Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 22 June 24 >

June 23

[edit]

England establishments in the 1st millennium

[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/delete as proposed, with the exception of Category:80s establishments in England. That one will be merged to Category:1st-century establishments in Roman Britain instead of Category:1st-century establishments in England (which will be deleted). -- Tavix (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: Category:666 establishments by country and Category:720s establishments by country were not emptied by this process, so I declined to delete them at this time (see Le Deluge's comment). -- Tavix (talk) 23:13, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. All of these categories have 5 articles or less and most have only 1 article. Before the 2nd millennium, there's just not going to be enough known establishments to justify by year categories. Merging up to the century categories make this tree much easier to navigate. ~ RobTalk 23:49, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As far as the naming of the England categories goes, I'd make my usual request for category names to favour "predictability" over historical purity, look at it more top-down than bottom-up. Le Deluge (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2016 (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:CommonsHelper

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:47, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains one obsolete page. — Music1201 talk 22:54, 23 June 2016 (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:People from Puerto Rico

[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. ~ Rob13Talk 23:18, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I propose reversing a merge which took place in 2012, for a few reasons:
(1) "FOOian people" is the standard format for subcategories of Category:People by nationality. Despite the fact that Puerto Ricans are American citizens today, "Puerto Rican" is clearly a nationality. This is true both historically and presently.
(2) The category is acting in a way that all nationality categories do on WP: it is not only categorizing people who are "from" the place, it is categorizing people who are "of" the place and may not have ever been to the place (eg, Category:People of Puerto Rican descent). "Puerto Rican people" is broad enough and helpfully ambiguous enough to capture both, whereas "People from Puerto Rico" is too narrowly specific. I know such a concept might be anathema to some users who like categories to be razor precise, but honestly—sometimes ambiguity in categories that hold a lot of content is quite helpful.
(3) This is not a situation as with Category:People from Northern Ireland or Category:People from Georgia (country), where the subcategories fairly consistently follow the "FOOs from Puerto Rico" format. The subcategories generally use "Puerto Rican FOOs" in the category situations where the standard nationality format applies. Some attempts to convert the subcategories to the "FOOs from Puerto Rico" format have failed: eg, here. In fact, on this very page we have a nomination that is proposing we delete a "FOOs from Puerto Rico" in favor of a pre-existing "Puerto Rican FOOs": #Category:Sportspeople_from_Puerto_Rico.
(4) In the 2012 discussion, Category:People from Puerto Rico was tagged for merging, but Category:Puerto Rican people was not. It was therefore deleted and the contents merged without notification being placed on it, despite the fact that it had existed since 2004 and had been edited 84 times. Category:People from Puerto Rico has only existed since 2012. – Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "Puerto Rican" is clearly a nationality, even if it is currently a non-sovereign nation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:52, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. Puerto Rican is an acceptable demonym. Northern Ireland and Georgia (country) are exceptions, in that there is no satisfactory demonym. WE seem to flip to and fro on this issue. Can we get a standard set out somewhere on this issue? Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The target makes it too unclear whether it covers people from Puerto Rico or people of Puerto Rican descent in the mainland US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnpacklambert: the category is currently categorizing both, so that's probably a welcome ambiguity in this case. It's the same situation for all nationality categories—many people of a particular nationality have never set foot in the country of their nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your views on nationality are not as generally supported as you think. Beyond this, the current name puts it in line with other sub-units of the United States, which is a reasonable way to do so. I would oppose categorizing as an American a person who had never been in the United States. Raul Labrador's children should not be categorized as Puerto Rican.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Johnpacklambert: I have written nothing about how generally supported my views on nationality are. ?? Where do you get this stuff? (You can oppose categorizing people of a particular nationality who have never been to the place as that nationality, but it's very commonly done within Wikipedia. One doesn't need to be living in a place to be a national of the place.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Puerto Rico is currently a territory of the United States but also an equivalent as another nation in North America. This situation differs, for example, from Bavaria which is under Germany but not its equivalent in Europe. Hence the correct categories would be Puerto Rican People but People from Bavaria. gidonb (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2016 (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:Photographs of 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: keep. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:37, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At first, this seems natural. But in fact, the scope is so large ("photographs of people, places and things located in the United States") that the link between these images becomes really tenuous. What do More Demi Moore and Lunch atop a Skyscraper have in common? And is Untitled 153 really a photograph of the United States? The photographer is American but there's no way to verify that the subject is American. Instead, I suggest upmerging most and using other existing categories to properly classify the rest of them. Note that the parent Category:Photographs is still of reasonable size. The ones which are about photographs that are significant in the history of photography in the US can also go to the parent category Category:Photography in the United States. Some are about people (not photographs) and can go, or already are, in Category:Subjects of iconic photographs. Pichpich (talk) 21:40, 23 June 2016 (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:Dudley Moore

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With the content being only a single album and two image files, an eponymous category is unnecessary per WP:OCEPON. Neither aids nor adds to navigation. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:34, 23 June 2016 (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:Works in the philosophy of economics

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename because "Works about ..." is the more conventional type of name in the tree of Category:Works. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support part of a pattern of category names by Stefanomione as works in foo that can be attributed, as much as anything, to his terrible command of English. X about y is indeed the standard, more easily comprehensible structure. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support more or less per convention. Pichpich (talk) 20:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, upon suggestion of Stefaniome himself, I added four more categories in this nomination. Mind the plural -s in the last category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:43, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Jesus christ, I didn't notice that he has started trying to shape the Cfd discussion, this time by leaving instructions on the user talk pages of cooperative editors and requesting that Cfd notices be left on his user talk page so he can keep a record of what's happening to "his" categories. This is a most unwelcome development. Most unwelcome. I will no longer notify him with automated messages when and if I do nominate one of "his" categories -- and would strongly urge other editors not to, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:37, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't worry too much if I were you. It's everyone's own responsibility (in this case my responsibility) to judge the merits of an other editor's suggestion. In this case the suggestion made perfect sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • It did make sense. But he will inevitably use this interaction with editors to begin to make the case that his ban should be removed, because he has mended his ways, learnt, made so many wonderful suggestions, etc. He will cite you and others as exemplary examples of this newfound cooperation. I assure you, this is coming, sooner or later. It's not a question of if, only when. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:16, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- adding categories a day later, when there has not been much discussion seems to me acceptable, and saves the need to have follow up ones. In all cases, the suggested name is much more satisfactory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2016 (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.

Greco-Roman

[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: split Category:Greco-Roman Egypt. It appears it'll have to be done manually, so I'm going to list it at WP:CFDWM if someone wants to put in the work. Category:Greco-Roman Egypt in art and culture will be renamed as proposed. Finally, there's no consensus on the third one. There's been some good discussion, but it doesn't appear that a name has been settled upon. Perhaps a focused nomination involving just that category and options could yield a consensus? -- Tavix (talk) 17:40, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split/rename as a follow-up of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_26#Category:Greco-Roman_world. In practice the content of "Greco-Roman world" and of "classical antiquity" was overlapping too much, and the preference in the discussion was to phase out "Greco-Roman". The renames as proposed for the second and third category seem to narrow the scope significantly, but this is actually per current content. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:31, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You mean there is "too little content" at this point; however the content is potentially large - I can already begin populating some of those categories.GreyShark (dibra) 12:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There should also be of course Category:Roman Judea in popular culture to reflect early Christian categories.GreyShark (dibra) 12:21, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support First two. Late Antique refers to post-400 AD or thereabouts, which is certainly inappropriate. The last is difficult: it is all about Judah/Judaea in the post-exilic/new testament period, but at times Galilee was not part of Judaea. Possibly we can settle on Judaea, with a headnote indicating a slightly broader scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2016 (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:Greco-Roman relations

[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 as originally proposed. It seems that both the category and article could use some work, but I'm not seeing any volunteers... -- Tavix (talk) 17:30, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to make the category name less ambiguous. By the way, in contrast to the nomination just above, the category name obviously can't go without the use of "Greco-Roman". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support To reduce ambiguity. Note however that the main article on the topic is called Greco-Roman relations and should probably also be renamed. By the way, the perspective of the article is rather poor because it covers a complex topic by name-dropping Cato the Elder and Lucius Aemilius Paullus Macedonicus, ignoring the wars and alliances of Rome with the various Hellenistic kingdoms (Pyrrhic War, First Macedonian War, Second Macedonian War, War against Nabis, Roman–Seleucid War, Aetolian War, Third Macedonian War, Fourth Macedonian War, Achaean War, First Mithridatic War, Second Mithridatic War, Third Mithridatic War, Final War of the Roman Republic), and barely saying anything about Roman Greece. Not even a single reference to Hadrian and his building projects in Athens. Aren't they in the scope of the topic? Dimadick (talk) 23:09, 24 June 2016 (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:Water transport

[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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Note that this is a tentative nomination only, with the aim of discussing the categorization, to possibly find some consensus how to better organize the content in this area.
Currently neither of the two categories has an eponymous main article. Actually, the "main article" of Category:Water transport is named Ship transport, while the "main article" of Category:Shipping is Freight transport. Quite confusing. If you take a look at the content, then it is quite unclear, on which basis many subcategories are categorized in one or the other tree. Does "shipping" only refer to freight transport, and does or should it cover freight transport both on the water and in the air? I currently have no idea how to improve organization here. Normally we would follow the name of the main articles, but if they only are "best matches" rather than real overview articles on the topic, then we can't. Suggestions are explicitly welcome. PanchoS (talk) 17:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps reverse merge -- It sounds as if neither has a satisfactory main article. The problem is that the barges used on inland waterways are not ships. We might have a split between "sea transport" and "inland water transport". Freight transport should not cover passenger transport. This probably needs more work than I have time for. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose as the nomination is incomplete. The merits or otherwise of a merge cannot be assessed without considering the name of the new category (and how it would be parented). See instructions at WP:CFD. DexDor (talk) 21:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to merge, it's perfectly fine to have a freight transport category (by water) as a child category of a general transport category (by water). No objection against a future proposal for renaming, in order to align with article space, but a rename nomination should be done including a number of child categories. No objection to move some content between the two categories if that would make each of the categories more homogeneous in content. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. "Water transport" is the generic term referring to all water transport, not just shipping (e.g. much inland water transport is done by boats, not ships, and would never be referred to as shipping). That should remain as the top level term. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:13, 6 July 2016 (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:Sportspeople from Puerto Rico

[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 as nominated. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 23 June 2016 (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:European Union law scholars

[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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, rescope and reparent a too narrow and small category. By widening the scope we can add article Giandomenico Majone, to start with. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • European Union is as well a substantial topic and well-populated parent category. A compromise would be to keep this one but create the other one, too. Even if started with just a single subcat and another article, it wouldn't constitute a WP:SMALLCAT, as there's sufficient room for expansion. --PanchoS (talk) 22:26, 23 June 2016 (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:Scopus indexed

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is already an extended discussion on this subject here. Category creator posits that because indexing in Scopus makes a journal notable according to WP:NJournals. However, being indexed in a database is not a defining characteristic of a journal. Many journals are included in dozens of databases. That inclusion in some of these databases makes a journal notable is besides the point. We do not categorize celebrities according to the newspapers in which they have been covered, either, even though it is that very coverage that makes them notable. Randykitty (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2016 (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:Divisions and sections of composed works

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've been very critical of Stefanomione here but in this case I think his somewhat similar Category:Narrative units -- which I've added as a subcat -- is a much better title and concept than this one. Anyway, my suggested rename would have the advantage of fitting it within Category:Components and Category:Intellectual works. But if there's any interest in merging with Stefanomione's, somehow, that'd be fine with me. Or even outright deletion! Most or all intellectual works divisions and sections -- i.e. short poems still have stanzas -- so maybe there's just no need for this category...? Also, as you'll see, the nominated category could use some pruning, I daresay. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:25, 23 June 2016 (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:Web of Science indexed

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ill-conceived category. The Web of Science is not a database and being indexed in it does not mean much. Instead, WoS is a platform providing access to a number of databases produced by Thomson Reuters. Some of those databases are among the most important ones in academic publishing (for example, the Science Citation Index). Whereas Thomson Reuters maintains a database of journals included in those indexes (see here), there is (of course) no such list for WoS. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not correct the WOS is a combined database, the link you provided states that its 'The Master Journal List includes all journal titles covered in Web of Science'. Further there is specific criteria to be included in the WoS, although probably not as strong as for inclusion in Scopus. Jonpatterns (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The link to the selection criteria you give starts with "At the center of Web of Science Core Collection are three flagship Citation Indexes". If you use the Master Journal list, you won't find a single journal that lists "Web of Science" as a database that it is listed in. Instead, you will see things like [Current Contents]] or Science Citation Index, all of which are combined in the WoS access platform. Being included in WoS does not necessarily confer notability to a journal and will, for example, not automatically result in it getting an impact factor (only journals included in the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Social Sciences Citation Index are included in the Journal Citation Reports). It all depends in which Thomson Reuters database a journal is included. For example, being indexed in the Emerging Sources Citation Index is not considered to make a journal notable, but will still result in it being included in WoS. Compare it to a journal being included in PubMed. That doesn't necessarily mean that it is notable, either. For that, inclusion in MEDLINE (or its even more selective subset Index Medicus) is needed. After all, OA journals can get rather easily into PubMed by being included in the much less selective PubMed Central. PubMed is not a database proper, but an access platform (or search engine, if you prefer) that gives combined access to multiple databases (MEDLINE, PMC, and IM - and some others, too). --Randykitty (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2016 (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:Distribution, retailing, and wholesaling

[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 to Category:Distribution (business). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category page states that it is named after code L81 of JEL_classification_codes, but L81 is (currently) "Retail and Wholesale Trade; e-Commerce". We have an article Distribution (business). so that would be the main topic for what is not covered in Category:Sales. – Fayenatic London 09:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* Agree with your remarks. Let's just rename it, and then figure out the details. --PanchoS (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2016 (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:Roman Catholic dioceses in Mauritania

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. There's only one diocese in Mauritania. MSJapan (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to expand my reasoning (which also applies below), I'm basing my argument on the fact that as Roman Catholicism doesn't seem to have a huge foothold in Africa and isn't likely to expand significantly, the utility of the search is better served by an upmerge in spite of the SMALLCAT exception. It just seems to make more sense to hit dioceses in Africa and get everything than have to drill down an extra level to get to the same point. MSJapan (talk) 05:42, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Recently discussed with a clear consensus; no new arguments. --PanchoS (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close as keep as recently discussed. If the title was "Bishop of Mauretania" I might have agreed, but it is not. I gave detailed reasons last time (q.v.). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep c'mon, we cannot keep wasting time on closed debates so closely after they've been closed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The reasoning behind this nomination is false. "Roman Catholicism does not seem to have a huge foothold in Africa and isn't likely to expand significantly", I call rubbish. There are 35 million Catholics in The Democatic Republic of the Congo alone. In Ivory Coast in the 1980s the population was about 1/8th Christian, by about 2010 about a third of the population was Christian, with between a fifthed and a fourth Catholic. Catholicism has significant numbers of followers in other countries such as Uganda, Nigeria and I could list lots more. The country of Madagascar alone has 21 Catholic diocese. There is no reason to think an undifferentiated Africa makes any sense here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2016 (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:Roman Catholic dioceses in Djibouti

[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. There is only one diocese in Djibouti. It does not need its own category. MSJapan (talk) 05:35, 23 June 2016 (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:Fireworks festivals in Canada

[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/rename as proposed. -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to a previous CfD that succeeded in deleting a number of narrow per-country categories for fireworks festivals. We're usually trying to have broader categories first, before intersecting one concept with the other. Therefore it would be preferable to have a robust set of categories that cover everything about fireworks in a country (festivals, law, companies etc.), before further subdividing. If this approach yields, say, more than five articles for a country like China, a Category:Fireworks in China category could be (re)created. PanchoS (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I'm listed as the original creator here, but that's only because I was the closer of the original discussion, which nominated some categories for deletion, but listed this for simple renaming as it was larger than the deletion candidates — so my action as closer was to rename this as nominated, but to relist the deletion candidates as a consensus had not quite formed on that part of the nomination. However, as the relisted discussion, linked by PanchoS above, achieved a new consensus about how to handle this and the USian sibling, I have no objection to the nomination. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PanchoS and Bearcat: Category:Fireworks festivals is a subcategory of Category:Fireworks shows but both categories seem to contain the same type of events. Perhaps it's feasible to keep the bigger country categories by merging festivals and shows. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 04:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I presume it was relisted because of Marcocapelle's comment that seems to suggest an objection. It's been open for several months because quite frankly, there aren't enough closers handling CFD discussions. -- Tavix (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2016 (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.

Croatia

[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 and delete per nominator, User:BU Rob13 ... who I will volunteer to implement the changes. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:33, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More merges
More deletions
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. With one or two exceptions, these are all 1-article establishments by year categories. Condensing them to centuries is far more useful to our readers. The resulting categories will typically still have less than 5 articles in them, but that's justified by the existing category tree. Deleting resulting empty categories. Scope of this nomination is up to the end of the 18th century. ~ RobTalk 01:14, 23 June 2016 (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/2016_June_23&oldid=1138409984"