Category:High Commissioners to the Dominion of Newfoundland[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.
Poetential for expansion. The Dominion of Newfoundland existed from 1907 to 1949, so there is a high probability that other High Commissioners to the Dominion of Newfoundland are notable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:04, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: did you intend to mislead CFD? Or did you just not read the article properly? Burchell he was not Canada's only High Commissioner to the Dominion of Newfoundland. There was at least one other in between Burchell's 2 terms. Plus, there were several others dominions which could have sent High Commissioners to Newfoundland: Union of South Africa, Dominion of New Zealand, Irish Free State, Australia .. and of course the United Kingdom itself. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:18, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just read the words, and perhaps I was misled! Rathfelder (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT: part of an established scheme. Oculi (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There were actually four High Commissioners of Canada to the Dominion of Newfoundland before that became a redundant position; the Canada subcategory here already contains three of them and the overall article about the position, so it's at five articles (the usual cutoff for surpassing WP:SMALLCAT) once the remaining redlink gets blued in. (Per High commissioner of Newfoundland to the United Kingdom, the UK never actually sent High Commissioners to Newfoundland — the period when it started doing that with Commonwealth countries coincided with the suspension of Newfoundland's self-government — but that doesn't necessarily mean other Commonwealth countries besides Canada didn't. I wouldn't have a bleeding clue where to research the fact, though.) That said, the fact that there are five articles in the Canadian subcategory justifies that category, and this is necessary as the step between that and Category:High Commissioners (Commonwealth) by mission countryregardless of whether there are any other potential subcategories or not. Bearcat (talk) 02:59, 5 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.
Merge We don't need a category for every node in the tree of life. Plantdrew (talk) 21:46, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – another of Caftaric's irritating additions. Oculi (talk) 21:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Up merge as suggested (or even further). As noted above, this is another of Caftaric's undiscussed additions with no consensus sought or gained. Peter coxhead (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. In addition to all of the reasons already given, I noted that Caftaric seems to have no understanding of the relationship between categories — he had filed Category:Animals as a subcategory of this rather than vice versa, and removed it from the things it is actually a subcategory of in the process. I know, never ascribe to deliberate malice what can be explained as simple incompetence — but persistent incompetence is still disruptive, and still potential grounds for an editblock. Bearcat (talk) 03:08, 5 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: empty. Did Guam ever have its own military? Rathfelder (talk) 20:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks the contents were moved to Category:Military in Guam so maybe just create a redirect to that category. Tim! (talk) 17:14, 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: Only one category entry. Unlikely to be any more Rathfelder (talk) 13:40, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this category becomes empty after the below deletion/merger. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile the category has been populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the state existed for some 15 years, there are a number of establishments during its life, for which articles have not yet been written, or which have been miscategorized (e.g. Bank of Crete (1898–1919) was categorized in "Establishments in Greece"). There is definitely scope for the category to be filled, although further sub-categorization by year etc is probably pointless. Constantine ✍ 09:58, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy with this suggestion. Rathfelder (talk) 19:32, 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.
Category:1899 establishments in the Cretan State[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.
Comment The Cretan State was a short-lived autonomous area of the Ottoman Empire (1898-1913). Should not establishments in the Cretan State be present in the Ottoman Empire categories? Dimadick (talk) 09:21, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: Not really. The Cretan State recognized Ottoman suzerainty in name, but was essentially an independent country. It was no more a part of the Ottoman Empire than the Danubian principalities, Egypt until 1914, or Bulgaria between 1881–1908. Constantine ✍ 09:55, 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.
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 and delete, typical WP:SMALLCATs and unclear scope: is the determining criterion for inclusion being born in the city, or being active there? Constantine ✍ 10:49, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support regardless of being born or active in the city, it would still be too small. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:54, 3 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: Way too broad, and in no way defining. Given inflation over the past 50 years, I'd say the majority of our American BLPs have a net worth of at least 1 million dollars or more. Being a millionaire is no longer unusual for a noteworthy person in the U.S.; being a billionaire is. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not category-defining like it used to be, which was long before the Internet was around. WP:TRIVIALCATAngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NFL and some other pro-sports figures regularly get paid over 1 million dollars a year. I'm sure there are lots of people who at some point in their life hit a net worth of $1 million, who then go down a lot. Actually, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association and the National Hockey League players average more than NFL, which considering how big American football teams are, is not surprising. The first google item I came across was one that argued that football players were being paid badly because their average salary was 1.9 million. Some TV actors rake in $1 per episode, and many more make it to that amount in a season.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:14, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a lot of people get paid over $1 million like Johnpacklambert said but there are also many who are not really millionaire, due to their expenses and debt,[1] the label of "millionaire" can be dubious, let alone the category. Lorstaking (talk) 03:49, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A million dollar net worth just doesn't mean much nowadays — I live, for example, in a city where that amount of money wouldn't even buy you a leaky bungalow in the suburbs, and at best gets you a small and awkwardly laid-out condo in one of those all-glass towers that's going to be a giant ice cube tray in 15 years when all the gas lining the triple-paned windows as "insulation" dissipates. Not the lifestyle one associates with the word "millionaire" by a long shot. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 5 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: Way too broad, and in no way defining. Given inflation over the past 50 years, I'd say a majority of our BLPs have a net worth of at least 1 million dollars or more. Being a millionaire is no longer unusual for a noteworthy person; being a billionaire is. Softlavender (talk) 08:44, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be salted then. Softlavender (talk) 10:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the nominator, and also a persons networth changes throughout time and this is not catdefining. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 12:25, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per prior CfD cited above. It's just not that defining in the 21st century.—Bagumba (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also for general millionaires, what does that even mean? Anyone could be considered a millionaire in Zimbabwe dollars. It's still WP:TRIVIALCATAngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:20, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am not sure that the majority of living people we have biographies on have a net worth of $1 million, but a lot of them will.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:15, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-defining and trivial and given the nom's rationale, any existence of this category will also create redundant debates. Lorstaking (talk) 03:44, 4 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.
Category:Curling related articles with links to video[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: I don't see any similar types of categories for anything else, so I'm not sure what value it serves. If kept, make it a hidden/tracking category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:23, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Whatever happens it should not be a visible category on article space. Leaning Delete as inutile. Softlavender (talk) 10:15, 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.
