Category:Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration
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 11:58, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We have deleted numerous categorisation by association membership among univerities. No objection to listifying them in main article. This is a case of categoriy clutter.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 14:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete; not defining. (Note, of course, that not all consortium membership is non-defining. AAU membership, for example, is defining, and
we properly have a category for it).
Neutralitytalk 05:17, 22 April 2015 (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.
17th century BC
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/delete as specified.
MER-C 12:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge the first 16 categories per
WP:SMALLCAT, each of these categories contains one article. After merging, the other categories become empty.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment please note that the exact year 1600 should probably be merged to the 16th rather than the 17th century. For the one article in this category, the exact year is uncertain anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support generally -- The
Shang dynasty was established in c.1600 BC. It is better to treat it for century purposes as 1599 than 1601. There is not enough content at such remote periods to warrant annual and decade categories. The many layers are a hindrance, not a help to navigation.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge'; hyper-specification at such early dates impedes rather than promotes navigation.
Neutralitytalk 05:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support Such narrow divisions are not helping navigation of related material.
SFB 18:32, 26 April 2015 (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:Cricket miscellany
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 12:06, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to
Category:Cricket. We do not have categories for "sundry" bits & pieces, but move the contents up to the parent in such cases. –
FayenaticLondon 21:31, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Cricket, the only parent. I assume that someone created this to avoid having articles in a container category, but that would be a mistaken policy.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:02, 21 April 2015 (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:Religion and mythology
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 wherever the members came from.
MER-C 12:05, 7 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per
WP:NONDEF. There is nothing in these categories that is specifically about the relationship between religion and mythology. There's just a random selection taken from the mythology tree on the one hand and a random selection taken from the religion tree on the other hand.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Per discussion below the nomination to delete should be interpreted as a nomination to manually merge, then delete.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (UTC)reply
delete all The first only has as direct member a few random Semitic religious notions; the second adds a category of deities to the mix. All the rest just contain the corresponding religion category. I don't see how this is the least bit useful.
Mangoe (
talk) 19:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete and manual merge back to the categories that articles were moved from, e.g.
[1][2]. –
FayenaticLondon 11:49, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Manually merge/delete -- most have only a mythology child. Africa's maniun article is
African traditional religion, which suggests renaming to that. That leaves "by culture" (with little else). Perhaps, we should keep the ultimate parent, at least for now until we can see the results of sorting the rest out. Some of the mythology children are very well populated, so that the probelm concerns proper parenting of these.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support manual merge back obviously.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your support. Unfortunately, merging back is not obvious; a "delete" decision is normally passed to a bot which simply edits pages that are currently in the category, and removes it. That is why "merge" and "delete" are different outcomes, and care is needed when nominating and !voting. –
FayenaticLondon 14:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Point taken, I added a comment accompanying the nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:00, 22 April 2015 (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:Cricket 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:Keep.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 22:50, 16 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. The category adds no value and it is a case of creating one for the sake of it. Is the author ever going to apply it to more than two cities only? No use to the cricket project. Jack | talk page 14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with Tim!'s note.
Shyamsunder (
talk) 20:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Indian cricket is organised by city. English by county. Is this really a useful tree? A "by city in India" category might be useful, but London and Bristol are essentially random cases of county teams based in a city - for London, both Midldesex and Surrey.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:14, 21 April 2015 (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:Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage/relationship
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.
Delete per nom. Otherwise, I look forward to, "Redheaded people who are now bald". --
NeilNtalk to me 14:39, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The topic identity is a big thing for women when they get married. I would like to hear some more female Wikipedian editor's views as to whether this cat should stay or go.
GregKaye 14:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - 1) ungodly clunky, 2) surname choice is not a defining characteristic, 3) an exercise in
point-making, as this stems from the bordering-on-tendentious discussion about a move request at
Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Tarc (
talk) 14:50, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete as a WP:NONDEFINING category. The titles are also ridiculously long and not exactly neutral.
Snuggums (
talk /
edits) 14:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- in addition to all the reasons above, I must add that it is one of the stupidest categories I have heard of.
Quis separabit? 16:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Non-defining with a ridiculously long name. --
AussieLegend (
✉) 16:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy snow delete - per all the above, time to cut the drama.
Kraxler (
talk) 18:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Totally absurd category, created only to make a point, and confirming to this female Wikipedian that the debate the category creator is prolonging regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton is not at all based on any concern for the encyclopedia, but motivated by something else. And don't tell me to AGF on this one. Tvoz/
talk 23:59, 20 April 2015 (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.
Tarc In retrospect I actually agree with you that this category was written in support a point but would hope that you might agf with regard to the nature of that point. There are many women such as
Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting who have changed their name and presented their personal preference as to the way that they would like that name presented but whose article titles retain the presentation such as
Kaley Cuoco. You would be welcome to join the related discussion. At Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton I have encouraged that we work with policy to actually give justification for situations like this and, as far as I have seen, I am the only editor that has made any effort in this regard. The length of the content was in effort to make it inclusive. Please do not insult to make a point. Ping also
Tvoz,
Cwobeel
Category:6 Metre Sailing
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 11:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Nevertheless, even if it is the
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, "8 Metre" is a very generic name for a category, and I believe disambiguation would be desirable. –
FayenaticLondon 17:59, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename as nominated per Fayenatic ; overly ambiguously named categories tend to collect unrelated junk making their utility questionable --
65.94.43.89 (
talk) 05:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
REname as nom. "8 metre" would be a bad name, as its connotation would be unclear. Why should we hve an article apparently on a random length.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:16, 21 April 2015 (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:Windsurfing disciplines
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 11:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support fits in line with the sport's definitions.
SFB 18:33, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. I have no idea what a "discipline" is supposed to be but the class breakout makes perfect sense.
Mangoe (
talk) 22:03, 26 April 2015 (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:Australian Olympians in World War II
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 12:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
There will eventually be 50 Australian Olympians added to this list. This is a work in progress.
User:Aussiesportlibrarian
Delete. "People who did X and at some other point in their lives did Y" is a bad form of categorization. If someone has been an Olympian and also notable for something else (e.g. as a TV presenter) then put them in both categories (and, if necessary in a combined category, but I'd prefer to see category intersection used for things like that). A "List of Australian Olympians who served in World War II" could also be considered. DexDor(talk) 20:21, 26 April 2015 (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.
Medalist/Medallist 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:rename.
MER-C 12:05, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. These category moves were previously proposed as speedy (C2C), but there were objections on
WP:ENGVAR grounds. The proposal was deleted as stale after a couple of weeks. From what I can see in
Category:Medalists at multi-sport events, "medalist" is spelled/spelt with a single L in every category but
Category:Commonwealth Games medallists. There is clearly a WP:ENGVAR issue here. Does that mean that all countries are (or have been) part of the Commonwealth should have the double L? What about Britain's participation in the Olympics and Paralympics, and that of other Commonwealth nations? Should they be changed to double L? There's also inconsistent spelling within these categories: Pakistan's bronze category is spelled/spelt with single L, as is India's parent category. We need to bring the categories in line in some way.
HandsomeFella (
talk) 11:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support was meaning to do the same myself. I believe consistency in the Asian Games set is more desirable that consistency in the national set.
SFB 18:34, 26 April 2015 (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: Songs about the extermination of indigenous peoples
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 12:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Exterminate. It's POV and non-defining. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (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:Trees of Portugal
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 the first 8, not the last two. There is no consensus for the last two to be moved.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 23:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: That a tree species is found in a particular European country is a
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the species. See, for example, the pile-up of categories at
Pinus nigra. The
Acer opalus article says "native to the hills and mountains of southern and western Europe, from Italy to Spain and north to southern Germany" which suggests that it's also in countries such as France and Austria. In short, countries (in Europe) are too fine grained to be DEFINING characteristics of trees. DexDor(talk) 06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I've added a note to the nomination. DexDor(talk) 17:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support first 8 Land organisms should usually be grouped by island or continent (unless there is another defined ecosystem/barrier). Trees don't respect political boundaries
RevelationDirect (
talk) 13:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I've added a note to the nomination. DexDor(talk) 17:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Neutral on the last 2. I think the category names need clarification that they're not about tree species.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 18:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support all including the UK category. The rationale for that one is that it contains articles about specific trees and tree-related organisations.–
FayenaticLondon 10:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support all (except UK and Wales) -- All the rest are being used for species which occur in the country. We have for sometime been merging categories that are holding species that occur there, which for widespread species are
WP:OC#PERF-type category clutter (occurence being the performance). The UK and Wales categories are different: they are being mainly used for specific named trees. With its low population of articles Wales might be merged to UK.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose the last 2, although they should be renamed to "Individual trees of location", since that's the true use of these categories; Support the rest as these categories are used for species by location on a single land-mass, and species don't recognize national bounderies.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support with an exception (or some other tweak) for the named trees in England & Wales - per Peterkingiron. Apart from named trees, there's no point in having separate categories for every country a tree grows in; if applied consistently this would leave most European tree species articles burdened with a long list of unnavigable categories, and each of those categories would have almost completely duplicated membership.
bobrayner (
talk) 21:49, 3 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Support splitting living organisms on the national level is unwise.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:29, 17 May 2015 (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:R-type contracts
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 12:01, 29 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Not a topic that requires navigation at this point.
SFB 18:35, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
delete Wildly confusingly-named, this is actually a category of all subway equipment built for the NYC
Independent Subway System (IND) and for the combined system formed in the 1940 merger with the BMT and IRT. If a sub category of NYC subway equipment is needed, this is badly named, and the wrong way to divide things up in any case.
Mangoe (
talk) 19:29, 26 April 2015 (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 Signpost Coverage of women
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.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 22:52, 16 June 2015 (UTC)reply
"Wikipedia Signpost" is a
proper noun, "Wikipedia Signpost Coverage" (etc) isn't. DexDor(talk) 17:48, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge per arguments presented by the nominator; Wikipedia Signpost coverage is proper.--
Ymblanter (
talk) 19:11, 3 May 2015 (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:Islamic Finance Scholar
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.
Ricky81682 (
talk) 23:28, 16 June 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: More appropriate category name. Alternatives - "Promoters of Islamic banking", "Islamic banking experts" etc could be considered. DexDor(talk) 05:25, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete:Rename: per nominator rationale.
Quis separabit? 15:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename --
Category:Scholars of Islamic finance: Islamic finance is about a system of lending where the lender is given a share of the profits, rather than usurous interst. This thus concerns more than just banking.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:28, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom to conform with the main article name.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:30, 17 May 2015 (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:Black Fraternal association
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 as empty and C2E. –
FayenaticLondon 12:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Speedy Delete per
WP:C2E Author request. The newish editor took my suggestion, created the alternatively named category, and moved the content over. That isn't the normal sequence here but I favor rolling with that outcome if @
DexDor: is willing to withdraw the nomination.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 15:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Afaik there's nothing preventing a category under discussion at CFD being CSDed if eligible; it's happened many times. I certainly would have no objection. DexDor(talk) 17:43, 20 April 2015 (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.