Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 1 November 3 >

November 2[edit]

Category:Journalism by genre[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. MER-C 09:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear what the difference between a type and a genre is in journalism. Rathfelder (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2019 (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:Journalism genres[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. MER-C 09:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hard to see a distinction. No definition offered for either category. Rathfelder (talk) 21:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, here it is very difficult to make a clear distinction between "type" and "genre". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Looking at Category:Categories by genre, everything else there is primarily a form of art. And the dictionary agrees the usage of genre is for forms of art. Not that journalism doesn't involve creativity - but art isn't its primary function. There is no clear distinction between type and genre here. So that supports the merge. Ikluft (talk) 19:17, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Cannot see a meaningful difference. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as above. – Fayenatic London 09:50, 6 November 2019 (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:Philippine web media[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. MER-C 09:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We dont have any other categories along the lines of "Fooish web media" as far as I know. Not clear how web media differ from websites. Rathfelder (talk) 21:09, 2 November 2019 (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.

Methodist church buildings[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. MER-C 09:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's rationale I've looked at the contents and I've seen none that is a congregation (or parish or equivalent) as opposed to a bricks-and-mortar building. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Place Clichy (talk) 16:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (without opposing) - Local churches do sometimes rebuild their buildings, for example because the church has grown. I cannot think of cases to which this applies, but Carrs Lane Church, Birmingham occupies a 1960s building, but the local church was originally established in 1748. Great care is needed with this series of mergers and renames. It is currently categorised as "Churches completed in 1971". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply If the original building is substantially extant, then I don't see a problem. Otherwise it would be a member of Category:Former Methodist churches. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:45, 8 November 2019 (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:Buddhist 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: delete. MER-C 09:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:EGRS, unrelated intersection between religion and occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How is it unrelated? WP:EGRS doesn't seem to be contrary to these categories, and I believe their inclusion under Category:Scientists by religion is just a valid as, for example, Category:Jewish scientists. --Invokingvajras(talk) 21:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EGRS says "Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. For example, most sportspeople should not be categorized by religion, since being Catholic, Buddhist, or another religion is not relevant to the way they perform in sports." Being a scientist isn't any different from being sportspeople in this respect. We do not have Category:Christian scientists or Category:Muslim scientists either, for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per nom. EGRS is clear. Let's not get into the habit of sorting every profession by religion without good reason.--TM 22:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Very well. I'd like to point out that this problem does seem to follow for the other categories, as not all articles included are particularly relevant to the intersection of scientific occupation and religious affiliation (Jewish, either as a religion or ethnicity, seems to provide little weight on many of the persons listed). Although I would argue that one's religious affiliation may indeed play a role in performance of any area, as the ethics prescribed by a tradition may serve as inspiration for the person in question (Both Buddhism and Judaism, as far as I'm aware, encourage intellectual pursuits, which may serve as inspiration for an especially devout person). If an article includes this sort of information, it should remain relevant to the intersection. Perhaps some clean-up is in order. --Invokingvajras(talk) 20:44, 3 November 2019 (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:Lists of UK MPs 2017–[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: Renamed following clear precedent, 2010-2015, 2015-2017. The only hesitations were in regard to the dissolution of parliament which has now happened. Cabayi (talk) 11:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These lists cover the duration of the Parliament, which is being dissolved next week ahead of the 2019 United Kingdom general election. Thus the final and permanent name for the category should be "Lists of UK MPs 2017–2019". LukeSurl t c 17:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - also Category:UK MPs 2017– and a stubs cat. Oculi (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Since the Dissolution is the result of a special Act of Parliament, this is appropriate. Normally, it would be premature until the dissolution has actually occurred. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 4 November 2019 (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:Chulalongkorn family[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 November 10#Category:Chulalongkorn family

Category:Yoruba farmers[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 January 6#Category:Yoruba farmers

Category:Category:People educated at Ysgol Aberconwy[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. MER-C 09:53, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: category with a single article that is unlikely to be expanded. Tknifton (talk) 13:02, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Oculi is obviously correct in their oppose against this particular nomination. At the same time I wonder in general if we should categorize people by secondary school. Especially biography articles often suffer from far too much category clutter, we should somehow reduce that. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Almost every secondary school is allowed its alumni category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2019 (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:Primary source digital libraries[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. MER-C 11:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely undefined. Only 3 articles, all concerned with religious texts, but all in Category: American digital libraries Rathfelder (talk) 08:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support, to a certain extent I can buy that this is a 'thing', but probably nobody is going to find the category under this name, it is not a recognizable term nor do I know any better recognizable term. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think it means? Rathfelder (talk) 08:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Online repository of original historical documents. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other, better, categories for those.Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which categories? I suppose these will be suitable as a merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are lots of archive categories which I think contain original historical documents. but I'm not sure what an original historical document is in a digital context. And indeed I'm not sure what the difference is between a digital library and an online archive. Rathfelder (talk) 10:10, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - I created this category, admittedly without going to the effort to fully populate it. I thought it would be a useful subcategory of Category:Digital libraries, which currently has 1873 entries according to PetScan. I wanted to distinguish between digital libraries comprised of primary sources like Wikisource, Project Gutenberg, etc. vs. those that contain new books and original content, eg. Category:Full text scholarly online databases. These seem like fairly different kinds of libraries. I don't see the "better categories" that Rathfelder refers to. Daask (talk) 22:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your understanding of its meaning seems to be the opposite of Marcocapelle's. I dont think it works under this name. Rathfelder (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am striking "weak" in my original "weak support" based on this follow-up discussion. Agree with nominator that it does not work this way. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:47, 10 November 2019 (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:Maharashtra MLAs 2014–[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. MER-C 09:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The 2019 Maharashtra Legislative Assembly election is concluding, so the 2014 session is set to end. ミラP 19:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is actually a bit too early for this rename because the new term has not officially started yet. But probably it does not really matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (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:Simplified languages[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: reorganize per Marcocapelle. MER-C 09:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories have the same amount of articles, have the same meaning, etc. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 15:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:28, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Marco's suggestion. Simplified languages are a subset of controlled natural languages. Fiamh (talk, contribs) 23:54, 2 November 2019 (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[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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 17:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category text and the parent categories make clear that this is specifically for broadcasting, but this category gets lots of things placed in it such as Category:Radio astronomy. After any rename further tidying up (possibly including renaming Category:Wireless or creating a more general Category:Radio) could be done. Renaming some of the subcategories could also be considered. DexDor (talk) 07:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawing CFD per comments below. DexDor (talk) 16:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • why not just create a sub-category called Category:Radio broadcasting and move the broadcasting subcats and articles to it and leave the Category:Radio as the parent of the new category while still retaining the radio non-broadcasting subcats and articles in it? Hmains (talk) 18:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't object to that. However, what would then be the difference between Category:Wireless and Category:Radio? DexDor (talk) 19:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case it's probably better to turn Category:Radio into a dab page, linking to both Category:Radio broadcasting and to Category:Wireless. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would be incorrect to make Category:Radio a disambiguation. Not all uses of radio involve broadcasting (one-way communications). See my comment below. Ikluft (talk) 21:57, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense to make the Category:Radio broadcasting subcategory and then move to there broadcast-specific parts including the instruction that it's about broadcast. Then Category:Radio could shed the confusion that has already occurred by being about all topics that radio actually is. I'm willing to help with that once the CfR is over or withdrawn. Ikluft (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI - I found a categorization loop Category:Wireless -> Category:Radio -> Category:History of radio -> Category:Wireless. Since that doesn't depend on the CfR, I fixed it by removing Wireless from History of Radio. Ikluft (talk) 23:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Great question. The terms “wireless” and “radio” have historically meant the same thing, but British use the former and Americans the latter. More recently, “wireless” has been universally applied to describe modern digital technologies like WiFi and mobile devices. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:20, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The articles on radio and wireless show there's enough overlap for both to be subcategories of Category:Telecommunications but enough difference not to merge them. Radio has specific meaning to usage of the electromagnetic spectrum between 30Hz to the lower boundary of light at 300GHz. Wireless has a lot of colloquial uses related to not having wires. Specifically wireless can include light (i.e. infrared, laser, etc) and near-field communication which are not radio. Just about any "wireless X" category could be a subcategory or within the category tree under Wireless, influenced by the heavy weight of existing usage. Both categories should rely on their main articles for their definitions. It's OK for something to be categorized under both, such as cell phones. Both are big topics - wireless would almost certainly need to be marked with {{category diffuse}}, and maybe radio too. Ikluft (talk) 05:06, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose as nominated; support my suggestion above of creating Category:Radio broadcasting, which I did not actually state my 'vote'. This is not a double vote. Hmains (talk) 16:36, 8 November 2019 (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:Unknown origin craters[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. MER-C 09:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: small category and miscellaneous category. This is not eligible for speedy deletion because I already emptied it out of process while cleaning up various categories into impact, volcanic or explosion craters, which avoids recurring confusion around unspecified "craters". See also the 2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories which I was the nominator for, which was the first time this kind of crater category cleanup was done. (Do I need to write an essay on categorization of craters?) Ikluft (talk) 05:04, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like an essay would be good. subsistence covers things apart from impact, volcanic or explosion craters, such as collapse into a cave. Unknown can cover what is left, although I suppose they could just be in "craters". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, this response makes me think an essay would prevent these kinds of misunderstandings and confusion from continually recurring. You are not alone. On those specific examples... A collapse into a cave goes by definition in Category:Sinkholes, which are not a kind of crater. Depressions of unknown origin fail as a category by WP:SMALLCAT/WP:OCMISC but should go under Category:Depressions (geology), and would not be called a crater until an impact, volcanic or explosion origin is identified. Ikluft (talk) 05:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Something else to include in that essay... the lesson learned from the 2009 CfR mega-renaming of crater-related categories was to avoid recurring confusion by making the type of crater as explicit criteria for inclusion part of the category name. Ikluft (talk) 06:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:OCMISC. Note that the category is currently empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    I de-listed three articles with nothing in common from the category: Eden Patera (impact or volcano on Mars), Managua event (2014 explosion in Nicaragua theorized to be an impact), Patomskiy crater (circular rock formation in Siberia disproved as an impact). The category was changed to a templated redirect to the disambiguation at Category:Craters so nothing else would be added to it. Ikluft (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This is an artificial/fake categorization (at least with regard to what's was it, or they couldn't've been properly and more narrowly categorized). Actual craters that have not yet been investigated as to their origin are probably rare and non-notable enough we'll never need a category for them. PS: I also support the crater categorization essay idea, perhaps under WP:GEOLOGY somewhere.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:27, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes sense as the place to put the crater categorization essay. So I'll start a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:GEOLOGY. Ikluft (talk) 16:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And that discussion has now been created: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Crater_categorization_essay. Thanks again for the suggestion! Ikluft (talk) 17:30, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly listify. A category isn't really needed (and if it were needed, it should be at a less cringeworthy title like "Craters of unknown origin"). Grutness...wha? 15:21, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: FYI a first draft of the requested essay is at User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization of craters - discussion for that will be at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Geology#Crater_categorization_essay or the essay's talk page. Ikluft (talk) 11:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Craters as WP:OCMISC, but WP:TROUT the nominator for merging Category:Craters to Category:Depressions (geology) out-of-process. I have reverted the latter changes. A parent category for craters is used in many other Wikipedias, see https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8954664 , and should not be discontinued here without discussion. Craters of different origins still have enough in common with each other to be separated from e.g. rifts, basins and valleys. – Fayenatic London 10:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    You can have your WP:TROUT back because Category:Craters is a re-created category that was previously deleted in process per 2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories - if it isn't deleted again, it needs to be a disambiguation, which requires it be empty to use {{Category disambiguation}}, which rules out a merge up to it. The other Wikimedia sites that use miscellaneous craters categories will be worked on one at a time - we're working on reducing that confusion here now. The confusion caused by "crater" categories that don't include the type of crater in their title is real and recurring - see my new draft User:Ikluft/essay/Categorization_of_craters (to be moved to WikiProject Geology as suggested by other editors) which came as a result of this latest round of cleanup. Ikluft (talk) 19:04, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI since you mentioned it, Commons is the next place this cleanup will go after this CfD completes. Ikluft (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 2009 CFR was a decision to rename all the impact crater categories from "craters" to "impact craters", which was implemented. That consensus does not rule out re-creating or re-using Category:Craters as a parent of Category:Impact craters and the other types of craters. Also, why should the craters of unknown type such as Patomskiy crater not be categorised in Category:Craters? It is WP:DEFINING that it is a crater, and the article Eden Patera likewise refers to "the crater", but you have currently removed them from the hierarchy altogether. – Fayenatic London 22:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand you're trying to act in good faith but you are actually promoting confusion from a point of misinterpretation. Of the articles you listed, Patomskiy crater uses the term crater colloquially; but of its 2 references, one speculates about UFOs and the other says a meteoric origin was disproven, leading to questions whether the article even qualifies for WP:N. Eden Patera is satisfactorily categorized in Category:Surface features of Mars until reliable sources sort out if it's from volcanic or impact origin. The article called crater is a disambiguation page, leaving no official WP:DEFINING characteristic for the category to stand on, except also as a disambiguation. The English dictionary ([1], [2]) only supports impact, volcanic and explosion craters. Anything else is not a crater. Please stop promoting the recurring confusion over this topic. It has been solved already and needs to not re-emerge. Ikluft (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One benefit to result from this discussion - I took this to indicate the question will easily resurface if not answered plainly up front, and added the dictionary definition of a crater, requiring it be caused by some kind of explosion, to the "Categorization_of_craters" essay. Ikluft (talk) 21:32, 7 November 2019 (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:Subsidence craters[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. MER-C 09:49, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and insignificant subset of Category:explosion craters. This is not eligible for speedy deletion because I already emptied it out of process while cleaning up various categories into impact, volcanic or explosion craters, which avoids recurring confusion around unspecified "craters". See also the 2009 mass-renaming CfR of crater-related categories which I was the nominator for, which was the first time this kind of crater category cleanup was done. (Do I need to write an essay on categorization of craters?) Ikluft (talk) 04:44, 2 November 2019 (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:Motorsports portals[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. MER-C 09:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one page: Portal:Formula One. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:36, 2 November 2019 (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:Cricket portals[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. MER-C 09:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Contains only one page: Portal:Cricket. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're right here, SMcC. Category:Cricket added to the nom as a merge target. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 2 November 2019 (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:Slovenian female comics artists[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-deleted, G7 - sole author requested deletion. Grutness...wha? 15:24, 2 November 2019 (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/2019_November_2&oldid=1197941347"