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, and there was no opposition to the idea that the proper adjective is "Sammarinese". Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category on Wikipedia that uses the demonym "San Marinese". But for the country San Marino, "Sammarinese" is the accepted demonym. Indeed, all other categories on Wikipedia use "Sammarinese" -- nearly all are subcats of Category:Sammarinese people so you can check that page for lots of examples. The only other category that exists on wikipedia with a similar format is Category:San Marinese musical groups ... which is just a redirect to Category:Sammarinese musical groups. Astrophobe (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename, if this category is needed. If it wasn't part of a by-nation tree then deletion would be an option, though - given that musical instruments and genres rarely keep to national borders - that whole tree is a bit of a mystery. Grutness...wha? 03:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, category should be empty since the accordion is not specifically Sammarinese. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (am nominator): Delete actually didn't occur to me since I know nothing about instrument categories. I would support deleting, I just feel that if it exists it needs to use the right demonym. - Astrophobe (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever the correct demonym, this category should not exist because the accordion (the only item) has little obvious connection with San Marino. This is a city state enclaved within Italy. There is no reason to believe that its culture differs the country around it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of crystal clear consensus/precedent I just want to reinforce that the correct demonym is unambiguously "Sammarinese" - Astrophobe (talk) 18:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters - popularity in SM is not defining. Johnbod (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2020 (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.
I guess I could create a parent Category:Movies by year and put both Category:Films by year and Category:Videos by year inside. The question is: do we want to categorize motion pictures by type (longer films, shorter videos, etc.) in addition to year? This whole proposal was motivated by the Tank Man, which was categorized under 1980s photographs and also in 1989 works but ought to be categorized under 1989 videos as well. fgnievinski (talk) 22:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revert / merge back, this latter action goes against above consensus to leave everything in Works. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2020 (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: Restore the pre-2017 capitalization. This category refers the title of a book (Italian Folktales), so should be capitalized. Alternatively, capitalize and add a disambiguation phrase, e.g. (Italo Calvino) or (1956). pburka (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purge, most of these tales were published earlier than in Italian Folktales so they should be removed from the category. Delete if too few articles remain. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2020 (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: Which specific countries an insect is found in is often non-defining (e.g. see Horama panthalon which is currently in 15 geographical categories). In somecases the country isn't even mentioned in the article. Previous similarCFDs. DexDor(talk) 17:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - and these should not be upmerged to other local parents. Oculi (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, we normally do not categorize species by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per prior consensus. We do have categories for endemic fauna by country, but not this. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 01:27, 18 June 2020 (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:University of Arkansas Campus Historic District[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 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:History of universities and colleges in the United States[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 consensusTimrollpickering (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose: As someone who is active in creating articles on the history of universities in the United States, there is certainly potential for growth, albeit relatively slow growth. I see that the Texas category, which is the one I'm (currently) active within, has not been nominated for merging. I think that it is too large to consider for merging, but I also don't like the idea of just dumping the smaller categories together and treating them differently than the larger categories like California and Texas. However, I don't feel extremely convicted about this stand, so I'm going to give this a "weak oppose". Michael Barera (talk) 17:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is certainly room for growth and it can be encouraged by having the category framework to support it. Grey Wanderer (talk) 01:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does having dozens of very small categories aid navigation, which is what categories are design to do. They're not to encourage growth of any particular article.--User:Namiba 03:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If i was curious about only the history of colleges in a particular state I would find it quite helpful in navigation. You misunderstand, I find categories like this helpful when choosing what article to create next, not in expanding any particular article. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Categories aren't for the tiny percent of Wikipedia users who create articles. They exist to aid navigation of the readers of articles to "browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." I don't think having to go through 20 or so very small categories to find what they're looking for does that. What you're arguing is basically that very small categories are useful to you, which is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.--User:Namiba 20:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the most important part to take away is that I think they are useful in navigation to users other than myself . In addition, If I happen to find something personally useful on Wikipedia I’m gonna stick up for it, under the philosophy that others probably also find it useful for the same reasons. Grey Wanderer (talk) 20:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, being useful is not a reason to keep a set of categories.--User:Namiba 21:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I disagree, if a category is useful for navigation shouldn’t it be kept? Grey Wanderer (talk) 21:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Keep it consistent. If these are deleted, they're likely to be re-added anyway as editors will notice the "missing" categories and create them. pburka (talk) 23:39, 28 June 2020 (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:Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame inductees[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 Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame and the Meikyukai are rival (and largely overlapping) Japanese baseball halls of fame that seem to have similar prominence. Many of the articles in here are are very short and could use some editor attention but, of the longer ones, both halls of fame are normally mentioned in passing with other accomplishments. (A number of articles have that whole paragraph in the intro though.) Like most halls of fame, this one recognizes accomplishments much earlier in their careers for which the players are already categorized, so it doesn't seem defining. For any reader interested in the topic, the winners are already listified in here in the main article, which could also use some editor attention. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (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 World Curling Federation is based in Scotland and is actually quite prominent as the world governing body for curling. Their WCF Hall of Fame is more obscure though and was established in 2012, although they automatically added some earlier winners of a different award. Like most halls of fame, it reflects rather than amplifies their fame so it doesn't seem defining and all of these people are in more specific curling categories to aid navigation. The articles are pretty evenly balanced between those that mention the award in passing, those that don't mention it at all, and those with it in the lede, but that last category was largely due to a single enthusiastic editor over two days. The contents of the category are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Background We recently deleted Canadian, American and Scandinavian curling halls of fame categories with similar issues here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:08, 16 June 2020 (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.
