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 and delete. bibliomaniac15 02:56, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: These are grammatically incorrect, and both categories are small enough that there's no real reason the articles can't just be in
Category:Whistleblowers.
Natureium (
talk) 20:32, 21 April 2020 (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:Victorian-era submarines of the United States
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. –
FayenaticLondon 06:10, 8 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose: For the first nomination: there already is a Category for
Category:Septuagint and
Category:Vulgate. Moreover, I have added the
Beuron Archabbey, which hosts the Vetus-Latina-Institut, to the Vetus Latina category.
Veverve (
talk) 19:48, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
For both nominations: they are not
WP:SMALLCAT, as there is potential for them to grow. For the first one, I have added two pages to it, so it can definetly be expanded, I simply cannot explore the whole WP, but WP is a community project so I believe others will add this category to the pages which need it. For the second one, see
here to see that there is still many manuscripts of the VL which are not on WP.
Veverve (
talk) 20:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Support No conceptual objection to these categories but there aren't article to justify them so they don't aid navigation.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 23:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose "Vetus Latina" refers to Biblical and liturgical texts in Latin originating before the Vulgate. This is specific enough to warrant a category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:00, 25 April 2020 (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:Aydın Central District
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. –
FayenaticLondon 22:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Aydın Central District, which seems to have somehow had two different categories before, has been renamed Efeler District.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 19:20, 21 April 2020 (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:Cultural depictions of dinosaurs
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. bibliomaniac15 17:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The distinction between these categories is unclear. Popular culture is the parent and seems to be the standard naming, see
Category:Topics in popular culture.
Place Clichy (
talk) 16:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment Pure speciesism. If it's good enough for you shaved apes, it's good enough for us dinos. --
T-RexxS (
rawr) 23:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)reply
It is not a matter of "good enough", rather a matter of sheer quantity. We have many more articles about humans than about dinosaurs (or any other type of animals) which allows us to build a more detailed category tree for humans.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per the president set forth in previous discussion, as mentioned above.
Inter&anthro (
talk) 23:52, 21 April 2020 (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:Films with screenplays by Dinesh D'Souza
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. bibliomaniac15 17:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:OVERCAT. There are three subcategories of
Category:Works by Dinesh D'Souza, and there are four articles, all of which are in two or more of those categories. They are virtually unviewed as the four articles (plus the article on D'Souza) all cross-link anyway. If these categories are useful at all, there should only be one of them. Guy (
help!) 14:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose These would remove them from the category trees on Films by scriptwriter and films by director.
Dimadick (
talk) 15:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep all - nothing unusual here.
Oculi (
talk) 17:24, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep all Established category schemes, per
WP:CAT. They are useful as categories so that someone can find them by browsing the category structure. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 18:16, 21 April 2020 (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. bibliomaniac15 04:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: To match the category name with that of the main page.
Love of Corey (
talk) 06:50, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Support. I think it was that old name when I created it maybe over four years ago. I think this would fall under speedy C2D criteria anyways. --
Ricky81682 (
talk) 08:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete as an
eponymous category for an event without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. There are just four articles here besides the eponym itself: the street it occurred on, the perpetrator and two journalists. But the street isn't
defined by one event that took place on it, as note the fact that it already had a Wikipedia article a full decade before this event had even happened at all — and it's
performer by performance for the journalists, because a journalist is not defined by the stories he or she happened to cover. So the only entries that genuinely belong here are the event itself and the perpetrator, which is not enough articles to warrant a dedicated category — and both the street and the perpetrator are already mentioned and linked in the event article as it is, so deleting this category would not erase any navigational value.
Bearcat (
talk) 12:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per convincing argument made by Bearcat.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:38, 27 April 2020 (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:Anniversary compilation 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:delete. bibliomaniac15 04:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete Not every anniversary albums have the word "anniversary" on them
SpinnerLaserz (
talk) 17:46, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Compilation albums are not defined by the question of whether they exist because of something's anniversary or for some other reason.
Bearcat (
talk) 12:54, 27 April 2020 (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:Alsatian
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. bibliomaniac15 03:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Two-item
WP:SMALLCAT for a linguistic dialect, at an ambiguous name. "Alsatian" can mean many different things, including the language, the people of Alsace, the culture of Alsace or a breed of dogs, so it isn't an appropriate name for a category in and of itself. If a category were warranted here, it would have to be either
Category:Alsatian language or
Category:Alsatian dialect, without a categoryredirect from this -- but with just two articles here, I'm not seeing the need for it. That said, I can be convinced to withdraw this if people more knowledgeable about this topic than I am can find other articles to populate a renamed category with -- but even if that can happen, the category has to be renamed for clarity.
Bearcat (
talk) 03:36, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. Ambiguity asking for trouble.
Rathfelder (
talk) 18:38, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
upmerge -- We have two items of which one is half about German. The content is about the
Category:Alsatian dialect, but there is not enough content.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:12, 25 April 2020 (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:Illustrators who write novels
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. bibliomaniac15 03:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for a non-defining intersection of two only tangentially related occupations. It is entirely possible for a person to be both an illustrator and a writer, either performing both roles on their own books or performing one role on some books and the other role on others, but art and writing are not intrinsically related skills. It also brings up the question of whether the person is primarily an illustrator and then wrote novels on the side, or primarily a novelist and then did some illustration on the side, and in fact the four entries here split right down the middle on that: two, including
Len Deighton, are far more notable for their writing than their illustration per se, while the other two appear to be more notable as illustrators than as writers. This simply isn't a defining intersection in its own right — and even if there were a case for categorizing people for the artist-writer combo in principle, it would still be far from clear that we would need separate categories for illustrators who also wrote novels, illustrators who also wrote poetry, illustrators who also wrote non-fiction and illustrators who also wrote short stories.
Bearcat (
talk) 02:15, 21 April 2020 (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:Historic electorates of New Zealand
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. bibliomaniac15 04:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The correct usage here is "historical" (of or concerning history or past events) not "historic" (famous in history).
Paora (
talk) 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Support too right; should be changed. Schwede66 02:28, 21 April 2020 (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:Historic Māori electorates
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. bibliomaniac15 04:11, 1 May 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The correct usage here is "historical" (of or concerning history or past events) not "historic" (famous in history).
Paora (
talk) 02:14, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Support too right; should be changed. Schwede66 02:28, 21 April 2020 (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:Named alloys
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.
This category groups alloy together by whether they have a common name versus a chemical name.
Birmabright,
Hydronalium,
5086 aluminium alloy and
5154 aluminium alloy are all under
Category:Aluminium–magnesium alloys, all used in shipbuilding but only the first two are in this category. How people name compounds does not seem defining to these chemical articles. No merge is needed because the articles are all under other alloy subcats and the contents of this category are listified
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Background We recently deleted a similar category on named phosphines
here. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep -- I cannot see what is wrong with this. I do not think the phosphine discussion is a useful precedent, as the content there was a groups of related chemicals. Alloys are by their nature mixed materials.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Peterkingiron: why is the fact that alloys are mixed materials a reason not to delete this category, while the category is based on the names of alloys?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:14, 30 April 2020 (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.