment per Material-handling equipment. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of course. Changed this in the nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Children's rights bodies
- 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 proposed. Sole objection was effectively responded to with no further discussion, so there's no real reason not to go ahead.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Children's rights bodies to Category:Children's rights authorities
- Nominator's rationale: To clarify scope. The bodies in this category are all some form of state-derived authority with legal powers and/or responsibilities in relation to children. This state basis distinguishes them from the voluntary sector organisations (i.e. charities and non-profits) in the parent Category:Children's rights organizations.
- Note that this is a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 12#Category:Children's_rights_bodies, where there was no consensus on a proposal to merge to Category:Children's rights organizations, and little discussion of my proposal to rename to Category:Children's rights authorities. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging the participants in the January 12 discussion: @ Rathfelder, Marcocapelle, and Dimadick. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds like a helpful move. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, this clarifies the scope of the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Deny. The word "authority" assigns bias towards the knowledge, capability, power, or officiality of these organizations. The category includes both government agencies, inter-governmental groups, nonprofit organizations and others that may or may not have governmental authority. The word best suited is bodies not authority. •
Freechild |
talk to me 23:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ Freechild: I can't see any items in this category which lack governmental authority. If you can identify any, they should be moved to Category:Children's rights organizations. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Death in Hinduism
- 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
Category:Death and Hinduism.
(non-admin closure)
Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ
Talk 01:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Death in Hinduism to Category:Death and Hinduism
- Nominator's rationale: This is consistent with the category Death and Christianity. Failosopher ( talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, also because the parent category is Category:Religion and death. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Zoroastrian saints
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category is highly arbitary (Zoroastrianism has no formal veneration process). Failosopher ( talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, in neither of the two articles there is a mention of sainthood. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Insurance terms
- 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: manual merge to
Category:Insurance or an appropriate sub-cat if not in a subcat already. –
Fayenatic
London 07:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Insurance terms to Category:Insurance
- Nominator's rationale: Articles should be categorized by characteristics if their topic, not by characteristics of their title. The articles in this category are not articles about terms (i.e. words / terminology) - e.g. Uninsured motorist clause is an article about vehicle insurance (and is already categorized as such) and many of the articles in this category are in Category:Insurance law. There may be a few articles in this category that actually are about a term (i.e. there's a separate article about the thing the term refers to), but it would still best to delete this category to prevent it being used as a dumping ground for miscellaneous articles. See WP:OC#MISC, previous CFDs ( example) and essay User:DexDor/TermCat. If not deleted then this category should be renamed to Category:Insurance terminology to avoid ambiguity. Note: After any upmerge there may be some redundant categorization that should be removed. DexDor (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom and per abundant precedent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Manual merge. Category:Insurance terms has 86 pages, which would swamp Category:Insurance. Diffusion is needed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm ok with that. There are about 70 articles (the redirects don't need to be categorized) many of which are already in a subcat of Insurance (it's a pity that the bot used for merges doesn't check other subcats). DexDor (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm ok with that too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Former derelict satellites that orbited Earth
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category serves no useful purpose; if populated, it would include thousands of spacecraft and debris which have re-entered the atmosphere. This was apparently created in relation to three rocket upper stages, which are not in themselves notable. I have requested deletion of the redirects as well. — JFG talk 10:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete -- There might be a useful category for deceased satellites, whether they burnt up by re-entry or just ran out of power, but the jettisoned parts of rockets that have gone into orbit are so much space junk and clearly NN. We do not need a category for space junk. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't seem defining. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- delete duplicates Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth. Mangoe ( talk) 19:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- I'd argue that all artificial satellites orbiting Earth, including the rocket bodies that some governments and private entities have left in space, could be worthy of a REDIRECT to the article section where the debris is discussed. It is not always explicated, but in the articles in the Cat today, this private company did not remove the externality, and thus left it for ALL to deal with in the future. That is a classic form of pollution.
- The intent then, in this Category, was merely to place those
negative externalities into some WP Category, such that the encyclopedia of human knowledge would have a Cat for that information. Cheers.
N2e (
talk) 08:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ N2e: Thanks for explaining your rationale for these redirects. However, unless some WP:reliable sources make the same inference as you, and talk about a few derelict rocket stages as an important space junk problem, the category represents WP:original research, and it's not Wikipedia's job to WP:right great wrongs. I do read quite a bit about orbital debris, and I don't recall any sources that would specifically pinpoint derelict second stages as a major issue, even less so Falcon 9 second stages. — JFG talk 03:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dermatologic societies
- 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 to
Category:Dermatology societies, with permission to split to a new parent "org" category. –
Fayenatic
London 06:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Dermatologic societies to Category:Dermatology organisations
- Nominator's rationale: Many of the entries are not societies, and all other medical specialities have an organisation category. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- What is the rationale for changing Dermatologic (adjective) to Dermatology (noun)? Oculi ( talk) 08:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- That is how the other medical speciality organisations are formed. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per article
Learned society and the category tree that is based on it. No objections against creating a parent
Category:Dermatology organisations on top of
Category:Dermatologic societies iff it can be populated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- I cant see anything relevant in article Learned society, nor in the category tree. All the other medical organisations are formed from nouns. Can you explain how Category:Dermatology organisations would differ from Category:Dermatologic societies please? Rathfelder ( talk) 19:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- The noun is fine, but not changing societies into organisations. We also have Category:Biology societies, Category:Medical associations etc. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Medical associations are essentially doctors clubs or trade unions. Category:Dermatology organisations is for academic/research organisations, patient groups and specialised clinics. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Again, there is no objection against creating a parent category per se (if it can be populated). Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose +1 to Marcocapelle's proposal. We have a valuable curation of professional societies here which are a subset of general organizations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Reachstacker 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: make a list in Reach stacker and delete the category. I checked the four member pages and this product does not appear to be wp:defining for any of them. – Fayenatic London 06:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, reach stackers is just one item in the assortment of these manufacturers. All four articles are already in Category:Forklift truck manufacturers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename to Category:Reach stacker manufacturers per reach stacker. I don't see anything inherently less WP:DEFINING about making reach stackers than making forklifts; the definingness varies by company. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not inherently indeed. But the four companies in the category are broader, they make materials handling equipment. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: so why upmerge only reach stackers, and not forklifts too? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- There are some in that category that seem to produce forklifts only. That may be something for a next discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: Maybe, but I still don't see why reach stacker manufacturers should not be categorised as such. If there are few manufacturers of X, doesn't that make manufacturing X more defining? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is very likely that multiple companies that are currently in Category:Forklift truck manufacturers produce reach stackers too. This is the result that I got in the first random click of a company in Category:Forklift truck manufacturers: reach stackers on top. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Purge (upmerging if necessary) and then delete if empty. When categorizing companies by what they manufacture we should have some guidelines - otherwise a company such as
Zanussi could be in dozens of (non-defining) categories (fridge manufacturers, freezer manufacturers...). The guideline
only categorize for product X if at any time more than 50% of the company's turnover has been product X
would be reasonable. Applying such a guideline would probably result in the reach stacker category (but not the FLT category) being emptied. A list of companies that manufacture reach stackers could also be created. DexDor (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
February 11
Category:Wikipedia articles featured in films
- 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. If anyone wants to make a list, the category won't be much help: it contains only one article, Nocnitsa. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear. Is it for all Wikipedia articles mentioned in films? The only article here mentions that the creature is used in a 2017 film, which doesn't seem to fit that description. The category doesn't seem to serve any actual purpose.
Falling
Gravity 19:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia becomes a part of our daily lives and this finds reflection in movies, which feature articles from the encyclopedia. After noticing that for the third time in time spanning few years, I’ve decided to create this category for grouping any article that is 'playing a role' in a movie. The reasons:
- Documentation. I can imagine that, say a decade from now, someone will want to know how our 2000–2010s shaped movies. Then they will have a list of movies that featured one of the most important websites in human history.
- Maintenance. As with any website featured in a movie the affected Wikipedia articles may be a subject of increased interest in the time following movie release. This may bring both valuable edits, but also increased vandalism (including non-trivial one) and waves of edits made in good faith, but spreading misinformation. Knowing that an article is related to a movie may help when some decisions are to be made.
- The reason it contains only one entry is that I’ve decided to not include the other one ( Wolf Warrior) — the movie only copies text from an article, it plays no important role and Wikipedia itself is not even mentioned. I am, however, certain that it’s just a matter of time until there will be other titles good for that list.
- wikimpan ( Talk) 21:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Wikipedia becomes a part of our daily lives and this finds reflection in movies, which feature articles from the encyclopedia. After noticing that for the third time in time spanning few years, I’ve decided to create this category for grouping any article that is 'playing a role' in a movie. The reasons:
- Listify iff it can make a list of more than one article. Wikimpan mentions that they have seen this "three times" but mentions the one article in the category and "the other one". What about the third article? A list could possibly be expended to include WP articles featured in television dramas and comedies, again iff there are a useful number of them. Grutness... wha? 00:38, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete – the one article the creator of this category is sure about is Nocnitsa. Now Nocnitsa is a legendary creature, not a wikipedia article, and presumably wikipedia has not invented the creature, and so a more accurate description of the category would be 'things with a wikipedia article which are mentioned in at least one film', which is nearly everything. Oculi ( talk) 09:01, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. We categorize by defining characteristics of the article's topic, not trivia about the article's page. Bearcat ( talk) 02:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Materials handling
- 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 to Category:Material-handling equipment. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, and in order to distinct this category more clearly from its parent Category:Material handling. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- No opinion yet, except to suggest Category:Material-handling equipment per Material-handling equipment. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 19:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Of course. Changed this in the nomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Children's rights bodies
- 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 proposed. Sole objection was effectively responded to with no further discussion, so there's no real reason not to go ahead.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:29, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Children's rights bodies to Category:Children's rights authorities
- Nominator's rationale: To clarify scope. The bodies in this category are all some form of state-derived authority with legal powers and/or responsibilities in relation to children. This state basis distinguishes them from the voluntary sector organisations (i.e. charities and non-profits) in the parent Category:Children's rights organizations.
- Note that this is a followup to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 12#Category:Children's_rights_bodies, where there was no consensus on a proposal to merge to Category:Children's rights organizations, and little discussion of my proposal to rename to Category:Children's rights authorities. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:32, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Pinging the participants in the January 12 discussion: @ Rathfelder, Marcocapelle, and Dimadick. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:35, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- That sounds like a helpful move. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:37, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, this clarifies the scope of the category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Deny. The word "authority" assigns bias towards the knowledge, capability, power, or officiality of these organizations. The category includes both government agencies, inter-governmental groups, nonprofit organizations and others that may or may not have governmental authority. The word best suited is bodies not authority. •
Freechild |
talk to me 23:25, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ Freechild: I can't see any items in this category which lack governmental authority. If you can identify any, they should be moved to Category:Children's rights organizations. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 03:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Death in Hinduism
- 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
Category:Death and Hinduism.
(non-admin closure)
Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ
Talk 01:11, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Death in Hinduism to Category:Death and Hinduism
- Nominator's rationale: This is consistent with the category Death and Christianity. Failosopher ( talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, also because the parent category is Category:Religion and death. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Zoroastrian saints
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:54, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category is highly arbitary (Zoroastrianism has no formal veneration process). Failosopher ( talk) 17:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support, in neither of the two articles there is a mention of sainthood. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:58, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Insurance terms
- 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: manual merge to
Category:Insurance or an appropriate sub-cat if not in a subcat already. –
Fayenatic
London 07:03, 27 March 2018 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Insurance terms to Category:Insurance
- Nominator's rationale: Articles should be categorized by characteristics if their topic, not by characteristics of their title. The articles in this category are not articles about terms (i.e. words / terminology) - e.g. Uninsured motorist clause is an article about vehicle insurance (and is already categorized as such) and many of the articles in this category are in Category:Insurance law. There may be a few articles in this category that actually are about a term (i.e. there's a separate article about the thing the term refers to), but it would still best to delete this category to prevent it being used as a dumping ground for miscellaneous articles. See WP:OC#MISC, previous CFDs ( example) and essay User:DexDor/TermCat. If not deleted then this category should be renamed to Category:Insurance terminology to avoid ambiguity. Note: After any upmerge there may be some redundant categorization that should be removed. DexDor (talk) 16:48, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom and per abundant precedent. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Manual merge. Category:Insurance terms has 86 pages, which would swamp Category:Insurance. Diffusion is needed. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:08, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm ok with that. There are about 70 articles (the redirects don't need to be categorized) many of which are already in a subcat of Insurance (it's a pity that the bot used for merges doesn't check other subcats). DexDor (talk) 13:14, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I'm ok with that too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:35, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Former derelict satellites that orbited Earth
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:26, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category serves no useful purpose; if populated, it would include thousands of spacecraft and debris which have re-entered the atmosphere. This was apparently created in relation to three rocket upper stages, which are not in themselves notable. I have requested deletion of the redirects as well. — JFG talk 10:30, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete -- There might be a useful category for deceased satellites, whether they burnt up by re-entry or just ran out of power, but the jettisoned parts of rockets that have gone into orbit are so much space junk and clearly NN. We do not need a category for space junk. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:46, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Delete Doesn't seem defining. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:21, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- delete duplicates Category:Artificial satellites formerly orbiting Earth. Mangoe ( talk) 19:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep -- I'd argue that all artificial satellites orbiting Earth, including the rocket bodies that some governments and private entities have left in space, could be worthy of a REDIRECT to the article section where the debris is discussed. It is not always explicated, but in the articles in the Cat today, this private company did not remove the externality, and thus left it for ALL to deal with in the future. That is a classic form of pollution.
- The intent then, in this Category, was merely to place those
negative externalities into some WP Category, such that the encyclopedia of human knowledge would have a Cat for that information. Cheers.
N2e (
talk) 08:11, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ N2e: Thanks for explaining your rationale for these redirects. However, unless some WP:reliable sources make the same inference as you, and talk about a few derelict rocket stages as an important space junk problem, the category represents WP:original research, and it's not Wikipedia's job to WP:right great wrongs. I do read quite a bit about orbital debris, and I don't recall any sources that would specifically pinpoint derelict second stages as a major issue, even less so Falcon 9 second stages. — JFG talk 03:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Dermatologic societies
- 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 to
Category:Dermatology societies, with permission to split to a new parent "org" category. –
Fayenatic
London 06:26, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Dermatologic societies to Category:Dermatology organisations
- Nominator's rationale: Many of the entries are not societies, and all other medical specialities have an organisation category. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:57, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- What is the rationale for changing Dermatologic (adjective) to Dermatology (noun)? Oculi ( talk) 08:23, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
- That is how the other medical speciality organisations are formed. Rathfelder ( talk) 16:37, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose per article
Learned society and the category tree that is based on it. No objections against creating a parent
Category:Dermatology organisations on top of
Category:Dermatologic societies iff it can be populated.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:04, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- I cant see anything relevant in article Learned society, nor in the category tree. All the other medical organisations are formed from nouns. Can you explain how Category:Dermatology organisations would differ from Category:Dermatologic societies please? Rathfelder ( talk) 19:43, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- The noun is fine, but not changing societies into organisations. We also have Category:Biology societies, Category:Medical associations etc. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Medical associations are essentially doctors clubs or trade unions. Category:Dermatology organisations is for academic/research organisations, patient groups and specialised clinics. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:05, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Again, there is no objection against creating a parent category per se (if it can be populated). Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:37, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Oppose +1 to Marcocapelle's proposal. We have a valuable curation of professional societies here which are a subset of general organizations. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:48, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Reachstacker 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: make a list in Reach stacker and delete the category. I checked the four member pages and this product does not appear to be wp:defining for any of them. – Fayenatic London 06:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, reach stackers is just one item in the assortment of these manufacturers. All four articles are already in Category:Forklift truck manufacturers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:08, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
- Keep, but rename to Category:Reach stacker manufacturers per reach stacker. I don't see anything inherently less WP:DEFINING about making reach stackers than making forklifts; the definingness varies by company. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 01:47, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- Not inherently indeed. But the four companies in the category are broader, they make materials handling equipment. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:15, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: so why upmerge only reach stackers, and not forklifts too? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 20:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- There are some in that category that seem to produce forklifts only. That may be something for a next discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:23, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- @ Marcocapelle: Maybe, but I still don't see why reach stacker manufacturers should not be categorised as such. If there are few manufacturers of X, doesn't that make manufacturing X more defining? -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:55, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
- It is very likely that multiple companies that are currently in Category:Forklift truck manufacturers produce reach stackers too. This is the result that I got in the first random click of a company in Category:Forklift truck manufacturers: reach stackers on top. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:53, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Purge (upmerging if necessary) and then delete if empty. When categorizing companies by what they manufacture we should have some guidelines - otherwise a company such as
Zanussi could be in dozens of (non-defining) categories (fridge manufacturers, freezer manufacturers...). The guideline
only categorize for product X if at any time more than 50% of the company's turnover has been product X
would be reasonable. Applying such a guideline would probably result in the reach stacker category (but not the FLT category) being emptied. A list of companies that manufacture reach stackers could also be created. DexDor (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.