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 each to all its parent categories , without prejudice to recreating any category if and when its content amounts to more than a single eponymous article. Per WP:CAT, categories are about navigation, and none of the opposers offered any argument founded in category policy to counter the nominator's point. Arguments such as "if the categories are eliminated it downgrades the status of the subject matter" fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of categories; "status" is no part of their purpose. And if anyone is inclined to count heads, see WP:NOTVOTE.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:49, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge to all parents as WP:SOFTDELETE until further content is found. Single-page categories are not useful for navigation. Note that Category:Jewish history by country already contains 16 other "history of the Jews in [country]" pages directly. – FayenaticLondon 23:06, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Keep because this is a retrograde step. The merge proposed is fallacious since it would merge a category into an article, a big no-no. IZAK (talk) 01:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, categories with only an eponymous article don't aid navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, categories with only an eponymous article don't aid navigation. Rathfelder (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see: WP:DONOTDEMOLISH & WP:CHANCE as strongly applying here, as these categories are part of a much longer process of fleshing out all Jewish history categories. IZAK (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By appealing to WP:DONOTDEMOLISH you seem to suggest that there is more content that can be added. Please do so if that is what you mean. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All To amplify IZAK, these categories are a small fraction of the almost fully diffused parent Category:Jewish history by country, which includes 120 subcategories. By including only those subcategories with one page -- and only one page as of today, as many have a strong likelihood for growth -- you have made navigation through the structure that much more difficult while gaining absolutely nothing. Alansohn (talk) 13:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What is more difficult about navigation when you can skip a category layer? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All They will be expanded in the future. No reason to merge all the categories. --Yoavd (talk) 07:38, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Yoavd: I specifically nominated WP:SOFTDELETE meaning that they can be freely re-created in future as soon as there is any additional content to place in them. As of now, they are not useful, and most of them appear to have been single-page categories for several years already. – FayenaticLondon 12:11, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge some of these categories do not even have an article specifically on that topic, but one that briefly touches on the topic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Which category does not have an article specifically on that topic? Bus stop (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, the categories were created when the topics were separate articles, a blocked user [1] created the combined article afterwards.IZAK (talk) 20:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@IZAK: I have no objection to your work on those pages, and have removed History of the Jews in Central Asia from the country categories that now have a country-specific lead article. I note that you have not yet explained your "no-no" comment above, i.e. your rationale for opposing merger (for now) of these micro-categories – please would you explain more clearly? – FayenaticLondon 22:38, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. These categories upgrade the lead article each one hosts. If the categories are eliminated it downgrades the status of the subject matter. A category represents a higher status of importance than merely having an article on the topic. These categories are part of a bigger conceptual entity, meaning the efforts on WP to build a larger infrastructure of categories to house Jewish history by country articles. While some categories may contain less articles than others, they are all part of one organic and holistic set of categories encompassing more of countries' Jewish history. In other words conceptualizing is what I am saying is the key and one should therefore not nit pick that will just result in a "plucked chicken" effect if things go your way which I totally oppose. Thanks so much, IZAK (talk) 01:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All. It seems to me it is more constructive to leave the Categories in place because they retain and reflect the logic with which they were constructed. I think their existence favors the building out of content which is something we should be encouraging. Bus stop (talk) 23:50, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all as per Izak, this is most certainly not needed. Sir Joseph(talk) 03:57, 1 January 2018 (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: Non-WP:DEFINING intersection of occupation with sexual orientation or gender identity. The standard for when such a category should exist, per WP:CATEGRS, is not just a question of whether there are LGBT people in that occupation with articles to file in it, but of whether the intersection of occupation with LGBTness is a defining characteristic in its own right. The basis for such a category is whether LGBT people in that occupation can be shown and sourced to represent a distinct and notable and defining group in their own right (e.g. LGBT writers makeLGBT literature) -- we do not create a category for every possible intersection of LGBTness with occupation, if LGBTness and occupation don't have a defining relationship with each other. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete as plainly non-defining. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2017 (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 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.
@Beagel and Oculi: shouldn't we just delete the third category? We don't usually categorize oil fields by former owners, do we? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 7 January 2018 (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:keep/withdrawn. It does not make much sense to keep this discussion open for the rest of the week. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New to Wikipedia and trying to understand categories, but what you said makes sense--sorry for the trouble. Should I delete this proposal? Woodsy lesfem (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This would remove these books from the books category tree. Dimadick (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2017 (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:Primeval Beech Forests of the Carpathians and Other Regions of Europe (Germany)[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: There is only one article in this category. Even if this is work in progress and more are added, the title seems excessively long. AFAICS there is just one sister category and that only has three articles. Bermicourt (talk) 15:31, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bermicourt: You had not tagged the category page, I've done that now. See WP:CFD for instructions how to nominate a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly specific criteria for categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 26 December 2017 (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:Naval battles of the 1383–85 Crisis[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:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. (Note, other potential merge targets are already in covered in the articles.) And after the merge, rename the parent category in order to align with the article name 1383–1385 Portuguese interregnum. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:40, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom Small categories with little scope of expansion. Dimadick (talk) 19:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Not enough articles to justify the sub-division.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:26, 26 December 2017 (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: They categorize into the same place, so I don't see the point of having both. —Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 05:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose keeping: cultural studies is an interdisciplinary discipline on its own right (for instance, as "sociology" is different from "society"). --Fadesga (talk) 18:07, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The reason they categorise to the same place is that {{cultural-studies-stub}} does not yet have the 60 articles necessary for a separate stub category. It has 46. Once it reaches 60, it will get a separate category. This is standard stubbing practice. Grutness...wha? 00:15, 17 December 2017 (UTC) (edited 00:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
I have fixed the cfd template on the stub type, which was appearing on all articles which use the template. Please be careful how you nominate stub types! Grutness...wha? 00:26, 17 December 2017 (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: Illustrator Wayne Anderson is not notable enough for a biography on Wikipedia, so why is there a category of books he worked on? Binksternet (talk) 04:14, 16 December 2017 (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 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. Yes, I shouldn't close my own nomination, but it has been open for 25 days and seems clearcut, so I am closing it to clear the backlog of CfDs. If anyone objects, I will revert. At time of closing, the cat contains only 1 article: Tilagor Eco Park. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SHAREDNAME and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. There is no article defining an "ecopark" as a concept, and its various uses indicate that it's just a greenwashing buzzword:
Tilagor Eco Park, the only article in the categ, is a nature reserve in Bangladesh
Ecopark (Vietnam) is an an urban township development on the outskirts of Hanoi
EcoPark (Hong Kong) is similar to an industrial park exclusively for waste recycling and environmental engineering.
Support, the term is officially used in Bangladesh, see this link, and we have two more Bangladeshi Ecopark articles which have not been added to this category yet, but these articles are also perfectly fine in Category:Protected areas of Bangladesh. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:50, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if consensus is to keep, it should still be renamed to Category:Ecoparks. Grutness...wha? 00:11, 17 December 2017 (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:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections[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: The scope of this category is unclear. Is it for people and groups who participated in Russian interference or who were seemingly complicit? If so, why isn't Vladimir Putin on the list? Alternately, is it for people who are or were investigating Russian interference, or who revealed stuff about it like Reality Winner? I think either the scope of this category should be properly defined to avoid WP:PERFCAT and WP:BLP issues, or it should be deleted altogether. FallingGravity 01:35, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The scope looks good to me. It's broad enough to include all the key issues and people. If you are concerned about Putin's absence from the list, then I would recommend getting a discussion going at Talk:Vladimir Putin. Binksternet (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about Putin's absence, I'm concerned about people's presence and the BLP implications. FallingGravity 05:04, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but purge of biography articles. I agree that people articles shouldn't be in here, but there are enough standalone articles to justify a cat. Neutralitytalk 17:32, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is. This is obviously a topic of great interest to the polity of the United States. People in this category are not a problem: people get categorized based on the content of their articles, which contain the reference citations. Hmains (talk) 19:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support properly defining scope – this category is too vague to be used for persons, especially living or recently dead. If this category is properly defined to exclude people per WP:COP, I don't see a reason to delete the category. If the category is applied to people, then yes, it should be rather deleted because people are not Russian interference. Politrukki (talk) 07:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is little ambiguity, but any borderline cases should be addressed on a case-by-case basis without the need to eliminate the category in its entirety. Alansohn (talk) 20:09, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject, while current, deserves coherent organization which this helps and removal would hinder. Trackinfo (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Hmains. 100% agree with them on this. We can deal with any problems that arise on a case-by-case basis as mentioned elsewhere. ―Matthew J. Long-Talk-☖ 21:17, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Purge (and then delete if empty). The only articles in this category should be articles specifically about these events in 2016 - not articles about people, GCHQ etc. If you want to know what people, organisations are connected (in some way) to this then read the article. DexDor(talk)
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.
