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:WP:EPON, only continues photos of places connected to the subject. TM 23:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:18, 29 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: The only page in this category is the eponymous page Fornix (neuroanatomy), and I cannot think of any other page that could be added to the category. The page now in the category, and any similar page, would be well-covered by the parent categories. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:55, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Limbic system. Seem unlikely we'll have articles on the separate parts of the fornix (columns, crus, psalterium) - if we did they'd almost certainly be small enough to be candidates for merging back into the key article. Grutness...wha? 00:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that basically makes sense, although actually Category:Hippocampus (brain), which is a subcategory of the Limbic system category, would be even more precise, and there's only the one article to potentially upmerge, and it's already in the Hippocampus category. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:18, 1 February 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: Newly created category, for no reason that I can see, unless there are large number sof notable amateur audio equipment manufacturers (which I somehow doubt). Suggest merging the contents back to Category:Audio equipment manufacturers. Sionk (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, don't merge. Delete because there's no such thing as "professional audio" that one can "manufacture". Don't merge because it will create a mess... many of the articles are already in subcategories of Category:Audio equipment manufacturers. Also worth noting that the editor who created this category is still actively working on adding articles (and at least one sub-category) into this new category. — Warren. ‘ talk , 22:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk and Warren: can you let us know if your thinking is changed at all by my explanation of Pro audio. Original comments indicate a lack of context in making your respective assertions on ths. Please let me know if any additional background would be helpful. There were a couple hundred audio manufacturers in Category:Audio equipment manufacturers and I separated out the 69 Category:Professional audio manufacturers companies. It is rare for an audio manufacturer to serve both professional and consumer so I don't believe it is an ambiguous or controversial thing to categorize. ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure you're quite grasping the issue here -- the concept of "professional audio" vs. "not professional" you're getting at is extremely subjective and will lead to disagreements as to whether a particular company, brand or product is considered "professional". Who gets decides what is "professional" and what is not? Sionk and Kvng? No, of course not. It's not like professional sports vs amateur sports which is clearly demarcated by whether one gets paid or not, which is easy enough to discover via sources. But the professional audio article itself fails to define what the term means using reliable sources. Why? Because the word "professional" is only, only a marketing term to justify a higher price bracket. That's it. Trying to categorize based on who uses the products, or how, is hopeless. Like, for instance, we can agree that Roland makes equipment that is used by people who are paid to make or perform music -- Rush, e.g., is famous for using Roland electronic drums and synths. But what about Line 6 or Squier? Surely their products have been used in paid settings as well, right? Right off the top of my head I happen to know that Buckethead has Line 6 DL4 in his current touring rig.
Do you really want to support the idea that Wikipedia should categorize product articles based on price or marketing strategy? I don't. Price and target market demo are not defining characteristics of the product itself. — Warren. ‘ talk , 01:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Warren: The situation here is is not like professional vs. amateur sports. With the exception of conglomerates like Samsung (who also make ICs, phones, etc.), audio equipment manufacturers either produce consumer or professional products. I said above, this is not a difficult or controversial categorization. This is not based on price and market strategy, this is market and customers, commercial vs. consumer. Professional audio has its own trade shows (AES, Infocomm, NAB) separate from consumer audio (CES) and music equipment (NAMM). The music equipment manufacturers like Roland and Line 6 already have their own category, Category:Music equipment manufacturers so you'll have to come up with a better example of where there would be a problem. I agree that the Professional audio article needs a lot of work. Please don't use the condition of that as a basis for making a decision on this category. ~Kvng (talk) 17:10, 31 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:Grand United Order of Odd Fellows in America[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:WP:SMALLCAT Only has one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per above. Kiltpin (talk) 20:30, 29 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:Monasteries dissolved in the 16th century[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 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:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, the whole tree consists of just over a dozen biographies. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 28 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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:20, 28 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.
Reason for deletion: Hi there! This year, I have cleaned up the pages surrounding the Romanian Top 100 and the Airplay 100, Romania's past and current national singles chart, respectively. As I was cleaning and searching for sources, I have realized that much of the content there wasn't referenced. This means that many songs in this category did not even reach number one or it can't be proved that they did. My suggestion would be to delete this categoryand remove it from all the songs that link there, so that I can recreate the category properly and add songs that really reached number one according to the given sources now. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:44, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cartoon network freak: why can you not just remove articles from the existing category in case they are inappropriate? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Is there an option to remove all articles from the category? I would add the right articles in place there. Cartoon network freak (talk) 12:22, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Removing all articles can be done by deletion as you have proposed. The question I'm asking is whether it's not possible that you manually remove only the articles that don't belong here, but keep the articles that do belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Yeah, it would be possible if there weren't over 100 pages to double-check. I mean, removing all articles and adding them again would also take some time, but at least the result won't have any mistakes or such. Cartoon network freak (talk) 19:19, 30 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 categories named after manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom[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:keep. A broader discussion of a wider set of eponymous categories might have a different outcome, but there was no consensus to single out this category from the wider set. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless duplication of Category:Manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom. There is a whole growing tree of these and they are quite unnecessary. The intention here (which is unclear anyway) seems to be to duplicate an existing content structure, Manufacturing companies of the United Kingdom, but to impose a page-type qualification on that as well - so that it will only contain categories, rather than categories and pages. This is pointless: MediaWiki works fine without such a thing. Nor is that a "maintenance" category.
The only minor purpose for this category is that it also represents a flattened list of the UK's manufacturing companies (a long list), rather than one broken down by categories. That could be said to have some value, although it's minor, not useful (this is a long and unwieldy list), would be better done if it included article pages too and (fundamentally) there are better ways to do such a thing, if search is needed, by using database-type queries into nested categories. Also, if that's the point of this category, the naming is bizarre. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:19, 28 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:Millennia in the Duchy of Modena and Reggio[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:delete. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:05, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete, this duchy existed from the 15th to the 19th century so an attempt to split its history by millennium is not meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's probably also true for most modern European countries that were established and disestablished within a narrow time period of the 2nd millennium. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:34, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete seemingly redundant. Lorstaking (talk) 17:55, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I regard almost all millennia categories as a waste of space. There are relatively few cases where more than two are needed, and very few places where there is enough recorded history to need more than 40 century categories. Egypt might stretch into the upper 40s, and even that is not big enough to require splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:31, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Millenia categories are totally not needed. Especially not to contain the way too few century categories. Containerism has gone too far.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:50, 11 February 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:moot. Both categories were emptied out-of-process by their creator @Atvica, despite clear instruction on the category page: the CFD tag says "Please do not empty the category or remove this notice while the discussion is in progress". Atvica not only emptied the categories, but also removed their parent categories.[1][2] This is disruptive editing, because it creates a WP:FAITACCOMPLI, and impedes the ability of this consensus-forming discussion to form any WP:CONSENSUS other than what has already been implemented. However, I think this discussion would probably have closed as merge/rename even if it hadn't been pre-empted ... so I will tag the empty categories with {{db-empty}} and WP:TROUT@Atvica. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:04, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To differentiate between real anthropomorphic canines? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:54, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So is this a rename proposal, not a deletion? Because this seems like a real group and, if deleted, I can't see some other location to merge them too. We don't have Category:Anthropomorphic canines, and this is a more specific group than Category:Fictional canines.
Yes but fictional anthropomorphic dogs was recently created then blanked by the author so I tagged it as empty. Don't know why you would populate it when ALL anthropomorphic dogs are fictional. The existing scheme of Category:Anthropomorphic animal characters and Category:Fictional canines seemed sufficient to me to request deletion. So, if you are suggesting a rename then, yes, it should be Category:Anthropomorphic canines. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But "anthropomorphic" is a subcategory to "fictional" already because there aren't any REAL anthropomorphic canines and dogs. I've modified the proposal. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So if there aren't any non-fictional, then that's a reason to only have one of the two.
But if we have one, I'd still keep it named as "fictional". It may be tautological, but it's also slightly clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question, which is the defining characteristic here, is it fictional or is it anthropomorphic? It is not too obvious that anthropomorphic is really defining. How many articles about fictional non-anthropomorphic animals do we have in contrast? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed - there's no reason to have overdescriptive category names. The phrase "fictional anthropomorphic" implies everything else in the normal "anthropomorphic" category is not fictional, which is false. It creates more confusion than it dispels. Ibadibam (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question I would ask @Atvica: why they've just emptied this category, against clear policy, whilst the CfD is still running? Andy Dingley (talk) 08:42, 2 February 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.
