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: Needless subcategory of Category:Acting awards, which already contains other awards for acting. SFB 23:58, 7 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:rename, but upon inspection of the contents, all of the articles in both categories contain only footballers from Punjab, India—so the Pakistan category will not be created as part of this close (though of course it can be created by another editor at any time). Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:11, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per ArsenalFan700 below, these categories should clearly be show to be about the separate Pakistani and Indian regions. SFB 23:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I created the category with (India) because their are two states named Punjab. One in Pakistan and another in India. That is why their should be a Category:Footballers from Punjab (India). --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@ArsenalFan700: Thanks for the info. I have amended the nomination accordingly. SFB 18:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support the new option as the current structure makes it look like the Pakistani region is primary while the Indian region is secondary, which is bad. Jackmcbarn (talk) 20:20, 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: Subdivision at the island level is sufficient here (small category at the moment). Content should be upmerged to parents SFB 23:22, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Majorca cat: no need for anything more specific. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 17 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. – FayenaticLondon 01:09, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Based on the content of the both categories it seems that they serve the same purpose. I wouldn't mind if, after the merge, the parent category would get the current childcat's name 'Hellenistic Judaism', especially so because there is an article of that name. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Maybe my knowledge just isn't good enough, but the scope of the parent looks very strange. I don't understand why major things like Essenes, Judea and Second Temple are present in this category. Before upmerging, I would prefer to see the parent category's scope defined. At the moment I'm actually leaning towards deleting Category:Ancient Jewish Greek history. SFB 18:14, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair comment. I found these categories in the tree of Category:Jewish history by period and they both cover the Hellenistic era in Jewish history. For example, the Judea childcategory is covering the Roman province of that name. Getting back to the nomination, probably the best name for the merged category would be Hellenistic-era Judaism. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The current content of the category doesn't match the main article anyway, despite what the header says. Hellenistic Judaism can be regarded as a branch of Judaism as in contrast to the traditionalist branch, while the current category content is for the entire Jewish religion and its environment in the Hellenistic era. Matching the main article would require purging the category and in worst case could even result in deleting the category because of WP:SMALLCAT. At the same time I think there is nothing against having a Hellenistic-era category in the by-period tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:47, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment neither category is satisfactory. The Hellenistic period can be defined as from Alexander to the coming of the Romans. I can see the logic in having a tree for the diapora among the successor states. This probably needs to be paralelled by a category (or categories) covering the Jewish homeland in the period. Unfortunately, that is not as simple as it sounds as Galilee was Jewish, but not part of Judaea. "Jewish history in the Hellenistic period" might be an appropropriate paernt for the tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to a split based on diaspora versus homeland. However that would require quite some reshuffling of content in the both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:03, 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:Mayors of Moundsville, West Virginia[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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. Moundsville is a community of less than 10,000. Mayors of such communities are rarely notable. ...William 20:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not a defining role. The sole person in the category seems to have been broadly notable for other reasons. SFB 18:17, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge but also to the WV parent. Too small to merit a specific category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 17 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: Small category, currently one article. The one article has been parented to all relevant categories, no need to upmerge the category to anything else. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Scope too narrow to be of use at the moment. FYI - I have gathered content more broadly in a new category: Category:Works about creationism. SFB 18:25, 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:Templates with minimal expansion depth[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: Most template authors don't know what expansion depth is, and its limit is rarely hit, but the main reason is that templates that use Lua have even smaller expansion depths than these templates could hope to have, and they're already categorized at Category:Lua-based templates, so this category is no longer useful. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete. A pointless category: there are probably many, many simple templates that qualify. So why collect them? Complex ones perhaps, if there are any which haven't been converted to Lua, but I'm sure those have already been identified.
Looking at the members there seem a fair few unused ones, created as part of an optimisation effort which has since been overtaken by Lua adoption/conversion, so no longer used if they ever were. Probably should list them for deletion at TfD.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 00:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by author. This category has been used to identify templates which have purposely been designed to have minimal expansion depth, although many other templates might accidentally have minimal expansion levels for their various purposes. Just as some parser functions run much faster than Lua-based templates, the performance of a markup-based template might be much faster than Lua but also have issues with the expansion-depth levels. Templates invoked with no parameters (as all default parameters) are "cached" and repeated uses run very quickly, so performance issues such as the expansion depth can be a related concern as well. Hence, the category should be kept to cross-connect templates which have been designed for minimal expansion depth. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
some parser functions run much faster than Lua-based templates Citation needed. Please demonstrate a single non-trivial wikitext template that runs faster than its Lua equivalent. Templates invoked with no parameters (as all default parameters) are "cached" and repeated uses run very quickly This seems totally irrelevant, and it's also true of Lua-based templates. Jackmcbarn (talk) 22:23, 18 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) 21:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As previous CFDs[1] and this one[2] and others, we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. Also propose upmerge Chinese athletes ...William 14:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These categories' geographical parental categories (Category:Chinese badminton players, &c.) are sufficiently large -- prior to diffusion, unwieldily large -- categories that require geographic diffusion. The degree of geographic diffusion might e debatable, but remember that China is a country of 1.35 billion people and innumerable athletes. Failure to geographically diffuse, even on the provincial level (which this is), renders categories essentially useless as unnavigatable. (Indeed, Category:Sportspeople from Liaoning would, upon up merge (as it was prior to diffusion) be itself be an unwieldily large category.) Indeed, it should be noted that many Chinese provinces are themselves very large entities in terms of population (and therefore, sportspeople). Liaoning has a population of 44 million, which makes it significantly more populous than the most populous United States state (California), by comparison (38 million). In fact, Liaoning is only the 14th most populous province in China. The most populous, Guangdong, has 104 million people. Surely the nominator does not mean to suggest that no geographic diffusion is at all appropriate? --Nlu (talk) 14:52, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep although individually small they are not excessively so, while the upmerged category would be large and much less useful. The impact would be greater on the pages which would all need adding not just to the upmerged category but to XXX from China category for their sport. Those 100+ pages (plus many more yet to be created) are far better served by the current scheme.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 16:20, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --Athletes, football, swimming (and possibly one more) with over 10 articles. Full upmerge on rest, as too small to be worth having. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Upmerging makes the parent categories too large. --Nlu (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The given examples concern subdividing down to the city/place level. At 44 million people, Liaoning is more populous than the largest US state and would rank 31st largest country in the world by population. We should clearly be subdividing by sports profession here. It's worth learning more about Chinese provinces as these will grow more relevant in short order – Guangdong may not be a big deal in the West, but it is for the 100+ million who live there. SFB 23:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: an upmerged category would be too large and unwieldy. A few categories are a bit small at the moment, but they'll only grow in time. -Zanhe (talk) 05:05, 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 article Islamic schools and branches. The term sect isn't applicable here, all major branches are in these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:44, 7 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.
