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/delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, there is no other colonial country that has a Biota subcategory just for its European mainland, with Biota it's just obvious that the main category is about the European mainland. Delete Category:Metropolitan France if it will become empty after this merge and the proposed merge below (regarding History of mainland France). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:29, 18 October 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.
Nominator's rationale: upmerge unnecessary category layer. After this merge, the target category will become a container category hosting 8 child categories, that is still very well manageable. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support but go further: merge all to Category:History of France. Some of the subcats are transnational, but I do not think that matters. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:04, 24 October 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.
Category:Wikipedia articles that use Cockney Rhyming Slang[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: This category has no parent categories, has no explanatory text, does not contain any articles (or talk pages) and is not a good way to categorize articles. DexDor(talk) 20:55, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only content seems to be some user talk pages; not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:27, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The two user talk pages do not even seem to belong to a user. The whole tree is non-encyclopaedic. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:07, 24 October 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.
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) 18:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - we have categories at under-21 youth level (and under-23 for the Olympics) but anything younger than that should be grouped together, see prior consensus. GiantSnowman 19:52, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- A player good enough to play at U-16 level one year will probably play at U-17 level the next and so on. Splitting them is a case of category clutter. However youth footballers are not per se notable; only if they go on to play professionally later. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 24 October 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.
Category:Czech Republic under-19 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) 19:40, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - we have categories at under-21 youth level (and under-23 for the Olympics) but anything younger than that should be grouped together, see prior consensus. GiantSnowman 19:51, 18 October 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.
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) 18:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Michael (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - we have categories at under-21 youth level (and under-23 for the Olympics) but anything younger than that should be grouped together, see prior consensus. GiantSnowman 18:34, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- the U-17s will be U-19 two years later. However do we need youth football categories at all? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 18 October 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.
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry - for government hospitals in Sri Lanka. Very many hospitals across the world are owned and run, in various ways, by governments. This does not appear to be a useful category. Rathfelder (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that it's currently not useful container category to host one country only. It may be a pity though that the idea of this categorization scheme (subcategorizing hospitals as government, private, non-profit, teaching) hasn't been exported to other countries; it definitely concerns a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Not useful: the subcat is adequately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 18 October 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.
Category:Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture[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: delete, not a defining characteristic. This category apparently groups all articles that includes material from this encyclopedia, but I don't think that we ever categorize by article sources. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Ideally, articles should have citations from multiple sources so this seems non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Is this a category for making sure that articles do not have copy-vio issues? However, in principle we ought not to have categories by what works they cite. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia articles should be categorized by their topic. DexDor(talk) 20:56, 18 October 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. As to the selective upmerge suggestion, that would require a manual review of the category by someone more familiar with it than me. Ricky81682 (talk) 06:55, 15 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic. I checked quite a few articles and Eber wasn't mentioned in any of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAnd Arpachshad begot Shelah; and Shelah begot Eber. And unto Eber were born two sons... --Genesis 10:24-25 (Emphasis Mine) Categorizing people form this point in the Old Testament genealogy, and not before or after, seems like WP:ARBITRARYCAT. - RevelationDirect (talk) 11:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- It has a sufficient population, though some might go into a sub-cat for descendants of Abraham. However we need to be selective: we cannot have such a category for every generation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
After I noticed that the category talk page hasn't been tagged by any WikiProject, I notified WP:RELIGION and WP:JUDAISM just now. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 21 October 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Delete. Assuming that Eber was a real person, and that he currently has living descendants, population science suggests that very nearly every person alive today is a descendant of Eber. The same goes for Abraham. (This is difficult to believe when you first hear it, but the science is sound. Eber either has no living descendants or virtually all of us are his descendants. For each person, it is virtually guaranteed based on the hypothetical number of ancestors you have when you go back that many generations, which is many times the total population of humans that has ever existed.) We have consistently deleted categories that categorize people by specific ancestor. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:28, 26 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't have an objection against manually checking whether any of the articles of this category may be moved to one or both parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining for those in it, and no clear reason to not include virtually every article with this title, and defintely virtually all articles on people mentioned in the Bible later than Eber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:32, 18 November 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.
Nominator's rationale: downmerge per WP:OVERLAPCAT. All content that has recently been added to Mongolic peoples (next to the target category) can just as well become part of Mongol peoples. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- in theory there is a distinction between people and language, but in reality it works out as much the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 18 October 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:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:09, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in each of these categories. The exception rule in WP:SMALLCAT about a large established tree doesn't apply here, only a few German states have a category in this tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. These categories will eventually have more entries, see e.g. de:Kategorie:Ehemaliger Landkreis in Baden-Württemberg. I see little point in merging now and refining again later when the other articles have been translated. —Kusma (t·c) 10:54, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge for Now Today, these categories muddle navigation for readers. No objection to recreating later if more articles are translated. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now -- Germany has been subject to various administrative reorganisations. We should leave this tree to develop. We may been several different levels of this for different periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 18 October 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:no consensus. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:07, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note The creator supports deleting the category per this edit. Th category has been around too long to qualify for a speedy delete though. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep it is not sharedname, it is categorization by a common characteristic, that is, being a "first", which does not mean that the name is "first", it could be called "original" for some topics, etc; a type of achievement. The division of the superlatives categories to have a subcategory for firsts is a good organizational structure for keeping the size of superlatives smaller. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:09, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Lists (unless the pages are already in that by another category). I agree that this probably has little use for readers, but the same could also be said about Category:Lists - these categories are not grouping articles by topic (which is what readers are most likely to be interested in). We should (and do) categorize lists by topic (sports, nature etc) and I don't see a need for this category as well - i.e. this category provides little benefit, especially to readers, whilst increasing the likelihood that a list article isn't placed in the appropriate <topic>-lists category. DexDor(talk) 20:26, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For what's it's worth, I have concerns about the parent category grouping articles by type of adjective. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the common characteristic appears to be a lists with the name "first", why first ladies have anything to do with extrasolar planets - 2 of the myriad articles finding a home here - is only in the eye of the beholder. Certainly less cohesive than things named for Stalin, which we deleted long ago under WP:SHAREDNAME. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:32, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is the only oddball in the category which is otherwise not by shared name. Just remove First Ladies, and the category is consistent, and not sharedname. As a list of First Ladies is not a list of superlatives, it doesn't fit in the category, the category is a Category:Lists of superlatives subcategory, obviously indicating scope, which is not things named "First" (shared name), but achievements that are firsts (shared characteristic, which is not sharedname). -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:44, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sgreed. An argument that one particular list does not belong in the category is not an argument against the category. That sort of argument has been used a lot at CfD, and it is almost never appropriate, unless there are essentially no suitable items.
Keep. Categories are navigational devices, and it is very reasonable for readers to want to know what WP has of this sort. DGG ( talk ) 09:06, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per DGG pbp 13:57, 26 October 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.
