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 to delete. Note that this is not a category that is categorizing people who were WWE Divas. Essentially, it is categorizing articles about WWE women's wrestling, including articles of lists of Divas. Therefore it's hard to see how Category:Female professional wrestlers is an adequate substitution. Renaming might be appropriate, though.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This is one of many categories that have names that truly are demeaning to women. We have much better named categories under Category:Female professional wrestlers to cover such things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, bad faith WP:IDONTLIKEIT nomination. As far as I remember, "WWE Diva" is a marketing brand by WWE Entertainment, and "Category:Female professional wrestlers" contains those outside the WWE brand. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 22:27, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just a delete does not seem to make sense, if anything ought to be changed it should be an upmerge to the parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:38, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment our article WWE Diva indicates that the term is deprecated; should probably rename to the current title. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 19 May 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, following the deletion of the template. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is basically a letting-everyone-know nomination. This category, and all of its subcategories, are populated by {{sync}}, a maintenance template with no documentation and no actually good uses. Since the category's future will depend on the template's future, please don't leave any comments here. They should be left at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_22#Template:Sync. Nyttend (talk) 16:31, 7 May 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/listify as discussed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The SICOFAA is a group of national air forces that holds an annual week-long conference. These awards appear to be given to the head of the air force of that year's host country, which sounds like a performance category. All three of the people in this tree (1, 2, 3) are notable for being the Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force and only mention this award as part of a long list. The group's web site doesn't even mention this award (source) which makes receiving this award difficult to verify. I already listified the contents here. – RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. These sorts of categories have gotten way out of hand, and need to be exterminated (with very few exceptions). Cgingold (talk) 10:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I'm assuming that the proposed list would be added in the existing article rather than creating a separate article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 14 May 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: Mostly redundant to Category:Anime and manga based on novels. Very few novels have an anime adaption without an accompanying manga. Created back in September 2015 and was subsequently never categorized populated. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 10:03, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
" was subsequently never categorized" is clearly an untrue accusation as I placed it under three appropriate categories upon creating it.--Ranze (talk) 03:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "categorized" what I meant was "had much pages added to it". Perhaps "populated" would be a better word. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 22:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is obviously something which can be populated as people become aware of it. I can do it if you like. What number are you looking to hit to withdraw thd objection? --Ranze (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to an existing category. Theoretically, this could have been kept since not all anime have an accompanying manga, but the older category is more inclusive. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the older category is too inclusive, which is why it grew too big and benefits from having more specific subcategories. I think a major purpose is being missed here, the "series" aspect. There are a large number of standalone films or OVAs based on novels. Focusing on series sets apart larger bodies of work. There is a massive difference for example between the anime film based on wizard of oz and the 52 episode TV series based on it. I excluded manga only because by nature it is most often a series of chapters anyway since even a short number usually cannot be condensed to a single chapter. --Ranze (talk) 03:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean by "series". If your definition is "anime that has had multiple seasons", 1) that is not a universal definition and 2) that would make the category even more niche and unnecessary, as on one hand you have "anime and manga based on light novels" and on the other "novels that had spawned multiple anime series and never have had a manga adaption", this one being the latter. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 22:24, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
by series I mean more than a single episode. Many anime are non-series like a standalone film or OVA. There is a parent category for anime series examining this. --Ranze (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the original category is titled "Anime and manga" and thus is more inclusive. It may be too inclusive, but that's how it works. By your logic, should Category:Living people be split for being too inclusive and being too big? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
if someone made an argument for doing so such as intersection with other categories, maybe, but I am not arguing for that and you are comparing apples to oranges. Living people is inherently transient and temporary so it makes sense not to subcategories it. Once a novel gets.an anime series that is forever. --Ranze (talk) 21:04, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant. WP:ANIME already merges their categories to include both anime and manga series into one category, although this was done years ago to consolidate the category tree; nine years ago, there used to be separate categories for anime and manga, so instead of something like Category:Comedy anime and manga today, there used to be Category:Comedy manga and Category:Comedy anime. So it makes more sense to categorize a given article under Category:Anime and manga based on novels instead of potentially categorizing it under both Category:Anime series based on novels and Category:Manga based on novels, since most of the time nowadays, if a novel gets an anime adaptation, it will almost certainly also get a manga adaptation, so there'd be a lot of overlap between them, like with this edit.--十八 08:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is one thing to do that by theme, different for media formats. Many more articles exist now than in 2007 so while a lack of content could have made a merger seem tolerable, now it does not make sense when it is in the dozens. Anime series adaptation is a great achievement for a novel. People looking for this should not have results cluttered by stuff merely adapted into manga. Overlap happens but that is no reason to lump together. While splitting I found many things that were just manga or just anime. Video games are also common that doesn't mean we need an "anime and games based on light novels" category.
This name is inaccurate to its contents anyway. In interest of battling overcat I couod see making this a subcategory of "anime based" and "manga based" and to only include it to replace two categories for works which have both. Right now it is functioning like what would more rightly be called "anime or manga based on novels". The word "or" should be used if either can qualify, "and" if body. This is a problem with the thematic ones too, if a not rename could solve it. Would save a character too. --Ranze (talk) 05:36, 17 May 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.
" was subsequently never categorized " is clearly false. Cattus placed it under three categories upon creating it. It has never been without categories. --Ranze (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "categorized" what I meant was "had much pages added to it". Perhaps "populated" would be a better word. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 22:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there are.dozens if not hundreds of anime series based on light novels. How much do you need me to fill it to withdraw your objection? --Ranze (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant to an existing category. Theoretically, this could have been kept since not all anime have an accompanying manga, but the older category is more inclusive. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is not a redundant category at all. Setting apart light novels which got not just an anime adaptation but an entire SERIES dedicated to it is a useful sub categorization which sets apart more notable works. Manga adaptations are more common due to lower costs and it is harder to get a series launched compared to a solitary ova which less notable works can manage. --Ranze (talk) 03:50, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what you mean by "series". If your definition is "anime that has had multiple seasons", 1) that is not a universal definition and 2) that would make the category even more niche and unnecessary, as on one hand you have "anime and manga based on light novels" and on the other "light novels that had spawned multiple anime series and never have had a manga adaption", this one being the latter. Satellizer el Bridget(Talk) 22:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, the original category is titled "Anime and manga" and thus is more inclusive. It may be too inclusive, but that's how it works. By your logic, should Category:Living people be split for being too inclusive and being too big? Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew 00:34, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
as mentioned above, LP is not cut up because everyone except Duncan McCloud eventually gets removed from it anyway so sub categorizing creates troublesome maintenance. Your comparison holds no water. --Ranze (talk) 21:10, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your "almost certainly" mainly reflects recent pop works. Many old anime based on novels never got a manga. Like all of world masterpiece theatre for example. You also do not mention the reverse, manga based on light novels that do not get an anime adaptation. We should not make assumptions and lump them together. If the "anime and manga" category survives it should only do so as a subcategory of anime based / manga based to show works that get both, not just one. I still think film/series is a worthy distinction we observe elsewhere but could compromise on it. --Ranze (talk) 05:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mostly overlapping sounds like OR to me. We should not let the recent trends with mass marketed franchises blind us to the distinction we see of older anime without manga or many manga which don't get anime adaptations. Overcat is concerned with category count so an "A and M" singular subcategory for these could function to deal with the Overcat dilemma without miscategorizing A only or M only works. --Ranze (talk) 05:43, 17 May 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:no consensus. I'm a PhD student in economics, so I have some insight here. There are plenty examples of microeconomic topics that relate to policy. For instance, regulatory policies facing certain industries and anti-trust policies are all microeconomic policies. All of Category:Subsidies, a subcategory of the proposed merge target, is microeconomics. My research interests lie in the economics of education, and every recommended policy in that subfield would be a microeconomic policy. Strength of arguments is firmly on the "don't merge" side here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 17:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, the two categories have the same scope, economic policy is always at macro level. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support I see no microeconomic articles in it. 08:27, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Oppose The rationale for deletion is totally incorrect. Most economic policy (regulation, minimum wages, environmental policy, agricultural price policy) is microeconomic. As regards the "support" statement above, I'm not clear whether this is supporting the proposed merge, since it gives an argument against the merge. JQ (talk) 02:13, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@John Quiggin: I don't get it how this would be an argument against the merge, it seems like an unambiguous support. Anyway, could you then give a couple of examples of articles in either of the two categories that are about micro-economic rather than macro-economic policy? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Under E, we have Earnings test (US),Ease of doing business index, Economic Freedom of the World, Economic interventionism, Economic liberalization, Economic rationalism, Economic sanctions, Employer of last resort, Environmental tariff
All of these are microeconomic rather than macroeconomic JQ (talk) 07:06, 31 May 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:upmerge, not clear how the two categories are different, since worship is quite practical in itself. Other religions don't have a "practices" subcat in worship either. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 7 May 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: The standard term for this topic is "Disease outbreaks", whereas "Medical outbreaks" is something of an oddity. This fact is amply borne out by the following stats:
Google hits:
"disease outbreaks" - 682,000
"medical outbreaks" - 3,790 (mostly originating from Wikipedia!)
Google Scholar:
"disease outbreaks" - 94,900
"medical outbreaks" - 35
I would like the decision here to serve as a clear precedent for renaming all of the subcats (more than 40), changing "Medical" to "Disease" in each case. (If anybody wants to tag them for inclusion here, that's fine with me; I'm just not up to tagging them all manually.) [Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}}] Cgingold (talk) 03:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't noticed that, but having looked at the article I'm inclined to think it probably should be renamed to "Disease outbreaks". Regardless, the names of Categories need real, stand-alone clarity, and in this case that means the word "outbreaks" is not sufficient to do the job. Cgingold (talk) 06:15, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, to match the common name found in sources. Dimadick (talk) 06:22, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternativeCategory:Outbreaks per main article, but if that's not going to happen I prefer the nomination over the current category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 14 May 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.
