Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 24 August 26 >

August 25[edit]

Category:Islamic politics and Islamic world studies[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: split. As Category:Islamic studies already exists, I will implement this by renaming the category to Category:Islam and politics; interested editors e.g. user:Editor2020 may then move/remove any contents that do not belong. – Fayenatic London 15:14, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two concepts are not related, as discussed, but not carried out, on the Talk page. Editor2020 22:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
support- obvious needed separation satusuro 10:05, 29 August 2014 (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:Sinhala lexicographers[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: merge. – Fayenatic London 15:16, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Double upmerge to both parents. Small category (one page), not an aid to navigation. – Fayenatic London 21:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Editor2020 00:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
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:Religion in China by religion[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: merge to Category:Religion in China. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category, all should be subcategories of Category:Religion in China Editor2020 21:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

:* Upmerge to Category:Religion in China. Agree with nominator about redundancy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • keep as is There is no reason whatsoever to further crowd Category:Religion in China with more subcats. Category:Religion in China by religion is a natural subcategory meeting the purpose of categorization, which is to assist the reader in finding related articles. Hmains (talk) 04:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't happen too often that I make a 180 degree change of mind, but in this case I do think that Hmains has a fair point on the parent category getting unnecessarily crowded by upmerging. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Religion in China. Adding 13 categories to the parent will not overburden it. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Religion in China. This is could only include 10-20 categories, which is not too much. The category format "religion by religion" is a problem for me because I cannot make sense of what this is supposed to mean, or how this name differs from "religion in China". Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:47, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Although I understand the purpose, no other country has a "religion by religion" sub-cat. To avoid the head category looking untidy, simply use a different sort key for these sub-cats e.g. a space. – Fayenatic London 00:35, 16 November 2014 (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:Disney Princess[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: rename categories. The article names are not determined here; renaming of each one has been rejected on the articles' talk pages. – Fayenatic London 17:45, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Category:Frozen (2013 film)‎ to Category:Disney's Frozen
Category:The Little Mermaid (franchise)‎‎ to Category:Disney's The Little Mermaid
Category:The Little Mermaid characters‎ to Category:Disney's The Little Mermaid characters‎
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other Category:Disney Princess-franchise articles and subcategories.
Also rename articles
Princess Jasmine to Jasmine (Disney)
Cinderella (Disney character) to Cinderella (Disney)
Ariel (The Little Mermaid) to Ariel (Disney)
Mulan (Disney character) to Mulan (Disney)
--172.251.77.75 (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This page is only for discussing categories, not articles. See WP:MOVE for those. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Strong rename "The Little Mermaid" characters. The Little Mermaid is not a Disney article, and this category is therefore highly inappropriate. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Avoid "Disney's". "Disney`s" ist not - and never has been part of the official title of these movies. So it could only change to "Frozen (Disney film)". --Red-Blue-White (talk) 00:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addressing the entirety of the Disney Princess as a franchise, which covers all forms of arts and media, not just film. But if I am wrong in this assumption, should I propose all be moved to "Title (Disney film)"? --172.251.77.75 (talk) 19:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose that. Leave it as the original nomination.
  • Merge all "Little Mermaid" into one category; my rule is: one franchise, one category. The articles are surpisingly long, so that I cannot recommend the usual practice of merging all characters inot one article. I would support renames (where necessary to the format "Foo (film)" or "Foo (Disney film)", the latter only where Foo (film) would still be ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't seem to get the point. There are films with dozens of characters, what's wrong with splitting them into subcategories? —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for uniform tagging I might propose that "(Disney)" appended after the title be the uniform tag for categories and articles. Whatever the solution is, I like the idea of it being standardized. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:49, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We use common names, not official ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:02, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This way or another, I like the idea of consistency. —ALittleQuenhi (talk to me) 09:13, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 15:44, 29 September 2014 (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: People with Lou Gehrig's disease[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: redirect to Category:People with motor neurone disease. Note that the category was empty upon close. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is already such a category - Category:People with motor neurone disease.Radiohist (talk) 14:51, 25 August 2014 (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:Baseball people from Chiba Prefecture[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: merge. This close provides a precedent for all sport-specific sub-cats and grandchild cats within Category:Sportspeople by prefecture in Japan to be put forward at WP:CFDS for speedy upmerging. As far as I can see, all articles are already separately categorised by sport e.g. Category:Japanese sumo wrestlers, so they only need upmerging to the "Sportspeople by prefecture" categories. – Fayenatic London 15:29, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also propose merging

As per previous CFDs[1] and this one[2], we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. ...William 14:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Selective Upmerge -- I do not think that is the correct analysis. We should certainly be categorising people by sport and by city (or county), but not both at the same time. A given tennis player might be a Sportsperson from Chiba and a Japanese tennis player. In the case of football, there are 24 articles; that is enough for a category and all the prefectures with a sub-cat have at least 4 members. The objective is to eliminate small categories with little hope of ever being well-populated. Peterkingiron 13:43, 1 September 2014‎
  • Upmerge all The parents do not seem overly large to warrant this subcategory. SFB 19:59, 8 September 2014 (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:People from Oxford, Maine[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:04, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 4 entries. ...William 13:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has 5 pages now. Plenty of room for expansion. It seems rather nit-picky to nominate a category for deletion because it has 4 entries instead of the normal 5.--TM 18:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SMALLCAT. Editor2020 21:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Per SMALLCAT: "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." This category has grown since it was nominated. I could create a dozen articles on notable people from this town in an hour if needed. There is obvious potential for growth.--TM 10:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then create the articles. At the moment however there is no basis for keeping this category. Small category with little room for growth....William 11:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It has grown to 6 7 entries. How many more do you want?--TM 12:56, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't have 6 or 7 but 5....William 16:48, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on new count. Although I would say that looking at the category before these articles were created, this town of 4,000 didn't necessarily have obvious potential for growth. And it isn't nit-picky to have some sort of threshold for SMALLCAT (why not then allow 3, then 2, then 1?). kennethaw88 • talk 04:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge We should require more than 5 articles. having lots of small categories does not help navigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 20 September 2014 (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:People from Naples, Maine[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 23:01, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 4 entries. ...William 13:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep has 5 pages now. Plenty of room for expansion. It seems rather nit-picky to nominate a category for deletion because it has 4 entries instead of the normal 5.--TM 18:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It may sound nitpicky but this category was deleted 7 months ago and you recreated it without going to DRV. The article has been tagged for CSD....William 21:51, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I recreated it because I found a reliable source and intended to create articles to exceed the existing number of entries. Both this and the Oxford category were nominated for deletion very quickly.--TM 10:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per SMALLCAT. Editor2020 21:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Per SMALLCAT: "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." This category has grown since it was nominated. I could create a dozen articles on notable people from this town in an hour if needed. There is obvious potential for growth.--TM 10:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on new count. Although I would say that looking at the category before these articles were created, this town of 4,000 didn't necessarily have obvious potential for growth. And it isn't nit-picky to have some sort of threshold for SMALLCAT (why not then allow 3, then 2, then 1?). kennethaw88 • talk 04:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category now has 6 articles. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:31, 31 August 2014 (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:Bella Thorne[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: delete. – Fayenatic London 22:58, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Hardly enough here to warrant an eponymous category. With only a couple of songs with articles, doesn't provide any additional aid in navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Editor2020 21:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_25&oldid=1138399054"