The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy delete. No need to use French on the English Wikipedia. Category is already empty.
JIP |
Talk 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 16:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete - No reason to use French here.
Place Clichy (
talk) 13:59, 8 October 2019 (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.
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.
MER-C 10:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Neither category is well defined. Neither actually has an eponymous article. No obvious distinction between them.
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge or reverse merge, no reason to keep these two categories apart.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge or reverse merge personally prefer online education, but both are fine. --
Trialpears (
talk) 14:08, 17 October 2019 (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.
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 (equivalent to rename).
MER-C 13:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These are largely companies that used the internet for their business. They didnt make or run it.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator.
JIP |
Talk 17:49, 6 October 2019 (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:Artificial uterus in fiction
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. I'll list this on the manual page for possible inclusion in a list.
MER-C 13:52, 14 October 2019 (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:Antetokounmpo brothers
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.
MER-C 13:50, 14 October 2019 (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:English-language websites
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:no consensus.
MER-C 09:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. A large majority of the millions of websites are English language. This category has 85. Even those serving other language speakers mostly have an English version. Similar considerations apply to those invoked about male people following various occupations.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep (creator) I don't like us treating English different from other languages (e.g. as we did at
Category:English-language albums). The rationale is different but the effect the same that there is a big hole in the scheme of works by language. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 12:11, 6 Octoberv 2019 (UTC)
As it stands the language websites scheme is utterly misleading. When English is not the main language of the internet we can change it. But if we ditched
Category:English-language albums I dont see how we can keep this.
Rathfelder (
talk) 14:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OVERLAPCAT: when properly populated this category will close to coincide with all content that is in the tree of
Category:Websites due to the overrepresentation of British, American, Canadian and Australian content on en.wp. On top of that, many websites in other countries are bilingual, i.e. also in English. On top of that, it will require
WP:OR to establish whether a website is in English language since it is a too trivial characteristic to be mentioned by sources.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment You don't need a third-party source to make a claim that a website is in English—the site itself is the source. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 15:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Regardless, the site itself will normally also not state that it is an English-language site.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep No reason to threat English differently than other languages.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have added a note on the category page similar to
Category:English-language songs stating that American/British/etc websites should not be included. –
FayenaticLondon 14:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)reply
While that certainly helps, it also raises a new question: how do we draw the line between American and British websites on the one hand and global websites on the other hand? The question was triggered by the fact that
English Wikipedia belongs to this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I dont think writing notes on categories is an effective strategy. Most editors never see them.
Rathfelder (
talk) 23:39, 12 October 2019 (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.
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.
MER-C 09:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (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:Bad Seed Ltd. albums
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.
MER-C 13:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No period/full stop present per albums/singles packaging; publishing and copyright notices; as well as both Australian and British English conventions. --Idiotchalk(
t@lk) 18:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename to match parent article. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 12:06, 6 October 2019 (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:Insecticons
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.
MER-C 13:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of minor fictional in-universe traits. No need to upmerge because all articles are covered within the same category structure.
TTN (
talk) 10:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Fictional robotic insects, not delete yet again. Despite criticism at previous similar nominations,
TTN continues to propose merges which would remove the contents of a category from one parent or another. In this case, all articles in the nominated category are within
Category:Decepticons so no merge is required to that one, but the other parent would lose half its contents by simple deletion. –
FayenaticLondon 12:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (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.
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.
MER-C 13:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Small categories. Contents are already within the other parent categories. –
FayenaticLondon 12:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: As almost all of the articles within the category
Category:Combiners (Transformers) are going to get deleted anyway, it's probably best to delete the entire category.
JIP |
Talk 21:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction
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.
MER-C 13:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Makes sense to me. I believe the category was created when we were using AbuseFilter to enforce the editing restriction, before "extended confirmed" was actually added to enwiki. — MusikAnimaltalk 18:28, 7 October 2019 (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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy delete. No need to use French on the English Wikipedia. Category is already empty.
JIP |
Talk 13:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment Category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 16:09, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete - No reason to use French here.
Place Clichy (
talk) 13:59, 8 October 2019 (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.
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.
MER-C 10:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Neither category is well defined. Neither actually has an eponymous article. No obvious distinction between them.
Rathfelder (
talk) 17:58, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge or reverse merge, no reason to keep these two categories apart.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge or reverse merge personally prefer online education, but both are fine. --
Trialpears (
talk) 14:08, 17 October 2019 (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.
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 (equivalent to rename).
MER-C 13:55, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These are largely companies that used the internet for their business. They didnt make or run it.
Rathfelder (
talk) 15:32, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support per nominator.
JIP |
Talk 17:49, 6 October 2019 (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:Artificial uterus in fiction
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. I'll list this on the manual page for possible inclusion in a list.
MER-C 13:52, 14 October 2019 (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:Antetokounmpo brothers
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.
MER-C 13:50, 14 October 2019 (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:English-language websites
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:no consensus.
MER-C 09:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. A large majority of the millions of websites are English language. This category has 85. Even those serving other language speakers mostly have an English version. Similar considerations apply to those invoked about male people following various occupations.
Rathfelder (
talk) 12:00, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep (creator) I don't like us treating English different from other languages (e.g. as we did at
Category:English-language albums). The rationale is different but the effect the same that there is a big hole in the scheme of works by language. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 12:11, 6 Octoberv 2019 (UTC)
As it stands the language websites scheme is utterly misleading. When English is not the main language of the internet we can change it. But if we ditched
Category:English-language albums I dont see how we can keep this.
Rathfelder (
talk) 14:52, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OVERLAPCAT: when properly populated this category will close to coincide with all content that is in the tree of
Category:Websites due to the overrepresentation of British, American, Canadian and Australian content on en.wp. On top of that, many websites in other countries are bilingual, i.e. also in English. On top of that, it will require
WP:OR to establish whether a website is in English language since it is a too trivial characteristic to be mentioned by sources.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 14:54, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment You don't need a third-party source to make a claim that a website is in English—the site itself is the source. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 15:51, 7 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Regardless, the site itself will normally also not state that it is an English-language site.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep No reason to threat English differently than other languages.
Dimadick (
talk) 16:26, 8 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: I have added a note on the category page similar to
Category:English-language songs stating that American/British/etc websites should not be included. –
FayenaticLondon 14:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)reply
While that certainly helps, it also raises a new question: how do we draw the line between American and British websites on the one hand and global websites on the other hand? The question was triggered by the fact that
English Wikipedia belongs to this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:20, 9 October 2019 (UTC)reply
I dont think writing notes on categories is an effective strategy. Most editors never see them.
Rathfelder (
talk) 23:39, 12 October 2019 (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.
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.
MER-C 09:26, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (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:Bad Seed Ltd. albums
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.
MER-C 13:53, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: No period/full stop present per albums/singles packaging; publishing and copyright notices; as well as both Australian and British English conventions. --Idiotchalk(
t@lk) 18:23, 24 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Speedy rename to match parent article. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 12:06, 6 October 2019 (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:Insecticons
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.
MER-C 13:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization of minor fictional in-universe traits. No need to upmerge because all articles are covered within the same category structure.
TTN (
talk) 10:49, 24 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Fictional robotic insects, not delete yet again. Despite criticism at previous similar nominations,
TTN continues to propose merges which would remove the contents of a category from one parent or another. In this case, all articles in the nominated category are within
Category:Decepticons so no merge is required to that one, but the other parent would lose half its contents by simple deletion. –
FayenaticLondon 12:20, 25 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (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.
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.
MER-C 13:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Small categories. Contents are already within the other parent categories. –
FayenaticLondon 12:25, 25 September 2019 (UTC)reply
Note: As almost all of the articles within the category
Category:Combiners (Transformers) are going to get deleted anyway, it's probably best to delete the entire category.
JIP |
Talk 21:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 10:20, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedia pages under 30-500 editing restriction
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.
MER-C 13:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support Makes sense to me. I believe the category was created when we were using AbuseFilter to enforce the editing restriction, before "extended confirmed" was actually added to enwiki. — MusikAnimaltalk 18:28, 7 October 2019 (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.