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 clarify that this is about historians who study Quakerism, rather than historians who are themselves Quakers. (Some of these historians may indeed be Quakers, but that is not the shared characteristic being grouped here). BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. While Category:Historians by field of study has a mix of subcategories named in both formats, she is indeed correct that the latter format is the one used by most categories where the former could be ambiguous as to whether it referred to a field of historical study or a personal attribute. Bearcat (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Misleading title, suggests the historians themselves are Quakers. Dimadick (talk) 21:13, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Many will indeed also be Quakers, but that is not the point. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 5 February 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 16:37, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to clarify that these are scholars of the history of espionage, rather than historians involved in espionage. (Some may be both, but the "history of espionage" is the attribute being captured here.) BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. While Category:Historians by field of study has a mix of subcategories named in both formats, she is indeed correct that the latter format is the one used by most categories where the former could be ambiguous as to whether it referred to a field of historical study or a personal attribute. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. To clarify the scope. Dimadick (talk) 21:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename because target flows well. I really do not see this as an issue of confusion though. Unlike nationality and religion, I do not think there is anywhere where we have a category of espionoge + occupation to indicate a dual occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 20 March 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: It's not exactly a broadcast network, more like a cable channel carried on broadcast in Mexico City and some of whose programs are cherry-picked by Televisa local stations. It doesn't have affiliates. Delete this and the "affiliates" subcategory. Raymie (t • c) 21:51, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Raymie: If you want to include the subcategory in the nomination as well you should tag the category page and list it here. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:19, 9 February 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:double merge to agriculture companies by century, e.g. Category:Agriculture companies established in the 19th century, and to companies by year (where necessary, i.e. if the page is not already in another sub-cat of that one). There is no clear consensus here to create a decade hierarchy for agricultural companies, and these would only be slightly more densely populated than the existing year categories. The century categories do exist already, and have not been nominated, so it seems appropriate to merge to them for now. – FayenaticLondon 17:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: overcategorisation, per WP:SMALLCAT. These 26 by-year categories cover a span of over 140 years but include between then a total of only 50 articles. The parent Category:Agriculture companies by year of establishment was created[1] in March 2104, so the expansion is not happening fast.
Merger to decades will immediately halve the number of categories, and reduce any further sprawls of small categories. This will make make the categories more useful for readers, and easier for editors to maintain. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: If the consensus is to merge, then the decade categories will need to be created before the year categories are fed to the bots. If it helps, I would be happy to create the decades categories -- just ping me when closing. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to a dual merge. I can see the case for it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:40, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge only to the company by year categories. I do not think we need an agriculture comapnies by time established tree at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 20 March 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 19:59, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Accompanies rename of the main article. The two subcats should also be moved to replace (Televisa Network) with (Mexico). The talk page explains my rationale for the article move which was supported by other editors and occurred a few days ago. Raymie (t • c) 20:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, and applaud Raymie for some really excellent work in getting our (often very screwed up) content pertaining to Mexican and Central American television cleaned up. Bearcat (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Raymie: If you want to include the subcategories in the nomination as well you should tag the category pages and list them here. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:20, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: The affiliates -> transmitters change is because the stations in the cat are primarily repeaters, not affiliates, with no local programming. Raymie (t • c) 02:41, 10 February 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:Los Angeles mayoral candidates, 2013[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:Non-defining category. Being a mayoral candidate is not a claim of notability that gets a person into Wikipedia in and of itself. The people filed here do not have articles because mayoral candidate per se — they have articles because other things, and oh by the way happen to also have been mayoral candidates separately from whatever actually got them an article in the first place. So it's not an appropriate basis for a category; people are defined by the political offices they hold, not by the political offices they merely run for. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: I respectfully disagree with the nominator on the whole "defining characteristic" thing. Is there not substantial coverage of each of these people running for office in third-party sources? The claim that you must be notable only for running for mayoral to justify this category existing is a large, large stretch that flies in the face of established practice. And FWIW, if you get enough coverage from running unsuccessfully for one or more offices to pass GNG, you can get an article. Sometimes, your wildly unsuccessful campaign even gets an article. pbp 19:57, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Local coverage of local politics always exists, because local coverage of local politics is local media's job. Accordingly, campaign coverage is deprecated as not able to bring the notability in and of itself for non-winning candidates, except in highly rarefied circumstances where the campaign coverage nationalizes way beyond the expected level of local coverage. If a person doesn't win the election and thereby hold the office, then they normally don't pass WP:GNG until you can source them over GNG on some other notability criterion completely independently of the campaign coverage. Further, being a candidate for mayor of a city isn't even remotely comparable to being a candidate for president of the entire United States — and, for that matter, even candidates for president aren't guaranteed to be considered notable just for being candidates. They're certainly more likely to pass the necessary "wide coverage" standard, given that they're starting from a much more nationalized base of potential RS coverage right off the bat, but they're still far from assured of being able to pass GNG. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat:: Not true. I don't know where you're getting hing the idea that election coverage can't be used to pass GNG. WP:Notability, Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia: Notability (events) (of which WP:ROUTINE is a part) do not mention candidates, campaigns or elections in the manner you claim. WP:LOCAL is an essay. Therefore, it is my reading of notability guidelines that campaign coverage in reliable third-party sources is not deprecated and CAN be used to pass GNG.pbp 23:53, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it can't. You also have to familiarize yourself with the reality of how GNG is actually deemed to apply in actual deletion discussions: an election is an event, and therefore coverage of its candidates in local media does fall under WP:ROUTINE unless and until a candidate can be shown as significantly more notable than the norm, for some substantive reason much more significant than "media coverage exists". Local coverage of local politics always exists, so if campaign coverage were all it took to pass GNG then we would always have to keep an article about every single candidate for any office at all because no candidate for any office ever fails to be the subject of local media coverage in their own campaign area's local media. But we don't keep articles about non-winning candidates who can't be demonstrated as more notable than the norm, because our notability criteria for politicians are designed to restrict us to holders of notable offices, and to keep non-winning candidates for office out, except in extraordinary circumstances much closer to Christine O'Donnell than to "ninth place finisher in a mayoral election". Bearcat (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, this nomination ignores the main premise of having categories in the first place, which is that of utility. Is not this category a useful navigational aid which a reader seeking to know more about the 2013 LA mayor's race would use? pbp 20:02, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If that were a valid argument, then no category would ever be deletable at all. Every category that comes to CFD could always be called "a useful navigational aid" to people looking for information about something. Which is why our standards for the creation of categories are not based on "somebody thought it was useful" — they're based on stricter standards, such as notability and definingness. (Someone could, for example, be looking for information about people who only had nine toes, and thus a category for Category:People with nine toes would be a "useful navigational aid" for them — but people aren't defined by having an unusual number of toes, so non-defining beats "potentially useful to somebody" in the rationale sweepstakes.) The article about the election exists and links to the candidates' names, so a category for them is not needed as a second "navigational aid" besides that if the category itself doesn't satisfy our standards for the creation of a category. Bearcat (talk) 20:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Running for mayor is not a claim to notability and as such is not a defining characteristic of a biography.--TM 21:24, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Being mayor is defining; even then the year would not be included. Running for mayor sounds like WP:PERFCAT. There may be a case for including perennial candidates in a more general category. Oculi (talk) 22:36, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Running for mayor may be defining for some people, but for most it is not. I agree with Oculi that running for mayor in a particular election sounds like WP:PERFCAT. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PERFCAT seems a stretch. None of the examples in PERFCAT touch on anything close to running for political office; most explicitly apply to actors or musicians rather than politicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Purplebackpack89 (talk • contribs) 13:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said "sounds like", not "is" :)
The nature of activity is different, but the principle "don't clutter articles by categorising performers by gig" has a bit of a parallel ... with the crucial difference that in this case, it's a category for a gig which they didn't get. The performers equivalent would be something like "unsuccessful applicants to perform at Carnegie Hall, 2013". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Are the candidates notable apart from having stood for election? Generally local politicians are NN, though that may not apply to the highest offices in big cities. While the articles exist to populate this, we probably need the category, but perhaps the articles need consideration at AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorizing politicians by which races they have participated in is like performer by performance. If you win, you get the officeholder category, if you lose, you carry on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:20, 7 February 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.
Merge I'm the creator of the category. I agree with the rationale provided by nom. Mduvekot (talk) 22:24, 2 February 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:Merge. Closing as Merge as opposed to speedy delete so this sets precedent for a G4 speedy deletion in the future if it's ever re-created, as it is clear this category goes against the established naming convention. VegaDark (talk) 04:38, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Archaeology in Turkey appears to be a duplicate of the existing Archaeology of Turkey Mitch Ames (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is nothing to merge, as category [:Category:Archaeology in Turkey]] is empty. Dimadick (talk) 21:16, 3 February 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:delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, these are (country) subdivisions that happen to have the name 'department' but that is all that they have in common. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of Category:Types of country subdivisions. Similar variations exist between the different national flavours of other types of subdivision, but grouping them together assists comparative geography. The nomination offers no reason for singling out this type of subdivision. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 8 February 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:Subdivisions of the Duchy of Warsaw[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 to all parent categories, redundant category layer since it only contains one child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is a useless cat-level, but the third is not needed, as the article is already in it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 5 February 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:downmerge, in the period from 1569 to 1795 it is impossible to distinguish Polish history from the then existing polity of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or reverse merge -- not sure which is better or perhaps merge both to "Poland-Lithuania". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The latter is not possible, there is no Category:Poland-Lithuania to merge to. I would prefer a merge over a reverse merge, since each former country, in this case the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, should have its own category. Possibly the intention is to merge the two categories and rename to Category:Poland-Lithuania, but that would violate WP:C2D since the article is at Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support since that was the name of the entity at that time period. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:07, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - sounds much more precise.GreyShark (dibra) 19:11, 9 February 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.
