Category:Bloc Québécois candidates in the 1993 Canadian federal election[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:double merge to both parents. – FayenaticLondon 21:57, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Series of WP:SMALLCATs for an overly granular and unnecessary distinction -- we don't categorize actual Canadian MPs by which individual sessions of Parliament they were members of or which individual elections they ran in, so there's no compelling reason to categorize the unsuccessful candidates more specifically than we do the officeholders. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, candidates don't deserve a more refined categorization scheme than MPs. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (support principle)-- WP:POLITICIAN indicates that political candidates who are not elected are generally NN. Should we have categories for such people at all? If elected they will be notable as MPs, not candidates; if not elected they will be NN,unless notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree in principle — but there's a fairly highly developed tree of Category:Political candidates categories for a number of other countries besides Canada, which would also require discussion on the same grounds. Historically, there was a consensus that although candidacy isn't a notability claim in and of itself, there was still some value in having categories to group the candidates who did have Wikipedia articles for whatever other reason. (For example, city councils in Canada are nearly all non-partisan bodies, and even in the cities where political parties do exist at that level they aren't the same as the federal or provincial parties — so what political party a mayor chose to run for when attempting to make the leap to provincial or federal politics is sometimes the only concrete marker we can provide for their political ideology.) It's certainly worth revisiting whether that consensus should maybe get deprecated, but that would have to be a more comprehensive discussion that included all of the similar categories for other countries — there's not much reason to single the Canadian ones out as a uniquely non-notable exception to a categorization scheme that is otherwise permitted in other countries. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 31 July 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:Abolitionist Party of Canada candidates in the 1993 Canadian federal election[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:double merge. – FayenaticLondon 21:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just one candidate with a standalone BLP and one candidate list. As with the Liberals below, we don't categorize actual MPs by the individual sessions of Parliament they sat in or the individual elections they ran in, so there's no compelling reason to categorize candidates more specifically than we do actual officeholders. Bearcat (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, candidates don't deserve a more refined categorization scheme than MPs. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:33, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (support principle)-- WP:POLITICIAN indicates that political candidates who are not elected are generally NN. Should we have categories for such people at all? If elected they will be notable as MPs, not candidates; if not elected they will be NN,unless notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 30 July 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:Liberal Party of Canada candidates in the 1867 Canadian federal election[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:double upmerge i.e. to both parent categories. – FayenaticLondon 15:41, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_February_19#Category:New_Democratic_Party_candidates_in_the_1962_Canadian_federal_election, which I nominated earlier this year, this represents an overly granular distinction for the level of notability that it actually entails. We don't categorize actual Members of Parliament by which individual sessions of parliament they sat in or which individual elections they ran in, so there's no compelling reason to categorize candidates more specifically than we do the actual winners. Further, this creates a significant degree of category bloat, since candidates often do not run just once but frequently try again once or several more times in subsequent elections — and since having been a non-winning candidate for Parliament is not a notability claim in and of itself, but rather people only have articles to file in here if they already had preexisting notability for another reason (e.g. provincial MLAs), it results in most of the categories being unnecessary WP:SMALLCATs of just one, two or three entries. In addition, it makes the tree harder to monitor properly; I just caught nine examples of actual MPs who had been added to the candidate categories for the elections where they happened to get defeated or tried for a unsuccessful comeback or ran and lost before winning the first time, which is not what these categories are supposed to be for (they're for people who never won and thus aren't in Category:Liberal Party of Canada MPsat all, not for collating everybody who ran and lost that year even if they won other times). So while the general parent category is an appropriate point of categorization for those people, subcatting them by each individual election fails several overcategorization tests and the categories should be upmerged. Bearcat (talk) 22:30, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, my hope is to eventually kibosh the "Candidates in the YYYY Canadian federal election" categories too — they still pose the same problems of categorizing the candidates more specifically than the actual officeholders get since there's no "Canadian MPs by years of service" tree to correspond to this, and of overbloating some of the articles with five or six categories for distinctions that still don't really constitute separate points of notability from each other. Unfortunately, it's a big job that's going to take a long time to finish, because there are still many, many layers of "[Specific Party] candidates in YYYY" categories to deal with before the undifferentiated "Candidates in YYYY" can go — you're going to be seeing a lot more of these at CFD in the coming weeks, I'm afraid to report. Bearcat (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense, since most of the same problems that characterize the nominated categories apply to the "Candidates in the YYYY Canadian federal election" categories, too. However, until those are nominated (and in case that those nominations are not successful), we should still upmerge to both parents, shouldn't we? -- Black Falcon(talk) 04:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: I'm not entirely sure but it sounds like you can do this all together in one huge mass nomination, for all parties, and for the parent categories, such that a second merge target is no longer needed. It requires a longer preparation time for yourself, but discussants and closing administrators will probably be very happy with it. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree a single nomination for all parties would be easier, I think the incremental approach Bearcat is taking (by separately tackling the sub and parent categoreis) may be better in the long run, in the sense that it is easier to explain/understand and build consensus for step-by-step changes rather than more sweeping ones. Just a thought, I've no real preference. -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It might be easier for the overall deletion process to just tackle it all at once, but it would be significantly harder and more time-consuming to actually tackle getting all of the categories collated into one giant batch nomination — and while I can certainly manage a few smaller batches at a time, I have neither the time nor the energy needed to actually tackle the amount of upfront work it would take to mass-nom all of the related categories at once. Bearcat (talk) 16:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, candidates don't deserve a more refined categorization scheme than MPs. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (support principle)-- WP:POLITICIAN indicates that political candidates who are not elected are generally NN. Should we have categories for such people at all? If elected they will be notable as MPs, not candidates; if not elected they will be NN,unless notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 30 July 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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 15:36, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is currently an attempt [here] to merge the articles Web community & Virtual community into Online community. Look at [this list] and tell me how you describe these communities. As online or virtual communities. I doubt there is actual data about which term is more common, so we have to think about how often we come across these terms. Personally, I feel "online community" much more often used. CN1 (talk) 19:05, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Virtual community is a broader concept. They also can't be merged as they only overlap and as online community is a farreaching topic in itself. List of virtual communities with more than 100 million active users needs to be renamed to "List of online communities [...]" or something similar. --Fixuture (talk) 19:29, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see, every page in the virtual communities category is an online community. Yes, there can be virtual communities that are not online communities, but no such community appears to currently have an article about it in that category. --Joshua Issac (talk) 10:35, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Dependent on whether or not article Virtual communities is going to be merged into Online communities, the category should either be renamed (if the articles are merged) or the category may be split (if the articles remain separate and if there is sufficient content for each of the two categories). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the articles, many different solutions can be satisfactory. I don't think however, that the category rename should entirely be dependent on the article situation. The main article for the category can easily be changd to Online communities.
Which proportion of virtual communities are online? The only counter-example I can think of are letter-based communities--extremely rare nowadays. Basically the question is: Is virtual communities a subtopic of online communities or the other way round?
And even if this is sorted out, the far more important analysis for the decision on how to name the category is the following: "which proportion of the subcategories of Category:Virtual (soon to be renamed to Online) communities do we identify as either pure Online/Virtual communities. I argue the majority of the sub-content are online communities. CN1 (talk) 13:55, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't think in majorities but instead think about what's appropriate for every article. If the outcome of this discussion is that we split the category, we may move articles about online communities to the new subcategory if appropriate, one by one. If the end result of that process is that Category:Virtual communities has hardly any articles left, it may be nominated for upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. So that's a lot of ifs. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 30 July 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 feel like this is overcategorization, I don't think this category is necessary. But if it's decided that it shouldn't be deleted, there's still a problem with it – BLP articles who are known for far more than Vine are categorized as "Vine accounts". This should be reserved for pseudonymous accounts whose sole purpose is a "Vine account", like WeRateDogs on Twitter. A generic "People with Vine accounts" category, which is what this seems to be misused as, definitely shouldn't exist IMO. nyuszika7h (talk) 11:29, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Category:Viners or Category:Vine personalities and then decide to delete or keep one of those. I think those category names would be more appropriate based on the nominator's rationale. Best wishes Soulbust (talk) 19:13, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure the specific platform (Vine) is really defining for these individuals? To put it another way, do we need/want to go down the path of subdividing Category:Internet celebrities by website (Vine, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, Facebook, etc.)? -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:19, 3 August 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: The categories overlap significantly in scope, and there is not enough content in either one to warrant a split at this time. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:57, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. —swpbT 15:12, 24 July 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:Expatriate footballers in Faroe Islands[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: Duplicate category and the related categories all include the definite article in their names. Keresaspa (talk) 01:49, 23 July 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.
