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: Despite the broad scope of the title, this is actually a set of administrative wards in the Pangani District within the Tanga Region of Tanzania.
Delete per nom. If anything, this should be a top-level country category, not specific to Tanzania. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 07:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I thought this would be a broad category, but that would disrupt the current schemes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:30, 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.
The result of the discussion was:delete. I will place the article in Category:Fictional events, as suggested by User:Marcocapelle; however, this is subject to editorial judgment outside of the consensus here. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pure deletion will put the one article in a state of limbo. Unless there is a suitable parent category to merge it to, I'd say it's still fine to keep. SMALLCAT has exceptions for categories that are part of established schemes. The scheme in this case is "Foo" and "Fictional foo", unlike other categories that can be merged into a parent that is also "Fictional foo".ZXCVBNM (TALK) 08:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is already in another category. There is no need for this one entry category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 00:07, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Surprisingly, we don't have an overarching article about all of vodon/vodou/voodoo. But the disambiguation page is at Voodoo, and that's probably as it should be, since that's going to be the most recognizable form for English readers. Since all six (!) spellings at Voodoo#Religions are legitimate for their particular traditions, I don't see a reason to favor the Haitian form over the most recognizable one. If the request is successful, I'll make a CFDS C2C request to update most of the child categories, though those associated with a specific tradition (e.g., Category:Dominican Vudú) should keep their respective spellings, of course. BDD (talk) 18:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename based on common English-language spelling.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Main articles and category names should (almost?) always match. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:17, 27 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 result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 00:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New name for company ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:30, 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.
@Vossanova: The two subcategories weren't tagged for CfD yet, I have done that now. More importantly, the proposal lacks a rationale, could you please explain why you think these proposed changes are useful? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Sure – Road vehicles by country only contains one country (Singapore). Its only other subcategory, Taxicabs by country, can be placed in Vehicles by country along with the car and truck categories already there. So IMO, Road vehicles by country is unnecessary because Category:Vehicles by country fulfills its purpose. --Vossanovao< 15:17, 2 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: Slightly broader name, for the scope of what's in it. Not all of them are procedures strictly speaking, but they're all kind procedural, relating to procedures, processes, features, etc., rather than something topical like "notability" or "humor", nor being a type of page like "policy" or "essay". — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 17:07, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SMcCandlish:question, shouldn't the parent category be renamed in conjunction? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Added. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 13:00, 2 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.
Category:Wikipedia proposals in brainstorming stage[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.
Support upmerge, it does not distinguish itself from the parent category because one can always brainstorm about every draft proposal (preferably on the talk page). However, not all content of this category can be classified as a draft proposal, there are also contributions that read more like an essay. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:01, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure; I have no objection to re-categorizing some as essays, and I've been doing incremental work to better categorize essays by subject and type. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 12:55, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, unnecessary categorization. VegaDark (talk) 05:16, 20 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.
Nominator's rationale: to match the name of the province, as opposed to a later state. All other Governors of.. categories use the province name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. Will instead propose name changes of the article and parent cat. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:33, 19 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: I started the whole series of "Cannabis and religion", "Tobacco and religion", etc cats, but somehow I didn't standardize the order, so most of them are "X and religion", but the main cat and the alcohol one are "Religion and X". I think putting religion last makes sense since the drugs are subsets of the larger topic of religion. I'm open to suggestions but I think just "x and religion" flows smoothest. Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 09:36, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney: I found the likely reason of the reversed order, it is most probably because of the articles names Religion and alcohol and Religion and drugs. If you want to reverse the order, you should start having the articles names changed. (Note, I had initially closed the discussion as rename until I noticed the article names, so the edit history of the category page may look a bit messy now. The positive thing about it is that there is now a redirect from Category:Alcohol and religion to Category:Religion and alcohol and the same for drugs. Perhaps that is all you need.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 2 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: They are not actually long songs, but long recordings of songs. Besides the obvious, what exactly is the encyclopedic worth of this category, the Guinness Book of records might have space for the longest recording, but all of them with WP entries? No. Richhoncho (talk) 09:24, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete how long is long? Why forty minutes? Mangoe (talk) 14:48, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
keep Hi, I'm the one the made the category; sorry if it doesn't meet guidelines, I wasn't trying to clutter things. I made it in good faith, thinking categories were just to aid people in finding similar articles. To address a few points, I'm not sure what the distinction is between a "long song" and a "long recording of a song". I only added articles to the category that are considered single songs by the artist, not that are simply mashed together live performances or something. As for the forty minutes number, I figured it was a line of exceptionality. There are plenty of thirty minute and below songs, but only a few forty and above that I could think of. Maybe the name is wrong, maybe it should be "Song that are above 40 minutes"; I don't know. CelestialWeevil (talk) 16:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A category is supposed to be something defining. Is the length of a recording really defining? Why? Secondly, a song has no specific length of time, or at least it can be variable, it is the recording of that song which has the specific length, i.e. different recordings of the same song will be of different lengths. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely think having a song (or, as you point out, a track) exceed forty minutes in length is defining. It's exceptional, out of the norm, and interesting. To create a song in the modern era that is that long takes a conscious effort to step out of standard conventions. As such, much of the album's surrounding structure will be altered to accommodate. Or, in some cases, the whole album will be composed of one song--which is undoubtedly an interesting deviation from what it expected. As to the difference between a song and a recording of a song, I think it's a little pedantic to look at a 50-minute track and say the nebulous "song" nestled within could be, in some pure form, 20 minutes shorter. When dealing with such large numbers, I think it's clear that the amount of wiggle room has been exceeded. And if that is the major hang-up, then the category could be renamed to 'Recordings of songs that exceed 40 minutes'. CelestialWeevil (talk) 15:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A classic example of the sort of category which by its nature must fail on either WP:SUBJECTIVECAT (if individual editors decide what is "long") or WP:ARBITRARYCAT (if a cut-off point is set). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:10, 19 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:keep. --Tavix(talk) 04:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, also it is not very clear how this subcategory distinguishes itself from the parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it was simply underpopulated, which has now been fixed, and it is now big enough to keep. Vexillology is the study of flags in general - their design, history, use, politics, meaning, etc. History is just one aspect of that and makes perfect sense as a subcat. Grutness...wha? 00:10, 19 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 result of the discussion was:delete as WP:SOFTDELETE due to low participation. – FayenaticLondon 00:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only two articles in the category. No need to upmerge, both articles are in the tree of Category:Genocide already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 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 result of the discussion was:rename. – FayenaticLondon 23:44, 3 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 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.
Subcategories of Category:Fictional starfighters[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.
I will only support a merge if those conditions are met. Charles Essie (talk) 19:53, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to other categories per Fayenatic London. They don't seem to have much potential for expansion.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:20, 23 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.
Oppose Smallcat only applies if the category has no potential for expansion. This one can be expanded with articles from the parent category, it just hasn't been populated.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Zxcvbnm: Just for my understanding, which articles in the parent category are you referring to? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lasso of Truth, Power Ring, Trick Arrows, Invisible Plane and possibly more. I believe I left a message for someone to change the infobox so that weapons got sorted into that category rather than the objects one and that is why I left it blank but I am not sure if anyone did.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:22, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've added Lasso of Truth and Trick Arrows to the category, the other two articles are disputable. It still remains a very small category this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 2 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: Inclusion criteria (“resembling” the television) fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Two of the four articles don’t even qualify as “fictional”, instead being conceptual predecessors to the modern TV. Appears to run afoul of WP:SMALLCAT as well. 2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 01:02, 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.
Nominator's rationale: Only two articles and the main, the latter of which is tagged for notability as of November 2015. If this is an appropriate category, then it needs to be renamed to Category:Time viewers in line with its main article. 2600:387:A:5:0:0:0:A3 (talk) 00:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This has potential, so rename. – FayenaticLondon 11:57, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london:question: based on what criteria did you assess this category's growth potential? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Palantír wasn't in it, for a start, nor Mirror of Galadriel, so that's three pages and two redirects already. It seems likely to me that other present and future works do/will notably feature time viewers, even if those listed in the main article don't have articles of their own. – FayenaticLondon 23:35, 3 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.
Merge to Category:Robotech, everything else was already covered by the previous merge.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:38, 22 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 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 5#Category:DC Comics weapons
