From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 28 October 30 >

October 29

Category:Tennis players by religion

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:41, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization on the basis of a non-notable intersection of religion and occupation. A tennis player's religion has nothing to do with the sport, and we subdivide occupations by nationality, not religion. I am not nominating Category:Jewish tennis players because it categorizes by ethnicity, not religion, and is part of the larger Category:Jewish sportspeople. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:04, 29 October 2017 (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:Administrative territorial entities

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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 10#Category:Administrative_territorial_entities. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 10:50, 10 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category holds countries, states, counties, cities etc. It was created by user:Androoox, a sockpuppet of blocked editor user:Tobias Conradi, as "humangeographic territorial entities". It was later manually renamed to "Administrative territorial entities" by user:Eldizzino, another sock of the same editor. That editor has recently been using various IP socks, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Tobias_Conradi. Some of his recent work has been using the CFD Speedy page to rename various branches of the hierarchy to use the same category naming pattern. The fullest justification was "not about some physical entities (e.g. woodlands) but about Category:Administrative territorial entities". [1] This seems fair enough, but one counter-argument is that the name is rather long and may be longer than necessary. It is high time that the naming of this hierarchy was submitted to a full CFD discussion. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Other parts of the hierarchy were originally created by other editors, e.g. "Territories by language", but this was progressively renamed by socks of Tobias Conradi: [3] (speedy nomination, which was opposed); [4] (out of process); [5] (out of process again). – Fayenatic London 17:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Just summing up, we have three alternatives here and they all three have a disadvantage, but none of the disadvantages is particularly huge:
  1. keep current name, with a made-up term, with a long name, but it is an accurate descriptor of the content
  2. Category:Countries and subdivisions, it does not cover every type of territory that is in the category, but it is aligns best with current terminology in the category tree
  3. Category:Territories, with an ambiguous term (in some countries?), it is short and accurate (if you take the broader meaning of territory in mind)
Frankly, as they all three have their pros and cons, I wouldn't oppose any of the three. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:50, 4 November 2017 (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.

Years in Kievan Rus'

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. – Fayenatic London 15:31, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete, these are military events in the polity of Kievan Rus' so if these categories should be kept then at least they should be renamed to a year in Kievan Rus' category. However, all categories only contain one or two articles so per WP:SMALLCAT they should be upmerged to a year category of Europe and a century category of Kievan Rus'. And it happens to be the case that all articles are already there, which means that the nominated categories can simply be deleted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:27, 29 October 2017 (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.

English-language television programs by country

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Most English-language television programs will be linked to English-speaking countries, and the same principle applies to most other languages, so this is an unnecessary intersection of language and country. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:45, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Merge When the vast majority of programming in a country is in a given language, categorizing by that is just overcategorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:51, 2 November 2017 (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:Videos of dancing children

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:52, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Categories should group articles by "defining characteristics of a subject of the article". Dancing baby is a viral video and Lenz v. Universal Music Corp. is a lawsuit; the fact that one is and the other relates to a video that features a dancing child is not a central facet of either topic. This sort of literal description is more in line with how media is categorized on Wikimedia Commons than how articles are categorized here. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:17, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • delete per nom. Two unlike things does not a category make. Mangoe ( talk) 10:20, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. This is not even particularly accurate to everything in the category. bd2412 T 13:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. The title definitely suggests a Commons category, and the content just doesn't match. postdlf ( talk) 16:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark ( talk) 04:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete only one article would actually belong, we do not need one article categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 02:52, 2 November 2017 (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:Paulo Coelho

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:00, 12 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category: three articles and one subcat. ― Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 23:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 03:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Four (now) articles and subcat seems like plenty to me. I've even been skeptical of various three-articles nominations I'm seeing lately. I skeptical we should go the deletion route with those unless there is no possibility for future expansion. Four+ is plenty, especially given that Coelho is still living and may produce more output.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:42, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - populated well enough for a category about a living person. Inter&anthro ( talk) 02:45, 6 November 2017 (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:Insufficient Catipedians

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:57, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is populated by two substituted instances of a userbox which states, This page does not contain enough cat pictures. As such, it is an all-inclusive user category... or you know, one of the other types of inappropriate user categories that do not facilitate collaborate. Editors can, of course, continue to display the userbox, but the associated category code should be removed and this category deleted since enjoyment of cat pictures is not a useful basis for grouping users. I suspect the category code was just left in inadvertently when the userbox were subst'ed. Plus, if sheep don't get a category, it would be unfair to have one for cats. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:06, 29 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. 09:57, 29 October 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lugnuts ( talk • contribs)
  • Delete per nom. VegaDark ( talk) 04:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a pointless joke category that is redundant with one or another keepable one about an interest in cats. However, part of the nom's rationale is bogus. It is not even faintly tenable that this is an all-inclusive category (i.e., in that most pages, including user pages, don't have cat pictures); the obvious and only meaning of this is that whoever puts this on their user page is really into cats. So I'm adding it to my userpage while it lasts, in protest of disingenuous deletion rationales.  —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ<  18:46, 5 November 2017 (UTC) reply
    It appears my joke, that all user pages do not and could never contain enough cat pictures, fell flat. Oh, well... :) I'd say about 2/3 of my nom was non-frivolous, specifically the reference to Wikipedia:User categories#jokes/nonsense and the part on userboxes versus categories. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ( talk) 21:43, 5 November 2017 (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:Wikipedians too apathetic to bother making categories

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:00, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is a joke/nonsense category that does not contribute to collaboration in any manner. The lone user in the category has been indefinitely blocked since 2012. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:04, 29 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians with personal announcements

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:07, 6 November 2017 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Most user pages contain some type of personal announcement or statement, so this category is broadly or vaguely defined and not a helpful basis for grouping users. It is currently populated by a single transclusion of User:Zzarch/Personal announcement, and the lone user in the category has been inactive since 2012. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 00:03, 29 October 2017 (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/2017_October_29&oldid=1138411511"