From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 17 April 19 >

April 18

Category:Kemetic 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Religion and belief navigational boxes. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:47, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only holds one template. (Note: target category has been proposed for speedy renaming to Category:Religion and belief navigational boxes.) – Fayenatic L ondon 21:07, 18 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.

20th century BC

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 as specified. MER-C 12:12, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: merge the first eight categories per WP:SMALLCAT, each of the eight categories contains one article. After merging, all other categories become empty. 20:56, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Support all, per nom's arguments. Sionk ( talk) 06:40, 19 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:Turpan Prefecture

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:38, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Turpan is now a prefecture-level city. Under our naming convention ( WP:NC-ZH), ASDFGH ( talk · contribs) has already merged the prefecture article into the "city article" (as is proper). The categories, I believe, should be merged to be in line with the article merger (with the surviving category inheriting the position in the category tree that Category:Turpan Prefecture currently occupies, however, rather than the position of Category:Turpan currently occupies). However, there may also be some value in maintaining separate categories. If that were to be the case, I think Category:Turpan Prefecture should be moved to Category:Turpan and Category:Turpan should be moved to Category:Karahoja District. -- Nlu ( talk) 16:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support - the prefecture and the city have been merged into a single entity. The categories should too. - Zanhe ( talk) 05:11, 16 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:17, 17 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:Visionary writers

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: speedy delete by User:Davewild ( talk) per WP:G7. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm sorry, but the whole concept of "visionary writers" seems hopelessly vague. The definition given on the category page seems to be original research - do reliable sources actually show that "visionary writers" is an accepted concept and that this is how it is defined? FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 08:52, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep: keep per Visionary, but weak as I see the vagueness too. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:11, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: I am also concerned at the vagueness of the category and, further, finding sources that would place these authors under that moniker, lest it be original research. More than that, too, I don't think it's helpful to add a category to an article unless the article itself discusses the reason it is in such a category. -- Midnightdreary ( talk) 12:25, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: keep per Visionary with the exception that more research is conducted to eliminate vagueness. Aside from the lack of sources, I'm not sure what anyone finds to be so vague about this category (hopelessly vague is pretty strong, and I take that as an insult). Perhaps the user who nominated this deletion has ulterior motives. I've seen several references mentioning the visionary qualities of all the writers I've included in the category. Of Kafka, Blake, and Mailer, I'm most certain and find it incredulous that you would even suggest otherwise. [upadate: added one resource for further reading. I will continue to locate additional sources and update the category as necessary. This a personal area of interest for me. Please do not delete this as I'm just recently learning all of these academic rules. Thanks]-- Soulgazer ( talk) 03:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I am not sure what "keep per Visionary" means, as Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. The Visionary article is poor, and does not even use the expression "visionary writer." Speculation about my motives is pointless and distracting. FreeKnowledgeCreator ( talk) 09:24, 19 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.

4th millennium BC

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 per revised nomination. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply

See Category:4th millennium BC

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, one article in each of the above categories. No need to upmerge the century articles, as the century articles are already in Category:4th millennium BC. And I think the one article in Category:34th-century BC people is already well categorized too. Finally, Category:31st century BC in fiction becomes empty after the proposed mergers. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:30, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Ok, I'll withdraw this one, I've adapted the nomination accordingly in order to reach consensus. Marcocapelle ( talk) 04:39, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge all (except fiction) to Category:4th millennium BC and fiction as nom. The deaths is up for speedy deletion. This is a period so remote that we have no precise dates for events, and only an article on each century. There is thus no history, only archaeology which is generally only able to look at gemneral periods. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:38, 18 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:Articles using Template:Infobox spacecraft

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, as "what links here" does all that is needed. – Fayenatic L ondon 14:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: According to the category text "This is a temporary category to track the replacement of ... with .... It will be deleted once the replacement process is complete." That has been the case since 2013. DexDor (talk) 06:51, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete as uncontroversial housekeeping. Pichpich ( talk) 18:10, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I was unaware that these categories had been left in a state of limbo by their creator, who is now retired. I would appreciate time to clear them out, perhaps revisit this in a few months (my available time is fairly limited). — Huntster ( t @ c) 18:44, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Try Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox_spacecraft. DexDor (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Delete - we don't need these tracking categories, as Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox spacecraft and Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Infobox space telescope would appear to deal with the requiements here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:06, 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_18&oldid=1074814201"