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 rename C2D, C2E. – FayenaticLondon 14:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Aside from Colin Low (filmmaker), all articles in cat and subcats are about works by him. Trivialist (talk) 23:28, 4 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.
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) 03:37, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category for lists but has just one list entry. Standard categorizing is that list articles of people from Foo are categorized 'People from Foo'. As for the subcategories, one should be merged also. The alumni category shouldn't, Being an alumni from a school in Foo doesn't automatically make a person from Foo. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:50, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for Now No objection to recreating if 5 or so list articles emerge. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:17, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We only have one list, the two sub-categories are not lists. I am not sure why we would need more than one list of people from Arlington, Texas. However even if we had such, it would still need to use the Arlington, Texas form, since there are other equally notable places named Arlington.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, with the proviso that the list (but not the categories) should also be upmerged back to Category:Lists of people from Texas. Categories like this are not created to hold a single list, nor are categories filed as subcats of "Lists of..." categories — a category like this should not exist anywhere below the level of the state. A state, at least, will have five or ten or twenty cities with their own lists of people and/or some occupational lists, while a city will almost never have more than two ("List of people" and "List of mayors"), and even then frequently only one. Bearcat (talk) 21:49, 10 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.
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 deletion, possibly rename/expand. I agree that categorization per country doesn't make much sense for cetaceans. However, deleting the category without adequate replacement IMO goes too far. Many of the articles show that distinctions can be made between cetaceans of the two hemispheres and different oceans, such as the North Atlantic. Unless someone with expertise on cetaceans proposed a better scheme that has been described in literature, we might want to expand the category to cover Oceania, or the Australasian ecozone in whole. --PanchoS (talk) 22:12, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hemisphere-based categories might make sense for cetaceans - and if such categories existed then this should be an upmerge rather than straight deletion. However, Blue whale, for example, is already in three other geography categories (Atlantic Ocean, Indian Ocean, Pacific Ocean) so I'm not sure that any "replacement" is needed. Note: Oceania generally refers to land rather than to sea. Note: of the 44 articles about species in Category:Cetaceans of Australia (currently) all but one are also in Category:Cetaceans of the Pacific Ocean. DexDor(talk) 06:18, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Open to Future Categories None of the articles I pulled up had a range exclusively around Australia. No objection for other groupings for a biome like Southern Hemisphere that would prevent WP:NARROWCAT and WP:OCLOCATION. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:21, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Categorisation by country is a terrible way to categorise cetaceans, many (maybe most?) of which are sea-based (rather than freshwater-based) and have Australian waters as only a small part of their range. If we are going to categorise cetaceans by area, we should base the groupings on water-based categories (e.g. oceans) rather than landmasses. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:03, 6 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:Australian rules football by region[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 12 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.
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need to keep redirects for stub categories. Dawynn (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Can you clarify why there is no need for re-direct stub cats? Thanks. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The very nature of the category redirect header is aimed at people that may have tagged an article with the wrong category. But stub categories should never be directly added to an article. Rather, a stub category is populated by placing an appropriate sub template tag in the various articles. So, if a stub template is ever moved to a different category, then all of the articles that use that template will also move (typically within an hour or so).
Every true stub category should have an appropriate header at the top of it through use of template {{Stub category}} or one of its relatives. These all specify "To add an article to this category ...", notifying editors to use the appropriate stub template for that category. As long as editors can read directions, then articles will only be added very templates. And as long as articles are only added via templates, then only the true stub categories will ever have articles added to them. Thus, there's no need to tell users how to redirect their articles -- we did that when we moved the template to the new category. Dawynn (talk) 19:22, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It'd be even better if someone could add something to the administrator's directions regarding renaming categories. Something to the effect of -- "If renaming a stub category, after moving the template to the new category, delete the old stub category. There's no need to retain stub categories that have no associated template." Feel free to adjust the wording for clarity. Dawynn (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: IMHO WP:G6 allows instant deletion of the redirect after renaming a stub category by consensus; non-admins may tag them for this purpose with {{db-housekeeping}}. However, a lot of these listed here were manually and intentionally created, some by experienced editors e.g. user:BrownHairedGirl, so discussion appears necessary in those cases. – FayenaticLondon 16:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping, Fayenatic london. I did a quick check and AFAICS from that small sample, the only one I created was Category:UK MPs 2015-20 stubs, a few minutes after creating Category:UK MPs 2015–20 stubs. I'm not sure whether there was any purpose behind the redirect other than a hardwired reflex action to create a redirect to an endashed title; but if there was another reason, I have long forgotten it. I agree with the nominator that in general, redirects to stub categories are fairly useless. I don't think they do any harm, but if others want to delete the, then I won't stand in their way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 10 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.
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. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This violates the last rung rule. The last rung rule says we should only create a non-diffusing sex sub-cat of Category:Chinese archaeologists if there exists other, non-sex based sub-cats of the category. The problem is that at present there are no other sub-cats of the category, and with only 22 articles no reason to create such at this time. Nor with under 300 articles in Category:Women archeologists are we likely to have enough in specific nationalities to justify such sub-division, even if we did not run into the last rung rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 8 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.
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: Expand scope of this WP:SMALLCAT, merging in another recently created WP:SMALLCAT. In case the latter is kept, "standart" at least needs to be renamed to "standards". --PanchoS (talk) 10:34, 4 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.
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) 04:04, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also merge to Category:Network protocols and Category:Network-attached storage. Single article, which is a specific network protocol for storage solutions. Definition of "computer storage protocol" is missing and distinction from hardware protocols and network protocols isn't easy. If kept to be further populated, at least it needs to be plural "protocols". -- PanchoS (talk) 10:28, 4 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.
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/rename as proposed. --Tavix(talk) 17:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Caching in computing basically always refers to caching one or the other form of "storage". With three of the four pages being already categorized more specifically in Category:Flash caching products, and the fourth one (page cache) belonging in Category:Cache (computing), the category seems completely redundant to preexisting categories. Propose renaming the other category to better accomodate both SSD and flash drives, while getting rid of the unhelpful word "products". An even better proposal for this one would be welcome --PanchoS (talk) 10:05, 4 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:Computer storage backup and archival[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. --Tavix(talk) 17:00, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category seems totally redundant, both collecting articles related to Data backup. Please also note the RM at Talk:Backup. PanchoS (talk) 09:50, 4 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:Current Nebraska Cornhuskers football players[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:12, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per the aboves; current categories are usually not defining and frequently change and thus disfavored. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 5 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.
