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. There was little participation here. It seems evident to me that one of the participants either did not completely read or did not completely understand what was being proposed. Another participant opposed only because the nomination was not broad enough. For those reasons, a broader renomination may well be appropriate.Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:40, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is misleading as the hatnote of this category says: This category is for petroleum producers. For gas retailers, use Category:Natural gas companies of Australia. If this category is meant to include only the petroleum producers, as suggested by the hatnote, the current name of this category is wrong as it includes also gas companies. The correct name in this case should be category:Oil companies of Australia. If the hatnote is incorrect and this category should include also gas companies, the category:Natural gas companies of Australia should be merged here as partly overlapping. I personally prefer the renaming option, as proposed. Beagel (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is that while there is certainly some inconsistency within the tree by which a few of the other-country siblings in Category:Oil companies by country are named "oil", most of them are named "oil and gas". There's certainly a case to be made that petroleum and natural gas companies should be catted separately from each other — but any such change would also apply to Algeria and Argentina and Belgium and Mexico and the United Kingdom and all of the other 100+ countries whose equivalent categories are also at "oil and gas" instead of just "oil". (The UK, oddly, seems to have both an "oil and gas" category and an "oil" subcategory within it, though no other country does it that way that I've seen so far.) I'm not opposed to the renaming in principle, but this is an international problem of what the standard naming convention should be for all subcategories of Category:Oil companies by country rather than a uniquely Australian issue. Oppose nomination as constituted, though I would support a batch renomination of all of the affected categories. Bearcat (talk) 20:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The standard naming is "oil and gas" in the case if there is no separate categories for oil companies and gas companies (except the UK for some reasons). In other cases there are different categories for the oil companies and for the gas companies. However, this issue has raised several times before and no consensus has been found. On the one hand, I agree that "oil and gas companies" categories should be split into "oil companies" and "natural gas companies". On the other hand, in some countries there is only one national oil and gas company. I am afraid that we will not find consensus for the split of all oil and gas companies categories, but I don't think that this should block resolving the issue with Australian companies. As the case of the UK, I will make an additional proposal to merge Category:Oil and gas companies of the United Kingdom into category:Oil companies of the United Kingdom and then clean it up and refine its categories manually. Accordingly, also relevant subcategories for England, Scotland, and Northern Ireland should be renamed, so I am adding these to the nomination. Beagel (talk) 10:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a proposal for a category structure that allows for both countries with and without split of oil and gas, see talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Oil and gas potentially come out of the same kind of wells and many oil producing companies also produce gas. I cannot comment on Australia, but the rename in England would have the bizarre result that two gas boards were classified as oil companies. They were created on nationalisation in 1948 to distribute town gas, created in gas works from coal. With the rise of natural gas production form the North Sea, they became gas distributors, until British gas was privatised in the 1980s. They never had anything to do with gas. On the other hand, companies such as Shell and BP produce both oil and gas: a split will not work. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I explained, in the case of British categories, after renaming natural gas companies of England,Scotland and Northern Ireland categories will be created, and relevant companies, including those gas boards, will be recategorized. BP and other multinationals producing both oil and gas will included in both categories, so there is no problem. Beagel (talk) 06:16, 14 December 2015 (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:converted. – FayenaticLondon 23:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This isn't really a Wikipedia category - it's more like a user page showing offshowcasing their (very nice) photos. DexDor(talk) 19:36, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Better wording. DexDor(talk) 08:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uhm, showing off? No. I'm in the process of building and categorizing images to make them easier for editors to find. Other users have been doing it long before I started editing WP. Photography is not a vanity hobby for me. It was my vocation for over 40 years, so I have a substantial stock inventory that I've set aside specifically to contribute to WP. (6 figures worth) You could say it's my way of donating hundreds of thousands of dollars to the project if you want to put a value on it. We already know that most of the images that get uploaded to WP are crappy while a much smaller portion (comparatively) are quality images. If editors know John Doe has quality train images, and Jane Doe has quality underwater footage, what does it hurt to go to their respective user image categories to find the image you need instead of weeding through all the junk and wasting butt loads of time? Not all images have gone through the rigors of FP or QI but are still top shelf. My intent with the category was to, well...categorize the images so they'd be easy to find. Any editor who is here to create content and expand articles for GA and/or FA promotion can appreciate knowing where they can quickly find quality images - and maybe if they don't see it in the category, they can email me or post a request for what they need. For example, I keep a list of tech editors that I know are knowledgable about certain things, and I purposely look for their scripts because I trust them. I consider that helpful. I'm not sure why you think deleting the user image categories would be helpful to the project (and there are several more out there, not just mine) but go ahead and do whatever you think you need to do. I just love to invest my valuable time making things easy for others so I can wake up one morning and watch it get deleted for no reason. Atsme📞📧 20:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia image galleries (although not obvious from its name) is intended to be a maintenance category (the category text says "pages need to be transwiki-ed to Commons", it was created with edit summary "this is a transit processing page" and the category creator has confirmed this). Thus, it's not a category that pages should stay in permanently. Note: There's no intention here to delete anything - merely move it to a more appropriate namespace. DexDor(talk) 08:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear how other editors who would need these photos for articles would ever find this category. Categories are organized by contents, not by user names. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why not re-categorize to Category:Self-published work as a subcategory? Is there something in our policies or otherwise a precedent for its deletion? Atsme's response seems to be logical to me. — Berean Hunter(talk) 00:47, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, parent this category to Category:Images of nature. "Self-published work" still doesn't say anything about the contents. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The user has provided some very nice images, but this is a user page, non-encyclopedic. It might be made a sub-page of his user page. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Maybe a soft redirect to a similar page at Commons? I know there they have plenty of "Images by" categories. Montanabw(talk) 04:57, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, sorry but I have to plead ignorant in these matters. I don't know how to parent, or soft redirect, or link from en.wiki to commons. There doesn't appear to be an issue categorizing user images at commons. I've seen several other users with high quality images on their user pages at commons and wish there was some way we could categorize all the user images under a single parent, and also identify each user's specialty (or specialties). For example, the parent could be User Images with each user identified something like User:Atsme (flora, birds, wildlife, equine, underwater, landscapes). Is it possible? Atsme📞📧 15:06, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:Wikipedian photographers which groups together userpages many/most of which have a gallery and/or a link to another page/website (e.g. User:Atsme, User:Nickomargolies). Subcategories (e.g. for Wikipedian underwater photographers) could be created. You (or myself if you agree) could create a subpage such as "User:Atsme/Photos of flora, birds, wildlife, equine, underwater, landscapes" and put it in Category:Self-published work (until we find/create a better category for such pages). Note: this isn't really about categorizing individual images (i.e. files); it's about categorizing pages which contain a gallery of thumbnail images. DexDor(talk) 19:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DexDor, please do what you think is best. I am agreeable, and thankful for your help. I apologize if I've inconvenienced anyone when my intent was to organize for convenience - rather ironic, isn't it? Atsme📞📧 20:04, 14 December 2015 (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 per long-standing consensus (since 2007) not to categorise individuals or groups by the PoV term "terrorist". As the closer of that discussion, we do not have a "neutral, unbiased, water-tight, non negotiable definition of who or what a terrorist actually is". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 18 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have Category:Terrorists - that was deleted by this CFD. Thus, we shouldn't have this category either. Note: This category was created without any parent categories which strongly suggests that the creator doesn't really understand wp categorization (it would be helpful if we had a CSD for "category created without any parents" to avoid needing a CFD discussion in such cases). PS If this is kept it would need to be renamed to correct the capitalisation. DexDor(talk) 18:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This Category must be speedy deleted and give Warning to creator to not create such a categories with any subcategories in future or create Categories that already deleted in the pastWorld Cup 2010 (talk) 18:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's Rational: The category created and been used as an umbrella term for:
some leaders of groups who used militant violence to achieve their purposes and are killing unarmed people and this practice is called terrorism
all such groups think they are rightful because they are Muslim and Allah gave them such a right to kill others, but this is not what all Muslims believe
also leaders of all such groups who been categorised under this category like Al-Qaeda, ISIL and etc. have been executed because of terrorism or wanted internationally.
Jihad which is a canonical concept among Sunni Muslim and elevated by such groups is the concept used to justify such killings and ascribed to Allah. This concept is not as such centric to Islam among other groups of Muslims, also other Muslims do not interpret Jihad as killing others.
So it should remain, however if it needs some parent category or child category, or some first letter convention it is OK to being edited.Shvahabi (talk) 19:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Dear user before any editing or creating please review or read Wikipedia rules. Wikipedia doesn't follow illogical or religious purposes. Wikipedia is an free Encyclopedia. It is a not media. Wikipedia is not right place for propaganda publications.World Cup 2010 (talk) 03:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
non-religious fact The guess of World Cup 2010 about creator's point of view without any reasoning is not correct, and definitely he should stop labelling others (with or without reasoning). And this is not a view, better if called a widespread fact. Creator's reasoning is by no means a religious one, and is justified as below:
A human body who has been sentenced by a court (of a country of UN) for guilt of terrorism is a terrorist, weather executed by court itself or in a war operation for such purpose
A human who advocates claims against himself in a such court through SunniSharia concepts is a Sunni. Also as a leader before being arrested he was recruiting from Sunni Muslim societies by exaggerating importance of Jihad. It means his audience for such call are only among Sunnis.
such humans are definitely fall under category Sunni (although its a kind of Sunni fundamentalism) and terrorism. I repeat once more that any edits related to sub categories or super categories of the proposed category is OK and welcome, provided that it does not change the category members. There have been lots of other terrorism activities round world which are not justified under Jihad or any other SunniSharia concept, so they are still terrorism, but does not fall under such proposed category. Shvahabi (talk) 12:02, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is a Category:People convicted on terrorism charges but in the nominated category we have an article where the assumed terrorist died before he could be convicted of anything, so the convicted category is not appropriate to merge to. This situation may occur often and might be a reason to allow a Category:Terrorists after all. However I don't think we need to intersect the category with Sunni Islam, assuming that Muslim territorists' view of Sunni Islam is not representative of Sunni Islam in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The only article currently in this category is in plenty of other categories (e.g. Category:Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members) so I don't see much/any reason to overturn the previous decision not to have Category:Terrorists. DexDor(talk) 19:01, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- We have been reluctant to have terrorism categories, because one man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. However we do have an article Islamic terrorism; and we do have Category:People convicted of terrorism, but the one article cannot go in it, because the subject died without being convicted. He was apparently shot dead by the police, because he was engaged in terrorism. Similarly, we may get biographies of suicide bombers (though I hope not). Again they cannot be convicted, because they are dead, but they were clearly guilty of it. How about Category:People killed while perpetrating terrorism, or even Category:Terrorists killed in action. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categories using wording like "while perpetrating" or "in action" wouldn't really apply to someone (like in this case or in that of Tamerlan Tsarnaev) who died in a police operation (or in some other way) some time after they committed an attack. DexDor(talk) 18:50, 14 December 2015 (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 tafsir is the more used, interwikied, older category. We also have Tafsir as the article and not Quranic exegesis. If the article was changed or there was a clear naming convention issue, I'd be fine with the move. Barring that, it seems like it would just create inconsistency. grenグレン 02:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per article Tafsir. Note that I wouldn't have a problem with renaming the article, then renaming the category, from Tafsir to Quranic exegesis. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge but keep a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge per consistency with main articles. I agree with Marcocapelle's renaming suggestion for Nom's initial option per WP:ENGLISH. - HyperGaruda (talk) 16:35, 7 January 2016 (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:Finland under-18 international footballers[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: Only the top (major) youth national teams from each country should be given it's own category and the lower youth levels grouped together. – Michael (talk) 00:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per prior consensus e.g. this amongst others. GiantSnowman 15:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per prior consensus: the U-18s will be U19s next year. I am dubious whether we should have these categories at all, but perhaps those to go on to play professionally as adults and played for national youth teams deserve it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2015 (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:merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only the top (major) youth national teams from each country should be given it's own category and the lower youth levels grouped together. – Michael (talk) 00:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 00:09, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per prior consensus e.g. this amongst others. GiantSnowman 15:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per prior consensus: the U-17s will be U-18s next year. I am dubious whether we should have these categories at all, but perhaps those to go on to play professionally as adults and played for national youth teams deserve it. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:16, 13 December 2015 (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.
