Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 12 March 14 >

March 13[edit]

Category:Yusuf Islam albums[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 keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't make a new category every time someone changes his name. Cf. A Silver Mt. Zion which has a new name every album. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is a good way of grouping the 8 albums which Yusuf Islam produced in a v different phase of his career. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - if the album sleeve says it's a Yusuf Islam album, who are we to disagree? Oculi (talk) 01:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – Although the albums are by the same artist, the Cat Stevens albums are predominantly Pop or Rock albums, whereas the Yusuf Islam albums are Islamic music albums. His change of music is synonymous with his change of name after his conversion to Islam. I think a combination of these points deduce a notable and defining characteristic. Also, it is useful to have separate categories as the category Category:Islamic music albums only applies to a third of the subject's albums. Tanbircdq (talk) 07:48, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nominated twice before (once by me) for merging with unanimous opposition each time. It is a subcat so no one who goes to one or the other category is missing out on anything. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:19, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous merge discussions at CFD 2013 December 8 and CFD 2014 October 25. Both unanimous keeps.
    Note that the nom @Justin (Koavf) should have listed these discussions in the nomination, esp since he was the nominator in 2014. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:39, 15 March 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:West Edmonton Mall[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) 07:11, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories for a shopping mall and attached amusement facility that don't have the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant them. Apart from the eponym itself, the mall category includes one article about a waterpark located in the mall, one article about a 27-km light rail transit line that crosses the entire city and merely happens to have one stop on it to serve the mall (and thus is not defined by the location of one stop), and two films which merely shot a few scenes in the mall but are in no way about the mall — which means the only entry that's properly defined by the mall, for the purposes of warranting inclusion in a mall-specific category, is the waterpark. And apart from its eponym itself, the Galaxyland subcategory just contains two rollercoasters. (And the only other thing here is the "Radio stations" subcategory that I've listed for deletion below as a completely inappropriate level of geographic overcategorization for a radio station.) So simply put, once the inappropriate entries are pruned neither of these categories is large enough to be navigationally necessary. Bearcat (talk) 20:22, 13 March 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:Radio stations in West Edmonton Mall[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) 07:15, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have a well-developed scheme of categorizing radio stations by the state, province or city that they operate in -- but this is taking things well beyond that, and categorizing them all the way down to the specific building that their studios happen to be physically located in. This is an entirely unnecessary level of categorization for radio stations, because their signal reception is not limited to inside the mall (and a radio station whose signal was limited to the mall would be a low-power VF/Part 15 operation which wouldn't be notable enough for an article at all.) Upmerge not necessary, as none of the three radio stations was actually removed from their province or city parent in the process of adding this. Bearcat (talk) 20:11, 13 March 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:Scottish devolution[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: not renamed. Bearcat (talk) 01:21, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, this was a speedy nomination per WP:C2D per main article History of Scottish devolution. It was opposed by User:Fayenatic london who also degraded the status of the main article. The reason for oppose being that the scope of the category is broader than history. However I would argue that everything that is about the current status of Scottish devolution is or should be in Category:Scottish Government while the nominated category has clearly collected articles about (recent) history. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
speedy discussion
  • Oppose per Fayenatic, especially as the great majority of the articles in the category cover topics, like Scotland Act 1998, that are much more recent than "History of ..." usually implies. Whether the main article redirect is a good one is questionable. We don't actually seem to have a single article with a decent account of the current level of devolution - Scottish Government is pretty brief on this, and Devolution_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scotland has History of Scottish devolution as main article, and indeed really just covers the history. Category:Scottish Government links "devolved Scottish matters" to Devolution_in_the_United_Kingdom#Scotland, which seems a mistake. As so often, it would be more useful to sort out articles rather than fiddle with categories. Johnbod (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Johnbod. This category is predominantly about the last 20 years, so history would be a perverse title for it. It seems very odd to want to have any Category:History of Foo for a current topic without a corresponding Category:Foo. The nom's suggestion that "current status of Scottish devolution" is or should be in Category:Scottish Government misunderstands the topic, because the issue of which powers are devolved is outside the control of the Scottish Government, being decided by the UK Government and/or the Westminster Parliament. The 2014 Smith Commission was a good example; the ScotGov neither established it nor managed it. Another example is the current tussle over the destination of powers repatriated from the EU after Brexit; the decisions are being made in Westminster, not Edinburgh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wise words! Johnbod (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose BrownHairedGirl is quite correct. For example, the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill is a major issue at present in the context of the devolved powers exercised by Holyrood but it is both current and well beyond the legislative competence of the Scottish Government. In due course the following Act may well appear in the existing category but it is clearly not yet part of 'history' in the usual sense of the word. Ben MacDui 18:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The history of achieving devolution is one topic. The current difficulties and controversies of implementing it are another.
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:Bandy World Championship-winning 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear distinction between the child and the parent, which has no other content. SFB 19:21, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 13 March 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:Immigrants to the United Kingdom from Aden[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 to merge or delete, so rename. – Fayenatic London 08:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We currently don't have such immigration categories and they aren't useful either. Störm (talk) 15:39, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to shared parent Category:Yemeni emigrants to the United Kingdom. The nom is wrong; we do categorise migrants, but we label them as "emigrants" rather than "immigrants". We normally use sovereign states as the basis of such cats, so these cats are too narrow ... but the remedy is merger rather than deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename to Category:Aden emigrants to the United Kingdom. However this should only cover those who moved from Aden to the United Kingdom prior to 1967. Keith Vaz is the only one of the people here who clearly falls in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Aden emigrants to the United Kingdom and Category:Aden emigrants to England. This is for people who emigrated when Aden was still a separate entity (see Colony of Aden and State of Aden). They were categorically not Yemeni. Wikipedia does not deal in anachronism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which in no way explains why you want to change this category so it does not reflect the correct country of destination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • John Pack Lambert: I am baffled by your comments, as the disagreements here are mainly about the country of origin, rather than the country of destination. Are you arguing that "…to England" is incorrect? (after the 17th century??) and so there should only be one target category, which ending with "…to the United Kingdom"? – Fayenatic London 21:01, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Of course, using England after 1707 is a horrible idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not really. Most people immigrate to a specific part of the UK and using that allows us to merge categories and not have people in both English categories and British categories (i.e. many people get stuck in both "Fooian immigrants to the United Kingdom" and, especially if they arrived when they were kids, "English people of Fooian descent", which is both daft and inaccurate). -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all three articles are about Indian people who just happened to be born in Aden, but without having any roots in Aden, who moved with their parents from Aden to England at a very young age. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 21 March 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 Catholic cleric-scientists[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. – Fayenatic London 21:34, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CONSISTENCY with List of Catholic clergy scientists, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "cleric-scientists" is rather more yukky than the alternative. For Roman see below, but I don't have very strong feelings on that. Johnbod (talk) 03:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The article was renamed to Catholic Church because that agrees with common usage, we should follow in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:24, 28 April 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 Catholicism and science[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, which will now also match the article after the RM linked below. – Fayenatic London 21:33, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CONSISTENCY with main article Catholic Church and science, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Dropping the word "Roman" causes avoidable ambiguity
  2. "Catholicism" → "Catholic Church" narrows the scope by excluding topics which do not formally involve the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchical structures
  3. the "consistency" argument is bogus, because the title of the claimed head article was set in an undiscussed move[1] by the nominator only 18 days before this CfD nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - We do indeed exactly want to narrow "the scope by excluding topics which do not involve the Roman Catholic Church's hierarchical structures", or at least involve clergy. We don't want every Catholic chemist in here, and we don't want "Catholicism" here, but the church, which also makes it unambiguous, or much less so. No-one is likely to think "Anglo-Catholicism and science" is meant. I don't believe the main article has ever before had the title Bhg has now moved it to without any discussion, which was unwise. This history page suggests it was Catholic Church and science in 2010, which matches my memory. The main church article is for now Catholic Church (though it has changed back and forth over the years). Johnbod (talk) 02:53, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnbod: why would we want to exclude a topic which consists e.g. of a controversy between scientists and Roman Catholic theologians without official intervention from the hierarchy? I am thinking too of prominent Catholic lay people, like Irish former president Mary McAleese. The controversies she has been involved in do not (AFAICR) involve science, but she brings a v firm Catholic stance to many issues, albeit often a dissident Catholic. That sort of topic should not be excluded.
      As to the title of the claimed head article, there should of course be a WP:RM. BOLD moves are no basis for this, and the point of my undiscussed move was both to use my preferred title and also to reinforce the point that there is no consensus for Chicbyaccident's choice of article title. This sort of issue is much best resolved by an RM followed by a speedy CfD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find examples of "controversy between scientists and Roman Catholic theologians without official intervention from the hierarchy" pretty thin on the ground, in the last 2 centuries or more anyway. Can you think of any examples? In the case of say the Stem cell controversy, there is a clear position taken by the church, which of course various Catholics may express. I've no idea why Mary McAleese would be relevant. If "there should of course be a WP:RM", it's a shame you didn't do one. Johnbod (talk) 16:27, 13 April 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 Catholic universities and colleges[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: relisted at 2018 May 3. – Fayenatic London 14:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CONSISTENCY with main article Catholic higher education, as well as Category:Catholic schools, Category:Catholic teaching institutes, Category:Catholic Church, etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes but do not rename any UK subcategory due to the "Anglo-Catholic" theme of the Anglican church. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: What do you mean? Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am not objecting to the change, but there should not be a consequential change to British categories, where the omission of "Roman" would be ambiguous. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Peterkingiron: Too late! The national categories were already renamed last year, see Category:Catholic universities and colleges by country and discussion here. – Fayenatic London 14:03, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Creates avoidable ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per ambiguity issue JarrahTree 11:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to maktch the article Catholic Church. In the discussion over that name the claims of so called ambiguity were rejected in favor of the very clear precedent and rules of common name. Those who seek to claim ambiguity ignore the reality of English usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 28 April 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 Catholic orders and societies[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. – Fayenatic London 09:04, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Simply duplicate entry. Redundant with two categories. Category:Catholic orders and societies in WP:Consistency with main article Catholic religious order, Catholic Church, Category:Catholic Church, Category:Catholic organizations etc. Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:14, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to maktch the article Catholic Church. In the discussion over that name the claims of so called ambiguity were rejected in favor of the very clear precedent and rules of common name. Those who seek to claim ambiguity ignore the reality of English usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: most of the interwiki links are on the nominated category, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6728731. It would probably be possible to merge with https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6471735 but a few foreign-language wikipedias currently also have both. One of the German interwiki links probably needs to be pointed elsewhere; the others that have both categories simply have a redundant layer. – Fayenatic London 15:01, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good remark - agree. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, here's my plan. I already unlinked de:Kategorie:Ordensinstitut Religious institutes from "Catholic orders" because it's a sub-category, not a parent category of RC Orders. I found one of its parents, de:Kategorie:Katholische Lebensgemeinschaft Catholic communities, without interwikis; it seems to be an extra layer with no exact matches in other wikipedias, except for bar:Kategorie:Katholische Lebensgemeinschaft, which is needed because it is the parent of Ordensinstitut (though nothing else); so I propose to leave the :de one unlinked. I would merge Catholic to the better-populated RC categories in :el, :fa, :id and :mk, and merge the other way in :tr. That leaves :ko where there is Catholic category over Eastern Catholic and Roman Catholic, but the Eastern categories are empty. There seems to be no Korean equivalent to {{db-empty}}, or I'd use that. It does not seem worth posting a request on :ko for someone to initiate a process to delete or merge them, so I would leave the Korean "Catholic orders" category ko:분류:가톨릭 수도회 및 단체 isolated. The end result would be one Wikidata set, containing all wikis that have such a category, with a mixture of "Catholic" and "Roman Catholic" names but all populated. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q6728731 is already a mixture of that kind, but will expand from 46 to 49 Wikipedias. – Fayenatic London 14:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Seems reasonable. Chicbyaccident (talk) 07:57, 16 May 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:Veritas (political party) MEPs[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. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defunct political party that only ever had one MEP, so category serves no purpose (WP:SMALLCAT). Upmerge to the politicians category, that is more populated. Bondegezou (talk) 10:52, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - part of the established scheme Category:MEPs for the United Kingdom by party: see WP:SMALLCAT. Oculi (talk) 15:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:SMALLCAT as part of the established scheme. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The purpose of categories is to support navigation, per WP:CAT, not to construct an ontology. A category with one member, which can never have more than one member, cannot support any navigational purpose. A WP:LOCALCONSENSUS cannot override WP:CAT, an editing guideline. Not that I can actually see a consensus for this over-the-top categorisation in the "established scheme", but forgive if I've missed discussion somewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 00:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Bondegezou: please read what I wrote and read the guideline WP:SMALLCAT. I am upholding the guideline, which says unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. This one is of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme.
        The navigational purpose is to ensure that all relevant articles are part of the series, which in this case is Category:MEPs for the United Kingdom by party. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 14 March 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:Social Democratic Party (UK) MEPs[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. Bearcat (talk) 01:27, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Social Democratic Party (UK) politicians. The SDP only ever had one MEP. This category can never grow beyond 1 person. See WP:SMALLCAT. Bondegezou (talk) 10:46, 13 March 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:We Demand a Referendum Now politicians[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.
Yes, I am WP:INVOLVED. However, this discussion is ~30 days overdue for closure, and consensus is clear, so I think that Wikipedia is better served by closing it.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We Demand a Referendum was a short-lived (2 years) party, now defunct, basically a personal creation for Nikki Sinclaire. Sinclaire's is the only article in this category and its subcategory of Category:We Demand a Referendum Now MEPs. Thus, fails WP:SMALLCAT and serves no navigational purpose. Bondegezou (talk) 10:41, 13 March 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:Mega-City One people[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: upmerge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Essentially an unnecessary intermediate level: one subcategory and zero articles. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 07:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems clear cut. Argento Surfer (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- Neverthless, I would go further and apply my principle of "one franchise: one category" to merge more as well. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 18 March 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:Nullary operations[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) 21:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, the concept of Nullary operations is not even mentioned at all in most of these articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Concur with nominator. Bondegezou (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not much into these categories, but having one of them (nullary, unary, binary, ternary) sort of requires to have at least all of them, if not to add even more (n-ary and variadic). I think of having just (biary and ternary) being rather clueless. Purgy (talk) 09:37, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I think the unary category should be kept, but this one is dubious. There is no useful distinction in mathematics between such an operation and a constant, and in order to bulk out the category several things have been added that are implemented in computing as zero-argument procedures but that are not mathematical operations (because they give different answers when you call them at different times). —David Eppstein (talk) 17:46, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Newline, for example, isn't a nullary operation - it's one of a number of control characters. DexDor (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all arity cats. Having read the !votes and the comments, and, especially, having noticed some resilient efforts to establish a formal parallel structure to WP-content via abundant use of categories, which I consider inappropriate within an interface to humans, I support deletion. Furthermore, I want to add to the given caveats of these categories being meagerly defined (especially in Computer sciences) by mentioning currying and the cartesian product. Purgy (talk) 07:40, 18 March 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:Unary operations[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: relisted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 12#Category:Unary_operations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:43, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is (mostly) a collection of mathematical functions and transformations, there is too much overlap with Category:Functions and mappings. Besides, as the article Unary operation points out, the concept is mainly used in programming rather than in mathematics, not surprisingly it is also not a defining characteristic of the math content in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I am not much into these categories, but having one of them (nullary, unary, binary, ternary) sort of requires to have at least all of them, if not to add even more (n-ary and variadic). I think of having just (binary and ternary) being rather clueless. Purgy (talk) 09:38, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The number of arguments to a mathematical operation is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that operation. This is true in both mathematics and computing; that's why we have separate main articles on unary operation, binary operation, etc. No valid reason for deletion has been given; being "(mostly) a collection of mathematical functions and transformations" is certainly not a reason for deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd lean toward delete, but mainly only because this category doesn't seem particularly well-defined. It includes purely mathematical functions like the natural logarithm, but then also things like pre/post-increment/decrement, which are notions in programming that cause side-effects, and even the cast operator, which is pretty questionable. It also contains Barrel shifter, and I can't figure out why. So, if kept, there should really be some more specific inclusion criteria. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 00:06, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all arity cats. Having read the !votes and the comments, and, especially, having noticed some resilient efforts to establish a formal parallel structure to WP-content via abundant use of categories, which I consider inappropriate within an interface to humans, I support deletion. Furthermore, I want to add to the given caveats of these categories being meagerly defined (especially in Computer sciences) by mentioning currying and the cartesian product. Purgy (talk) 07:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per David Eppstein's !vote above. Figuring out whether inclusion criteria should be sharpened up is a matter for a WikiProject talk page, RFC, etc. XOR'easter (talk) 18:57, 19 March 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:TERF violence[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. CFD wasn't even really necessary, as empty categories can just be speedied so long as they weren't emptied out of process, but we are where we are. Bearcat (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category with pejorative name (see existing discussion of "TERFS" category) that is never going to grow. 72.92.229.150 (talk) 04:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, category became empty after this earlier discussion was closed as delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, as above. Bondegezou (talk) 10:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. Note that, given that the category has been emptied as a result of an earlier closed CfD debate, it could probably be speedied. Grutness...wha? 00:38, 14 March 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_March_13&oldid=871691113"