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: it is not possible to clearly differentiate between tribes and peoples here. Many articles are already both in the tribes category and in the tree of the peoples category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 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.
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: Virtual duplicates. Category:OM has a cryptic name, so that's the one that should go. Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:37, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but re-create the subject as a category-redirect. To me OM means Operation Mobilisation. We normally discourage the use of abbreviations in category names, as they bare liable to be obscure to the uninitiated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we'd better not create a redirect. The mere existence of the redirect may lead to an undesired outcome (editors wanting to categorize an article in Category:Operation Mobilisation while with the redirect Hotcat automatically changes OM into Category:Officine Meccaniche) while if there is no redirect editors have to search further which is (in this case) for the better. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom (without redirect as "OM" is too ambiguous). DexDor(talk) 19:38, 1 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:Fictional Irish people by ethnic or national origin[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. ℯxplicit 02:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: because the contents are not Irish people; they are people of Irish descent. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: that sounds like a case for deletion of the subcats, which would need a separate nomination. But while the subcats still exist, this container should be accurately named. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:27, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename on the misuse of this category, an example that relates is when Charlie Brown was in Category:Fictional American people of English descent. The use of these categories for living people often goes over to the ludicrous. I highly question its use for people who had all their great-grandparents born in their question of residence, unless it can be shown that their ancestry has a significant impact on their life. However for fictional people it needs to at least be demonstrated from the source texts, not assumed from last name studies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:37, 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.
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 consensus for a merge, but there is no consensus for outright deletion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed. The cfd to which the nom nearly links is a merge/rename, not a delete, so more thought is required. Oculi (talk) 19:23, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The decision was then made to merge them all with categories called Category:Organisations .... That is what I suggest here, though I didn't see quite how to say so for multiple categories. The articles in Lists of non-governmental organizations would need to be treated similarly.Rathfelder (talk) 21:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please indicate the intended merge targets for every of the nominated categories. There are plenty of merge proposal here that may serve as an example. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can see all the contents are already in such categories, apart from the stubs and the regional/continent categories, which only contain categories to be deleted. I'm quite happy to review them all.Rathfelder (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If its agreed that they are going to go I am quite happy to empty them manually to make sure all the articles are in appropriate categories. I can't see how we can keep these categories after we have deleted all the others. Rathfelder (talk) 08:28, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not have objections against a manual merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to equivalent organis(z)ations category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
comment why are all these categories empty? Is this a way to force their deletion? Hmains (talk) 02:29, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that we are agreed they will go - in line with earlier decisions - but I am ensuring that each article is appropriately categorised. The geographical categories were originally populated by country based subcategories but they were all deleted in 2016. But I am beginning to think that we should keep the central Category:Non-governmental organizations for articles which actually deal with NGOs as a topic, their management and governance - but not for the articles about individual NGOs. Rathfelder (talk) 19:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the top category (Category:Non-governmental organizations), but change its text to make clear that it's a topic (not set) category. Delete the stubs category (which currently contains just a template). Merge the other categories to appropriate parent. Note: if this cfd is relisted please could the relister remove "stubs" from the header (I, and possibly other editors, generally ignore cfds about stub cats). DexDor(talk) 20:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Very happy with this proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 21:59, 5 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.
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: Unnecessary subcategory of chess openings. Generally speaking a "gambit" is an opening that involves the sacrifice of material, usually a pawn, however there is no formal definition. Labelling some openings as "gambits" and some not has more to do with tradition than anything else. For example the Queen's Gambit generally does not involve the sacrifice of material in the opening, whereas the Two Knights Defence generally does. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging:Gambits are notable chess openings and certainly should have their own category. There are plenty of Gambits that can be added to the +cat, see List of chess gambits. I notice the nominator is moving articles out of the Category:Gambits that should not have been moved out. These articles are gambits openings and should be placed back into the category. IQ125 (talk) 11:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I notice the nominator is moving articles out of the Category:Gambits that should not have been moved out. This is false. I removed a single article from the category that clearly doesn't belong there. MaxBrowne (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Fails WP:NONDEF per MaxBrowne. It also fails WP:NONDEF based on the comments at Talk:List of chess gambits#Category:Gambits, the category's creator is basing it on List of chess gambits, an unreliably sourced list of any opening in which a named gambit exists. That definition also fails WP:ARBITRARYCAT in the sense that it does not cover openings with unnamed gambits. But extending it to the latter would make every fall within this category since gambit lines exist in every opening (WP:OVERLAPCAT). In view of this, a merge makes sense. Cobblet (talk) 14:02, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Most of the articles were originally in the chess openings category and the split was ill advised and never should have been made to begin with. All of Cobblet and MaxBrowne's arguments are valid, they "certainly should have their own category" is not an argument and is just wrong. No experienced chess player would suggest this categorization. We have other violence being done to Category:chess openings right now that needs attention as well. Quale (talk) 02:10, 22 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.
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. ℯxplicit 02:06, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale per WP:SMALLCAT: the 15 by-year categories contain a total of only 42 pages, which is a mean of only 2.8 each. Seven of the 15 by-year categories contain only one page.
Ireland simply doesn't have enough elections each year to adequately populate these categories. (It's not that the articles to populate these categories haven't been written; there simply aren't many elections).
I had created and almost finished populating Category:Elections in Ireland by decade when I discovered these by-year categories. As you can see from the subcat for each decades, there is no decade of the 20th or 21st centuries when we have even 50 pages per decade. The average is about 30, which makes for much easier navigation
If the consensus is to keep the year categories, I will extend the by-year series back to the early 19th century, diffuse the decades into the years, and then delete the decades. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The opposite/alternative solution to extend year categories to earlier periods does not look very helpful at all, especially before 1860 there were very few elections in Ireland, so this would most likely lead to single-article categories and gaps between the years. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support generally BUT the content does not refer to Ireland as a whole but to Republic of Ireland. All post-1921 categories should have the republic as target, not Ireland as a whole. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We ought to have that series of categories. I well recall that you spent a lot of time disambiguating Ireland into NI and RoI. Except where the politics involve cross-border issues or the period before 1921, or relate to all-Ireland activities (e.g. some sports), they should be kept separate. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 25 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.
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: Change the name because it links TV series and movies and it is assumed that the category was created based on the movies, not the TV series. The change of name is to be able to include all the projects in one. Well, as far as I understand, in the series articles do not use categories of movies, or if ?.. Philip J Fry / talk 00:49, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Film is the mother of all motion picture, be it be a feature film, television series, television film or a miniseries for that matter. So by the category stating "Films based on ..." it already represents television. Even though we may want to rename it to "Films and TV series based on..." what about other forms and genres such as: miniseries? Then one can move on to populate the category title to "Films, miniseries, TV series based on..." If one can look closely to pages under that category, some of them are feature films, television films, television programmes and miniseries. Personally, the current title is best. In this case "Film" suffices.- Nyanchoka : talk 2 me 05:34, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the category tree is a bit of a mix'n'match of "series", "shows", "programmes", and "programs". It definitely shouldn't have the American spelling, though, being based on a British novel. Grutness...wha? 01:48, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category is part of a wider category tree for films based on British novels. The category tree would be broken if the scope changed. Dimadick (talk) 15:44, 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.
