Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 5

< June 4	June 6 >

June 5[edit]

Category:Women Polymaths[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Women Polymaths (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Polymaths has been repeatedly deleted by consensus and is now salted. See the most recent discussion here. There is no reason to have a category for women polymaths when we have no category for polymaths. This particular subcategory has never been created/deleted before, though other subcategories have. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:35, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete arbitrary whether someone is polymath or not, and we can't have a gendered cat if the neutral parent is salted.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:51, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because "polymaths" is fundamentally not a good category: Poorly defined, subjective criteria, hard to police. --Lquilter (talk) 12:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No point in having a sub-category of a non-existent category. Kennethaw88 • talk 22:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above.--Lenticel ^(talk) 02:13, 9 June 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:Ship book citation templates[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; upmerge contents to parent categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ship book citation templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what "ship related books" are. It seems like an odd categorization of these templates. It seems related to WP:WikiProject Ships but that could include any historical books that relates to a ship. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This is just one of a number of similar categories, some of which have been around for quite a while, eg Category:Rail transport book citation templates. They all fulfil the useful purpose of categorising templates that are used to produce citations required for multiple articles. The only difference between those categories and this one is that this one is new, and currently has only one template in it, but that will change soon. Bahnfrend (talk) 00:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I question that one as well. Templates for the articles of a certain type seem like a reasonable categorization but assuming there is a desire to keep these templates, it's not "ship-related books" but "templates for ship-related books that are used on Wikipedia ship articles" to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to both parents. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 11 June 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:Dutch Calvinist politicians[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:02, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Dutch Calvinist politicians.

Nominator's rationale: There is only one subcategory under it, and no single articles in this category. This makes this category by definition redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody reacted here and the proposal is so obvious, I've taken the liberty to empty the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We almost always avoid religion + politics overlap categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 2 July 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:Fixed holidays (on non-Gregorian calendars)[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: make an attempt to split. Consensus seems to be that the category should be deleted, but there was no strong consensus on whether we needed to split this out or not. So I'm defaulting to splitting, since that retains the information in category form and retention is usually the default for "no consensus" results. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fixed holidays (on non-Gregorian calendars) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: While belongiong to a specific calendar (such as the Jewish calendar) may be a reasonable category, being on some calendar other than the Gregorian isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:34, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

: I agree that 'Non-Gregorian calendar' is a very general and uncommon term. However, it would be a shame to just delete this category. Instead someone should take the effort to break this down into multiple categories, e.g. Fixed holidays on the Islam calendar. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 5 June 2014 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

split, or at least make an effort to do so. The problem is, you may end up with categories with only one member for holidays that are "fixed" on some obscure calendar only used by one small group of people. But we should at least attempt it before deleting.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:28, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- How complete is this category? To judge by the Jewish holidays (all of which use the Jewish calendar), only 4 are listed - and only one of them, Rosh Hashanah, is a major one. Where are Yom Kippur, Sukkot‎, Shemini Atzeret/Simchat Torah, Hanukkah, Tu Bishvat, Purim, Passover, Lag BaOmer and Shavuot? Just from the Jewish holidays, it would seem we're better off deleting this category, without prejudice for creating individual calendar-related categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

someone has gone to the trouble of at least starting the list, so I'd say split and then delet - even if the result is for the time being incomplete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:42, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

delete: After I've seen the Category:Religious holidays I changed my mind, the Category:Fixed holidays (on non-Gregorian calendars) doesn't add anything to Category:Religious holidays. Kind regards, Marcocapelle (talk) 14:12, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

split by calendar, to maintain worldwide and neutral point of view. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 14 June 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.