Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 13

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< April 12 April 14 >

April 13

edit

Category:McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter

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: upmerge to parents. – Fayenatic London 07:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The law firm that an attorney has / had worked for is not a defining characteristic of the individual. Alansohn (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Has been refined Category:McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter people. This one could stay or go.Djflem (talk) 08:45, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- We might retain the "people" category. An article on the firm would be suitable as the main article for that, but is the firm prominent enough to need an article? I would question whether we even need the "people" category before we have an article on the firm. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:06, 16 April 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:Black Feminist Thought

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: Speedy delete per WP:CSD#G2. Redrose64 (talk) 23:04, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an article in Category space. I would move it to main space if Black Feminist Thought were not already there. —teb728 t c 21:06, 13 April 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:Organizations based in Cyprus

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) 03:01, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename, WP:C2A spelling change per WP:STRONGNAT (see British Cyprus) and WP:C2C following seven out of ten current sub-cats & grandchild cats. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 13 April 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:History of Inner Carniola

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 07:33, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Suggest not to upmerge to Category:History of Carniola because some articles aren't related to the former country of Carniola. Note to closer: the merge to Category:History of Slovenia only needs to be applied to the articles, not to the Castles child categories, because the latter are in Category:Medieval Slovenia anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 13 April 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.

Provinces of Slovenia

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. I will check that the member categories remain within the province hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 07:22, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge Architecture categories per WP:SMALLCAT, they only contain one child category Buildings and Structures. The Economy categories and its child categories only contain Castles (except two Slovene Littoral categories), which are already in Buildings and Structures as mentioned before, so they can just be deleted. A small province of a small country doesn't need that much granularity in its category tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. These are parent categories - subcategories should not all be thrown into the main category, but distributed according to the main fields. --Eleassar my talk 06:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- as long as the result is not to orphan any subcategories. My impression is that this is a careful nom to avoid that, but I have only investigated a sample. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- wanted to oppose on the grounds that Slovenia is not well-represented on en.wiki and as our coverage grows they could become more populated... but all of these categories lead to the same place and hide much more interesting categories (like castles in) from view. One comment - I'd say all the examples of Category:Visitor attractions should be upmerged to the appropriate province cat, so that the castle cats don't lose the connection to their province. Furius (talk) 07:29, 20 April 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:Television series by ABC Studios

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) 12:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disney owns all series in the category so putting all Disney and ABC shows under the DADT one, will make everything Disney ABC under that category. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 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:Television series by Disney

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) 12:18, 15 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Disney owns all series in the category so putting it under the DADT one, will make everything Disney under that category. 47.54.189.22 (talk) 19:48, 13 April 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:Neurotrophins

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: – Fayenatic London 08:17, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is mostly populated by a number of articles that are outside the scope of the category title (Neurotrophins). The proposed title (Neurotrophic factors) has a scope that includes the current category title and all the articles that are currently in the category.
WT:MCB#Issue with Category:Neurotrophins and WT:NEURO#Issue with Category:Neurotrophins were notified of this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:19, 13 April 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:Medical and health organizations based in Singapore

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: speedy rename, C2A, as there were no objections. – Fayenatic London 22:13, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Singapore quite consistently uses British spelling. Parent category is Category:Organisations based in Singapore. Failed speedy. AusLondonder (talk) 19:03, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection.Rathfelder (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for that. It most likely means I never actually listed it at CFDS. I tagged it in early March, then I found it again today. I couldn't remember what happened with it. Hopefully this can be speedily renamed in that case. You make a good point about C2E and I would be interested to weigh in on such a discussion. Thanks for pointing this out, you're much more diligent than me! AusLondonder (talk) 21:53, 13 April 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:Populist parties in the Czech Republic

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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:55, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Bringing these ones in line with Category:Populism in the United States.
While the implicit inclusion criteria for political parties as being "populist" were found both too subjective and too unspecific in a previous CfD consensus, where I had nominated the subsequently deleted Category:Populist parties in the United States. A categorization under the political concept of Populism, allowing more specific subcategories to define useful inclusion criteria, however seems perfectly acceptable. PanchoS (talk) 12:28, 13 April 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.

Pro-life organizations by country

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 as per nom. The suggestion to upmerge arrived too late to receive sufficient discussion, but another discussion aimed at upmerging those with WP:SMALLCAT concerns may be helpful. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:57, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I suggest changing the name format of these categories, since "TYPE organizations in COUNTRY" seems to be the general standard for categories that group different types of organizations by country. Compare to the by-country subcategories of Category:Pro-choice organizations. (Possibly eligible for a speedy rename, but since they have all adopted a consistent name format, I think it's better to bring these here.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Austrian pro-life organizations to Category:Pro-life organizations and Category:Political advocacy groups in Austria
Category:Danish pro-life organizations to Category:Pro-life organizations
Reply It is not how such organisations would self-describe. They emphasise the positive, not the negative. That's their call to make. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:37, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be OK with a rename to match the article name. There has most recently been no consensus to move the article to use "pro-life", so it's fine for the categories to follow that. I see the issues raised by Laurel above as a debate that is more appropriate for the article in a RM discussion. However, I do think that it's probably too late in this discussion to try to gain a consensus for that. I would not object to an immediate re-nomination if they are renamed as proposed, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:44, 18 May 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:Suburbs of Waratah-Wynyard Council, Tasmania

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 "Localities". This is partially influenced by the result of the original CfD, which received more participation and closed as "Localities". It makes little sense to split the outcome. (non-admin closure)~ RobTalk 04:16, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: : Creator of category is in full knowledge of the usage of terminology for places has claimed at another CFD that the localities is a more appropriate term, and most of the places mentioned are not suburbs JarrahTree 00:50, 13 April 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_April_13&oldid=1138409468"