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: It might just be me, but "during" sounds much better to my ear than "in". All of the article titles containing similar phrasing use "during":
1,
2,
3,
4. (Category creator not notified: inactive) --
Black Falcon(
talk) 21:53, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Support - the Holocaust was a historical event, not a location, so "during" sounds better. One would talk about saving Jews in Nazi Germany, but during the Holocaust.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 03:00, 14 September 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:Futsal teams in Castile and León
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.
Catholic schools
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 as nominated, and retain category redirects. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 02:12, 2 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Support A lot done. A lot more to be done.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 19:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Support. Makes the categories easier to use. I just hope that after they are moved, the old "Roman" category titles will be Category redirected to their current targets so tools like HotCat understand. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs) 06:29, 15 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Support per nom --
Lenticel(
talk) 00:51, 27 September 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.
Centuries in international relations
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.
ℯxplicit 05:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, these categories mostly consist of two subcategories (conflicts and treaties) and none or one or maybe two single articles. The five early medieval categories together even share just one single article, namely
Pax Khazarica, and the three high medieval categories have a handful of articles together. After this merge, the centuries categories of International relations will start in the 14th century at the same point in time as
Category:Diplomatic conferences by century.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 15:31, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Support Not very enthusiastic about the early medieval proposals but can live with it for the present.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 19:44, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment -- While many of these have no articles, they are parenting categories for diplomats, treaties and conflicts, this suggests that they are fulfilling a useful role as container categories. I am not sure that a politics target is appropriate, since that is usually about internal affairs, not international ones; I may be wrong.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:45, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
With respect to the latter comment, international relations may well be read as international politics, certainly in the case of these nominated ancient and medieval categories. So politics isn't a bad parent category or a bad merge target.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep as a useful container category, deleting would hinder navigation to those uncertain of the terms ancient and medieval.
Tim! (
talk) 16:56, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Ancient and medieval categories exist all over Wikipedia, this can't be a serious problem.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)reply
They exist, as an additional term, not as a complete replacement for concrete century categories.
Tim! (
talk) 17:17, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per the arguments by Tim! Personally, Marcocapelle's recent mergers and deletions of categories keep making it harder for me to actually locate articles.
Dimadick (
talk) 06:32, 9 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:Prince Edward Island road 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.
Nominator's rationale: As noted by one of the project workers, there really aren't enough articles to fill a category here. Since
Category:Canada road stubs currently contains only about 200 articles, there's no need for this split at this time. Propose deleting the category. Keep the template but double-merge up to
Category:Canada road stubs and
Category:Prince Edward Island stubs.
Dawynn (
talk) 13:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep - I think I'm the project worker mentioned, there aren't many editors active in
WP:PEI. Although I've mostly only worked with the PEI categories, it would be my preference for all of the Canadian road stubs to be sub-categorized by province wherever possible, even though some of the resulting categories will be underpopulated. Canada is a very large place: an editor working on Prince Edward Island topics probably doesn't have easy access to resources on Manitoba topics, for example, or even New Brunswick or Nova Scotia which are very nearby. To an editor, scrolling a flat list of every road stub in the country is grossly inefficient. The larger list is partially sorted due to standards in provincial highway naming, but many of the roads in that list are not numbered highways, and so they benefit from being sub-categorized by province in this way. Note also that PEI is Canada's smallest province and has around 400 numbered and named roads, though few of them should have articles; the other provinces which don't have these sub-categories (BC, ON, NL) likely constitute thousands of additional roads, though they either don't currently have articles or are not stub-tagged.
tl;dr: keep because sub-categorization by province is inherently useful, per
WP:SMALLCAT.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:19, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Note - if the result of this discussion is upmerging, all that is required is to edit {{
PrinceEdwardIsland-road-stub}} to adjust the categories of the tagged pages.Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 14:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Struck: this note applies to a different category. Never mind.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep for technical reasons. The template banners for
WP:CANADA and
WP:CARD make use of this category and to eliminate it would require updating a fair bit of coding. - Floydianτ¢ 18:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Double upmerge category - we generally only use stub ctegories where 50-60 stubs are present for it; here, a
scan finds that even its parent stub category, for all transpotation-related aricles of Prince Edward Island, would only have 33 sdtubs. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Od Mishehu (
talk •
contribs) 03:06, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep per Ivanvector and Floydian. Also, at the time that this comment was posted, there are 32 pages inside
Category:Prince Edward Island road stubs. That's enough for me to decide that the category & stub template are both worth it. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs) 06:40, 15 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete with no prejudice against re-creating if and when the category grows to reasonable size. @
Ivanvector:, @
Mr. Guye:, and @
Floydian:: stub categories do not follow
WP:SMALLCAT, as they are primarily used by editors, not people looking for article information. The usual size limit is 60 articles. What's more, the pages which Floydian mentions do not link to this category on their template banners, though they do link to WikiProject Stub-Class assessment categories, which makes perfect sense.
WP:PROJSTUB should explain why these are more appropriate than a Wikipedia-wide stub category.
Grutness...wha? 07:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Double upmerge per nom. Grutness makes a good point, the templates mentioned by Floydian make use of
Category:Stub-Class Prince Edward Island road transport articles, a separate assessment tracking category that's part of a larger system of tracking categories, and which I seem to have confused with the category we're talking about here. Take my comments above as applying to the assessment category. While assessment categorization by province is inherently useful regardless of the size of the category (there are many with one or fewer members) I agree that's not really the case for reader-facing categories.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Upmerge as per above. I confused this category with the project stub-class articles category. Reader-visible categories on articles should be somewhat broad rather than endlessly narrowed. - Floydianτ¢ 14:51, 17 September 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.
Schoolteachers by school
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: Per
WP:SMALLCAT, each individual school category (though only one is currently extant) would have very limited potential for growth, and given the existence of
Category:Schoolteachers by nationality is an overly granular categorisation. I have nominated the umbrella category as well.
Triptothecottage (
talk) 09:41, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comments – there are quite a few categories of teachers by school, eg in
Category:English schoolteachers (although a teacher in a school in England is not necessarily English). I don't see why an individual school category should necessarily be limited (eg
Category:The Hill School faculty).
Oculi (
talk) 11:59, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
comment The whole schoolteacher structure is heavily populated by people who are famous for something else, and in some cases for not being school teachers anymore. There are some substructures which are exceptions (e.g. the headmasters of famous schools categories) but by and large I'm doubtful that this categorization should be retained.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:45, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I think I understand what you meant, but then why are there "
Faculty by university or college" subcategories? University or college professors should not be more famous than schoolteachers for the time that they spend teaching in these institutions, but "for something else" (articles which they write, work which they do along teaching, etc.).
Paris91 (
talk) 16:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
As a rule, college faculty are known for work in the larger sphere of their work at the university; being faculty implies that thy teach but it isn't the be-all and end-all of their positions. As a rule that is not the case for teachers at primary and secondary schools.
Mangoe (
talk) 15:19, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. I fail to grasp the impotentiality for growth of "Schoolteachers by school" subcategories when I can presently find fewer pages in the "
Schoolteachers by ethnicity" subcategories.
Paris91 (
talk) 15:56, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Saint-Jean de Passy teachers subcategory/Keep Parent Category for Now The single article in Saint-Jean de Passy isn't aiding navigation and is unlikely to grow in the near future. So long as there 7 other child categories, the Category:Schoolteachers by school should remain to group them.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 23:52, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Saint-Jean de Passy teachers subcategory/Keep Parent Category for Now as a temporary solution. I think that
User:Paris91 makes a very fair observation that neither for school teachers, nor for university faculty members, the place of working is particularly defining, also because they may well move from one institute to another. But it will require a broader nomination to sort that out.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:23, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Most of the schools in question seem to have at least five articles, which is the normal minimum for a category. I would not want this to be an excuse for a faculty category for every school, but if the category can be populated (and is not trivial or contrary to other policies e.g. category clutter) we should allow it. There is a distinction with universities in that their staff commonly engage in and publish their research.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:52, 17 September 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.
Critics per opinion, not professional media critics
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.
ℯxplicit 05:40, 10 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OPINIONCAT the following critics-of categories:
Rationale: These are merely someone who has an opinion (in this case negative) about something.
Category:Critics also includes professional media critics such as
Category:Film critics—someone who has some sustained opinions and perspective about a medium or genre and has something important to say about that in a career. That's very different than just thinking that Wikipedia or Afrocentrism are a bad idea and OPNIONCAT is explicitly about how this is a bad idea. If really necessary, listify these opinion-as-critic categories. I also recommend adding some copy at
Category:Critics that the category scheme is intended for someone who has a perspective on an artistic venture rather than just "detractor of [x]". ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 04:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I've checked a number of articles in
Category:Critics of religions and agree that many articles don't belong here because criticism of religion merely concerns a non-defining opinion, or it is not exactly criticism (rather neutral scholarship), or it is not exactly against religion (rather against right wing politics). But on the other hand for example
Adriaan Koerbagh does belong here so I wonder if we shouldn't just purge these categories, based on definingness.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:11, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: Sure, by definition a political conservative is almost inevitably a critic of the EU, Marxism, and the UN. There are are plenty of persons who have strong feelings opposed to some trend but categorizing them as such? That seems like massive overhead for no real payoff. If someone is particularly notable for having a position against [x], then a list would suffice--just link it in a see also section. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 01:38, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
You may be right. While reviewing this
Category:Critics of religions again, I notice that many of the critics of religion are atheists who are in a category within the atheist tree anyway. And for the other critics in the category, who are less easy to group together (insofar criticism of religion is defining for them at all), a list may be a better solution indeed.
Note by the way that none of the subcategories of
Category:Critics of religions have been nominated. I don't think that it's appropriate to delete the parent while keeping the child categories, like
Category:Critics of Christianity etc. But if all of this (including the subcats) would become listified, the checking of those lists is going to be a massive amount of work...
Finally note that I haven't even looked into the other nominated categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 11:19, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I've just removed a few entries from
Category:Critics of religions per
WP:SUBCAT because they were in subcategories (eg Crititcs of Christianity). I suspect that I could remove a lot more of them from the parent cat, but I'll wait and see if there's any comments here first.
Mitch Ames (
talk) 02:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
keep
Category:Critics of postmodernism as the members are known for being opponents of the idea. I don't see how one can characterize someone like
Jacques Derrida as a proponent and not characterize someone like
Harold Bloom who has made a name as an opponent.
Mangoe (
talk) 18:55, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
@
Koavf:WP:DEFINING, it seems to me, has a higher priority. There's a difference between someone who at some time or another has expressed a negative option about something, and those who have made a career of such opposition. In the case of post-modernism it's distinctly unfair to give its proponents (which, from one perspective, could be considered
WP:OPINIONCATing anyway) a category but then deny its opponents the same recognition.
Mangoe (
talk) 14:32, 25 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep most -- In some cases "critics of" has been adopted in preference to another term that was considered inappropriate or abusive. The contents should however be limited to those who actively criticise. I am a Christian and am therefore a critic of Islam; if I were not, I might well have become a Muslim, but I am not active as such or known for it, so that this would be a NN characteristic, if I had a WP article to be categorised. Others have made their reputation a critics. Contrary to nom, deism is a religious view. A theist who made his name by pulling apart the arguments of deists would certainly belong in the category. We have not allowed categories on political opinions, because of difficulties of definition; and because a person who is conservative in one area may be liberal in another, but that does not apply to religious positions and less to philosophical ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Further comment - Purge -- I expect we have a category for the authors of apologetics (who defend religion). We probably need a category for those who similarly spend their time on opposing and seeking to undermine the views of opponents. There are authors who are specifically known for their attacks on Islam, Jehovah's witnesses, Mormons, etc: we need a category for such persons. However, much of the content of
Category:Critics of atheism seemed to be Believers, who had on some occasion (eg on a TV programme) been put up to argue with an atheist. That is not an appropriate basis for a categorisation.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:58, 24 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I find these categories useful, for example critics of alternative medicine. It puts all critics of alternative medicine in one place and is useful for the reader searching for those who have criticized alternative medicine. If you delete all these categories it is not helpful. It is nice to have critics together in one place. I find it very helpful.
I have a big foot (
talk) 03:45, 22 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep Apparently Koavf has not read
WP:OPINIONCAT. It says "Please note, however, the distinction between holding an opinion and being an activist, the latter of which may be a defining characteristic". Activism against something is by nature defining.
Dimadick (
talk) 06:29, 9 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:SCI Games 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:delete both the category and template. I will re-tag affected articles by genre, or using {{
videogame-stub}}. --
Black Falcon(
talk) 21:28, 7 October 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: The number of games listed for this company is pretty short. The number with separate articles, much shorter. And many of the articles have bypassed the stub stage. No permanent category, and no need for a stub category or even a template. Delete both category and template. Retag articles by video game genre, or if unclear, just tag as {{
videogame-stub}}.
Dawynn (
talk) 03:08, 12 September 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:Peerage of Ireland duke 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.
Nominator's rationale: 18 total articles in the permanent category. Not enough fuel to fill a category, no need to split to this level at this time. Delete category, merge template back to
Category:Peerage of Ireland stubs.
Dawynn (
talk) 02:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Upmerge -- The reason that we only have one article (which is not entirely a stub anyway) is probably that all other candidates have non-stub articles.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:55, 17 September 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.