Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7[edit]

Category:Book series based on Dune[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 20#Category:Book series based on Dune

Category:Dune series adaptations[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is specially for film and TV adaptions so the title should say so, however I'm not sure what the proper title should be. Cinematic might be a good option, Category:Dune (franchise) film and television adaptations might be another. If someone has a better one, let me know. Gonnym (talk) 21:39, 7 March 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:Documents referencing religion[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. – Fayenatic London 10:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, in case a document is merely referencing religion but it does not concern a religious document, it is unlikely to be a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:31, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would question if even "concerns a religious document" is sufficiently defining for a category. The category would bloat to an unimaginable size. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:09, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- At present it only contains US Constitution, which mentions the separation of church and state, but if this were properly populated it would be wholly unmanageable. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:Book series based on Dune, since apparently religion is referenced in that franchise. Okay, okay...let's just say delete :-) The rationale makes sense, but Peterkingiron's argument is strongest; there's no real point in a category tree that's going to be unimaginably large because of its vagueness. The only way a massive tree is appropriate is if it's not just defining but truly fundamental to something, e.g. Category:Living people or Category:History. Nyttend backup (talk) 12:13, 14 March 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:Print media people from Liverpool[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 16:26, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only content is 2 subcategories, both already adequately categorised. We dont have any other categories of Print media people, and in any case writers & publishers are no longer confined to print media. Rathfelder (talk) 15:42, 7 March 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:South African people by first language[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 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia has thousands of articles about South African people, but just 18 people are in this category tree. Most articles about people don't explictly state what the person's first language was so categories like this are inevitably massively incomplete or based on OR. We don't have a category tree like this for most countries.  Note: Afaics, none of the articles (including the article that's not about a specific person), needs to be upmerged. DexDor (talk) 10:25, 7 March 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:10th-century French monarchs[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 20:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, more accurate description of the people in these categories, also per Category:Kings of France. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query what about the "Navseasoncats" template? Wouldn't the nom effectively destroy it or require two such templates? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:12, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The final one has to be monarchs because it includes Emperors and Louis Phillipe, whose title was King of the French (not of France). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and undertakings above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:50, 21 March 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:9th-century French monarchs[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 16:25, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, anachronistic category, in the 9th century there were Frankisch monarchs Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 7 March 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:American people of Swedo-Finnish descent[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. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, per earlier discussion about sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctantly support -- I believe that the outcome of the previous discussion was wrong, but that is the precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:11, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another unnecessary "descent" category; this more unnecessary than most. If "Finnish" refers to the ethnic group (rather than the political entity), presumably as Finns were the earlier arrivals in Finland, and Swedes came later, someone would upmerge to both. If it's purely the political entity, then those whose "descent" pre-dates establishment of the nation of Finland in 1917 should be excluded; as we don't have people of political sub-unit descent (Category:People of Pennsylvanian descent anyone?). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:02, 10 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2020_March_7&oldid=946946243"