Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 15 September 17 >

September 16[edit]

Category:Wikipedia Librarians[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 22#Category:Wikipedia Librarians

Category:LGBT legislators in Spain[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 22#Category:LGBT legislators in Spain

Category:Sandford Faulkner[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 September 25#Category:Sandford Faulkner

Category:Ceca (singer)[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Minimal content for an eponymous category, failing the requirements for WP:OCEPON. The subcats only include album articles and image files (not articles) of those albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:39, 16 September 2021 (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:Obscenity controversies online[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. – Fayenatic London 19:06, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following naming convention of other categories about online subjects Trivialist (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2021 (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:Films set in Pescara[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. bibliomaniac15 20:43, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:00, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: there are currently eight articles in this category and I guess it could be expanded as well.--Earthh (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Earthh. Eight articles is enough for a by cities sub-category. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Rather large category. Dimadick (talk) 06:22, 17 September 2021 (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:Direct effect of European Union law[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: selectively merge to Category:Court of Justice of the European Union case law (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I find that an entire category for only two cases which apply a EU Law principle is a bit too much. In addition to that the articles in question already mention the principle of direct effect in the article themselves. Chefs-kiss (talk) 14:48, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: actually, there are currently three articles in the category. Can more articles be added to it? Apokrif (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: @Apokrif: the reason the Van Gend en Loos v Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen case is even mentioned is because that case establishes the actual principle. however if you observe its mirror Primacy of European Union law doesn't create a whole different category for supremacy principle. Its more of a principle and legal framework. Its as if I created a whole category for the notion of supremacy of the supreme court.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 16 September 2021 (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:Wikipedia Adventurers[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 07:38, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Renominating after a failed 2014 CfD. This category was intended, per the creator's contesting of a C1 deletion on the talk page, to be a signall [sic] to those editors who have completed all 7 missions of the interactive guided tour. However, it doesn't seem to have actually served that purpose since Special:Diff/579292541 was made in 2013, and is instead tracking people who completed the Wikipedia adventure before that edit, as well as people who chose to broadcast the fact that they have completed the Wikipedia adventure, which is even less useful to track (and I agree with the original 2014 nomination about the lack of collaborative merit even if it were completely populated). * Pppery * it has begun... 02:42, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. There really is no point in retaining stuff like this. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:14, 16 September 2021 (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:Wikipedia desktop applications[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have nothing against this category in theory, but in practice it contains nothing except a page in the userspace of a user who hasn't edited since 2007 and a tool that hasn't been updated since 2008 and is named after a different user who hasn't edited since 2007, making it clearly not useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:21, 16 September 2021 (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:Wikipedia Java-based tools[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have nothing against this category in theory, but in practice it contains nothing except a tool that hasn't been updated since 2008 and is named after a user who hasn't edited since 2007, making it clearly not useful. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:19, 16 September 2021 (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:UserScripts needing fixes for addOnloadHook deprecation[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not meaningfully different from Category:JavaScripts using deprecated elements, which was deleted as G8 when the template that populated it (Template:JS migration) was deleted at TfD * Pppery * it has begun... 02:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No Great Shaker (talk) 13:12, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I dunno. Do those subpages of the two editors need to addressed first?. If this is something that does need addressing to finish off the noted deprecation, shouldn't that be done first, to empty this cat, before deleting it? - jc37 16:57, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Of the four entries in this category, two have already been fixed (without the category being removed), and a third is in the userspace of someone who hasn't edited since 2018. Fixing the other two pages would not meaningfully finish off the noted deprecation since there are 4,000 uncategorized addOnloadHook-using scripts. * Pppery * it has begun... 18:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Ouch. Do we no longer need to fix these things? - jc37 18:45, 21 September 2021 (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:Wikipedia script installation[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: dual merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:51, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories seem to cover an identical scope, both consisting of templates related to installing user scripts. * Pppery * it has begun... 02:02, 16 September 2021 (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/2021_September_16&oldid=1051236579"