From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 27 July 29 >

July 28

Category:Miami Sharks players

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) 02:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael ( talk) 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – which bit of WP:OVERCAT is transgressed? It seems to me a neat way of categorising Teofilo Cubillas whose article does not mention Miami Freedom - categorise him as a Shark, and subcat Sharks under Freedom to denote historical links. Oculi ( talk) 09:03, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael ( talk) 20:51, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge/delete - traditionally one franchise/team has one category, plenty of CFD consensus for this. Giant Snowman 07:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge Miami Sharks is a redirect to Miami Freedom, so that I take this to be a rename of a now long defunct club. My rule on this is "one franchise: one category" - despite renames, relcoations, changes of league, etc. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Merge clearly the same club. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:08, 10 August 2014 (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.

Paganism in the United Kingdom

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 rename. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename Consistent naming with rest of the category tree. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:43, 28 July 2014 (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:Hungarian Neopaganism

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one article in category, serves no navigational purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support with no objection to recreating if additional articles are created. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom. Editor2020 17:34, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Upmerge This would remove an unneeded layer of category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:22, 14 August 2014 (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.

Former fire stations

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Former is used to describe buildings that no longer exist. Defunct is used for re-purposed buildings like the ones included here. This rename would title the subcategories in the same way. For the parent category, the introduction specifically says Buildings once used as fire stations, but no longer active for that purpose. The parent categories all reflect a building where the use was changed as opposed to a demolished building. Vegaswikian ( talk) 21:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment that's a very ambiguous naming method for destroyed buildings. I suggest the entire category tree for buildings that no longer exist be changed. -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support per category naming method for buildings no longer having the same use as previously. -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:32, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename Defunct is broad enough to cover all things once fire stations and not such at present. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:10, 10 August 2014 (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:Adherents of Celtic neopaganism

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:American Wiccans. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one article here, no navigational purpose to categorize. I'm not entirely sure if Wiccan priestesses is the right category to merge to, so I'm open to other suggestions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC) Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:16, 28 July 2014 (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:Dianic Wicca

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) 02:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category contains only two articles and they already refer to each other immediately in the body text, so categorizing them does not serve any navigational purpose. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:49, 28 July 2014 (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:Canadian Wiccans

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category:Canadian neopagans only contains Category:Canadian Wiccans so one of the two categories is redundant for sure. Neopagans is the more established category name, so I would propose to keep Category:Canadian neopagans as the one category to be kept here. But I'm also open to a reverse merge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:30, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
So that would be a reverse merge, that's fair enough. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:59, 29 July 2014 (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:Public domain 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Meaningless outside the context of a particular country's copyright law, as terms of protection vary presently and have varied over time. Previously deleted in 2009 per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 27#Category:Public domain films; all the reasons given there still apply. postdlf ( talk) 16:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete You can't go around tagging films as being in the "public domain" without providing the scope of the PD status. At the very least the category would have to be sub-divided into "Films in the public domain in the United States" etc. I am not advocating such categories should exist, but if they do they need to exist at country level to reflect the copyright jurisdictions. Betty Logan ( talk) 21:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Given that there are over 200 sovereign states in the world, subdividing by nation wouldn't make for a good category system either. postdlf ( talk) 21:34, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. This can be easily rescued by redefining it as films that are public domain in all countries, which is what I intended when I created it. Subcategories can be created for important subclasses such as PD in the US; we already have Category:Images in the public domain in the United States so what's wrong with creating Category:Films in the public domain in the United States? Otherwise if we want to delete this we should also delete Category:Public domain books, Category:Public domain music and a number of other categories found in Category:Public domain. In fact, this nomination should be a mass CfD nomination for all related categories. We cannot make a decision here without discussion all other related categories. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Category:Images in the public domain in the United States is a maintenance category for organizing files for Wikipedia use. It's not a content category like this one. Are any of the included articles actually verifiable as "public domain in all countries"? I don't know that I've ever seen a source make such a broad statement before instead of just saying "public domain in the U.S." or elsewhere. Show me, please. postdlf ( talk) 14:54, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Incidentally, I think the public domain books category is even worse than this one, seeing as how film has only been around since the late 1800s, but we're talking about thousands of years for books. postdlf ( talk) 02:07, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • subcategorize Category:Films in the public domain in their country of origin , Category:Films in the public domain in all jurisdictions , Category:Foreign films in the public domain in the United States ; that should deal with the ambiguity. This should be kept as a container category holding only categories. As the US is the IP jurisdiction that Wikipedia is concerned with, a Category:Domestic films in the public domain in the United States should also exist. -- 65.94.169.222 ( talk) 04:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as being non-defining. Most of the articles don't even mention the fact, they just have the category slapped onto the page. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:53, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a defining aspect of the works. We shouldn't categorise by copyright status as the contents will largely not have much in common and will have reached this status in different ways and for different reasons. In the long-term this will be as sprawling and unmaintainable as if we tried Category:Copyrighted films. SFB 17:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Keep – Copyright status is a defining characteristic for many readers, including but not limited to lawyers, film students, manufacturers, distributors, presenters, and the media industry at large. A good number of people come here first when they're trying to find this information. The list does need editing for international differences, but as a topic it's clearly encyclopedic. SteveStrummer ( talk) 18:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC) reply
@ SteveStrummer: Given the wide differences in what constitutes "public domain" surely lists (by country?) would be a much better way of gathering this information? SFB 18:10, 30 July 2014 (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 made notable by their deaths

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) 04:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Am I the only one who finds this category in horribly bad taste? Notability is an internal Wikipedia concept, and grouping people on the basis that they wouldn't have mattered enough to have Wikipedia articles if they hadn't died horribly just feels really wrong to me. This is on top of the fact that this category couldn't exist outside Wikipedia because it's entirely based on our internal notion of notability. It is also unverifiable because the only way it could be demonstrated is by reference to Wikipedia discussions where the community found that person to be otherwise not notable (and only in those cases where such a discussion happened). The Drover's Wife ( talk) 14:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as inappropriate WP:SELFREF. postdlf ( talk) 16:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – the nom covers the difficulties. Oculi ( talk) 17:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete – Per nom. SteveStrummer ( talk) 18:29, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - per nom and my general sense that death is wildly overcategorized across the board in Wikipedia. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - because people are not notable by their deaths on Wikipedia - the event might be, the person is not. WP:ONEEVENT. Giant Snowman 07:34, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment most of these people are WP:ONEEVENT folks, and the arguments above are really arguments to delete the articles. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 21:21, 30 July 2014 (UTC) reply
    • No, they're not. They're arguments to delete the category for a) being in bad taste, b) failing Wikipedia's notability policies, and c) failing Wikipedia's verifiability policies. The names that I recognise in this category would pass AfD to the point of being WP:SNOW keeps. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 01:25, 31 July 2014 (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.

Future categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: manual merge. I will only implement this as a merge where the contents are not already within specific sub-categories of fiction set in the relevant period; in most cases for C22, the pages are already so categorised and therefore no merger is required, so the categories can simply be deleted. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:53, 4 October 2014 (UTC) reply

also includes a number of other categories, some to be upmerged to other categories

extended list of categories

and a weaker argument for

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Base article does not and should not yet exist. The argument for 2100 is weaker because we would first need to deal with Category:2100 in science, and its two articles which should also probably be deleted. But that's a separate issue. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Support Since the year after 1 BC was 1 AD (without year zero), 2100 is the last year of 21st century. I am not in favour of categories on remote future periods (or splitting everything by year in remote past periods). It will be at least 60 years before we need a decade category for 2100s, possibly 80. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)*:Although I agree with Peterkingiron's conclusion, I take issue with the timing required. We have Category:2090s now, and I believe we should have Category:2050s. This suggests that it might be only 50 years before Category:2100s is opened, rather than the 60 to 80 he suggests. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as a group nomination. All of the 21xx series of categories exist so there is no reason to remove a single category due to an incorrect parent which has been fixed. As for the 22xx series, many of these exist for media or other purposes and are a part of a series so it is unclear if they should be deleted. For the periods after that maybe support to by century/millennium. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    @ Vegaswikian:All the categories were recently (my recollection is less than a week before the nomination, but certainly less than a month) created, most, having exactly one article, which is on a solar eclipse. I question whether the articles should exist, rather than being merged to single-line entries in list of 22nd century solar eclipses, or some such, but, even so, that is no reason for the categories to exist. I see no reason why a future year category could be justified without a lead article being appropriate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    If we have an issue with the articles, then that needs to be addressed first. If someone is creating articles for all solar eclipses in the 22nd century, then we would have a strong case for by year categories.
  • Merge but not as nom -- My sample of a few items indicated that the articles were mostly fictional works. On reflection I am changfing my vote. Whether a work is set in 2110 or 2115 seems almost random, but possibly we might allow decade categories for the 22nd century, but only century categories beyond it. I offer this as a compromise, because I am not sure that my previous vote was wrong. However, I would agree with Arthur Rubin on the period of 50 years. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I generally don't see a need for decade categories. As already pointed out, the last year in a century generally gets included in the wrong century. This frequently happens, as I recall, from using the by decade navigation templates. I fail to see how having 10 categories with 10 subcategories is an improvement over 1 category with 100 subcategories. Both display well on most displays. So why add an extra unneeded navigation level? Vegaswikian ( talk) 17:37, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge It is far too early for such precision in categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:26, 14 August 2014 (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:2073 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. There's no article or category for 2073, nor should there be. Yet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 08:34, 28 July 2014 (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:Global caselist templates

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) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one page (that is in other template categories) (and has no parents). DexDor ( talk) 06:01, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Given it a category - it will fill up in time, don't worry. Wik idea 09:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- To my mind the one item is not a caselist: it is a list of treaties. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:28, 2 August 2014 (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:Southwest Virginia geography stubs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: split. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Split - the current category is oversized. Splitting it according to the following should deal with that:

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:55, 28 July 2014 (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:Icfre

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. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:13, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category contains one (sort of eponymous) article (that is in plenty of other cats) and has no parents. DexDor ( talk) 05:49, 28 July 2014 (UTC) reply
I found the following comment on another CFD page and am copying it here.
Indian council of forestry research and education (Icfre) is the largest organisation based in india to carry out forestry research and forestry education in India. ICFRE has institutes at national level as well as regional centres at different states. ICFRE is putting efforts to increase forest cover in India and to encourage agroforestry, silviculture, horticulture, forest protection and forest education in india. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Editinf ( talk • contribs) 12:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply
That actually supports the principle of what I said above. Peterkingiron ( talk) 12:38, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Rename and Keep, per User:Peterkingiron. Taking it at face value, this seems to be an important, high-level forestry agency in India, with a number of related suborganizations and units. It makes sense to keep it. I've tried to recategorize it in a way that I hope is helpful and accurate. This said, there is at the same time some overenthusiastic, overinclusion of articles within this category by its creator, a new contributor to Wikipedia; some friendly educational efforts may be helpful in that regard. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 10:38, 9 August 2014 (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/2014_July_28&oldid=1075704539"