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

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 15

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 14 August 16 >

August 15

[edit]

Category:Belgian people of Chaoui 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:38, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 22:38, 15 August 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:French people of Chaoui 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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:40, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 3 articles, and only one of them mentions Chaoui descent. Rathfelder (talk) 22:37, 15 August 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:Sciences Po faculty

[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: reverse merge. – Fayenatic London 06:03, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They seem to be the same thing. Rathfelder (talk) 19:56, 15 August 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:Lavtia navigational boxes

[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) 04:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: obvious typo, infopollution Estopedist1 (talk) 19:36, 15 August 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:Extremely short Lithuania articles

[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. I confirmed that all the current members are categorised within Lithuania stubs. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unique: no other "Category:Extremely short COUNTRY articles" exist. Category:Lithuania stubs does the job Estopedist1 (talk) 19:24, 15 August 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:Safavid governors of Akhaltsikhe

[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: WP:SOFTDELETE. The only other member page is List of rulers of Safavid Georgia. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and move Salim Khan Shams al-Dinlu manually to the parent categories. This concerns a short-lived Safavid governorate, from 1623 to 1639. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:01, 15 August 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:Kolkata Film Festival templates

[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) 04:46, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category now has one page, which is a template, making it a WP:NONDEFining. -- DaxServer (talk) 15:40, 15 August 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 books (user books with bugs)

[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 13:09, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this separately from the below nomination since this one is populated by Template:Saved book directly when passed the |bug= parameter rather than being a populated by a broken bot, so the first reason for deletion below doesn't apply. However, the second one, that the entire point of user books is that they are not maintained by the community (and thus no action should to be taken based on a book's appearance in the category, continues to apply, and furthermore the |bug= parameter is in most pages reporting a bug in the way the book tool renders articles, which should have been reported on phabricator rather than here where it will be ignored. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my nomination at the other discussion. Gonnym (talk) 09:38, 18 August 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.

Wikipedia books (user books with errors)

[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 all. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per my comment at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 4#Category:Wikipedia books (books with errors), I also wonder whether Category:Wikipedia books (user books with errors) and its subcategories should be deleted, since they appear to have been populated by a bot that hasn't edited since 2014, and in any case the entire point of user books is that they are not maintained by the community (and thus no action should to be taken based on a book's appearance in the category). * Pppery * it has begun... 14:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC) (as a correction to the quoted comment, the bot task in question hasn't actually run since 2010, and I originally said since 2014 since the bot account did other things for the next four years). * Pppery * it has begun... 15:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that I reverted an out-of-process emptying of this category tree in Special:Diff/1038914373. While I agree that the tree should be deleted, it should be done after a proper discussion, not unilaterally and in a way that leaves a mess behind (since the subcats are tagged {{possibly empty category}}) * Pppery * it has begun... 15:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete all. The amount of issues in these categories, in my opinion, is part of the reason the Book namespace was deleted. It's just dead and no one cares, as evidenced by those users who have these book in their userpages. The community already confirmed they want nothing to do with the book namespace, going as far as deleting all books and the namespace itself. There is no reason to keep behind tracking categories for bugs which are only present on a single user's page. Gonnym (talk) 09:37, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I was the WP:BOLD category emptier, and appreciate the revert, though I think this discussion will show this is a completely non-controversial delete (I was also prepared to clean up all those tagged with {{possibly empty category}}). There are really very few reasons to have maintenance categories that hold only user pages, and certainly not for this group of categories. UnitedStatesian (talk) 14:01, 8 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:People by city in France

[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:People by populated place in France, which has majority support here, as well as precedents for siblings in Belgium, Israel & Netherlands and sub-cat Martinique. Only the US has both Category:People by populated place in the United States as well as "by city". The others have occupational subcats "by city", which are probably mostly correct in practice, so there may be no need to rename the subcats. – Fayenatic London 12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Many of the settlements are not cities. Rathfelder (talk) 13:21, 15 August 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 scored by Amotz Plessner

[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 August 30#Category:Films scored by Amotz Plessner

Category:Rayne Rice Birds

[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) 04:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry and one subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:35, 15 August 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.

Singular categories about trees

[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 the first three, keep the other two. – Fayenatic London 10:44, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tree categories are more often plural than not. See Category:Plums, Category:Peaches, Category: Cherries, Category:Apples, and Category:Pears, among others.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the first three only, but "blossom" is as Grutness states effectively a plural form; and the fact that usage in the article is not well written is absolutely no evidence at all ("Wikipedia is not a reliable source") to the contrary. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:11, 15 August 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:Tower Hamlets First

[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 consensus. bibliomaniac15 19:50, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article about it, so category not needed Joseph2302 (talk) 03:39, 15 August 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:Aspire (political party)

[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) 04:59, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, as only the eponymously named article is in the category Joseph2302 (talk) 03:37, 15 August 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_August_15&oldid=1073192801"