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: This category is for “redirects from individual Unicode compatibility characters”, which would make it a redundant subset of Category:Redirects from Unicode characters. There is only one article (Unicode compatibility characters) in the category, and it is not a redirect from a Unicode compatibility character. Gorobay (talk) 21:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, only one article for now: "Unicode compatibility characters". Nominator, read it, please. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have read it; I have even edited it. I am quite familiar with Unicode. What specifically should I be noticing? Gorobay (talk) 23:21, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Category:Redirects from Unicode characters contains thousands of redirects, and not only in the main space, but in other namespaces too. How one could misunderstand the purpose of Wikipedia: categorization to speak about "redundant subset" (of possibly, a hundred of items) of a heavily overpopulated category? Yes, the category is not actually used yet, but why to demolish it? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Do you propose diffusing Category:Redirects from Unicode characters? If your concern is its overpopulation, I think a better (easier to implement and maintain) solution is to split it into subcategories by e.g. block or row. The concept of compatibility is ill-defined and as such should not be the criterion for a category. Gorobay (talk) 11:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is better-defined, but what is the purpose? Does that purpose apply to canonically decomposable characters? Or characters introduced in version 2.1? There are many ways to divide Unicode; why is compatibility decomposition of more value than they? Gorobay (talk) 13:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose is to make a category for compatibility decomposable characters. Sorry this reply is so late. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:04, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody knows that. That explanation is useless. Please see my response at the bottom of this section. Gorobay (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
populate If I understand the argument the category should be for characters like U+2126ΩOHM SIGN which is only included in unicode for compatibility reasons (U+03A9ΩGREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA should be used instead). This is a regular category not a hidden admin character like Category:Redirects from Unicode characters.--Salix (talk): 15:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that the aim of the category would be "to divide" the Unicode. I do not propose to eject pages from Category:Redirects from Unicode characters. I do not claim that "compatibility decomposable characters" is the best collection of Unicode characters which one can invent. I repeat what I actually said:
The category is currently unused, but potentially useful;
Gorobay's arguments (except his only valid "ill-defined" argument) was invalid. From the beginning and up to this point.
If one insists, I can start to fill it. Or the name "Unicode compatibility decomposable characters" is actually better than the current one? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 15:31, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is that the category is potentially useful. What is this category potentially useful for? A category populated solely with redirects is not useful to readers. That is my argument.
Why did you link to Divide and rule? It is not what ‘divide’ meant in context. But this is off-topic, so whatever.
A category name should reflect its contents precisely, so the category if it remains should be renamed. Gorobay (talk) 16:52, 18 September 2012 (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 result of the discussion was:deleted. Note that in addition to this discussion, "LGBT comedians by nationality" subcategories have been deleted previously (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 15) and no compelling argument was presented here to overturn the existing consensus. Bearcat (talk) 04:26, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lgbt comedians from seens just as relevant as the lgbt writers writers from. MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 15:57, 10 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was:delete. If more songs' articles are created, then this can be recreated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Author is a redirect —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:16, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - my vote would be listfy, but there's not much point to a list of one song. --Qetuth (talk) 09:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Comment - I have now created an article for Peter Stuart, which was long overdue, and should satisfy the original rationale for deletion. A bio article for Stuart should have been created years ago. Scanlan (talk) 03:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because there is no point in having a one-entry songs by x person category. Whether or not Mr. Stuart is notable should be discussed in the context of his articles notability. If people think that article should be deleted they should nominate it for deletion, not discuss the matter here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree. Also note that this should have been speedy closed as an invalid nomination rationale; we don't delete or merge categories just because they lack a main article. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
CfD is different than AfD because you do not loose content when you delete a category, so there is less reason to make sure logically reasoning is given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was:listify.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not an arbitrary measure and a defining charactertisc of the articles in the categories. LugnutsAnd the horse 16:50, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it a defining characteristic? One look over the films in the category tells me it's not defining, it's just something they happen to all have in common. I own at least a dozen films whose stories all take place within 1 day, but they have nothing else in common with each other at all. So how is it a defining characteristic? --IllaZilla (talk) 16:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It defines the film, just as year of release, language and genre do. LugnutsAnd the horse 06:42, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? No it doesn't. What about "films set within one week", "films set within one year", "films starring male leads", "films set during the day". Are these defining characteristics? Of course not. Many of the films in the category just happen to have their stories take place in one day, like The Goonies, it's not a defining characteristic of the film. You seem to be treating mere coincidence as correlation, when really this characteristic has little significance. --IllaZilla (talk) 07:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What a cogent argument. How does it define the film, exactly? For most of the films in the category it seems a trivial, non-defining characteristic. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a trivial device--although potentially meaningful within one given piece of media, it's not necessarily and this is hardly a genre of film or literature. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to list - This is one of those situations that WP:CLN does not cover, when only 1 thing is appropriate, and the others are not.
In this case, we could/should have a list of items that are notable for this feature, that strictly does not include items which merely happen to have this feature.
With the perfect example of Ulysses which usually has "set in one day" as part of its capsule-synopsis; enough so that it has an internationally known/referenced/partaken-in celebration, Bloomsday.
(Assuming, of course, that any of the others are notable for this feature. I'm only familiar with Ulysses ;) —Quiddity (talk) 23:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I had a similar sentiment when thinking of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. There is a distinction between works that are notable for this feature—like Ulysses, Denisovich, or the 24 series—and those which just happen to have it, like The Goonies, The Breakfast Club, or nearly every slasher film ever made. As a literary or storytelling device, it may be a topic better suited for an article with a select few of the most notable examples highlighted. But as a category it's much too indiscriminate and trivial of a characteristic. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe those 3, and any others, added into a single sentence in Nychthemeron or Day? See if we can save the baby from the bathwater. :) —Quiddity (talk) 00:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to list There are plenty of Category:Films by topic and Category:Films by setting. But this is neither a topic or setting more a type of plot device which we don't tend to categorize by. A list would allow the significance of each film to be examined. --Salix (talk): 06:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But there should be. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I don't see how it could be defining for all films/books set in one day. Only some of them would this be defining, others it would be incidental. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the length of time of the setting of a film is a plot device, it is not a central characteristic of the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST ASSISTANCE FROM AN ADMIN: I happen to recall that one or both of these categories has/have had previous CFD discussions which could be helpful and should be linked. However, those CFDs are not shown in the histories because both cats were renamed and the prior history was lost. Cgingold (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's not what I was referring to. I'm talking about a CFD discussion that took place several years ago -- before these categories were renamed (as I clearly stated). I know for a fact because I took part in the discussion, and obviously, the categories were retained. It would also be helpful to have the category creator(s) take part in this discussion, so again, WE NEED AN ADMIN TO LOOK AT THE EDIT HISTORY PRIOR TO RENAMING in order to identify those editors. Cgingold (talk) 13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep - The result of the previous well reasoned discussions was keep - so should these ones be GrahamHardy (talk) 14:43, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I noticed a comment on the talk page of the book category which I feel speaks to this discussion (it's from 2010, from a user who was only active for a few days): two questions: does this listing contain every work of world literature set within the course of one day, or even every major work, or anything even close to every major work of literature set within the span of one day? And if it doesn't' then what is the actual point of this category? It isn't a discussion of the nature of "books set within one day" or a literary technique, nor is it a complete list. It could also be argued that these works are not really "unique"--i.e. warranting distinct categorization--since there have been thousands upon thousands of works of literature throughout human history set within the course of one day not mentioned here, as this technique is one of the Aristotelian Unities. --IllaZilla (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. I started by looking at the categories. They currently seem to be diverse mishmash of works about one day (Ivan Denisovich, Ulysses), works whose action covers part of a day which would just as well over 2 or more (12 Angry Men), works which cover one event or crisis (Airport '77), works which cover a specific period of less than one day (Eleven Hours) ... but omits Groundhog Day because the closing scene is set on the following day. The result is a mishmash of works with next-to-nothing in common, ranging from purely commercial works of no artistic merit up to literary classics, and excluding one of the most notable single-day films because of its rigid and arbitrary criteria. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Previous discussions seem to have focused on whether the inclusion was arbitrary. Here the argument is not that the category is arbitrary, but that it is a plot point and not actually a characteristic that is at all part of the actual nature of the thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I find it helpful when I look at this category. Many films I enjoy take place during one day, and when I first saw The Breakfast Club, read its article, then read the categories and found this one, I made a note to myself to watch many of the other films on that list. This list is resourceful for people like me who enjoy films set within one day, and most of them on the list do have something in common: a lot of them are teen films, including Ferris Bueller's Day Off, Empire Records, The Goonies, American Graffiti, etc. Arilicious (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or delete: For most of these movies, this is not a defining characteristic, it is trivia. However, for trivia, it may be interesting, possibly even notable (is there any literature around about this as a writing method/plot device?) so keep it as a list. (I sampled several random non-stub movies I had heard of but knew nothing about, none of the articles I tried made mention of this characteristic, despite quite extensive plot summaries. Sampling random books went a little better, but was still a mix of mention, no mention, and a couple seemed to describe more than one day in the plot summary) --Qetuth (talk) 05:31, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep is as relevant as other aspects of films.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 12:39, 10 October 2012 (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 result of the discussion was:merge some, keep others. See Fayenatic's list below.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
... and another 3 minutes to being Category:People from Rushford, Minnesota up to 5 articles. That was the next one I tried, and I haven't time to check the rest right now, but it doesn't look good so far. Sorry, but these categories do appear to be capable to expansion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:12, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I went to every town page for these 20 nominees. 19 of them had 3 or less people mentioned in their notable people sections if the town had such a section at all. Rushford and Zumbrota in fact, are among those 19. Zumbrota has 1 and Rushford has none listed at all....William 17:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well done, that's one good place to look. But that technique is insufficient, because it relies upon other editors already having worked to populate those notable people lists. I found more by using whatlinkshere from the town, and by searching from the town name. (I haven't yet searched for Rushford; those I added were from whatlinkshere ). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition of William Roseland to People from Zumbrota Minnesota is based on a claim in the article that he was born there. Unfortunately I can't find a source for him being born there. His article provides none....William 19:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Oculi, very strong disagree. If a person is born in a place - they will be citizens of that place, which is notable to the person. Let's stop the train and go through each of these. Benkenobi18 (talk) 07:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment people are not citizens of towns or cities in the United States. They are not even per se citizens of states. They are citizens of the United States. It should also be noted that outside of the Americas very few countries grant citizenship merely based on birth. In some Persian Gulf countries the majority of people born there are not citizens, and Israel, the Netherlands and Switzerland also have large numbers of people born there who are not citizens. So in fact birth in a place and citizenship are not the same. All or virtually all countries also grant at-birth citizenship to some people born outside the jurisdiciton of the country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I don't see why not. A person's birthplace is listed in all of their biographies, much more so than their primary residence. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which is an argument for categorizing them based on where they were born. I only made a statement about origin of citizenship. The general trend seems to be to categorize people by where they were raised. The problem is that this is not as often noted as where they were born. That said, the problem is that if someone was born in Detroit but lived in New York City from age 2 months to 20+, they will see themselves and the world largely through the lense of being a New Yorker, not being a Detroiter. The big question is "what amont of connection with a place as an adult does a person need to be from there". I do not think there is a blanket or simple answer, but I think in general people can sense the answer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all except Zumbrota and Rushford which have sufficent content to be split off from their county categories. - The BushrangerOne ping only 22:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge except Zumbrota and Rushford. Also do the merge with no prejudice against later recreations if 5+ people can be found to put in the specific category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only Richmond, St Bonifacius, St Charles, Sturgeon Lake, Verndale, Watkins, Sebeka, Ogilvie, New York Mills and Olivia. Keep Zumbrota, Rushford, Pierz, Plainview, Proctor, Shorewood, Spring Grove, Thief River Falls, Wabasha, Wayzata and Sauk Rapids. I or others have populated the ones for keeping, and listified the others in the town articles. – FayenaticLondon 20:34, 10 October 2012 (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.
The result of the discussion was:Delete - already listified at List of Woolworth divisions and namesakes. - Articles may of course be added to other categories at editorial discretion through the normal editorial process. - jc37 01:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While the three (or so) companies have shared names because the others were named after the American original, there's not enough connection there to categorize them together. It's also a magnet for miscategorization, as can be seen by some of the members. Mangoe (talk) 23:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into new Category:F. W. Woolworth Company - see next nom in list. Yes, the history of the group is confusing, but ther criterion shoul be that the company was at one time a subsidiary or associate of F. W. Woolworth Company, which is (or should be) the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
rename. There does seem to be three distint things in the Woolworth universe. Those which decent from F. W. Woolworth Company those in the Australian group (Category:Woolworths Limited) and a few "others" namely the South African namesake Woolworths (South Africa) and the woolworth.co.uk brand. Neither of these can be considered descendants of FW. We do need a category for this third group with an appropriate name. I don't think the current name does as it too ambiguous, I would suggest Category:Companies named Woolworths as its not too long and well defined.--Salix (talk): 08:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP does not categorize subjects by shared name; that is indeed one of the principal criteria of WP:OCAT.- choster (talk) 13:48, 17 September 2012 (UTC)``[reply]
(voted above) -- I would still like to see a single Woolworth category for the company and its former subsidiaries and associates. I think you will find that all the entities were once subsidiaries (or associates - less than 50% owned) of the F. W. Woolworth Company. CAtegories are a navigation aid; they do not need over-nice definitial distinctions. Since the companies are now separated, this is essentially a historic category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis would we choose a name not in use for a decade and a half for a company which still exists, as opposed to its current name?- choster (talk) 02:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment against merging -- Peterkingiron, please refer to the page List of Woolworth divisions and namesakes. The American & European companies were all once part of the F. W. Woolworth Company, but that already has a category, which is being discussed below. Woolworths (South Africa) and the Australian group Woolworths Limited are entirely unrelated. Alworths, Wellchester, woolworths.co.uk and its owner Shop Direct Group are successor businesses capitalising on the goodwill of the old one but never related by ownership. By the criterion that you stated before the relisting, we should not merge. The list provides navigation links to the extent that they are justifiable; this head category is not justifiable. – FayenaticLondon 17:02, 10 October 2012 (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.
Keep and cleanup Things are a little confusing because there's the Woolworth Company, later Venator Group and now Foot Locker, Inc., and then there are the retail chains known as Woolworth's and Foot Locker. The Foot Locker article and Category:Foot Locker category attempt to cover both the chain and the parent. I see enough content about Woolworth's brands and people to see it as a standalone, but content that is related to the Woolworth Company and not Woolworth the store (e.g. Claire's, Kinney Shoes) would more accurately be placed in Category:Foot Locker now.- choster (talk) 19:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. The criterion should be that the company is or was a subsidiary or associate of Category:F. W. Woolworth Company. The UK version of Woolworths was a subsidiary of the US company until bought out by the Paternoster syndicate, but the US company retained a 20% stake. The retail shops retained the Woolworth brand, but a series of demergers took place, initially (if I remember correctly) demerging Kingfisher from Woolworth. Later, B&Q and Comet were split off. Ultimately the original Woolworths shops went bust spectacularly a couple of years ago. We need one parent category to cover all the emanations of Woolworths. We may also need a Category:former Woolworths companies to cover companies that were (but no longer are) connected with the original retain empire, but the initial move should be to merge everything inot one parent that can then be split. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Current title is too ambiguous. Some tidying up might be in order with historical entries here and more modern entries in Category:Foot Locker.--Salix (talk): 08:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
(voted above) -- I would still like to see a single Woolworth category for the company and its former subsidiaries and associates. I think you will find that all the entities were once subsidiaries (or associates - less than 50% owned) of the F. W. Woolworth Company. CAtegories are a navigation aid; they do not need over-nice definitial distinctions. Since the companies are now separated, this is essentially a historic category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On what basis would we choose a name not in use for a decade and a half for a company which still exists, as opposed to its current name?- choster (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The page List of Woolworth divisions and namesakes explains that only the American & European companies were once part of the F. W. Woolworth Company; this category is for them, so it should be named by that parent to avoid ambiguity. See my comment in the nomination above this one about the unrelated companies. Category:Foot Locker should probably become a parent rather than a sub-category; Category:Woolworth family can stay in this one. – FayenaticLondon 17:12, 10 October 2012 (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: Although technically correct under its current name (each mission did, in fact, use a different Progress spacecraft), the purpose of this category is to categorise missions flown by Progress spacecraft. The proposed name would be consistent with Category:Manned Soyuz missions and Category:Space Shuttle missions as well, which categorise the same thing - articles on individual missions - for their respective spacecraft. The BushrangerOne ping only 06:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose, the articles cover (or at least should cover) both the spacecraft and the mission, so the current title would be more inclusive of both. --W.D.Graham 08:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split The current mixture of flights and vehicle types is confusing. Therefore Category:Progress missions should be created under the current category to hold the mission articles, with the mission list as the parent article thereof. Mangoe (talk) 00:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
C2D isn't required, though - and, in this case, would look extremely awkward as the only (dabbed) cat in the tree vs. plain English. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:57, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Progress is ambiguous, so it should be disambiguated, especially "Progress mission" considering the entries on the dab page, that could refer to many of them -- 76.65.128.252 (talk) 07:26, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This name is OK but I would still insist that a split is necessary given that some of the articles aren't about particular missions. Mangoe (talk) 02:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CfD 2012 August 29 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Greece[edit]
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. Notification of the relevant WikiProjects might have helped to bring wider participation, but the relisting alone brought no further comments. Editors nominating categories at CfD should remember that neutrally-worded notifications help to bring in more editors with expertise in a topic, which it makes it more likely that a stable consensus will achieved. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. No others in Category:Ancient Greek sites by country have a sub-cat called "archaeological", and neither category explains what the intended difference was (if any). I'm open to a reverse merge (probably leaving a redirect) to avoid ambiguity. – FayenaticLondon 11:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I wonder if it is really true that all archeological sites in Crete are ancient in origin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (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.
KeepCategory:Roque, but Merge the rest to Category:Roque. The game of Roque appears to have had a period of popularity in the early 20th-century, so there is scope for expansion, which means that WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. However, the current proliferation of sub-categories is absurd when there are only 2 articles. Thanks to the nom for bringing this to CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 16 September 2012 (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:Rename. I think the best way to deal with this category is to make it a subcategory of Category:Countries by language per Finno-Ugric peoples which states "The Finno-Ugric peoples are any of several peoples of Europe who speak languages of the Finno-Ugric language family, such as the Finns, Estonians, Mordvins, and Hungarians". Tim! (talk) 07:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Bushranger -- This is a good solution, thgough I wonder whether Category: Finno-Ugric lands might be even better. I chose "lands" as a suitably vague term that can cover both countries and territories but I expect I will be told that this is copntrary to precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per The Bushranger.--Salix (talk): 08:21, 17 September 2012 (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 result of the discussion was:keep. The consensus is to retain the by-continent scope. The deficiencies of the scope or structure of the head article are deficiencies of the current state of that particular article rather than of the topic'. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. According to the note at the top of "in the Americas", it embraces just North American sites (for reasons that I don't understand, it appears that the sources speak of this as being "in the Americas" even though it's just North American), and the article is Archaic period in the Americas, not "Archaic period in North America". Note that "in the Americas" was created long before "in North America". Nyttend (talk) 05:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose categorization by continent is useful, instead each region (South America, Central America, "North America", Caribbean, Arctic North America (the tundra zone, Greenland, Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Alaskan North Slope & Bering Strait coast)) should each have a category.. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that categories are dependent on articles; we name them based on what the articles are called. This should have gone through a speedy rename (WP:CFDS C2C), but I didn't think of it until now. If you don't like the current arrangement, please seek to have the article moved. Nyttend (talk) 18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Categories have no such dependency. Categories are just a way to organize articles, and do not need head articles. Many categories have no head articles at all, some of those head articles are actually sections in other articles, others are just logical divisions. We don't have an article called 1955 establishments but we still have Category:1955 establishments; etc. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 04:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the problem is the article, which is misnamed or highly biased, since it only covers the Southern United States, and nothing else. We are missing a main article for both categories, since the current "main" article is nothing of the sort. -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The major need is probably to create Category:Archaic period in South America and split the contnetns of the target category between continents. We might have a Central American cat as well, provided some one can provide a robust definition of where it ends. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 17
do not rename. The articles are about North American (which by the way includes everything down to Panama) and the category name should be kept as is. Hmains (talk) 17:23, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the category is an accepted continent one. If people wish to create an article/category for Archaic period in South America they are free to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 24 September 2012 (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:Greensville County, Virginia geography stubs[edit]
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.
The result of the discussion was:split.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Presenters (people) should be a separate category to programs. Seven News presenters should probably be a subcategory of Seven News. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should the presenters even be categorized in the current category at all? Isn't the new category, and categorization in the current category, "performer by performance", category types and categorization types that have been deleted and listified in the past? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I don't think this is quite performer by performance, assuming they are part of the news team and not just a guest. I see it a little like the difference between categorising football players by team compared to by match. I have actually found these categories useful in the past - with the (5 or so) news programs sorted under * so at the start of the list, the main list IS the presenters. But the only real reasoning I can give for having them under * and not as text links in the desc of a presenters category is so that it is dynamic, which I realise is a weak excuse. --Qetuth (talk) 09:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nominator. The presenters currently overwhelm the category, and sub-categorising them would also probably reduce category clutter on each article. The IP is wrong that this is a "performer by performance" type of category. It's more of a people-by-company type of category, and has a good parallel in Category:BBC News people and its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:57, 23 September 2012 (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 result of the discussion was:split.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Presenters (people) should be a separate category to programs. Ten News presenters should probably be a subcategory of Ten News. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should the presenters even be categorized in the current category at all? Isn't the new category, and categorization in the current category, "performer by performance", category types and categorization types that have been deleted and listified in the past? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nominator. The presenters currently overwhelm the category, and sub-categorising them would also probably reduce category clutter on each article. The IP is wrong that this is a "performer by performance" type of category. It's more of a people-by-company type of category, and has a good parallel in Category:BBC News people and its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 23 September 2012 (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 result of the discussion was:split.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Presenters (people) should be a separate category to programs. Nine News presenters should probably be a subcategory of Nine News. Mitch Ames (talk) 01:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should the presenters even be categorized in the current category at all? Isn't the new category, and categorization in the current category, "performer by performance", category types and categorization types that have been deleted and listified in the past? -- 76.65.131.248 (talk) 12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nominator. The presenters currently overwhelm the category, and sub-categorising them would also probably reduce category clutter on each article. The IP is wrong that this is a "performer by performance" type of category. It's more of a people-by-company type of category, and has a good parallel in Category:BBC News people and its subcats. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:58, 23 September 2012 (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.
Merge it does not appear there are other articles that fit in the category, and it is unlikely many more will be created in the future.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 24 September 2012 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 9. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Bushranger One ping only 21:56, 19 September 2012 (UTC)