Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 7 January 9 >

January 8[edit]

Category:Jacobite rising of 1689[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 Category:Jacobite rising of 1689 to Category:First Jacobite rising (1689–92). There is consensus that these 2 categories are duplicates, and should be merged. Proposals were made for other possible renamings or mergers, but they were not listed or tagged and so were not formally part of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous cat with only the eponymous topic as member. —swpbT go beyond 20:53, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I was going use this category to replace the existing: Category:Battles of the First Jacobite rising (1689–92), to bring the category inline and to keep consistency on Wikipedia, in the same format as :Category:Jacobite rising of 1715, Category:Jacobite rising of 1719 and Category:Jacobite rising of 1745.QuintusPetillius (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I do not understand why Category:Battles of the First Jacobite rising (1689–92) appeared in this discussion, because battles it is a valid subcategory. It just deserves a rename to Category:Battles of the Jacobite rising of 1689, but this rename can be nominated at CFD/S. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:07, 15 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:Television stations in Estonia[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: Due to our perennial wobbliness on the distinction between a television "channel" and a television "station", Category:Television stations by country is a hodgepodge of inconsistency. Whether we should standardize it, and on which term, is a question for another time, however — right now, the immediate issue is that the inconsistency has resulted in several countries having parallel categories for both television "channels" and television "stations" existing alongside each other. But they're not countries where the real distinction between a station and a channel is applicable at all — they're countries where the muddled popular usage conflation of the two terms as meaning the same thing is the operative definition (i.e. television service is provided entirely at the national level, rather than by local entities that operate separately from the network that provides some of their programming), so there's no distinction between the contents of the two categories in any of these pairs. I've opted to structure this batch as stations→channels, due to the need to pick one or the other and run with it, but I'd have no objection if consensus would prefer to merge the other way — although technically speaking the contents here are all more properly described as channels than as stations, the terms are fuzzed up enough in common usage that I'm not going to pick a fight about it. But there's no need in any of these cases for a "stations" category and a "channels" category to both exist in tandem with each other — either way, we just need one or the other, not both. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 8 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:1689 in Great Britain[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, the one article in this category is already in Category:1689 in Scotland. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Conflicts with existing scheme of Category:1689 by country, which organizes by political, not natural, geography. —swpbT go beyond 20:50, 8 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:1980s Police detective films[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:38, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT —swpbT go beyond 20:43, 8 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:Earlestown Bohemians F.C. players[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. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Galobtter (pingó mió) 12:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This defunct amateur club may not have been notable in its own right and Joe Fagan was probably its sole notable player, so the category is unlikely to amount to more than just him. Ziggy (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nom is right in theory, but in practice editors working on football articles routinely categoryise players by every club they played so deleting the cat just creates a maintenance headache of redlinks appearing in Special:WantedCategories, with the cat being re-created and deleted or the page edited. So goes a pointless cycle; easier to just keep it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:02, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Like most editors here, I have little understanding of the esoteric rules of categorisation, so the idea that football editors routinely categorise players by every notable club (not every club) they played for doesn't strike me as a problem. If it is, perhaps those who know better should explain why it's a problem. Preferably without patronising. But the nominator is wrong in their assertion that the club in question was not notable in its own right. If it had not been notable in its own right, I wouldn't have created the category. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 00:10, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think I should point out that I have still not gained a full understanding of "notability" in terms of this site's guidelines and I take on board Struway2's point here. I've amended my wording above to read "club may not have been notable". I think the absence of an article prompted me to assume it is not a notable subject. If I am wrong here in my interpretation of the concept of notability, then I would prefer to withdraw the nomination even though it remains, I think, likely that Joe Fagan will be the sole member of the category. Ziggy (talk) 11:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may well be right about Mr Fagan. FYI, English football clubs are normally considered notable, i.e. likely to have received enough coverage to pass WP:GNG, if they've played in a senior national cup competition. For pre-WW2 clubs, that would be the FA Cup, which Earlestown Bohemians entered a few times in the 1930s. cheers, Struway2 (talk) 14:15, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Struway2, you are correct. It appears that makes them WP:NOTABLE. I'm going to ask for withdrawal of the nomination. I need to study the WP:GNG, I think, to understand things better. Thank you again. Ziggy (talk) 14:33, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please withdraw nomination. I am mistaken because the club is notable and other noted players may yet be added to the category. Thanks. Ziggy (talk) 14:35, 9 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:Conservative Evangelical Anglican church buildings in England[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 the first 4 per nominator. However, the subcats of Category:Anglo-Catholic church buildings in England were neither tagged nor listed, so this discussion cannot count as consensus to rename them or their parent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: While there was a recent discussion to clear up categorising church buildings, these categories are not about the buildings (as categories about location and listed status are), but about the church community. I am proposing that the above categories are reverted back to "churches" from "church buildings". Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 17:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You are right, I've corrected the capitalisation of the proposed new names. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 22:36, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks! 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:41, 12 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:Honored artists of Armenia[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: no consensus. The evidence is that this is not actually a WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, but no consensus on whether this is an exceptional award. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT —swpbT go beyond 17:09, 8 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:Aviators[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: no consensus. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article was moved from Pilot (aeronautics) to Aircraft pilot a few months ago. Should the category be renamed? feminist (talk) 16:46, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: "Balloonists" is a subcategory of "Aviators". Would it be accurate to describe balloonists as "aircraft pilots"? -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe technically, but not colloquially, so keep at "aviators" to minimize confusion. —swpbT go beyond 14:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to align with main article and move child Category:Balloonists from the nominated category to Category:People in aviation. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Most of the subcats are called aviators, and the nom does not include them. No point in creating inconsistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:39, 17 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:Rock lighthouses of Scotland[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: manually merge to Category:Lighthouses in Scotland and/or its existing subcats. Pinging the nominator @Mangoe to do the merge.
I will also leave a list of the category's current contents at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 8#Rock lighthouses of Scotland . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: Not clear what the criteria for inclusion might be. A couple of members are on isolated rocks; most are on islands of greater or lesser rockiness. I can see a category of open-water lights, but this isn't it and I don't see that the current membership has enough in common. The upmerge presumes that all of these are on islands; exceptions would upmerge to Category:Lighthouses in Scotland or some other appropriate subcat. Mangoe (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Define and keep I think what this needs is a definition. I think they are all on isolated rocks or other otherwise uninhabited islands, as opposed to those on the main islands of the Hebrides, Orkney, Shetland or the Scottish mainland. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as Rock lighthouse and Category:Rock lighthouses are (currently) redlinks. DexDor (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a little obscure but half of these lights are not on "islands" in the usual sense i.e. they are built on rocks that are or were in their original state submerged at higher stages of the tide. The original definition I used is easy to relate - they appear in Christopher Nicholson (1995) Rock Lighthouses of Britain: The End of an Era? along with Chicken Rock Lighthouse, Eddystone Lighthouse and half a dozen others. I had a quick look and I can't see a formal definition there - if there was one it would be something like "lighthouses on uninhabitable rocks or very remote small islands" (with Flannan being the only example of the latter). Scotland's coast is very long and convoluted for such a small country and I think the categorisation makes sense in this context. Furthermore, with the exception of Hyskeir they are all 'very notable' for various reasons, in particular the extarordinary engineering feats that created some of them (and in one case a remarkable mystery). Ben MacDui 16:38, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the above post (e.g. that the lighthouses are notable) is irrelevant to this discussion. When it comes to categorization it's not unreasonable to count rocks that are covered at high tide as islands (without the category name explicitly saying so). DexDor (talk) 08:01, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tbh I doubt you would say that if you had ever been involved in building one! At Dhu Heartach "fourteen men were trapped there for five days, and at one point seawater poured in through the trapdoor, swirled around them and exited with their remaining food supplies."Ben MacDui 12:07, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
World-wide there is a very small number of these open-water stone foundation lights (I believe for example that the only US case is at Minot's Ledge Light). If we could come up with good sourcing I could support a single category for all the examples, but I'm not seeing a Scottish subcat, and as I said a lot of the members now are conventional construction on smallish islands, and wouldn't properly be members. Mangoe (talk) 14:54, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is also Alligator Reef Light and perhaps other Pile lighthouses and Phare de Kéréon - site of the famous Guichard photo - and no doubt others (although likely only few per country). Perhaps Category:Rock lighthouses would be useful. Ben MacDui 10:42, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Were a merge to occur the merge in all but one case (Bell Rock Lighthouse) would be to the other sub-cats of Category:Lighthouses of Scottish islands. Ben MacDui
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 December 27 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 8 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:United States Navy organization[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: no consensus. There might have been a different outcome if @Buckshot06's proposed new structute had been in place, or was clearly explained. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category, 'organization of the USN', is intended for administrative organizations [1] and is constantly getting mixed up with Category:Military units and formations of the United States Navy, which corresponds to the Fleet. This rename would align Wikipedia with real life. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:14, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- because much of the content is not necessarily shore based. However, this category is a mess, and should be split. It mixes up command posts, some political rather than military; shore based admin; specialised boards; etc. We already have a shore-based subcat. Actually organization fits well. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am in the process of splitting this category. The 'Fleet' fits very well with the 'Military Units and Formations of the USN." THere are some things here (like the United States Ram Fleet) that I've just moved to MF&U categories. The whole rest of the navy is the 'Shore Establishment'. So there needs to be two main categories. Under the 'Shore establishment' will be, yes, shore commands, but that category I have just created, and is intended for formations that are at Command level. Under that level are regions, districts, offices, etc. Yes, also there also needs to be a Category:Department of the Navy (United States) which will take in the Assistant Secretaries etc, but 'Shore establishment' is a distinct body in the USN and needs to be represented. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from WP:CfD 2017 December 27 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 8 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:100,000,000 view pages[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characterization of any page. I do not see it as a useful categorization. ~ GB fan 15:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No explanation of what the page views are either. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 15:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, though explanation is at Wikipedia:Multiyear_ranking_of_most_viewed_pages Galobtter (pingó mió) 16:14, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was looking into how to nominate this this morning, got sidetracked, good to see someone else saw the problems as well. Why one-hundred million? Why not 50,000? Why not a billion? It seems arbitrarily-chosen and offers nothing subjective about the articles that meet this imagined threshold. ValarianB (talk) 18:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, unnecessary as a category. If someone believes this to be useful information they can listify this somewhere. VegaDark (talk) 19:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary and of no utility. -- Begoon 02:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or move to talk pages. Mainspace categories are applied on the basis of characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article — but Facebook and YouTube and Wikipedia are not defined by how many people have viewed the Wikipedia articles about them. If there's any valid reason for this category to exist, then it should be a talk page category rather than a mainspace category — I'm not convinced that it needs to be, as the list should itself be sufficient, but I wouldn't object if anybody feels strongly about it. Apart from temporary maintenance categories, internal projectspace classifications should be applied to the talk pages, not the articles, if they actually need to exist at all. Bearcat (talk) 05:01, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The number of visits holds no significance. MT TrainDiscuss 12:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The categories are supposed to be for the thing which the page is on, not about the nature of the page itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or move to talk pages per Bearcat. FallingGravity 19:46, 14 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:Railway stations in Ukraine opened in 2016[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:59, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. feminist (talk) 15:07, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:24, 8 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:Mailman School of Public Health faculty[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 and redirect to Category:Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health faculty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. Postcard Cathy (talk) 14:45, 8 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:First Ladies and Gentlemen of Croatia[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: to use a neutral descriptive title per WP:NDESC, rather than this misapplication to Croatia of an American term.
The page List of spouses of Croatian Presidents and Prime Ministers (which I split between PMs and Presidents) acknowledged in its lede[2] that "First Lady or First Gentleman of Croatia is an informal title given to the wife or husband of the President of Croatia. However, it is used in that form almost exclusively outside the country itself or by foreign media sources, while the Croatian media and press usually refer to the spouse of the President as either the "wife of the President of the Republic" or the "husband of the President of the Republic", rather than "First Spouse".
So there is no justification for using the Americanism. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. We have the same phenomenon in Canada, where some sources try to call the Spouse of the Prime Minister of Canada the "First Lady", but it's not a standard or reliably sourceable title the way it is in the United States. If even the article isn't using "First Lady" in its title, then the category shouldn't either. Bearcat (talk) 17:31, 9 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:People from McBee, South Carolina[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Small one-county community with just two entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:48, 8 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:2018 births[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: speedy delete per WP:C1. Yes, the 7 day has not expired, but this is only going one way, and there's no point wasting time discussing it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for a placeholder category. Just recreate it when the first notable person born this year gets an article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:47, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep WP:CRYSTAL is compelling for articles but for a category that I don't think anyone is going to argue will inevitably be created (and in the next few weeks or months when a royal baby is born). Plus there is at least one incoming link. I just don't see the value in deletion. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I had spotted this empty category before and had the same thoughts as both nominator and Justin, in the same order. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Is this really worth having a discussion about? 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not very hard to just wait and not hard to simply recreate come such time. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#C1. While this will obviously eventually be populated, so will Category:2026 births. We have a policy on the timeframe for creation for stuff like this already in the speedy deletion criteria - If a category is empty for 7 days it can be deleted, barring a category intended to be empty or other rare circumstances. This is not one of those exceptions. While this will certainly be populated sooner rather than later, and it may seem like a waste of time to discuss this on first glance, a keep result would set an unfortunate precedent in direct contradiction with CSD eligibility for things like this. A keep result would add a layer of subjectivity to the C1 criteria based on someone's best guess as to when a category in question may become populated, instead of keeping the objective standards in place currently. Bottom line, categories shouldn't be created until they are already populated or at least in conjunction with creation of pages to put in that category, in my view. Anything earlier than that is entirely unnecessary & clogs Wikipedia:Database reports/Empty categories even more so than it currently is. VegaDark (talk) 08:54, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Until a notable person born in 2018 has an article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:21, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete per WP:CSD#C1....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:03, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't keep empty categories just because they will eventually become populated — we hold off on creation until the category is populated. This can certainly be recreated once at least one article about somebody born in 2018 actually exists to be filed in it, but there's no need for it to already exist as an empty placeholder before any articles actually exist to be filed in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 8 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:Pages of Khủng Long[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: i dont think userpages are categorized. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:41, 8 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:Atheist feminism[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains no articles apart from the main article. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 03:29, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Category:Atheist feminists has not been proposed for deletion. Moreover, it does not qualify as a "trivial intersection" as, according to the relevant article, atheist feminism is a variety of feminism. That is to say, it is not a category for merely anyone who happens to be both an atheist and a feminist. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete There have been feminists who were/are atheists, but the main article fails to make the case that atheistic feminism is a thing unto itself (it's mostly a list of people); and in any case, even were it a thing, a list of atheist feminists is not the same thing as a list of women who subscribe to a particularly atheistic theory of feminism, so even if the main article were legitimate, the people category we have isn't properly a subcat. Mangoe (talk) 13:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
… in any case, even were it a thing, a list of atheist feminists is not the same thing as a list of women who subscribe to a particularly atheistic theory of feminism, so even if the main article were legitimate, the people category we have isn't properly a subcat. Of course I agree that Category:Atheist feminism should be deleted (as the nominator). And having not done much research into the subject, I, like you, am not fully convinced that atheist feminism is in itself a distinct variety of feminism.
However, if we take as our premise that atheist feminism is a variety of feminism, it does not follow that Category:Atheist feminists would not be a subcategory of Category:Atheist feminism (were the latter to continue existing). It would not be unreasonable to assume that an atheist feminist is not merely an atheist who is also feminist. This would be no different in our treatment of other categories, e.g., Category:Christian socialism (something about which I am more familiar). Category:Christian socialists is solely for people in the Christian socialist tradition, not just any socialist who can be identified as Christian. Accordingly, around the same time as I made this nomination, I removed approximately half of the articles from Category:Atheist feminists as there was nothing in the articles that suggested that they even might be a feminist who derives their feminism from their atheism or vice versa. 142.161.81.20 (talk) 01:56, 10 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:Twitter[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be an unnecessary attempt to bring together all non-mainspace pages on Wikipedia related to Twitter, which at the moment is one citation template and one category containing userboxes. Functionally, one has nothing to do with the other, so it is not helpful to group them administratively. Both are appropriately categorized as a citation template and userboxes, respectively, so there is no need to merge anywhere. On a separate note, it is not good practice to use more than one colon in a page title. (Pinging User:Apokrif as the category's creator.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:53, 8 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_January_8&oldid=1073191660"