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. No need for an eponymous category to just hold the main article and a single subcat. All contents are correctly categorised, delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; I have added a link to the category in the article, which suffices for navigation. – FayenaticLondon 21:33, 21 May 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:Rename. Fix the capitalization and remove "South Australia", there are no other families we need to disambiguate from.. Tassedethe (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteTennant family is about a different family, located in the UK. This category only contains 3 pages, 2 of which are redirects, so there's only 1 article. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:38, 19 May 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:Rename. Fix the capitalization. Remove "South Australia", there are no other families we need to disambiguate from. Tassedethe (talk) 22:52, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is only 1 article here, everything else is redirects to that article. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:40, 19 May 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.
Rename per nom. Although the older citations in the article use "Ferrar group", f13 seems to be the most common notation for this group of manuscripts in related Wikipedia articles. – FayenaticLondon 21:52, 21 May 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:Freshwater fish of Metropolitan France[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.
Nominator's rationale: Being found in Metropolitan France is not defining to a species of fish, especially in these cases where it is not only found there. The BushrangerOne ping only 22:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: Overcategorized/not defining.
Merge. Fish don't pay much attention to political boundaries, so this is over-categorization. --Orlady (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- according to recent precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 25 May 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; though I am renaming this to Category:Protestantism in Portugal to fix the caps. At the time of closing, the category contained one subcategory, the article of the same name, and one additional article.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It is appropriate to have this, even if it is a small subject. My guess is that this may grow due to the influence of Brazil. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 25 May 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. While some hospitals have and need categories, this one does not. The category has two articles, one for the hospital and the other for a program operated out of the hospital. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, please (and merge the two short articles about this hospital). --Orlady (talk) 21:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC){{subst:CFd bottom}}[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: This category says it is for "pages which crosslink by related topics or concepts". Despite the long "explanation" on the talk page I still don't understand the supposed difference between a crosslink page and any other page (e.g. why are some "Outline of <country>" pages categorized here and some not?). Whatever it's meant to be I don't think it fits under Category:Wikipedia maintenance. Note: If this category is deleted then the corresponding template should be TFDed. DexDor (talk) 16:21, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but re-explain: For more than five years, the category has indexed pages which list wikilinks to related topics/images, rather than to similar titles. Whereas a wp:disambiguation page lists wikilinks to similar titles, a crosslink page lists wikilinks to similar concepts, images, or graphs but with different titles linked. The explanation (at "Category talk:Crosslink pages") should be improved to clarify usage of the category. We do not delete a category when someone does not understand the purpose. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The nation outlines are a major type of crosslink pages, as multi-level lists of wikilinks with related images. However, crosslink pages are more than just outlines or WP:CONCEPTDABs because they can cross between articles, images and categories based on any related concepts. The purpose is similar to a group of synonyms, also linking to related images, but extending beyond just synonyms as when an outline page links to a variety of pages often commonly related to the outline's central topic. Due to the amount of time needed to analyze a topic for listing the major crosslinks, there are few crosslink pages in the category yet. By comparison, the Category:Disambiguation_pages contains over 154,000 pages (of 248,000 all), but there could be thousands of crosslink pages for various specific topics (which could be discussed at "Category talk:Crosslink pages"). -Wikid77 (talk) 05:00, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, this is duplicating the functionality of the Outlines process? Why should crosslink pages overlap with outlines? That does not seem like a sensible situation, since we already have a clear Outlines workflow in place. The outlines should be excluded. (just as disambiguation pages, set indices, portals, should be excluded) And WP:INDEX pages should also be excluded, since those have existed since the beginning of Wikipedia, and already have their own process workflow. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(As requested on my talk page) INDEX is the alternate navigation system implemented in Wikipedia from the beginning, when it was first launched. It indexes articles by topic, providing hierarchical navigation through the sidebar entry "CONTENTS" , with the top page Portal:Contents/Indexes drilling down to more specific indices. Ideally all indices are navigable from a higher level index, through to the top index. Indices are alphabetically ordered and topically divided. There's a wikiproject that covers them Wikipedia:WikiProject Indexes (and one that covers Outlines as well Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:INDEX (Wikipedia:Editor's index to Wikipedia) lists pages that are about editing Wikipedia so I still don't see what relevance that has to the pages that have been placed (probably all by the category creator) in this category. DexDor (talk) 19:38, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If this is kept, "crosslink" should be restricted to CONCEPTDABS, as a basic skeletal listform concept-dab. I don't see how it could be anything else without stepping on the toes of other types of pages. (such as regular list articles, SIAs, outlines, indices, portals, BOOKs) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 16:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete having read all the explanations I still don't see why this exists. We have categories for outlines. This overlaps with them in a vague, subjective and non-definining way. That it needs a lengthy explanation on the talk page shows how problematic it is: category talk pages are probably the least trafficked of all talk pages, no-one is going to find it there. And according to crosslink and wikt:crosslink the word has a narrow scientific meaning; the usage here is made up by the category creator, so a very bad basis for categorising - anyone seeing it among an article's categories won't have a clue why it's there.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 11:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Largely covered by outline categories. Crosslink appears to be a Wikipedia neologism - thus a terrible idea for a category. I'm also changing the article -ista (crosslink) due to its usage of the word and also the false nature of the description. SFB 13:52, 25 May 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.
Support increased clarity --LT910001 (talk) 03:30, 19 May 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 (category has remained empty and has no parents). Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:17, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what this means. Would support deleting a category with no contents and no subcategories. --LT910001 (talk) 03:30, 19 May 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: renaming specifies sternum/ribs etc, excluding the vertebrae/pelvic bones which are already categorised elsewhere Mschamberlain (talk) 13:41, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support for clarity --LT910001 (talk) 03:30, 19 May 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:Rename. Primary meaning, see Kiowa. Not eligible for speedy process as I only just moved the article over a redirect from an undiscussed move in 2011. Category:Kiowa is currently a disambiguation page because there is also Category:Kiowa language, but this disambiguation is not necessary IMHO. – FayenaticLondon 08:56, 18 May 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. – FayenaticLondon 08:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a military force currently utilizes any amount of conscripted personnel is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the organization. There is a list at Conscription#Countries_with_and_without_mandatory_military_service which can cover complexities such as whether an alternative option to military service is available. DexDor (talk) 06:11, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove entries when no longer conscript: When a military force changes, to longer require conscription (or drafting) of personnel, then simply remove from the category, not delete the category because entries could change. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
leaning delete Given the large number of members, I am moved to observe that what's missing is a category of all-volunteer militaries. It's tempting to guess that they are the exception and that conscription is the rule, but I suspect that every the all-volunteers used conscripts at various times. So at this point I'd have to say that this isn't defining. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Because this changes over time, it's not a great idea to categorize by this feature. (In general, categories should be "timeless" and not require constant checking and updating—in other words, once an article is added, it should be able to stay forever.) I also agree with the nominator that it's not always as simple as a "yes/no", which is all the category allows for. A list already exists so there will be no loss of information. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If some militaries are described in terms of their timeframe (e.g., "Russia 19th century army"), then it might make sense. If militaries are never described in discrete enough timeframes to enable specific labeling, then I have to go with Good Olfactory on this one. Seems like a good topic for a list, though. --Lquilter (talk) 00:47, 30 May 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: Why use the long name and then use sort keys to sort it under "Automation software"? And let it have automation software for other forms of computers too, if they are notable. It won't grow much. Codename Lisa (talk) 02:58, 18 May 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.
