Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 21 August 23 >

August 22[edit]

Category:Test container kittycatty[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: procedural close. Category appears to have been deleted already. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: appears to be a test Mduvekot (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's correct. And this could not wait why? Or a little msg on my talk page? — Sam Sailor 23:38, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have a test category to experiment with at Category:X1. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 24 August 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:Peerages of the United Kingdom[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: rename. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a container for the 5 different national peerage systems which exist within what is now the United Kingdom: Category:Peerage of England (to 1707), Category:Peerage of Ireland (to 1707), Category:Peerage of Scotland (to 1800), Category:Peerage of Great Britain (1707–1800, and Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom (1801–present).
The current title is unhelpfully similar to the sub-cat Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom, and this renaming clarifies its role as a container. It also aligns the category with the head article Peerages in the United Kingdom ... which oddly, was not the head article until I added it a few minutes ago (so this doesn't qualify as a WP:C2D speedy), but is a perfect fit as an overview of this set of 5 national peerage systems. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS Note that this proposal arises out of the discussion below on Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom. That proposal was kindly withdrawn by the nominator @Alekksandr: after discussion, when this emerged as a better solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related article's name. The main **article is Peerages in the United Kingdom and matching the articles and main articles makes it easier for readers to navigate. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for the reasons given. Alekksandr (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Since Peerage of UK is only a part of what his is about. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 28 August 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:Whacked Out Media[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no obvious scope for this category, and the whole thing stinks of an effort to promote Whacked Out Media. Note that Barney83Stinson (the creator of this category as well as the Whacked Out Media article) was confirmed by CU to be using multiple accounts in a questionable way, and I'm not confident the user was telling me the truth when he denied at Talk:Whacked Out Media having a conflict of interest.
But back to the merits of the deletion nomination, Whacked Out Media appears to be some sort of marketing/brand-management company, so I don't really see how the category is going to help us. By indicating which films were promoted by their company? By indicating who their actor clients are? Seems gratuitously self-promotional.
Further, per WP:CAT, there has to be an obvious reason why a category is added to an article, shall we expect to see prose to the effect of:
The promotions for ____ were managed by Whacked Out Media[1]
So unless we're going to start polluting film articles and BLPs with content about the company that promotes them, I don't see the benefit of the category. Is there a logical precedent? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Barney83Stinson: I clicked on 5 articles and none mentioned Whacked Out Media, even in a passing reference. Am I missing something? RevelationDirect (talk) 23:09, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    RevelationDirect, the only prose mention I can find is at Kabali (film). "Digital promotions and social media promotions were handled by Whacked Out Media". It's pretty much the basis of my concern that we're going to start polluting articles with shout-outs to the promotional companies involved, simply to legitimize the inclusion of a category like Category:Whacked Out Media. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete per above. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and does thisn nom cover the subcats Category:DVV Entertainments and Category:Rockline Entertainments as well? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Redrose64 - Category stuff ain't zackly my specialty, so if you think that's warranted, I would have to defer to the knowledge of the CfD regulars. Rockline Entertainments looks like a production company for Indian film actor Rockline Venkatesh. It would probably make more sense that we would have categories for films he's produced than for Whacked Out Media. It's unclear to me why Rockline Entertainments is a subcategory of Whacked Out Media. Same with DVV Entertainments, which appears to be the production company of actor DVV Danayya. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with thanks to Cyphoidbomb for creating the nomination. I had thought of nominating it myself, with much the same rationale; the purpose of having a category is to group articles together using relevant criteria, and the category "company that handled promotions for a number of films" does not appear to be relevant to me. If I'm reading an article about a film, am I likely to want to find other articles about films that are marketed by the same company? Not really. This might smack of WP:IDONTLIKEIT but I truly don't see that there is an obvious reason to group these articles together, especially not since the category has apparently been created for promotional reasons. --bonadea contributions talk 12:19, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm not exactly clear on what the precise relationship is between Whacked Out Media and most of the categorized items, because most of their articles fail to explain the relationship at all — but we do not categorize films by the company that happened to handle promotions, or by every individual streaming platform that happens to carry it, or whatever this is about. We categorize on defining characteristics, not loosely associated with ones. Bearcat (talk) 01:24, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The relationship between Whacked Out Media and the category contents is non-defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 11 September 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:Peerage of the United Kingdom[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: speedy keep. Proposal withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are five peerages in the UK - those of England (to 1707), Scotland (to 1707) Great Britain (1707-1800), the United Kingdom (since 1800) and Ireland. Alekksandr (talk) 18:55, 22 August 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:Christian Brothers school alumni[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. The schools may well be defined and categorized as Category:Christian Brothers schools, but their students should only be categorized as students of the school in question. We could as well have a category Women whose husbands have won the Stanley Cup (or some vice versa variant, no gender discrimination intended). Categorization is not "contageous". HandsomeFella (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerize/Purge I don't think I have a problem with grouping the various alumni subcategories together in this tree as an alternative navigation path. What I have trouble with is the hundreds of loose articles that seem to prone to making mistakes about which schools qualify to me (especially given the naming confusion over the similar sounding orders) and I'm not sure it's directly defining for individual biography articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, maybe. It seems to me that the creator, using the category system, has gone through students from all these schools and added this category in addition to the category for the school in question. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the best of my knowledge, parent/child category conflicts have been avoided or removed. Gjs238 (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't favor directly categorizing loose biography articles by type school they attended. Too much room for error and not as helpful for navigation as by school. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I indicated above, I could accept keeping it, if all BLP articles are diffused (de-categorized). Question: is my theory that you have gone through the individual [school name] alumni categories, and then added this category to all those BLP articles correct? If so, I think you should go through them again, and remove the category. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and diffuse. A category for people educated by a particular religious order is a WP:DEFINING characteristic, and the nominator's sneering comparator is at best inappropriate. These religious orders apply a set of values to education, which are formative in the lives of their pupils.
    Where possible, the articles should be diffused to categories for the appropriate schools, but that may not be possible in all cases. Where the exact school is known, this category should not appear on an article; instead the Category: People educated at Foo School will be in this category. However, inn some cases the exact school may not be known, and in such cases this categ is appropriately used on articles to identify the type of school.
    However, please note that Christian Brothers is a disambiguation page, referring mostly to either the Irish Christian Brothers (founded by Edmund Rice) or the De La Salle Brothers (a French order). Both those head articles are currently the subject of requested move discussions proposed by me (see RM on the French/De La Salle Brothers and see also RM on the Irish/Edmund Rice Brothers). When the names of the head articles have been agreed, sub-categories should be created to separate the schools run by the two orders. Then this category will become a pure container, with only two subcategories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to speedy renaming the whole tree if/when those RMs pass. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Diffusion has been occurring when the information is known. Over time as more information becomes known diffusion is likely to continue. Some examples:

Gjs238 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. @Gjs238: if the name of the school is unknown, how on earth do we know it's a Christian Brothers school??? HandsomeFella (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was an error due to a redirect and has been corrected. Gjs238 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to/clarification of my above examples:

  • Diffusion has been occurring when the appropriate child categories are available. Over time as more child categories become available diffusion is likely to continue. Some examples:
Gjs238 (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • All articles and categories within Category:Christian Brothers school alumni (to the best of my knowledge) are associated with the "Irish Christian Brothers." The category does not contain alumni of the French order. Gjs238 (talk) 00:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Gjs238: on what basis have you been adding articles to this category? You mentioned (above) Ronald DeFeo Jr., but there was nothing in the article which mentioned his education, let alone a reference to justify his inclusion in this category. So I removed[1] him from the category.
      How many other articles are in this category without a reference to justify their inclusion? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:35, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • From List of Christian Brothers school alumni Gjs238 (talk) 02:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Gjs238:That list has only 5 references for its ~200 entries. Per WP:Categorization#Articles Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.
          That guideline does not allow editors just go adding categories to articles without a reference to justify the categorisation, and if this category is based solely on an unsourced list, then I think it needs to be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:12, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Some of the individual articles do indeed mention education in specific Christian Brother schools. I'll purge the category, no reason to discard the baby with the bath water. Gjs238 (talk) 02:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • As I'm going through these pages, I'm finding that they are referenced either in the article itself or in the article for one or more of the schools listed for the person's education. For example, the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar article shows that he attended Power Memorial Academy where he is listed (and referenced from, the New York Times) as an alumni. Gjs238 (talk) 02:42, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. Being a Christian Brothers school is a property of the schools. Having been an alumnus of a particular school ís a property of the persons. The school property cannot loosely be transferred to the person articles as some sort of property-by-inheritance. Unless alumni categories are created for each school that has an article, this category should be deleted, and the content listified. HandsomeFella (talk) 10:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete being educated by a particular order is not defining; any more or less than being educated in secular schools or whatever, and having categories for every conceivable grouping of school alumni is more category clutter with no benefit to the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerise as Category:Christian Brothers (Irish) school alumni. The articles should be moved down to appropriate school subcats. We had a discussion recently about disambiguating the similarly named French and Irish orders. A container parent may be appropriate, but alumni themselves should be done by individual schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem is that few of those categories exist, and that the only basis for placing articles in this category is a poorly sourced list article, which is why the best solution is to delete, at least until the list article is well referenced, and the various school alumni categories are created. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "the only basis for placing articles in this category is a poorly sourced list article:" That is not correct and I thought that had been clarified earlier. As I wrote above: Some of the individual articles do indeed mention education in specific Christian Brother schools. As I'm going through these pages, I'm finding that they are referenced either in the article itself or in the article for one or more of the schools listed for the person's education. For example, the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar article shows that he attended Power Memorial Academy where he is listed (and referenced from, the New York Times) as an alumni. Gjs238 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, "some" are sourced, but that means does not mean that they should be in this category. They should be in the school-specific category, such as for instance Category:Power Memorial Academy alumni, which apparently does not exist. And the overwhelming majority is unsourced, and the only basis for categorizing them was the list article. I went through a few samples, and a) there's no source for the school belonging to Christian Brothers, and b) there's no source for the person being an alumnus of that school. Summing up, there's a lot of unsupported categorizations, and the best thing is remove the category altogether. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, we'll categorize by sources that say someone wen to some "Christian Brothers" school and trust that vague background to identify the right "Christian Brothers" denomination? That seems like an obscure use case to allow loose articles in this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerization as Peterkingiron proposed earlier, seems to be the most appropriate solution here. This will keep the alumni of Christian Brother schools together, but only insofar it is known which school they attended. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should not in any way group together the alumni of schools by the sponsoring organizations behaind the schools. What next Category:Baptist school alumni?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 11 September 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.

China Olympic medalists[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This structure doesn't exist for any other country or Olympic Games. Really needs discussion at WT:OLY if it needs to be created. And it's poorly worded to boot. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The names may be badly-worded, but the categories are conceptual useful and are all of a very reasonable size (well done, China). There may not be other similar categories, but it seems to me that similar categories should exist for the other nations with big medal hauls (USA, GB, etc), to split large categories such as Category:Olympic silver medalists for China (~300 pages) and Category:Medalists at the 2016 Summer Olympics (~1500 pages).
    It would not be helpful to apply such a fine split for countries with a smaller medal haul, but for the big winners it looks like a great idea. I suggest some discussion at WT:OLY before rushing into deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm with BHG on this one. Other categories (for the countries at the top of the medal table) should be created to bring the main categories down to a manageable size. Schwede66 22:43, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support creation of specific intersection categories for nationality+year of medal will create far too many small and single entry categories to be a useful way to categorize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - given the size of the national categories here, I think we need these categories. I would oppose creating such cateogries for countries with only a few medals (e.g Israel), but this makes sense for countries with many (e.g China, the US). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:52, 14 September 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:Toponymy[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: purge to begin with, with no objection to renomination if purging might not resolve the objections raised. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Toponymy is both the study of place names and a collection of place names, therefore toponymy is ambiguous with regard to the target intended, between the object of study and the academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The Toponymy main article would lead you to believe this category would be the study of the topic, whereas the actual contents of the category are place names. This is really just a truth in advertising change. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move any (lists of) place names out to Category:Place names. We wouldn't want to mix apples and oranges. Uanfala (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but purge any mere lists into target. The subject is the origin of place names, which can have historical implications. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 28 August 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.

Las Vegas sports categories[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: rename for now. If the "Las Vegas, Nevada" categories are renamed to "Las Vegas" per the 2016 Sep 6 CFD, then these categories could be speedily renamed to match that format.
Nominator's rationale: A quick look at "Category:Sports in the United States by city" and you'll see that every other category for a city is named "Sports in (city), (state)," regardless of whether or not they actually play in that city. Why Las Vegas is the exception I have no idea...nobody calls it the "Las Vegas Valley" in general conversation, so per WP:COMMONNAME, that should automatically disqualify the name. A rename to "Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada" is in order, as it will make it named like every US sports city category. Tom Danson (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The folks at WikiProject Las Vegas would probably know better then I would, but I believe that this has something to do with the fact that the place that everyone knows as "Las Vegas" is actually located in Paradise, Nevada. Apparently, there is an actual city of Las Vegas itself, but nothing really goes on there, and nobody actually goes there. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Some American cities have a category for a wider metropolitan area. Is that relevant here? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per common name. The common name for the area refered to is Las Vegas. It is a bit much to say that "nobody goes there" of Las Vegas within the city. There are multiple casinos in the city limits. However the main point is that in Las Vegas itself, Las Vegas is colloquially used to refer to everywhere that is clearly not in North Las Vegas nor in Henderson within the Valley. So the common name is Las Vegas, and that is how we should categorize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:03, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 6#Major US cities may be relevant to the trget names here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:58, 14 September 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.

Redundant topical interests userbox categories[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 Category:Health-related user templates into Category:Health user templates, and Category:Favourite subject user templates (without pictures) into Category:Favourite subject user templates, as the nominator has made a solid case for those; purge Category:Favourite subject user templates of items not related to subjects studied at school/college. IMHO (i) the nomination to merge the latter should not be taken as approved without more participation here, and (ii) it is currently a valid intersection of Category:Interest user templates and Category:Education user templates (which is part of Category:Life user templates). – Fayenatic London 09:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:REDUNDANTFORK. We should use the more concise name in this case (there's no need for a "-related" disambiguator, and very few child cats. of Category:Userboxes have it). There is no distinction at all between the categories, content-wise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:REDUNDANTFORK categories. The the first serves the same purpose as the merge-to category. If there were some way to strictly limit the scope to, literally, favo[u]rite-topic userboxes, then maybe, kinda-sorta, there could be a some sort of rationale for this, but in fact people just randomly dump stuff into here because they're not aware of Category:Interest user templates. For example, the entire Category:Mathematics user templates category was subcatted under "favourite subject" not "interest" and thus seemed to be missing. People don't seem to interpret these templates as "favo[u]rite" topic boxes; while some include the word in their output, none have it in their names (those that have a consistent name at all are just "Template:User Topic-name-here Subject"), and many users have more than one of these on their page. They're also just generally inconsistent; some are specifically about academic majors, for example. The second nominated category has no reason to exist at all, since categorizing userboxes by whether they have a picture or text on the left serves no purpose, and users are not looking for "userboxes I can add that don't have pictures", but for userboxes that are relevant to them and express their interests, etc., to other editors. Ideally these categories would actually be upmerged not directly into Category:Interest user templates, but topically into its subcats. (and, depending on their content, sometimes into another category, e.g. a subcat. of the sister cats. Category:Education user templates or Category:Life user templates or subcats. thereof (e.g. Category:Profession user templates)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:57, 22 August 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:Time zone user templates[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More accurately descriptive of the actual contents: some display the time, some the date, and some the time zone (and some a mixture of 2 or all 3 of these).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:12, 22 August 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:Unsorted userboxes[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: delete (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a failed and disused maintenance category, redundant with the parent Category:Userboxes which is already labeled with {{Containercat}}, and thus serves the exact same purpose. That latter category, BTW, does badly need cleanup. There are three classes of individual templates categorized in it: A) Those already categorized more specifically, in which case this redundant parent cat. can simply be removed; B) Those that, like the few in the cat. nominated for deletion here, need to be topically categorized; and C) some pointless junk templates that should be taken to TfD because they don't serve any useful purpose. (Category:Wikipedia-related user templates is in a similar state, and badly needs subcategorized diffusing, mostly being a pile of hundreds of undifferentiated templates, many of which are redundant. Diffusing these big categories will help us identify and TfD the chaff.) (PS: This might be viewed as an upmerge request, since the handful of templates in it still need to be dealt with, but the amount of work required to recat. them into the parent cat. is the same as that needed to recat. them correctly in the first place.) Never mind; I took care of that already, and it is now empty.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:57, 22 August 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:User templates with gender support[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: delete. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless and disused. We do not categorize templates by how they're coded. All it takes to make any template with gendered wording be gender-neutral and gender-flexible is something like {{{gender|they}}}, and all userboxes should be coded that way (or avoid pronoun constructions). It serves no maintenance or other purpose to categorize those that do so already. An argument could be made for a maintenance category for those that do not, but maintenance of userboxes – other than getting rid of redundant or disruptive ones and pointless categories for them – is probably wasted editorial time. Of the small number of templates in this category, some are even miscategorized (e.g. separately gendered Mythbusters fandom userboxes). See also CfD below, about not redundantly categorizing topical templates by an irrelevant criterion; the rationale there applies here, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Userboxes (or delete if all are already in that category). DexDor (talk) 06:18, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • They shouldn't be in that category, either, but in a subcat of it. I checked, and all of them already are (a few needed more specific categorization, which I did).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- completely pointless. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 28 August 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:Support user templates[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Everything in here is topical and can simply be properly categorized under the numerous topical categories for userboxes. This is a pointless catch-all into which just about any infobox could be put if it seems to "support" something, and it would encourage someone to create a "Category:Oppose user templates" for the negative kind. The name is also confusingly ambiguous; I thought it had something to do with support groups. No purpose is served by the category, since no editors are looking for things to decide to oppose or support, and WP:CANVASSING militates against us categorizing this way, anyway. Wikiprojects, for example, that have been formed for the purpose of what amounts to topical lobbying on Wikipedia have routinely been deleted at MfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - category is hopelessly vague. DexDor (talk) 06:22, 22 August 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:Nineteen Eighty-Four locations[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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT
I don't have any conceptual problem with this category but it was created 8 years ago and it still only has the one article (plus an unused image file). The growth potential here is limited since the locations in 1984 are probably not individually notable. No objection to recreating if 5 or so articles ever materialize. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Goustien as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Novels. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. It is possible to write a scholarly article about Orwell's Oceania, as a matter of politico-literary criticism, but it's not likely this could be done as an encyclopedic article, and that's by far the most quasi-notable place in the book. There's just not enough to write about (contrast this with, say, Mordor). So, there is no potential for growth of this category.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. There were separate articles for Oceania etc but they were merged in 2008. Oculi (talk) 10:17, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom; unnecessary layer of categorization. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- I am not sure that we ought to be having categories such as this. If it referred to real locations that occurred in the book, it would be in the nature of a performance category, which we do not allow as being category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 28 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_August_22&oldid=1074816060"