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.
Nominator's rationale: One of two things needs to happen here, but I'm bringing it to CFD for consensus because I'm not sure which. If there's a substantive reason to keep this, then it needs to be renamed to
Category:Friction stir welders per our naming conventions for categories (they're supposed to be pluralized, not singular). However, with only five articles in this category and four in the parent
Category:Welders (and little prospect for growth, since "welder" isn't an occupation for which most practitioners would ever get a Wikipedia article), I'm not convinced that we actually have any need to subcategorize welders by the particular type of welding they do. So, frankly, I think it should probably be deleted, with all contents upmerged to
Category:Welders — but if it is kept then it must be renamed. Delete or rename?
Bearcat (
talk) 23:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
rename? Upmerging is the wrong solution because none of the members are actually welders; they were research engineers who worked on developing the process. I am having considerable doubts that any of these articles should even exist (they read as memorials and were all created by the same user) but in any case having them as a category of "welders" is inaccurate.
Seyasirt (
talk) 14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)reply
I conclude: Please rename instead of deleting this category. --
NearEMPTiness (
talk) 22:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge to welders. We aren't getting any benefit by dividing up such a small category.
SFB 18:28, 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:Disasters of the illegal immigration to Italy
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename, badly named. Nor sure of a good target, but if one does not arise in the discussion, merge to
Category:Shipwrecks in the Mediterranean. No matter what, the parent categories need cleaning up. Did all of these wrecks really occur in 3 countries?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Question: do we really need to make the category that specific, i.e. should the category only allow people-smuggling disasters? "Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean" sounds like a bit more inclusive.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Close the discussion as improperly started. Come back when you know what you want. (I have already seen such kind of closures).
Staszek Lem (
talk) 18:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Huh? This is a discussion to determine a better name. This type of nomination is common here. What name would you prefer from the ones discussed?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:04, 8 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:Killinaskully
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.
delldot∇. 17:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Contains itself, a list and a template. The template links to the same section repeatedly and has been
nominated for deletion. If it is deleted that will leave just the title article and the list. If it is not deleted there will still only be the title article, template and list. It is not clear why this category should exist.
Greykit (
talk) 21:11, 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:Islamic dress (female)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename as nominated. –
FayenaticLondon 21:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. More natural name, although something like Category:Islamic woman dress is also possible.
Brandmeistertalk 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Not grammatical at all.
Johnbod (
talk) 02:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Added, I wasn't aware of that category.
Brandmeistertalk 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Cheers. It's generally useful to look up, down and around the category hierarchies before making a nomination. –
FayenaticLondon 10:24, 27 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:Witnesses of the Porajmos
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 12:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: What's the scope of this category supposed to be? Wouldn't anyone at a concentration camp where Romani were killed, whether inmate or guard, be a witness of the Porajmos? The creator is blocked for long-term abuse and sockpuppetry, though not on this subject, at a glance. --
BDD (
talk) 13:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Porajmos means the Nazi holocasut against the gypsies. Some of the four articles do not even mention gypsies; others only do so in passing. Could we however find a useful category in
Category:Trial Witnesses for Nazi genocide or something like that?
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oh, got it, trial witnesses. The legal aspect wasn't clear to me.
Category:Witnesses of the Armenian Genocide is better populated but similarly problematic, I think. The corresponding article
Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide, also doesn't seem to distinguish between
witnesses in Wiktionary senses 2 and 3. If these categories are supposed to be for sense 2 (anyone who saw events), they're too broad to be useful. If they're supposed to be for sense 3 (legal witnesses), they need tightening, and perhaps renaming. --
BDD (
talk) 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Also, if we're going by trial witnesses,
Porajmos doesn't mention any trials, and really makes a broader point that these killings have been historically overlooked. --
BDD (
talk) 14:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and per BDD. For what it's worth, I just finished reading a fiction book about the Porajmos, written by Lindsay Hawdon, and in the appendix the author mentions as a fact that the Perajmos hasn't played a role in any post-war trials.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:20, 6 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:Eureka Seven characters
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Should be deleted since there are only two entries in this category and they are both comfortably linked to each other from their respective articles.KirtZJ (
talk) 12:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment The category is now empty. It should be deleted.
—KirtMessage 08:07, 15 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.
1900s short film 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:no consensus.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Simply unnecessary. The templates {{1900s-short-comedy-film-stub}} and {{1900s-short-drama-film-stub}} that feed these categories are useful, but they are leaving the parent categories virtually empty. There's simply not enough articles for these templates to warrant their own categories. They should be deleted, and the contents upmerged.
Fortdj33 (
talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:1900s film stubs. The two nom categories have 28 articles between them, which is too small for a useful stub type, but too large for plain deletion. If there are (or should be) other parents, I would not object to a wider upmerge.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep So what if the parent cat is almost empty? Each child cat has enough entries to justify having them. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Could you point to the policy that states the parent category has to meet a threshold? LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Upmerge. I'm not convinced that that the benefits of fine-grained reader-side stub categories outweigh their cost. Category intersection is a more effective way for editors to identify stubs in a particular topic (and there's also talk page stub categories). The costs include the CFD discussions that this parallel categorization scheme causes (
example CFD). DexDor(talk) 06:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep - leaving the parents virtually empty isn't a problem, as the deep content counts. Since one of these categories has over 60, and the other is close (55 stubs), I see no reason to delete.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:08, 4 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:Spiders of Corsica
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.
Merge – creatures endemic to Corsica should be placed in
Category:Endemic fauna of Corsica. (I have not seen the point of dividing fauna categories into vertebrates and invertebrates either.)
Oculi (
talk) 10:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support The endemic category suffices. I would support creating of endemic Corsica subcategories of these types if warranted.
SFB 18:31, 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.