Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 29 March 31 >

March 30

Category:Presidents of the Club of Madrid

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. The current and former president who were in this category are both mentioned in the text of the article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 16:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Better as if this list appears in the body of the article Club of Madrid. As a category it is non-defining. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:33, 30 March 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:Instrumental and vocal genres

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 for deletion or merging, nor for keeping the present combined category, so rename per nomination, moving sub-cat Category:Vocal music up into Category:Music genres. – Fayenatic L ondon 12:49, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename the category and relocate the subcategory Category:Vocal music directly "one step ahead" in the tree to Category:Music genres. The category consists entirely of instrumental music subcategories and articles - and then there is also Category:Vocal music. Is it important to have these two together in the first place? I can see that they are the opposite of each other, but is a combined category required, if they really are just two genres with nothing in common? CN1 ( talk) 19:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand completely; what would you upmerge the category with? I thought the main problem is that there are two unrelated topics intermingled (merged) into one category. So, would splitting it (effectively what my renaming achieves) not be more locigal? CN1 ( talk) 14:15, 10 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:Members of professional organizations

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 to Category:Barristers and advocates by place of call and then delete. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 16:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Not useful or defining. The categories included would be better renamed. see above . Rathfelder ( talk) 11:57, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Note: The following two votes are from the recent aborted nomination on the same category. I'll ping both @ Marcocapelle and Oculi: in case their viewpoints have shifted. RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:19, 17 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, but containerise. I do see a good case for centralising a cluster of the many many professional organisation categories. If kept, it should be properly populated to include the Royal Irish Academy, the Royal Colleges etc. It could be quite big.
    I am not entirely sure that this category is valuable for readers, but it is certainly valauable for editors ... so it might be appropriate for it to become a hidden maintenance category.
    Regardless of anything else, I agree that it should not be for individual people. So I have tagged it [1] as {{ container}}, without prejudice to any consensus reached here. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:08, 26 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Glad we agree on containerisation :) -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 09:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: now that the CFD on the original sub-cat has been closed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic L ondon 17:20, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I think lawyers as a profession are distinctive in that they have to be members of the various organisations in order to practice. Clinicians and other professions have to be regulated, but, certainly in the UK, they are not members of the regulating body. I think deleting this category in favour of Category:Barristers and advocates by place of call would be sensible, as naive editors will be tempted to put individuals into an attractive, but non-defining, category. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as redundant, since it is only covering English and Scottish barristers. We do not usually categorise people by membership of professional organisations or learned societies, something that will commonly go with membership of a particular profession. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:59, 3 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:Mayday Parade songs

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. WP:SMALLCAT doesn't have a cutoff for number of articles written in, but if "small" categories are not appropriate, then one article is certainly not appropriate. There are exceptions when categories are likely to expand, but this band has been active for nearly a decade. If almost all of their songs are currently non-notable and not worthy of articles, there's little chance of that spontaneously changing in the future. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 14:49, 30 May 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Except for a list and one article for a song that was covered by this band, this category is simply redundant to Category:Mayday Parade albums because every single entry is a redirect to one of their albums. I don't understand the rationale behind creating a redirect for every song recorded by a band AND categorizing it in such a manner. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 17:18, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
@ Marcocapelle:. Even if there had been no redirects none of the articles would have been "about Mayday Parade" because they would still be song articles. If, on the other hand, you believe Somebody That I Used to Know should not be a member of this category (i.e. Top 20 in 2 charts as marketed as Mayday Parade is not defining), then I would have to agree to delete a category of only redirects, too.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • By lack of existing articles it's not even possible to check if "Mayday Parade" is a defining characteristic. You seem to imply that it's not, so that merely confirms that the category should be deleted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:40, 9 April 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Additional comments. My opposition is based on this category containing one non-redirect member, Somebody That I Used to Know. That, together with WP:SMALLCAT, which I have seen the nominator argue passionately and expertly for having categories with one member to a point he convinced me of their worth, makes a keep vote necessary. What the nominator appears not to like is Wikipedia:INCOMPATIBLE which permits and encourages the categorization of redirects in circumstances like these. This discussion should be, perhaps, at either of those guidelines, perhaps redirects are not as cheap as we like to say, or maybe, editors should be discouraged from going through their record collection and adding every song as a redirect. But all these discussions belong elsewhere, not at a single category delete discussion. FWIW, If the solitary song member ceases to be an article in this category then my vote! automatically does revert to a support.-- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:26, 13 May 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. The point of categories is for navigation, and this one adds nothing useful. Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects#Categorization of list entries means that this alphabetical category populated with redirects would have a point if the only available lists were sorted otherwise e.g. by date or by album, but in this case it duplicates List of songs recorded by Mayday Parade. Moreover, two of the cover-song singles listed in the navbox Template:Mayday Parade have separate articles that have never been added to this category AFAICS, supporting Marcocapelle's view that being covered by Mayday Parade is not a defining characteristic. – Fayenatic L ondon 12:37, 13 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:Science and Technology in Pakistan stubs

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 L ondon 12:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Populated by Template:Pakistan-Science-Technology-stub ( talk · history · transclusions · logs · subpages) which I am also nominating for deletion - neither template nor category were proposed at WP:WSS/P; cat does not meet the threshold of 60 articles for a stub category, and template does not meet the 30-article threshold either. In addition to this, neither Category:Science stubs nor Category:Technology stubs are normally subdivided by country (Brazil is an anomaly). Redrose64 ( talk) 09:43, 30 March 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:Channelling

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:Mediumship. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: " Channelling" is an ambiguous term. For the name of this category, I suggest "mediumistic channelling", which is the term used on the disambiguation page and in the category definition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:58, 30 March 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:Inspired by Ramana Maharshi

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 then delete. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:31, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Presumably this category is meant to be for people inspired by Ramana Maharshi. We could rename it to reflect that, but it's probably better to just upmerge to the parent Category:Neo-Advaita teachers, since we usually don't categorize people based on their influences. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Selectively merge, because not all articles qualify for Category:Neo-Advaita teachers. Agree with nominator that a category for people inspired by Ramana Maharshi is not defining. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC) reply
    • That's true, it would be best if not all of them were merged. I'm happy to do the selective merging if the closer of this discussion prefers. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Modify and Keep Original Name and Shift Over Some Names to Neo-Advaita Teachers I suggest we modify the name of original category to People Inspired by Ramana Maharshi for those who fit this description. The Neo-Advaita teachers (such as Gangaji and Mooji) can be shifted over to the Neo-Advaita category but most of the people on the 'inspired' list died before neo-advaita was even invented, and it would be a totally inappropriate place for them to be categorised since they are not teachers and don't subscribe to any neo-advaitic views.( Iddli ( talk) 03:23, 10 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:Fires beginning October 8, 1871

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category for disasters (or anything else, for that matter) that I know of that categorizes by precise date and year. I think categorizing by year is enough for disasters, so I suggest upmerging the contents to the parent category Category:1871 fires. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 30 March 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:Seattle Mariners draft picks

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. As this category (alone out of Category:Major League Baseball draft picks) contains a lot of lists, I will move those to a new Category:Lists of Seattle Mariners draft picks. – Fayenatic L ondon 11:47, 25 April 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Players drafted by a MLB team don't necessarily play for the Mariners; they don't always sign with the MLB team. Other players go undrafted. This is not a defining characteristic of the individuals listed in this category. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:38, 30 March 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:Articles lacking sources from 07-03-2016

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: speedily deleted, clearly created in error. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:42, 30 March 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: For some reason an article was created into this category. The article already exists at Mount Star Secondary Boarding School, and I don't think histmerge is needed. MrLinkinPark333 ( talk) 00:36, 30 March 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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_30&oldid=1142533842"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE