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 per option B (Category:Fooian baseball players by populated place).
(non-admin closure)HouseBlaster (
talk · he/they) 01:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Armbrust, clarify what precisely? The split should be at the end and the recent Cfd is that "by city and town" in categories, as @
Smasongarrison will note, is now "by populated place". Also,
WP:C2C because the subcategories are all titled "Baseball players from...". For example, "
Category:Baseball players from New York City". Its the standard form.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
So I think part of the confusion is that there are multiple elements at play for each of the noms. Omnis it might help if you went through the noms to provide an example for each type. For just looking, I can see city or town -> populated place; moving the stems to the end, and changing people in city in COUNTRY to FOOian people. Aalthough I do agree that c2c does apply, it's a lot to unpack.
Mason (
talk) 20:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Smasongarrison, well there are two basic changes. One is moving the split to the end. The other is bringing them all to one form which is "Baseball players from Foo". I will list one from each category:
@
Armbrust, would appreciate a reply so this can either go through or go to full Cfd.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 19:26, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
The overwhelming majority of subcategories in
Category:Sportspeople by country and populated place uses the “SPORTSPLAYER by city or town in COUNTRY” format (if it’s not about a specific location) and not the one proposed above. I’m not opposed to replacing “city or town” with “populated place”, but IMO rearranging the title of the categories shouldn’t be done speedily.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 22:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Armbrust, in which case they all should change. I will wait for the opinion of @
Smasongarrison though before I go through with it since split should be at the end.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 22:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle, should I take this to full Cfd or does the previous Cfd on "by populated place" apply here?
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 23:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
It's in line with others changes to actors etc. But a full cfd would allow us to do them all at once. 🤷
Mason (
talk) 23:18, 24 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Omnis Scientia: the outcome of a previous CfD isn't necessarily a speedy criterion. It only counts if a clear majority of categories were tackled in that CfD. Besides, considering the amount of discussion we already had here, I would take this to full CfD anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
And I realize the form should actually be "Fooian sportspeople by populated place" so I can adjust accordingly there too.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 09:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Omnis Scientia: this is now in the "moved to full discussion" section but a full discussion hasn't been started yet.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle, no idea who did moved it to "full disciussion" - I had moved it to "pending other discussions" while the parent categories were changed from "City or town" to "populated place". Then I was going to bring this to full.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 09:54, 30 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: So we have two options here: A: rename to "Category:Baseball players from Foo by populated place"; or B: "Category:Fooian baseball players by populated place". Either way, the split should be at the end and should be "populated place" per recent Cfds.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 23:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I support renaming to either option. I have a slight preference for B for no particular reason. As long as we're consistent, I'm content.
Mason (
talk) 23:58, 4 June 2024 (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:Alder carrs
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: I don't really know what to do with this category. I think it's for a very specific kind of wetland that only applies to a specific kind of tree. This category feels like a non-defining intersection between kind of tree and kind of landform, but I'm not an expert.
Mason (
talk) 00:58, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep: This category appears regularly as a feature on early Ordnance Survey maps.
Leutha (
talk) 08:18, 17 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 21:03, 25 May 2024 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, HouseBlaster (
talk · he/him) 21:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
@
Leutha Can you explain the importance/definingness of the category because I'd really like to understand the logic. Happy to support keeping it in that case.
Mason (
talk) 00:20, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
I have added material to the page
Alder carr which clarifies their importance and defining characteristics. Many appear also to be found in SSSI's and I suspect their appearance on older OS maps drives from their use as harvested coppice's but I would not want to venture into original research on a wikipedia page!
Leutha (
talk) 13:40, 8 June 2024 (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:Articles with deprecated tags
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: No longer being populated by a template or found in code.
Gonnym (
talk) 21:29, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. @
Gonnym, I think you should combine all these "deprecated tags" categories under one banner. They are a bit spread over the page and it would also make deciding easier.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 23:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Update: I've taken the liberty of combining all these Cfds into one just to make it easier to a) vote on and b) close.
Omnis Scientia (
talk) 09:49, 9 June 2024 (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:Post-independence history of Bengal
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.
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, redundant category layer with only one subcategory.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:56, 4 June 2024 (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: I propose to upmerge, now there is only one article and I see no potensial for the growth.
Aldij (
talk) 14:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Support per c2f. And the merge target works for me because the sole page is already in some
State of Palestine categories.
Mason (
talk) 00:00, 5 June 2024 (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: Contains only two non-free files and not even the main article
Firelei Báez. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 04:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete in the spirit of
WP:C2F. Fwiw I have added the main article to the category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep as creator, main article + files seems useful enough for a cat. I don't feel too strongly about it but would like to see that for other people who have both articles and media here. –
SJ + 01:06, 5 June 2024 (UTC)reply
That is not useful for as long as there aren't a sufficient amount of other articles about the topic that readers can navigate too. See also
WP:OCEPON.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:23, 5 June 2024 (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:Indian music series
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 Marcocapelle --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:40, 8 June 2024 (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 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: Uncategorized, single-article category for a defunct football club without a topic category. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 04:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Keep, just needs some research for other footballers to be added to it - I simply have not got around to it yet (and where are the Lancastrian football experts who could be doing so???)
In Vitrio (
talk) 09:40, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, without objection to recreate the category when some more articles are available.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)reply
Delete as per LaundryPizza03 and Marcocapelle.
Gjs238 (
talk) 15:18, 4 June 2024 (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.