Category:History books about the city of Halifax[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 as proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. This is too specific to warrnat a category. Furthermore the place should be Halifax, Nova Scotia to distinguish it from Halifax in Yorkshire. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 10 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.
Oppose -- Not all commissions are conducting enquiries. I would suggest that we should retain this despite the SHAREDNAME issue, as the fact that a body is called "commission" is likely to be useful as an aid to navigation, for those who are not quite sure of the procise name of the one in question. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete purely a shared name. Moreover, Commission is a disambiguation page for the commission of art works, paying sales people, launching ships, promoting military officers, as well as panels of folks that are fact finding (inquiries?) or negotiating or legislating or administering policies. Surely "commissions of inquiry" would suffice to hold the inquiring panels and the other uses are just shared names. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a case of categorizing by shared name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:07, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Although the page currently says that Commission of inquiry is the main article, that redirects to Royal Commission, which says that a "Royal Commission is a major ad-hoc formal public inquiry". In the light of this and the above comments, I suggest the appropriate course would be "delete with selective merge" to Category:Public inquiries (or "merge and purge"), as the others are only categorised here because of the shared name, which is over-categorisation. – FayenaticLondon 07:40, 19 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.
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. Category was created before determination of whether it was needed. I tried to populate the category, but there's just not enough articles to meet the threshold. It should be deleted, and the contents upmerged to Category:Romance film stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge (changing my !vote). Duh. I missed that it was a stub categ, and as such it is too small. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, as we have a lower limit of 50-60 articles in stub categories. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Small stub categories are not useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's a romance film and what reliable source says so? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is a validly filled subcategory providing enough reason to keep this category. Traditionally, all plays / films have two categories: Comedy or Drama (happy or sad ending). Now in current years, these meanings have altered somewhat, but most romance films would fall into either one or the other, even given contemporary understanding of these terms. We have over 100 comedic romantic film stubs for this decade. So, maybe we have less than 60 dramatic romantic film stubs, but all of these would still be classified under the larger heading of romantic films. Dawynn (talk)
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. Category was created before determination of whether it was needed. I tried to populate the category, but there's just not enough articles to meet the threshold. It should be deleted, and the contents upmerged to Category:Romance film stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge (changing my !vote). Duh. I missed that it was a stub categ, and as such it is too small. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, as we have a lower limit of 50-60 articles in stub categories. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:46, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Small stub categories are not useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This just needed a little help. First, a romantic comedy is both a romance and a comedy. So, pulling in template {{1980s-romantic-comedy-film-stub}} instantly adds 43 articles to this category. A little effort pulled in a few more. Current tally:
Dawynn, with all due respect, your reasoning is flawed. First of all, adding the romance and comedy categories to the stub {{1980s-romantic-comedy-film-stub}} is not appropriate, because that stub is already populating a sub-category of both those categories. If the template had enough articles to warrant its own category, then placing its category as a sub-category of both would be appropriate. As for {{1980s-romance-film-stub}}, ideally a film article may have more than one stub template, if one is needed for genre and a second for country of origin. And sometimes these stub categories are broken down by decade because of size. But adding a third stub template that is already covered by the other two, just to populate an unneeded stub category, is redundant and unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're neglecting year of release. {{1980s-romantic-comedy-film-stub}} is not yet tagged on enough articles to warrant its own category. So, no, there is no subcategory here that can merge up to Category:1980s romance films and Category:1980s comedy films. But the template could validly upmerge to both of these categories until such time as it is used on sufficient articles. But in that case, again, Category:1980s romance films would be valid because it would then have a validly filled subcategory. There is no {{1980s-romantic-drama-film-stub}} template, but there probably should be, as the 23 articles noted above (amongst untagged others) could validly use such a tag -- and it would remove the need to tag with both {{1980s-romance-film-stub}} and {{romantic-drama-film-stub}}. Note that tagging with a year of release tag also helps us to put this in a subcategory under Category:1980s film stubs. Such cannot be done if we tag only with non-dated templates. (And yes, it is *quite* likely that an editor would be more familiar with films from a particular decade and want to focus on the decade rather than editing films from all of cinema history). Dawynn (talk) 13:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, sometimes stub categories need to be broken down by decade because of size. But per WP:STUB, it serves no purpose to add multiple stub tags to an article, if one or two are already sufficient to cover the subject's main notability. Therefore, it is usually unnecessary to create a stub tag to indicate decade of release if 1) there aren't enough articles using it to meet the threshold, and 2) all the articles involved already have a genre stub tag that is more specific. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:38, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what's a romance film and what reliable source says so? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:30, 13 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:speedy keep. (non-admin closure) Valoemtalkcontrib 22:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Technopathy is a fictional power. We don't have articles about real people who claim to have this ability. Nerd in Texas (talk) 13:58, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as inconsistent. Category:Fictional characters is a well established category tree, there is no reason to start renaming parts of this category to remove the designation. --Andrewaskew (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the fictional category tree should carry "fictional" to be clear, and to be futureproof (and religion/myth proof in other cases) -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose ongoing research into "mind-machine" interfaces (such as thought identification) for prosthetic and other applications is a real science. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 03:05, 15 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. To avoid abbreviations, and added "Members of" to make it more clear . Vigyanitalkਯੋਗਦਾਨ 05:15, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete These school associations are rarely defining of the schools themselves. Schools can be members of all sorts of associations, and can join or leave them at any time for various reasons. There isn't enough here for a topic category on JCIS, and as a set category it fails WP:DEFINING.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:International schools in Japan. No evidence that membership of the association is defining, but being an international school is defining. AFAICS, there is a lot overlap between this category and the target, but by mergeing the bots will ensure that nothing is lost. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (category creator) -- Many organizations in Japan call themselves international schools, but lack accreditation or a truly international curriculum. The schools that are members of JCIS are a distinct subset of the much larger category of Category:International schools in Japan. I agree with the original suggestion of renaming the category. --- Shaney. (talk) 00:22, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Schools can become accredited, or loose their accredidation with any given organization, but if they ever were accredited, they will remain in the category. The cat creator seems to want a list more than a category, and even then he seems to be trying to use wikipedia to advance a class distrinction of schools. This is clearly not the type of thing categories should be used for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 20 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. – FayenaticLondon 07:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a WP:DEFINING categorisation. (Category creator.) Morphology is a broad type of classification system which groups by shape (including more abstract ideas of shape, such as in linguistic morphology), this category collects the various morphological systems. The question here is not whether its subcategories cover a lot of material (they do), but as to whether an overarching class of taxonomies is a meaningful grouping that is likely to be useful to readers and editors ("definingness"). I would say yes, but that is why I created the category. There is a great deal more work done (within Wikipedia, and without) on biological taxonomy than other classes, but we can speak meaningfully about non-biological taxonomic systems. --Andrewaskew (talk) 06:11, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep but reorganize This should be a container class for the main articles for morphology in each field, and for the corresponding subcats. Period. There's really some argument for making a real main article for this. Mangoe (talk) 12:26, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- While techically the main article is a dabpage, it is in fact more like a list article, with 4-5 redlinks. The Greek morpheo means I change. Morphology is therefore the study of change. Naturally change is studied in many contexts. The problem is the lack of a proper main article covering all types of this. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You say Morphology is ... the study of change, but the category creator says "Morphology ... groups by shape ...". Which meaning is this category referring to? DexDor (talk) 21:20, 15 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.
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 (or to "Subfields of evolutionary biology" which I think is a slightly clearer name) and if necessary add inclusion criteria. Note: This is the only category in enwiki with a name containing "areas of study". DexDor (talk) 04:23, 9 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.
