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. Timrollpickering 11:39, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:rename, this category is not about the history of the medieval kingdom of Kamarupa, instead the category contains geography articles (mostly about villages) regarding the modern Kamrup region. If renamed the category also needs to be re-parented to Category:Regions of India. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 22 November 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:Delete. Timrollpickering 11:44, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:WP:EPCATPERS says that categories under an individual's name should be used only in "very notable cases", to categorise articles "directly related to that person". As this is mostly a collection of TV shows, and one book, and we only have one article that is actually aboutTucker Carlson, this category is unnecessary. Bradv 18:40, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Five entries are enough to motivate an eponymous category. All of the current entries are strongly related to the subject. Uriahheep228 (talk) 18:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a 'very notable case', per nom. PeterTheFourth (talk) 19:01, 22 November 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. Timrollpickering 11:40, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, who isn't a 21st-century British monarch leaving only one appropriate supra-category. DrKay (talk) 18:11, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per WP:SMALLCAT and agree that a dual merge is inappropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Jacobite pretenders as explained above. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These people were already in the Category:British monarchs tree, but could not be found in any of the centuries categories.Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not every occupational category needs to be split by century. I also wonder if the one article belongs in the category. Does Franz, Duke of Bavaria pretend something at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per WP:SMALLCAT. And Franz says he doesn't comment on British titles. If Franz isn't pretending, then does it count if others pretend on his behalf? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 25 November 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: None of these people are 20th-century British monarchs and so they shouldn't be in that category. DrKay (talk) 18:10, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per WP:SMALLCAT and agree that a dual merge is inappropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Jacobite pretenders as explained above. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These people were already in the Category:British monarchs tree, but could not be found in any of the centuries categories.Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Couldn't these noms be put into a single nom? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:36, 25 November 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: None of these people are 19th-century British monarchs, and so they shouldn't be in that category. DrKay (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per WP:SMALLCAT and agree that a dual merge is inappropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Jacobite pretenders as explained above. Celia Homeford (talk) 09:22, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These people were already in the Category:British monarchs tree, but could not be found in any of the centuries categories.Dimadick (talk) 09:02, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Couldn't these noms be put into a single nom? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:36, 25 November 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 entry is possible and he's already in all the appropriate supra-categories. DrKay (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per WP:SMALLCAT and agree that a dual merge is inappropriate. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still didn't get a reply on what to do with the British monarchs who use "Duke of Normandy" as a subsidiary title in the Crown Dependencies. Dimadick (talk) 09:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These people were already in the Category:British monarchs tree, but could not be found in any of the centuries categories. Dimadick (talk) 09:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The second part of your statement is obviously untrue and the first part is ridiculous. Firstly, there's only one person and that person is a British monarch, and secondly that person is in the appropriate century category, and has been so ever since the category was created[1][2]. DrKay (talk) 09:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Couldn't these noms be put into a single nom? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:37, 25 November 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. Timrollpickering 11:43, 30 November 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: This doesn't seem to fit a speedy category, but the definition of the category seems to be totally lacking (as in, what has that lone locomotive class that makes the category:features fit for it? It has features, yes, but that's hardly a defining or specific category...) Fram (talk) 14:24, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also nominated two other cats by editor who doesn't seem to understand the category system yet:
Delete - speedy if possible. I think "New category created without any parent categories" would make a good CSD reason as such categories (created by clueless newbies) are inevitably either non-sensical or duplicate an existing category. DexDor(talk) 19:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three, it is obvious that the creator does not understand the purpose of categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three asap. Oculi (talk) 23:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all three- ooof, what a muddle. This is not what categories are for. ReykYO! 14:53, 23 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We mustn't bite the newbies. Rathfelder (talk) 14:47, 26 November 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:Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:23, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are 107 country categories of Educational organisations. About 80 of them are of the form Educational organisations in Foo, and about 30 like Educational organisations based in Foo. It seems sensible to make them uniform. Do we go with the majority, or do we go to ..based in? I dont think we need to worry about multinational providers, so my vote is for brevity Rathfelder (talk) 13:52, 22 November 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created in 2011, this does not seem to have served it's intended purpose since (and I'm not sure what that purpose actually is), or else it would have hundreds of thousands of categories as entries. This was previously nominated at CfD on 12 Nov 2013 with the result of no consensus. User:Koavf began a task of populating it in Jan 2016 but only did about 1300 or so (and only Albums by artist) subcategories. Even when new set categories are created, few people are going to know to add this as a maintenance category, so I don't believe it's intended purpose and usefulness will ever be met unless the Wikiproject makes it a regular task to ensure it's up to date as well as goes through every existing set category and adds it here. Right now it's just 99% album categories. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC) StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:16, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think there is a lot of value in saying that every category (or at least, every category of the actual content of the encyclopedia) is a set or topic category. It's a lot of work but then again so is removing unsourced statements or making an encyclopedia in the first place. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:05, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I agree with the above sentiments. The idea is that it's populated by a template. Instead of adding the specific template to each page, I wanted to start a category header template that could be added to every single category that would summarise the purpose and contents of the category, which would eliminate confusion, create standardisation and add the basic classification categories such as this one. M.Clay1 (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But how would most people know to add the template when creating categories. Average person really won't know whether they are creating a set or topic category. Most just copy and paste and if someone is copying from a topic category but creating set categories someone's got to maintain that for this to be useful. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said for all administration and maintenance categories and templates. It's the niche of some editors to perform such maintenance activities that most other editors ignore. The website would be a mess if we only did what the average person bothered to do. M.Clay1 (talk) 06:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless someone can identify a real use for this category. There are no significant inlinks from pages in Wikipedia namespace which probably indicates that it isn't part of any important process. Unused infrastructure like this clutters up the place and makes wp unnecessarily complicated. DexDor(talk) 19:44, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's a tracking category, which "builds and maintains a list of pages primarily for the sake of the list itself" – for maintenance purposes, e.g. making sure the categories aren't populated incorrectly, making sure the template that populates the category isn't used incorrectly, etc. It's also a hidden category – it's not visible to most readers and editors, so it's not really complicating anything for anyone who doesn't want to be involved. M.Clay1 (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A hidden category with a big box that everyone can see and few would know what it means at top of each of these category pages. Can that be hidden, too? StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, while the template in itself may be useful to explain the purpose of a category, categorization of these set categories appears to serve no purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (with some concerns) - the template {{set category}} is useful, and having a tracking category for that probably will be useful at some time. The category is less useful right now because it is overflowing with albums, making it almost a duplicate of Category:Albums by artist. Perhaps {{albums category}} should be modified to not include this category, and the (nearly equivalent) Category:Albums by artist be made a subcategory of this. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What you propose with Category:Albums by artist (and similar categories) would make the situation more complicated (it would create a type of set category that shouldn't be placed directly under Category:Set categories). If there's a way in which this category is used (which appears unlikely) then that may no longer work. DexDor(talk) 14:03, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: This is potentially a very useful way to locate set categories. Note that it can be populated with the Set category template. DavidRideout (talk) 20:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is one looking for when going through what might ultimately be 100,000 set categories? It has existed for 7 years without someone making it useful. Right now, outside of a small handful of categories, the only categories using it are those in which the template has been added other templates (e.g. {{albums category}}). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:55, 4 December 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.
