Category:Inuit from the Northwest Territories[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: Two categories that aren't really distinguishing their entries into distinct groups, but instead are mostly overlapping with each other. The problem is that Nunavut has only existed as a geopolitical entity since 1999, and was part of the Northwest Territories prior to that -- which means that any Inuit person from Nunavut who is older than 19 years of age was born in the Northwest Territories, and has to be filed in both categories simultaneously. Of the 147 articles in the Nunavut category, fully 139 of them are indeed double-filed in both categories -- and of the just eight articles that aren't double-filed, two should be, while the other six are all just hanging on unresolved questions of timing: either their article lacks a reliably sourced birthdate at all, or they were born outside of either territory and the article just fails to specify whether their move to Nunavut happened before or after 1999. And while the NT category has a larger number of people who aren't doubled up, they're still only a quarter of its entries in the first place -- and even then, many of them are also people who were from towns that are now in Nunavut, and would also have been double-filed if not for the fact that they died before 1999. So if 70 per cent of all the entries are double-filed in both categories as it is, and a large chunk of the other 30 per cent are also fuzzy edge cases where double-filing them in both categories could be debated, then that's just not a recipe for a genuinely defining or useful distinction. Entries should certainly be returned to Category:Canadian Inuit people, but there's no value in retaining these as category redirects. Bearcat (talk) 23:46, 13 December 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:Eponymous category that's serving as an intersection of multiple overcategorization errors. Other than the eponym itself, the only other articles filed here are the program's host, the guest he interviews, and a scientist who gave a presentation about it at a conference but isn't directly associated with it himself. This is not a solid basis for a category -- it's performer by performance for Jesse Mulligan and Nicola Toki, and it's a non-defining indirect association for Mike Dickison. The only other thing that was in the category was an internal Wikiproject task list, but I've already removed it as those are not supposed to be filed in articlespace categories. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 13 December 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: Procedural nomination. I'm not an expert on whether "programs" or "programmes" is more normative in Indian English, so I have no personal opinion either way -- but in the past couple of weeks, inexperienced editors have been trying to create "programmes" as a second category that was added to articles alongside "programs". We obviously don't need to maintain two separate categories for the same class of topic which differ only in their spelling, but the category can obviously be renamed if there's a valid WP:ENGVAR reason why the "programmes" spelling should be preferred. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 13 December 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:rename. – FayenaticLondon 23:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. My only concern here is to avoid ambiguity, by retaining some disambiguator. This proposal merely changes the disambiguator in one case, and changes the format in the other.
I am not sure that the change of Roedean School from "England" to "West Sussex" is particularly helpful, because it seems to me me that extra precision is not needed ... and since this is an educational institution rather than a place, I am not sure that WP:UKPLACE applies.
Similarly, I am not sure that UKPLACE applies to the format of the dab in Silverdale School (Sheffield).
I would be inclined to go with whatever option fits most closely with other schools in England, but I'm not sufficiently concerned about this to check. Just please make sure that whatever is done, a {{Category redirect}} is retained from the old title. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:42, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The county/town are the most common form of disambiguation and there is no other disambiguation guideline for schools so I assume that UKPLACE is standard there like most at Category:People educated by school in England. Crouch, Swale (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted "England" isn't standard. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Despite that I don't think WP:UKPLACE applies here, but I noticed that non of the schools included in all subcategories of Category:People educated by school in England includes brackets or the word England, so I'd be happy to see those two changed into the naming format all other schools use. Ben5218 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2019 (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:Wikpedidians who are a absent-minded creature[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:deleted by @Shirt58, who first removed their userpage from the category[1], thereby emptying it.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete I credit the user (though not the admin. who created this cat from the user's redlink) for what I assume is a try for humor, but this misspelled, bad grammar page has no place in the category tree. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't care whether or not this category exists. What I do care about is that it should not end up as a redlink, permanently cluttering up the cleanup list at Special:WantedCategories. I created it last year precisely to remove it from the cleanup list.
This categ currently contains only one page: User:Shirt58, which I think is the only page it has ever contained.
@Shirt58: I think that this joke is getting old, and it certainly doesn't fit WP:USERCAT's requirement that "the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia".
So please, Shirt58, would you consider removing this cat from your userpage? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 14 December 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:Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:33, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Besides a single subcategory, this is an empty category. I don't feel that Romantic thrillers are frequently used outside of film. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:36, 13 December 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:Lists of American action-adventure television series episodes[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:Rename. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think all the articles in this category would qualify as "action-adventure". Maybe a few but the scheme for "Lists of action-adventure series episodes" doesn't exist. I suggest renaming to "List of American action television series episodes" as a more logical child category name based on parents Category:Lists of American television series episodes and Category:Lists of action television series episodes. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:30, 13 December 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:Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:34, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category outside of subcategory. While you might be able to find some comics that are considered romantic, you won't really find many that are also a drama JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:30, 13 December 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:Rename. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming In this case, WP:CONCISE trumps a near match to the parent cats. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:31, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and UnitedStatesian. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:03, 14 December 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:Roman fortifications in Roman Egypt[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:Merge. Timrollpickering (Talk) 19:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rather unlikely that there are Roman fortifications built during the Persian, Greek, Ottoman etc. periods of Egyptian history Constantine ✍ 15:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. In practice this is a delete nomination because the nominated category and the target category contain the same three articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Marcocapelle. - LouisAragon (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Marcocapelle. Dimadick (talk) 10:02, 15 December 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:Rename. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Speedy discussion is available here. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per the reasoning I gave in the speedy. In this case, (as in the Amazon cases and many others: Ford, etc.), WP:CONCISE trumps the unnecessary slavish adherence to the article name, which is driven solely by disambiguation considerations that don't apply to this cat. 17:01, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
Rename per nom. The fact that the much larger (and primary topic when it comes to disambiguation considerations) Canadian Shaw Media doesn't currently own newspapers doesn't mean that they can't buy some in the future, or that there won't be some people who think they do — Shaw and Postmedia picked off and split up Canwest's media holdings, with Shaw getting the broadcast assets and Postmedia getting the newspapers, at the same time, and it's not even seven days since the last time I overheard somebody get fuzzed about this and think Shaw actually owns some of the newspapers. So the fact that there isn't an effective disambiguation conflict here doesn't mean there isn't still a real one. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the main article. In terms of naming on Wikipedia, Shaw Media refers to an entirely different entity. Clarity and consistency with widely applied naming conventions both trump conciseness. -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:26, 23 December 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.
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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:43, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is what it claims to be, but the contents are an assortment of different kinds of agency, presumably because the name is a bit ambiguous. Health agencies need to be differentiated from healthcare agencies. I'm not entirely convinced it's a useful category. It seems to reflect the way these things are organized in the USA, which is not how they are done in many countries. Trying to distinguish between government ministries and government agencies isn't very productive. Rathfelder (talk) 11:38, 13 December 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:Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:45, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Political user categories are forbidden by Wikipedia:User categories#Inappropriate types of user categories: Categories which group users by advocacy of a position. This includes any grouping of users by support for or opposition to a person, object, issue, or idea, especially when they are unrelated to Wikipedia. Also WP:NOTSOCIALMEDIA. Hypothethically there is the concern of WP:VOTESTACKING.
Most of these have been categorized as "philosophies" in Category:Wikipedians by philosophy. Some philosophies there are also borderline inappropriate, but the ones I nominated are clearly about politics. And for the record, the categories are prompted by these templates: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. --Pudeo (talk) 08:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. All of these violate WP:USERCAT, and there is a slew of precedents to delete political categories like these. The last category I would say is not necessarily a political ideology category (obviously the NRA has become extremely political but a category for members is not necessarily a "political category" in and of itself) but I'd argue it nonetheless should be deleted - Knowing who is a member of a particular organization does not satisfy our guideline for user categories. There are plenty of people who are "members" of an organization who have no interest or escalated ability in collaborating on articles related to the organization in question, which is the sole justification for user categories like these being allowed on Wikipedia. A more appropriate category would be Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to the National Rifle Association or at minimum Category:Wikipedians interested in the National Rifle Association. VegaDark (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator, as violations of WP:USERCAT#s requirement that categories should assist editorial collaboration. As @VegaDark notes, there is extensive precedent for deleting user categories which group editors by political allegiance or political ideology, and that is exactly what these are.
VegaDark is right to note that that NRA category is slightly different to the 6 other categories, in that it is the only one based on membership of a particular organisation. However, editorial collaboration on topics relating to any organisation should be based on partisan groupings of whether editors are members of that organisation. Regardless of the nature of the organisation — trades union, business association, professional association, political group of any hue or purpose, writers club, sports club or whatever — editors should be grouped by their interest in collaboration rather than by their membership or lack thereof.
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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:44, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. Subcat can stay in other two categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support- I agree with this. The subcat, Demosisto politicians, is already well appropriately categorised. ReykYO! 09:50, 13 December 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 8#Category:Inuit from the Northwest Territories. Steel1943 (talk) 21:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
