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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Per WP:SMALLCAT. Hamlet of less than 700 people does not require category. GrahamHardy (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only contents are itself and the category below which should be merged and deleted. kennethaw88 • talk 03:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 12:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too small a place to be4 warrnated. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 1 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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Per WP:SMALLCAT. This is only a hamlet of less than 700 people, category has only one member and is unlikely to grow. GrahamHardy (talk) 20:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to county: as usual in siuch cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:45, 1 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.
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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 15:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one member. Editor2020 14:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
keep. There are enough articles about Inuit and other Canadian Aboriginal shamans and religious leaders to adequately populate the category. I've added some articles after some cursory searches. In any case, it's one of series in Category:Animists by nationality, so I don't know why we would delete this one category in isolation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good Ol' factory (I suppose "GoF" might be better) -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plenty of users over the years have referred to me as GOF. I don't mind. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:25, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", such as this one. Oculi (talk) 12:19, 9 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.
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, contains only one member. Editor2020 14:01, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
keep. Sure there is only one bridge in the category at the moment but Xinjiang is the largest province in China by area and has a population of 22 million people. I'm sure there are more notable bridges in the area that could be in the category (they may need articles written). All the other provinces of China have a similar Category See:Category:Bridges in China so I don't know why we would delete this one. ShakyIsles (talk) 00:16, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
merge back to Category:Bridges in China, but should we not also be merging to Category:Buildings and structures in Xinjiang. We can always split if the Chain category becomes too large. If this is agreed, the rest (or many of) the otehr provincial categories need similar treatment: there are a lot with one artilce. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:48, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Peterkingiron proposal We should split out a bridge category when the article base requires it (not the case here, yet). SFB 19:46, 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.
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:Merge. Essentially, these two categories mean the same thing. "Towns" is a better description than "cities", as all cities are towns, but not all towns by any means are cities. I would not object to merging and renaming to Category:Fortified towns, however, if this is considered better. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Alternate merge to Category:Fortified cities and towns, as not all cities are towns, it would depend on how the jurisdiction defines these words. And fortifications need not involve walls. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 06:13, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle I think the alternate is a better choice. However, lacking expertise in the frequency with which @Necrothesp above and @Ranger Steve comments below about town v. city and fortification v. walled may occur as differentiating points, it may be prudent to keep the current categories as subcategories of the generic category. --Lineagegeek (talk) 22:59, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine with me, although I personally think all cities are towns, despite what our article on the subject says. "Town", when not used as a specific jurisdictional definition, is a generic term for any settlement larger than a village. However, since many villages are walled too, how about Category:Fortified settlements? -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Even better. Avoids the jurisdictional issue. --Lineagegeek (talk) 20:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Are they really the same thing? A wall is just one type of fortification and not all fortified towns/cities have walls. Some are surrounded by moats or forts for instance. Ranger SteveTalk 17:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is true. However, the vast majority of these were once (or are still) walled as well. And I'm not sure it's particularly useful to make a distinction in categorisation. If others consider it is, then I'm happy to keep Walled foo as a subcat of Fortified foo, but we do need a standardised name for foo and an integration of the categories. Because at the moment there are two overlapping categories here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Fortified settlements per Necrothesp. Walled is perhaps a subset, but many places in Europe were walled in some distant past, and cats are not temporary, so expect a proliferation of additions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Fortified settlements. Sometime ago we renamed a lot of categories to settlements becasue of differing views on what consietitutes a village, a town or a city. I assume there are none with fortifications otehr than walls, but perhaps thaht does not matter. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 1 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 New Carrollton, Maryland[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. – FayenaticLondon 22:39, 14 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.
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:implement as nominated. (In summary, the contents of the nominated categories (including their subcategories) were merged to Category:Polyphaga stubs and the various templates that populate the nominated categories were redirected to Template:Polyphaga-stub. Dawynn please come yell at me if I am wrong.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:59, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Propose deletion of the infraorder categories for Polyphaga. The perm categories sort at the superfamily level, not the infraorder. Superfamily categories have been built for the larger superfamilies. Propose deleting all of these infraorder categories. Redirect the superfamily templates to {{polyphaga-stub}}. Move all child categories and templates for superfamilies and families up to Category:Polyphaga stubs. Dawynn (talk) 12:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Dawynn: this is uncontested, so can go ahead, but please would you spell out what needs to happen to which sub-cats and templates? – FayenaticLondon 22:53, 14 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 22:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the admin who closed that nomination, I'm well aware of that; this nomination is a result of the discussion there. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I hadn't read that. – FayenaticLondon 22:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think the issue is that the borough covers a larger area than the town of Stockport. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 1 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.
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: Articles should be categorized by characteristics of their topic, not by characteristics of their title. For example, the Keyhole Falls article is about a waterfall (and is categorized as such), not about a name (although the etymology is mentioned). Disambiguation pages (e.g. The Blue Album) should not be categorized under Category:Articles. Note: Many/most of the articles in this category have badly worded leads (see WP:REFERS). DexDor (talk) 05:39, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see anything wrong with categories based the characteristics of titles. But this is just a group of articles that use the phrase "unofficial name" in their openings. It's all about a writing style tick. The issue has no off-Wikipedia existence. Clodhopper Deluxe (talk) 04:59, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Russia (our article title) is an unofficial name, too. Officially, it's Российская Федерация; in English official usage is Russian Federation. My guess is that many toponyms would fall in this sort of category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:31, 28 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:Christian universities and colleges by country[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. The cited guideline may not apply, since it suggests deletion of categories that "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". This is probably not the case for the nominated category, because there are Christian universities in many countries. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:51, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. Only one member. Editor2020 02:46, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Merge to parent -- The subcat and parent are both well populated. We may one day need to split the paretn by country, but not yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; there was only one subcat for India when the nomination was made, but I have added another for the United States, as there were some US sub-cats ready to go in it. – FayenaticLondon 22:37, 8 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.
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. The only member was a children's catechism, so I have added it to Category:Catechisms. – FayenaticLondon 22:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT. Only one member. Editor2020 02:43, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Comment This is a very broad topic that is probably better titled religious manuals. You've shown up a bit of a coverage gap here, as Wikipedia doesn't even have an article on this subject. The topic prayer manuals are of quite significance too. SFB 19:53, 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.
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:54, 21 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.
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:Delete. This category, along with Category:Trees of the Great Basin desert region, is ill-defined and not included in the standard World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions that is followed for the plant "flora of..." category hierarchy. See WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD for more info on how that is used. The Great Basin covers a large area with different ecoregions and flora. The articles in this category are usually also included in the Category:Flora of the Southwestern United States, causing duplication and overcategorization. N.B.: I have more discussions to open on other flora distribution categories that overlap entirely with the WGSRPD category hierarchy but I thought I would begin with these two before delving into a mass nomination. Rkitko(talk) 00:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep These are in the Great Basin Province which is mentioned indirectly further on into the article [[:World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. See the sentence that reads: "For more botanical classifications using phytogeography, the scheme's document endorses the Floristic kingdoms, Floristic regions, and Floristic provinces, as classified by Armen Takhtajan." Having categories only at the top level scheme is unhelpful, given the great variety of floral ecosystems. Hmains (talk) 03:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The WGSRPD document only lists the "accepted standard." It does not endorse its use or recommend it in conjunction with the WGSRPD. The floristic kingdom system is parallel, its boundaries are often ill-defined, and the WGSRPD appears to have been created to establish an easier-to-use system that recognizes political boundaries since that's how we speak about, describe, and write about plant distributions. The WGSRPD is basically saying, "the floristic kingdom system is also a good standard to use." If more than one category hierarchy is undesirable, and in my view it is, then we should choose the WGSRPD for the benefits it offers over floristic kingdoms. The categories nominated are essentially duplicating the Category:Flora of the Southwestern United States and a few bits of Northwestern and Northeastern Mexico. Rkitko(talk) 05:17, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—rename — keep the category, suggesting a rename to [Category:Flora of the Great Basin region] or [Category:Flora of the Great Basin]. That the WGSRPD considers using Floristic provinces, here the Great Basin Province, as an "accepted standard" endorses keeping it. Ecology does not recognize political boundaries, many of us practicing botany in the United States disagree with your sole opinion "that's how we speak about, describe, and write about plant distributions." It is one excellent scheme, and your personal "view" to be respected Rkitko, but not "how we speak" and so it is undesirable as the only Wikipedia flora category system. It is far too primitive for understanding the actual "great variety of floral ecosystems" (Hmains) within the large political entities, U.S. states to WGSRPD, that compose the Western United States. California alone has three Floristic provinces represented, which includes the Great Basin, so the scale of Category:Flora of California is far too crude to be scientifically useful in a public encyclopaedia.
Rkitko, you are misinformed on states and regions when stating the Category:Flora of the Southwestern United States would suffice, eastern Oregon and southern Idaho are floristically in the Great Basin Province, but geographically in the Northwestern United States. The Great Basin categories nominated are NOT essentially duplicating 'Flora of the Southwestern United States.' Also, in our understanding, floristically the Great Basin does not enter Arizona, so Flora of the Southwestern United States would be misleading. Due to the Mojave Desert and Sonoran Desert ecoregions between them, the Great Basin specific biota does not get near Mexico, so the "few bits" you mention are mistaken and curious. The endorheic Great Basin drainage basin has different boundaries, please do not confuse hydrogeology with biology. Thank you—Look2See1t a l k → 21:20, 8 October 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.
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. This close is no bar to early re-nomination. (The proposal would have matched the others that use "belief and doctrine", which have both words as a singular, but those that include "practices" rather than "doctrine" have both words as plurals.) – FayenaticLondon 22:28, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we can't change anything unless we change everything all at once? Editor2020, Talk 03:06, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "beliefs and doctrines" should both be plural. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 1 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:Religious belief and doctrine 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:Keep (NAC). DexDor (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded. All articles should be placed directly in Category:Religious belief and doctrine Editor2020 00:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Keep per crowding argument of Hmains. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current arrangement where the parent holds categories on topics spanning religions and this one covers by religion appears to be working rather well. SFB 19:55, 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.
