Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22

Category:Satire anime and manga

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 2018 OCT 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only three members ( WP:SMALLCAT) and whose inclusion in this category are no supported by reliable sources per WP:CATVER. — Farix ( t |  c) 22:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - New category often implies that it will eventually be populated which makes this nomination a little bit premature. WP:CATVER doesn't apply here because the entries are sourced properly. ItsAlwaysLupus ( talk) 18:51, 23 September 2018 (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:Turkish drama television series in Pakistan

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, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Completely self-serving, pointless, non-notable, fan list-grade category. What's next, " Category:Fox drama TV series syndicated to CBS"? Category:Israeli cooking shows broadcasted in Tennessee? " Category:San Franciscan period dramas on Harvey Milk broadcasted in Uganda"? ( WP:G5, CAT:NNSD) ItsAlwaysLupus ( talk) 19:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- The headnote adds the word "broadcast". Since Turkish is not widely spoken in Pakistan, I suspect these have been dubbed or subtitled in Urdu or Punjabi, etc. If so, would that be enough to merit a category? Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Television shows from any country can be broadcast in any other country in either dubbed or subtitled form — and that's especially true in the 2010s, when a huge portion of the digital cable dial in most countries is taken up with foreign ethnic channels designed to appeal to expatriates who want to stay in touch with their home culture. So it's not a defining characteristic. There's extensive past precedent against categorizing shows on this basis, because that would lead to extreme category bloat as similar categories got created for every possible combination of originating and rebroadcasting countries. Bearcat ( talk) 22:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & Bearcat. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:15, 27 September 2018 (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:Critics of the white genocide conspiracy theory

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a major part of the biography of any of these people, except possibly George Ciccariello-Maher. Pharos ( talk) 19:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • That category is for people for whom the criticism is a substantial part of their careers, not like here where most people are in the category because of a single comment, and holding a position that 95% of people would agree with. I would not be opposed to upmerging the category for anyone who does actually fulfill that criteria of it being a major part of their career.-- Pharos ( talk) 18:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't see how this would be a defining characteristic. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is nonsense. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-defining Galobtter ( pingó mió) 09:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. wumbolo ^^^ 18:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-substantial - should be deleted just like a category called "Critics of flat earth theory" probably would be, if it existed.- greenrd ( talk) 10:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Being a critic of what is essentially a FRINGE POV is hardly defining. Being an advocate of it might make a person notorious enough to put them in an advocates cat. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:46, 30 September 2018 (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:Eponymous scientific concepts

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) 04:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overbroad, unhelpful, and non-defining. See discussion at Category talk:Eponymous scientific concepts. It's overbroad because a large fraction of scientific concepts (maybe a majority) are named after somebody, so the category ends up either being incomplete or huge. This could to some extent be addressed by subcategories but doing so would end up replicating most of our category tree of science, for no good purpose. It's unhelpful because usually what readers are going to want to know is not that it was named after someone, but who it was named after and why it was given that name. This is the sort of information that could be provided in a list, but not in a category. And it's non-defining because it's about the names of topics rather than about the topics themselves; see WP:NOTDICT. See also Category:Lists of things named after scientists (a much better category in my opinion, and one I am not proposing to change) and deleted category "Eponymous musical terms" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 29. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Reluctantly, delete, as category creator. My thinking with this was more for the creation of a category useful to the study of eponymous naming practices than to the study of the concepts so named, but I can see that there are clearer ways to go about this. bd2412 T 00:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the reasons already explained—particularly WP:NOTDICT. The subject of a WP article is not the article's title. Note also that the parent category, Category:Eponyms, explicitly excludes articles about things named after people. Its subcategories should do the same.-- Srleffler ( talk) 02:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete like Category:Eponymous cities deleted long ago. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:15, 27 September 2018 (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 Ireland

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 2018 OCT 7 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply
more nominations with one merge target
more nominations with two merge targets
more nominations to delete decades
Nominator's rationale: merge years to centuries per WP:SMALLCAT, the large majority of categories contain only one article. The tree of years in Ireland is a bit special because most content consists of articles like 1101 in Ireland. Categories that only contain an article like that require just one merge target, namely (in this example) Category:1101 in Europe; it does not require a dual merge to Category:12th century in Ireland because it is already in Category:Years of the 12th century in Ireland. Note for closing admin: the categorization of articles like 1101 in Ireland is controlled by Template:Year in Ireland. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question 1 For the two merge candidates, why is there a second candidate (the century)? Each of the "by year" already has the "by decade" as a parent. Isn't that the correct lowest level of diffusion? Why introduce the century when each "by decade" already has "by century" as a parent? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question 2 Why single out Ireland for "by decade" deletions? Why about other European countries in the same period, for example, Category:1110s in Germany which has a single article? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Laurel Lodged, IIRC, there was a much larger CfD for most of Europe months ago, and one of the criticisms there was to split up by country first. A few hundred at a time are better than thousands, and better than multiple country-specific nuances to geo-political self-identification.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment once again the nom is trying to do too much at once. I think we should keep decades in Ireland. Furthermore, I am not wholly convinced of the merits of merging national events to a continent-wide category, such as I deplore these thin thread categories. Might it be better to abolish the templates that create such trees? I suspect the nom has thought this out carefully, but I cannot support this nom without a clear assurance that the requisite checks have been done to ensure that no articles are left partly orphaned. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - I am largely on the same page as Laurel Lodged and Peterkingiron - in that I don't understand why Ireland-specific cats alone are in scope, or why we are trying to do 25 different things at once here. There may be scope to declutter some of this area - for example by merging the contents of the year-specific cats (like Category:1180 in Ireland) to the decade-level cats (like Category:1180s in Ireland). But I have a problem with the targets proposed here ( Category:12th century in Ireland and Category:1180 in Europe) for two reasons. The Ireland-specific target ( Category:12th century in Ireland) will immediately become over-populated. And the Europe-level target ( Category:1180 in Europe) seems too broad and loosely related to the subjects to represent an appropriate target (specifically I am unsure that we should be applying the modern boundaries and concepts of a European macro-region to 12th century subjects. I suspect that if you asked a 12th century Irish person about even the *concept* of Europe that they would look at you sideways. Yes, we ball-up these categories hierarchically today. But actually putting the sub-articles/etc in the macro-level cat? Not seeing it....) Guliolopez ( talk) 16:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Reply on 1st criticism: in fact with this proposal there will not be over-population at all! If you check the nomination carefully, you will see that Category:12th century in Ireland will end up with about 10 articles directly in it, and so on for every next century. The centuries will in fact become very modestly populated. Note also that Ireland is not singled out this way: by far the most countries have century trees in the Middle Ages.
Reply on 2nd criticism: regarding Category:1180 in Europe as a merge target, while diffusion by continent may well be abolished (i.e. just have a Category:1180) that would require another nomination; however for the time being Category:1180 in Europe it is the immediate parent category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:25, 23 September 2018 (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:Drug control law by country

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Very substantial overlap. Unhelpful distinction. Only 5 categories, which can happily sit in Category:Drug control law. Not enough articles to populate a comprehensive category tree. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:32, 22 September 2018 (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:Spiders described in the 1750s

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) 04:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up removal of empty spider decadal categories, per WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description. See previous, related CfD here.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  12:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
WT:TREE & WT:Spiders notified.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  12:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support I created some of these "described by decades" categories for consistency with others that already existed, but I now wish I had gone the other way. I see no need for such categories, as per previous discussions. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support The majority seem to be unused, and I can't see how they might be useful. Markvs88 ( talk) 14:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:16, 27 September 2018 (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:People associated with the Human Potential Movement

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) 04:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, it concerns a non-defining characteristic for most people in this category. It is often not even mentioned at all in the article text. The few people for whom it was defining are already listed in the Human Potential Movement article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nearly every "people associated with" category's "raisons de non etre": subjectivism, unclear criteria, and mostly not defining. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:17, 27 September 2018 (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-profit organizations based in Ontario by city

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unneccessary intermediate category Rathfelder ( talk) 19:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Easier to navigate by place this way. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 19:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not proposing to delete the city categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. The three city subcategories fit perfectly well in the parent category, without needing this as an intermediate step between them. If we had subcategories for 15 or 20 cities, then this might be useful — but with just three, there's no pressing need to make readers two-step their way to the city subcategories. Bearcat ( talk) 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh ( talk) 05:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Bearcat. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Bearcat. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question Doesn't Canada generally use "organisations" rather than "organizations"? Nyttend ( talk) 04:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
No. Canada lines up with American rather than British spelling on the -ise/-ize thing — i.e. we organize things rather than organising them. Canadian English is a mix of "American" spelling in some contexts and "British" spelling in others, not invariably "British" across the board. Bearcat ( talk) 22:34, 26 September 2018 (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/2018_September_22&oldid=871688262"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 21 September 23 >

September 22

Category:Satire anime and manga

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 2018 OCT 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only three members ( WP:SMALLCAT) and whose inclusion in this category are no supported by reliable sources per WP:CATVER. — Farix ( t |  c) 22:45, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - New category often implies that it will eventually be populated which makes this nomination a little bit premature. WP:CATVER doesn't apply here because the entries are sourced properly. ItsAlwaysLupus ( talk) 18:51, 23 September 2018 (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:Turkish drama television series in Pakistan

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, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Completely self-serving, pointless, non-notable, fan list-grade category. What's next, " Category:Fox drama TV series syndicated to CBS"? Category:Israeli cooking shows broadcasted in Tennessee? " Category:San Franciscan period dramas on Harvey Milk broadcasted in Uganda"? ( WP:G5, CAT:NNSD) ItsAlwaysLupus ( talk) 19:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- The headnote adds the word "broadcast". Since Turkish is not widely spoken in Pakistan, I suspect these have been dubbed or subtitled in Urdu or Punjabi, etc. If so, would that be enough to merit a category? Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Television shows from any country can be broadcast in any other country in either dubbed or subtitled form — and that's especially true in the 2010s, when a huge portion of the digital cable dial in most countries is taken up with foreign ethnic channels designed to appeal to expatriates who want to stay in touch with their home culture. So it's not a defining characteristic. There's extensive past precedent against categorizing shows on this basis, because that would lead to extreme category bloat as similar categories got created for every possible combination of originating and rebroadcasting countries. Bearcat ( talk) 22:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom & Bearcat. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:15, 27 September 2018 (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:Critics of the white genocide conspiracy theory

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not a major part of the biography of any of these people, except possibly George Ciccariello-Maher. Pharos ( talk) 19:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • That category is for people for whom the criticism is a substantial part of their careers, not like here where most people are in the category because of a single comment, and holding a position that 95% of people would agree with. I would not be opposed to upmerging the category for anyone who does actually fulfill that criteria of it being a major part of their career.-- Pharos ( talk) 18:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. I don't see how this would be a defining characteristic. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 20:21, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete this is nonsense. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 04:39, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-defining Galobtter ( pingó mió) 09:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above. wumbolo ^^^ 18:13, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete non-substantial - should be deleted just like a category called "Critics of flat earth theory" probably would be, if it existed.- greenrd ( talk) 10:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- Being a critic of what is essentially a FRINGE POV is hardly defining. Being an advocate of it might make a person notorious enough to put them in an advocates cat. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:46, 30 September 2018 (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:Eponymous scientific concepts

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) 04:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overbroad, unhelpful, and non-defining. See discussion at Category talk:Eponymous scientific concepts. It's overbroad because a large fraction of scientific concepts (maybe a majority) are named after somebody, so the category ends up either being incomplete or huge. This could to some extent be addressed by subcategories but doing so would end up replicating most of our category tree of science, for no good purpose. It's unhelpful because usually what readers are going to want to know is not that it was named after someone, but who it was named after and why it was given that name. This is the sort of information that could be provided in a list, but not in a category. And it's non-defining because it's about the names of topics rather than about the topics themselves; see WP:NOTDICT. See also Category:Lists of things named after scientists (a much better category in my opinion, and one I am not proposing to change) and deleted category "Eponymous musical terms" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 29. — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Reluctantly, delete, as category creator. My thinking with this was more for the creation of a category useful to the study of eponymous naming practices than to the study of the concepts so named, but I can see that there are clearer ways to go about this. bd2412 T 00:35, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete for the reasons already explained—particularly WP:NOTDICT. The subject of a WP article is not the article's title. Note also that the parent category, Category:Eponyms, explicitly excludes articles about things named after people. Its subcategories should do the same.-- Srleffler ( talk) 02:19, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete like Category:Eponymous cities deleted long ago. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:15, 27 September 2018 (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 Ireland

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 2018 OCT 7 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC) reply
more nominations with one merge target
more nominations with two merge targets
more nominations to delete decades
Nominator's rationale: merge years to centuries per WP:SMALLCAT, the large majority of categories contain only one article. The tree of years in Ireland is a bit special because most content consists of articles like 1101 in Ireland. Categories that only contain an article like that require just one merge target, namely (in this example) Category:1101 in Europe; it does not require a dual merge to Category:12th century in Ireland because it is already in Category:Years of the 12th century in Ireland. Note for closing admin: the categorization of articles like 1101 in Ireland is controlled by Template:Year in Ireland. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question 1 For the two merge candidates, why is there a second candidate (the century)? Each of the "by year" already has the "by decade" as a parent. Isn't that the correct lowest level of diffusion? Why introduce the century when each "by decade" already has "by century" as a parent? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 11:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question 2 Why single out Ireland for "by decade" deletions? Why about other European countries in the same period, for example, Category:1110s in Germany which has a single article? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Laurel Lodged, IIRC, there was a much larger CfD for most of Europe months ago, and one of the criticisms there was to split up by country first. A few hundred at a time are better than thousands, and better than multiple country-specific nuances to geo-political self-identification.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment once again the nom is trying to do too much at once. I think we should keep decades in Ireland. Furthermore, I am not wholly convinced of the merits of merging national events to a continent-wide category, such as I deplore these thin thread categories. Might it be better to abolish the templates that create such trees? I suspect the nom has thought this out carefully, but I cannot support this nom without a clear assurance that the requisite checks have been done to ensure that no articles are left partly orphaned. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - I am largely on the same page as Laurel Lodged and Peterkingiron - in that I don't understand why Ireland-specific cats alone are in scope, or why we are trying to do 25 different things at once here. There may be scope to declutter some of this area - for example by merging the contents of the year-specific cats (like Category:1180 in Ireland) to the decade-level cats (like Category:1180s in Ireland). But I have a problem with the targets proposed here ( Category:12th century in Ireland and Category:1180 in Europe) for two reasons. The Ireland-specific target ( Category:12th century in Ireland) will immediately become over-populated. And the Europe-level target ( Category:1180 in Europe) seems too broad and loosely related to the subjects to represent an appropriate target (specifically I am unsure that we should be applying the modern boundaries and concepts of a European macro-region to 12th century subjects. I suspect that if you asked a 12th century Irish person about even the *concept* of Europe that they would look at you sideways. Yes, we ball-up these categories hierarchically today. But actually putting the sub-articles/etc in the macro-level cat? Not seeing it....) Guliolopez ( talk) 16:44, 23 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Reply on 1st criticism: in fact with this proposal there will not be over-population at all! If you check the nomination carefully, you will see that Category:12th century in Ireland will end up with about 10 articles directly in it, and so on for every next century. The centuries will in fact become very modestly populated. Note also that Ireland is not singled out this way: by far the most countries have century trees in the Middle Ages.
Reply on 2nd criticism: regarding Category:1180 in Europe as a merge target, while diffusion by continent may well be abolished (i.e. just have a Category:1180) that would require another nomination; however for the time being Category:1180 in Europe it is the immediate parent category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:25, 23 September 2018 (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:Drug control law by country

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Very substantial overlap. Unhelpful distinction. Only 5 categories, which can happily sit in Category:Drug control law. Not enough articles to populate a comprehensive category tree. Rathfelder ( talk) 14:32, 22 September 2018 (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:Spiders described in the 1750s

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) 04:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up removal of empty spider decadal categories, per WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description. See previous, related CfD here.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  12:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
WT:TREE & WT:Spiders notified.   ~  Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf)  12:46, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support I created some of these "described by decades" categories for consistency with others that already existed, but I now wish I had gone the other way. I see no need for such categories, as per previous discussions. Peter coxhead ( talk) 15:36, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support The majority seem to be unused, and I can't see how they might be useful. Markvs88 ( talk) 14:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:16, 27 September 2018 (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:People associated with the Human Potential Movement

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) 04:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, it concerns a non-defining characteristic for most people in this category. It is often not even mentioned at all in the article text. The few people for whom it was defining are already listed in the Human Potential Movement article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:48, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nearly every "people associated with" category's "raisons de non etre": subjectivism, unclear criteria, and mostly not defining. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 06:17, 27 September 2018 (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-profit organizations based in Ontario by city

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unneccessary intermediate category Rathfelder ( talk) 19:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Easier to navigate by place this way. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 19:37, 16 September 2018 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not proposing to delete the city categories. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:38, 18 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. The three city subcategories fit perfectly well in the parent category, without needing this as an intermediate step between them. If we had subcategories for 15 or 20 cities, then this might be useful — but with just three, there's no pressing need to make readers two-step their way to the city subcategories. Bearcat ( talk) 17:30, 20 September 2018 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh ( talk) 05:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Bearcat. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per Bearcat. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question Doesn't Canada generally use "organisations" rather than "organizations"? Nyttend ( talk) 04:46, 24 September 2018 (UTC) reply
No. Canada lines up with American rather than British spelling on the -ise/-ize thing — i.e. we organize things rather than organising them. Canadian English is a mix of "American" spelling in some contexts and "British" spelling in others, not invariably "British" across the board. Bearcat ( talk) 22:34, 26 September 2018 (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/2018_September_22&oldid=871688262"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE