Category:Guelmim-Es Semara, Category:Laâyoune-Boujdour-Sakia El Hamra
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 will upmerge the contents into parent categories as appropriate. –
FayenaticLondon 07:49, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Weak keep There's no reason why them being defunct is enough to delete (e.g.
Category:Northwest Territory) so we can take appropriate articles for towns, births, establishments, etc. and categorize or subcategorize them as appropriate. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 23:37, 21 December 2018 (UTC)reply
There are no towns that could not be sorted into the geography categories of the current Moroccan regions and/or of Western Sahara. People in these two former regions are already categorized by town (
Category:People by city in Morocco,
Category:People by city in Western Sahara), while
Category:Establishments in Morocco and
Category:Establishments in Western Sahara are not currently subcategorized by geography. These two former regions overlap with the disputed territory of Western Sahara, so categorizing their things by town is preferable anyway – the use of Moroccan administrative subdivisions could be seen as non-neutral.
Cobblet (
talk) 00:33, 22 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Delete, in general we may sometimes keep categories like these as "history of" categories but I do not expect for these two particular categories that they can sufficiently be populated with articles about the former administrative regions' histories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:19, 22 December 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:Species named for Barack Obama
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.
Timrollpickering (
Talk) 18:36, 28 December 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:Living Landmarks
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. The two New York landmarks are within the subcategories of
Category:Landmarks in New York (state), leaving nothing to merge.
ℯxplicit 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep.
The_Weeping_Beech is one of two living landmarks in NYC. The other is
Magnolia grandiflora (Brooklyn) Both list the category and are active articles. Kingsland homestead and John Bowne house are both on the national registry of historic places. There are others around the country, their articles just are not written yet. Some, like Africa's transcontinental
Great Green Wall and the circular grove in China or the grove of aspen trees
Pando_(tree) and
Methuselah out west should be added but do not have recognized landmark status, more research is needed before deleting or merging the category.
CaptJayRuffins (
talk) 05:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)reply
'Keep' for consideration, the great barrier reef is a living landmark and should be added. What exactly is non-defining about a line of green trees that can be seen from space?
CaptJayRuffins (
talk) 12:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Do not keep, this is too ambiguous. For example
here is a link in which people are honored as Living Landmarks. By merging the two original articles to
Category:Landmarks in New York (state) we solve that ambiguity. The third article can be purged.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:24, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Link Thanks for adding that link. I just realize that somehow the
New York Landmarks Conservancy has something to do with a WP:Category so it needs to be deleted. Not. Their annual gala and any promotion for is not the source for Category:Living Landmarks. It is a definition, for a subset of unique organisms that exist or did and were notable for the time they existed. Equating the two is wrong, the
great barrier reef consists of living coral that is not used in the construction of any buildings that the NY conservancy wants to honor at it's annual people that mattered gala. And, the category was not created to promote that party. There are others (living organisms) that don't have a wiki written about them as they have no notability, but the future is not written yet. Dump the Great Green Wall, a 15 kilometer line of trees stretching across Africa from Senegal to Djibouti 'cause it's not landmarked by the NRHP.
100.2.105.65 (
talk) 07:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete as
WP:SMALLCAT. The category page includes the definition "Living flora that have landmark status";
The Weeping Beech formerly met those criteria, although it died in 1998, so perhaps the definition ought to have been "Flora that had landmark status while living". That only makes two; the Wall, while visible from space, does not "have landmark status". The phrase "Living Landmark" appears to be
WP:OR, not used in reliable sources, e.g.
NY PostThe commission has previously only designated two trees as landmarks,
NY TimesIn 1966, it became the first New York tree to be designated a historic landmark. The term "Living Landmarks" is used more for people: the New York Landmarks Conservancy has so far honoured over 150 people as Living Landmarks.
[1] Perhaps the category could be renamed as
Landmark trees in the United States. If not renamed, the category should be deleted rather than merged, as the Weeping Beech and
Magnolia grandiflora (Brooklyn) are already in other specific sub-categories of
Category:Landmarks in New York (state). The could be linked under "See also". –
FayenaticLondon 21:50, 6 January 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:Lists of fauna of the Arabian Peninsula
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.
Timrollpickering (
Talk) 18:12, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: To make the name consistent with similar categories (e.g.
Category:Lists of animals of Africa). Note: I created the category a few days ago. DexDor(talk) 17:36, 21 December 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.
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 together.
Timrollpickering (
Talk) 18:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose at least until a reason for separation is specified. (
CFD link). DexDor(talk) 15:04, 21 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose for the same reason as DexDor. I don't see how being a different type of LGBT has any effect on most types of scientific research.
Catrìona (
talk) 17:18, 21 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose: non-defining intersection of sexuality and profession (i'd support removing most LGBT profession except where directly relevant: I don't think "Lesbian science" is a recognized subfield like
Lesbian literature. It's just science.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 00:05, 22 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Being a trans and being a LGB have different effects on most types of scientific research. Most of trans person may adopt a new name. I think that
Category:Transgender and transsexual scientists should be seperated. --
Sharouser (
talk) 00:14, 22 December 2018 (UTC)reply
People may adopt a new name when they're married too, should we have Category:Married scientists? And you're going to have to provide some evidence for the claim for "Being a trans and being a LGB have different effects on most types of scientific research." Are there gay paleontology journals? Do trans people use microscopes differently than non-binary, cisgendered, or asexuals? We normally categorize only by
defining traits, not just any trait.
--Animalparty! (
talk) 00:58, 22 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Oppose if lesbian science differs from straight science then the science is wrong. Look to the science, not the scientist.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 20:36, 26 December 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:Lists of Australian animals
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.
Timrollpickering (
Talk) 09:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
I created this category and have no objection to a rename.
Hesperian 03:44, 23 December 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.
Roman Catholic churches by city and Churches by city (Spain)
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.
Timrollpickering (
Talk) 09:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, the Roman Catholic churches categories contain only 1 or 2 articles, while the parent Churches categories do not contain any article at all, apart from the Roman Catholic subcat. So this is a double merge nomination, for the Churches and the Roman Catholic churches simultaneously.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:47, 21 December 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.
Roman Catholic churches by city and Churches by city (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.
The result of the discussion was:Merge/Delete.
Timrollpickering (
Talk) 09:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, the Roman Catholic churches categories contain only 1 or 2 articles, while the parent Churches categories do not contain any article at all, apart from the Roman Catholic subcat. So this is a double merge nomination, for the Churches and the Roman Catholic churches simultaneously.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:47, 21 December 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:Mammals of Southwest Asia
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.
Timrollpickering (
Talk) 09:51, 28 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: To match the text and the parent category. Note: The target is currently a redirect back to the current category name. DexDor(talk) 07:09, 21 December 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:Crimes in Europe by decade
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.
ℯxplicit 04:31, 7 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep - we have
Category:Crime, a topic category (topics about crime in general), and its subcat
Category:Crimes, a set category (articles about a particular crime). Subcats of
Category:Crimes should all be set categories and should all use the plural.
Oculi (
talk) 09:51, 21 December 2018 (UTC)reply
That would be the better solution, also because all countries have crimes subcats.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 09:28, 22 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Support Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' suggestion per above. Needs to be plural. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 19:03, 22 December 2018 (UTC)reply
do not change as nominated; Support Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars' suggestion above and fully populate
Category:Crimes by countryHmains (
talk) 01:37, 24 December 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.