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 18:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I don't have a strong view on this but I thought I'd throw this newly-created category open for discussion. Is this
WP:DEFINING enough to justify being a category? We've had
Category:Satellite campuses since 2012. And is there a more
WP:ENGVAR-neutral name for it?
Le Deluge (
talk) 22:21, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, this is based on a trivial distinction.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:07, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That does not sound right. A downtown campus may also be the main campus rather than a satellite campus.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 19:11, 30 January 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:Pedagogues
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 18:48, 2 February 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:Finnish teachers
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.
Support -- Both articles in the subject fit well into the target. However there will also be those who teach Finnish as a foreign language, which would be a different category.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:46, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I doubt if we have any articles about people who teach Finnish as a foreign language, but categories like
Category:English teachers are problematically ambiguous and I'd like to think of a way of reducing the ambiguity.
Rathfelder (
talk) 21:00, 30 January 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:Dúnedain of the North
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.
Support per nom. (PS: It'd be much too much of an in-joke to say "merge to Cat:Edáinburgh" - I live in Dunedin, the "Edinburgh of the South")
Grutness...wha? 02:58, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Too small, with no potential for growth.
Hog Farm (
talk) 21:14, 28 January 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:Bagmati Zone 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:rename. –
FayenaticLondon 12:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Zones have been superseded by provinces; the entire area of the Bagmati Zone is now part of Bagmati Pradesh. Her Pegship (
I'm listening) 19:52, 25 January 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:Modern Turkic 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:rename.
MER-C 20:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Support we are not taking positions on what makes a state "Turkic". If having the majority of the people more fluent in a Turkic language than a non-Turkic one, then Kazakhstan is probably out. If you include states with large minorities in order to get Kazakhstan back in, we then would have to also add Russia, Iran, China, Mongolia, Ukraine, Greece, Bulgaria etc which would obviously be a recipe for edit warring. Thus the only objective criterion is the political one.--
Calthinus (
talk) 03:20, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Not sure -- There is a subcat
Category:Autonomous Turkic states which covers a number of polities in Russia. I would suggest that the category's scope should be states (not countries) where a Turkic Language is a major one.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:39, 28 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Support. The proposed name is more defining than the current one.
Place Clichy (
talk) 21:55, 2 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Support, but I would move Turkmenistan into the parent rather than removing it from the hierarchy. –
FayenaticLondon 08:26, 25 February 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:Immigration detention centres and prisons in Australia
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 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:Native Hawaiian people of Portuguese descent
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 The one person in the category is 50% native. I found one in the target which was 25% native.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:15, 28 January 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:Wikipedia help overviews
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: The category is an arbitrary grouping of various help, policy, and guidelines pages and categories of those. There are quite a number of different ways in which such pages are already grouped and presented to users including, but not limited to,
Help:Contents (the main help page, available from the side bar),
Template:Basic information (navbox, placed on some of the top-level Help and Project namespace pages), and
Category:Wikipedia directories. —
andrybak (
talk) 21:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Add oddly named
Category:Wikipedia community sites for inclusion with same rationale and support deletion. Not sure the meaning of "community sites" in this context.--Moxy🍁 05:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)reply
That sounds reasonable. You might check a sample and if you are right we can simply delete instead of merge.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. the category's scope and role is based on a basic concept of which help articles are most helpful, as overviews or pathways to broad topical areas within the general category of help articles at WIkipedia. --
Sm8900 (
talk) 01:56, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
This does not address the problem of subjectivity of what an "overview" is.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:00, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
all help sub-categories are somewhat subjective, in deciding which articles are “article elements help,” text help, etc etc. the concept of “overview” is clear enough; all one needs is the dictionary definition for that word. This category is simply meant to help others. Let’s keep it. The scope and shape of the category can always be modified or tweaked, based on whichever articles we editors as a community decide to include there. Thanks.—
Sm8900 (
talk) 14:29, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I am not convinced that the dictionary will help editors to decide whether a page belongs in this category or not.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:58, 20 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete/merge. The arguments that this category is subjective and unnecessary are stronger. The category creator's view that the concept of “overview” is clear enough [to categorize by] is wrong. DexDor(talk) 07:45, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Disagree. There are many categories at Wikipedia which incorporate some type of concept in their name. the usage and scope of a category develops based on how the the category itself is utilized in practical terms, i.e. by the dozens of editors who edit and watch the articles contained in this category. In this case, this category is of practical value, as it compiles various central help articles which can help new editors to find more advanced guidelines and help articles. --
Sm8900 (
talk)
Central is just as subjective as overview.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:32, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete rather than merge. This new category seems only to have been added to pages, rather than replacing previous categories on the page, so there should be no need to merge. –
FayenaticLondon 08:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)reply
I would like to point out, our category system happens to include these categories, as well:
. so it seems to me like our category system already encompasses a variety of differing approaches, to similar or overlapping topics. --
Sm8900 (
talk) 02:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not enough of a category expert to say whether this is a category we should keep or delete, but I fully support reducing the redundancy of the overview help categories and pages. Contributors to this discussion may also be interested in the proposals to redirect
WP:Introduction and
the welcoming committee intro page.
Sdkb (
talk) 22:18, 11 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete rather than merge. This seems to be a category whose contents are intuitive only to its creator.
Oculi (
talk) 11:41, 18 March 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:Fishing television channels
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:37, 25 January 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:User-created 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.
Nominator's rationale: All templates are technically "User-created". The description makes it seem that it is some
non-defining subcategory of
Category: User namespace templates: Category for User-created templates. Any templates in this category were placed here because they were already part of Category: User namespace templates. —
andrybak (
talk) 08:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. It is difficult to imagine what this is supposed to mean. If it really means "user-created templates" then it is pointless, as all templates are User-created. (And there's nothing "technical" about that: they just are user-created.) If it doesn't mean that then what does it mean? The creator of
Category:User-created templates has put a notice on the category page saying "Any templates in this category were placed here because they were already part of Category: User namespace templates". Does that mean that it is actually intended to be a duplicate of
Category:User namespace templates? If not, in what way is it intended to differ, and what additional purpose is it intended to serve? Unless good answers to those two questions can be provided, this seems to be a pointless fork of an existing category, with no useful purpose.
JBW (
talk) Formerly JamesBWatson 11:46, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Neutral. I am changing my vote on this, to Neutral. --
Sm8900 (
talk) 20:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC) hi there, folks. okay, lots to cover here. basically I created this category for templates that are sub-pages for individual editor's user pages; so for example, the category's is meant for items with names like "
User:FisherQueen/Fq-undelete". so that's the reason for the category and its scope. however, the point above about the category name is very perceptive. I actually hadn't thought of that. I appreciate your point on that,
andrybak. thanks! :okay, so please feel free to let me know what might be a good name for this. I'm trying to think about options. I realize
Category:User page templates would not work; that category already exists, and it is for templates that are used on user pages. hm, what else? --
Sm8900 (
talk) 17:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Maybe:category: templates established as user subpages? that's just a draft idea; I'm not sure what nomenclature would actually be formally viable here.
Marcocapelle, I appreciate your very-helpful note above. exactly my thinking as well. so, everyone, please feel free to let me know any ideas or options for renaming this. I'm open to any ideas. thanks!! --
Sm8900 (
talk) 17:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)reply
hi
Andrybak. ok, well yes , I was planning to include those as well. I'm open to any input, comments, technical details, etc, that you wish to share. I appreciate your input. thanks!! --
Sm8900 (
talk) 02:42, 19 January 2020 (UTC)reply
IMHO this category would lose its usefulness if it mixed up (hundreds of) userboxes with the (relatively few) message templates. How about removing userboxes, and renaming to
Category:Personal message templates? –
FayenaticLondon 22:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Agree with comment above.'@
Fayenatic london: that sounds totally fine. thanks. --
Sm8900 (
talk) 03:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
OK, but looking at more of the content, not many are message templates after all. We can still do the rename, but should then remove the user boxes, and move the sundry others up to
Category:User namespace templates. –
FayenaticLondon 09:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
MER-C 09:37, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete all templates are user-created. On the odd chance a bot created a template, it's not important. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b} 06:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The creator has failed to provide any reasonable explanation of how this categorization would benefit wp. DexDor(talk) 07:50, 16 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete. The category was added to the contents without removing existing categories, so no merge is required. I have created
Category:Personal message templates as suggested above. –
FayenaticLondon 22:15, 28 February 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:Immigration incidents
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 18:48, 2 February 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Completely undefined. Better dispersed to the categories of the countries involved (all the articles are already in appropriate categories). If it included all "Immigration incidents" it would have thousands of articles.
Rathfelder (
talk) 08:45, 25 January 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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, a total of 8 articles in 4 categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:05, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Support Such micro-categorisation only leads to sectarian conflicts and one-upmanship.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 10:35, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose. Yes, these fails
WP:SMALLCAT, but that's a guideline, and all guidelines are subject to some exceptions. In this case, replacing one category with four seems unhelpful to both maintenance and navigation, so I prefer to treat this as a useful exception which aids both maintenance and navigation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Except for one article, even after this merge these articles will not be in an awful lot of categories. Besides some of the articles are in some parent's categories already.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 03:29, 28 January 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.
Religion and sexuality
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/renameTimrollpickering (
Talk) 17:28, 14 March 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: merge/rename, there is so little content specifically on religion and transgender topics (see
Category:Transgender topics and religion) or specifically on religion and bisexuality, that in the above cases it does not make much sense to have an LGBT and a homosexuality category on top of each other.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Support The multitudinous slicing of LGBT categories is tiresome to behold and tedious to maintain. I doubt that the nom would agree with these sentiments; nevertheless the proposal is to be welcomed.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 10:39, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose. LGBT is a modern term not fitting to any articles descripting centuries-old events that may be categorized hereunder.--
Darwinek (
talk) 17:45, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Homosexuality is also a modern term, at least it is in the context of centuries-old.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:49, 25 January 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:Categories by psychoactive drug
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: the current title suggests that this is a hypercategory by parameter (comparable to e.g.
Category:Categories by country), but that is actually not the case for this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:33, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Support – good catch,
Marcocapelle. The sub-cats are for individual drugs compared to e.g. the siblings by chemical class or psychological effect. –
FayenaticLondon 17:19, 24 February 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:Suraiya
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: Article apparently created in category space in error; requesting conversion to article, with no opinion on notability of subject.
PohranicniStraze (
talk) 06:50, 25 January 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:Middle-earth deities
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: Okay, so this will seem a bit granular to those not familiar with Tolkien's works, but the articles and subcats in this category are not deities in the sense that they never receive worship. The figures in this category are more what would be referred to as angels and demons in Abrahamic religions, so I feel like it would be better to use Tolkien's term of "Ainur."
Hog Farm (
talk) 01:59, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose - Please no. Just delete. The category members are already in {[:Category:Middle-earth characters]]. I suppose I wouldn't strongly oppose merging to
Category:Fictional deities and spirits, as that seems a bit more neutral, but, still not great. (And no, they are not "races".) - jc37 21:08, 25 January 2020 (UTC)reply
I could weakly support that, as it at least removes much of the connotative adjective issue with the nom's proposed target. These waters just start to get a bit troublesome grouping them all as Ainur. Some of the spirits (such as
Balrogs), were merely noted by the elves as "presumed" to be former maia. Tolkien was indeterminate on such things intentionally, often showing that there were many different powers in the world, and not all easily quantified.
Ungoliant for another example. I still think the best answer is to Rename to
Category:Middle-earth deities and spirits. - jc37 19:35, 26 January 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Middle-earth deities and spirits. This is a good solution. Ainur is obscure and the relationship between various kinds of being with extraordinary powers is not always clear. Deity suggests worship, but many of them were not worshipped.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:27, 28 January 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.