Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 17 October 19 >

October 18[edit]

Category:Executed Widerstand Catholics[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. Timrollpickering 17:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: and Category:Roman Catholics in the German Resistance. These people were executed for resistance activities not because they were Catholics. Therefore, their execution was not part of Category:Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church. Catrìona (talk) 22:20, 18 October 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:The Good Place episodes[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, as I am not aware of precedent or guidance that says 1 is sufficient for a TV episode category by series. This is a WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. the category may be re-created if more pages are created. In practice, the category needs to be merged to Category:The Good Place, and I will add the pilot episode to another parent Category:Sitcom episodes. – Fayenatic London 10:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two links Matt14451 (talk) 21:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Most episodes are notable enough for an article. Take for instance a random recent episode, The Brainy Bunch—here are some reviews: [1][2][3][4][5]. Rather than deleting the category, it would be better to populate it by creating these articles. — Bilorv(c)(talk) 22:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that many episodes are notable enough in their own right for articles. The nav-box was already deleted due to lack of links. Both can be recreated once articles are created. Potential is no guarantee they will be created. As far as I can tell, there's no drafts for episode articles of this series. Matt14451 (talk) 07:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Actually only one entry, as the other entry is the episode list. We don't create empty categories on the off-chance that someone will write articles to populate them; if the articles on individual episodes are ever created, the category can be recreated in a matter of seconds. ‑ Iridescent 22:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What should the minimum requirement be? I can nominate the many other similar categories based on that number (3, 4, 10, 20?). Otherwise, why isn't the small category exception applied here like a band with an article on only one of their albums? I do find that helpful to navigate through and explore something like Category:American television episodes by series. At the very least, the episode article should be upmerged to Category:Sitcom episodes and Category:The Good Place. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is realistic potential for growth in this situation. As mentioned above, the individual episodes are notable enough for articles so they can be created. Matt14451 (talk) 07:31, 19 October 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:Hakka songs[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. Timrollpickering 17:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with only one, eponymous, entry. Article can be added to Category:Hakka culture directly and this deleted. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 18:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst currently only one article, the number is more of a reflection of poor coverage in English wikipedia of the topic. The category is both natural and meaningful. The number of articles should grow over time, so if removed now it would have to be added again in the future, which is a good reason not to delete.Johnkn63 (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It can be recreated if needed, though I would be surprised if that ever happened. Seems it existed once on zh.wp but was deleted as an empty category. If editors can’t find enough to write about Hakka songs there then it seems even less likely articles will be created here.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
zh.wp suffers from the vaste majority of mother tongue speakers being blocked from it, by comparison Chinese sites such as baike.baidu.com have many related pages. With a population of well over 50 million, there are more Hakka than all but a few dozen countries in the world. How many articles are required for a category?Johnkn63 (talk) 09:56, 20 October 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:Marin Gaupalika[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. Timrollpickering 17:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: not a category L293D (☎ • ✎) 18:54, 18 October 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:Wikipedian descendants of combat veterans[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. Timrollpickering 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While some [[Wikipedians who are members of group]] categories have a potentially valid purpose in categorising readers with similar interests or knowledge, this one baffles me. I can't see any conceivable use for it—probably well over 99% of the world's population are descendants of veterans of military combat, and even if one were to restrict it only to wars fought in the 20th and 21st centuries, would almost certainly be well over half the world's population. It's also not a category that has any useful function in terms of Wikipedia that I can see, since it's not claiming any special knowledge of or even interest in military history, merely that someone in the family either volunteered for the military, lived in a country with compulsory military service, or happened to be of a suitable age in a war fought with conscript armies.  ‑ Iridescent 17:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "would almost certainly be well over half the world's population." I would agree with that assessment. Both of my grandfathers were conscript soldiers in the Greek Civil War, and much of the current Greek population likely descends from the combatants of the war. It is not something rare. Dimadick (talk) 12:43, 19 October 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:Archaea described in the 1920s[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/Delete. Timrollpickering 17:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
'Described in DECADE' categories to be upmerged (81)




'Described in DECADE' categories to be deleted (81)




'Described in DECADE' discussion[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up merging & removal of decadal categories, per WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description. See previous, related CfDs here, here, here, here, and here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  15:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WT:MICRO, WT:PALEO, & WT:TREE notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  16:08, 18 October 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:International sports federations[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. Timrollpickering 17:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not all the articles and sub cats are about federations. Widening the scope of the category seems preferable to establishing a separate category for what would be a small collection of miscellaneous organisations. Rathfelder (talk) 15:48, 18 October 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:Organisations based in the European Union[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 NOV 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a rather tentative suggestion, but I think the point of this category is not about where the organisations are based, but about how they relate to the EU - and this would include a lot of lobbying, thinktank and commercial organisations. Rathfelder (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Organisations based in Europe includes thousands of articles, and is considerably wider, geographically speaking. There are actually quite a lot of organisations which relate to the EU, but there isn't a category for them. Rathfelder (talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What type of relationships with the EU are they about? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are actually only two articles in the category at the moment, but I've just found Category:Cross-European advocacy groups which I think is the same general idea, although there isn't an article to tell me what exactly is meant. I don't like its title because I don't know what it is supposed to mean, and of course even the term European is ambiguous. There is also Category:Pan-European trade and professional organisations. Maybe Pan-European and Cross-European mean the same? So I think we need at least a category relating to the EU, and perhaps another one (or more?), for organisations relating other, wider, conceptions of Europe. I guess most of the organisations I'm thinking about are based in Europe - in fact most are based in Brussels - but where they are based in not the basis of the category. Rathfelder (talk) 15:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is for official organisations which are part of the EU. There are large numbers of lobbying and advocacy groups and the like which dont belong there.Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For sure advocacy groups don't belong there. But do they belong in a EU category at all? Can you give some examples of advocacy groups that exclusively lobby within EU government bodies? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, there may be scope for the category after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 27 October 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:WikiProject Earth science participants[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. Timrollpickering 17:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Earth Science has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Earth science#Wikipedia:WikiProject Earth science over a year ago so there is no need for this category. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:14, 18 October 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:WikiProject Earth science templates[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. Timrollpickering 17:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Earth Science has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Earth science#Wikipedia:WikiProject Earth science. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:12, 18 October 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:WikiProject Earth 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: Delete. Timrollpickering 17:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Earth Science has been deleted. Pkbwcgs (talk) 15:10, 18 October 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:Beast (Canadian band) members[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. Timrollpickering 17:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for the members of a defunct musical duo. As always, every band that exists does not automatically get one of these just because one or both of its members have standalone BLPs separately from the band article -- especially when the band is defunct, so its number of members is never going to surpass two. Bearcat (talk) 02:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is a classic example of a horrible category with no justification for existence (see WP:SMALLCAT). --Orange Mike | Talk 04:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:54, 18 October 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_October_18&oldid=871688975"