- 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. Timrollpickering 17:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: and Category:Roman Catholics in the German Resistance. These people were executed for resistance activities not because they were Catholics. Therefore, their execution was not part of Category:Nazi persecution of the Catholic Church. Catrìona ( talk) 22:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I'm assuming that Category:Roman Catholics in the German Resistance (mentioned in the nominator's rationale) is meant to be the second merge target. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Support Per Marcocapelle. Dimadick ( talk) 12:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 I am not aware of precedent or guidance that says 1 is sufficient for a TV episode category by series. This is a WP:SOFTDELETE, i.e. the category may be re-created if more pages are created. In practice, the category needs to be merged to Category:The Good Place, and I will add the pilot episode to another parent Category:Sitcom episodes. – Fayenatic London 10:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Only two links Matt14451 ( talk) 21:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:09, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment: Most episodes are notable enough for an article. Take for instance a random recent episode, The Brainy Bunch—here are some reviews: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Rather than deleting the category, it would be better to populate it by creating these articles. — Bilorv (c) (talk) 22:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that many episodes are notable enough in their own right for articles. The nav-box was already deleted due to lack of links. Both can be recreated once articles are created. Potential is no guarantee they will be created. As far as I can tell, there's no drafts for episode articles of this series. Matt14451 ( talk) 07:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete. Actually only one entry, as the other entry is the episode list. We don't create empty categories on the off-chance that someone will write articles to populate them; if the articles on individual episodes are ever created, the category can be recreated in a matter of seconds. ‑ Iridescent 22:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- What should the minimum requirement be? I can nominate the many other similar categories based on that number (3, 4, 10, 20?). Otherwise, why isn't the small category exception applied here like a band with an article on only one of their albums? I do find that helpful to navigate through and explore something like Category:American television episodes by series. At the very least, the episode article should be upmerged to Category:Sitcom episodes and Category:The Good Place. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 07:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- There is realistic potential for growth in this situation. As mentioned above, the individual episodes are notable enough for articles so they can be created. Matt14451 ( talk) 07:31, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Keep per WP:SMALLCAT. Part of the established subcat scheme Category:American television episodes by series, Category:American television episodes being a container category. 1 is the minimum. Oculi ( talk) 10:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 17:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Category with only one, eponymous, entry. Article can be added to
Category:Hakka culture directly and this deleted.
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
18:57, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Whilst currently only one article, the number is more of a reflection of poor coverage in English wikipedia of the topic. The category is both natural and meaningful. The number of articles should grow over time, so if removed now it would have to be added again in the future, which is a good reason not to delete.
Johnkn63 (
talk)
02:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- It can be recreated if needed, though I would be surprised if that ever happened. Seems it existed once
on zh.wp but was deleted as an empty category. If editors can’t find enough to write about Hakka songs there then it seems even less likely articles will be created here.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
02:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- zh.wp suffers from the vaste majority of mother tongue speakers being blocked from it, by comparison Chinese sites such as baike.baidu.com have many related pages. With a population of well over 50 million, there are more Hakka than all but a few dozen countries in the world. How many articles are required for a category? Johnkn63 ( talk) 09:56, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- It can be recreated if needed, though I would be surprised if that ever happened. Seems it existed once
on zh.wp but was deleted as an empty category. If editors can’t find enough to write about Hakka songs there then it seems even less likely articles will be created here.--
JohnBlackburne
words
deeds
02:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- Whilst currently only one article, the number is more of a reflection of poor coverage in English wikipedia of the topic. The category is both natural and meaningful. The number of articles should grow over time, so if removed now it would have to be added again in the future, which is a good reason not to delete.
Johnkn63 (
talk)
02:27, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 17:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: not a category L293D ( ☎ • ✎) 18:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 17:12, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: While some [[Wikipedians who are members of group]] categories have a potentially valid purpose in categorising readers with similar interests or knowledge, this one baffles me. I can't see any conceivable use for it—probably well over 99% of the world's population are
descendants of veterans of military combat
, and even if one were to restrict it only to wars fought in the 20th and 21st centuries, would almost certainly be well over half the world's population. It's also not a category that has any useful function in terms of Wikipedia that I can see, since it's not claiming any special knowledge of or even interest in military history, merely that someone in the family either volunteered for the military, lived in a country with compulsory military service, or happened to be of a suitable age in a war fought with conscript armies. ‑ Iridescent 17:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Comment "would almost certainly be well over half the world's population." I would agree with that assessment. Both of my grandfathers were conscript soldiers in the Greek Civil War, and much of the current Greek population likely descends from the combatants of the war. It is not something rare. Dimadick ( talk) 12:43, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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/Delete. Timrollpickering 17:25, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Follow-up merging & removal of decadal categories, per WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description. See previous, related CfDs here, here, here, here, and here. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 15:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- WT:MICRO, WT:PALEO, & WT:TREE notified. ~ Tom.Reding ( talk ⋅ dgaf) 16:08, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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.
Timrollpickering
17:15, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:International sports federations to Category:International sports organisations
- Nominator's rationale: Not all the articles and sub cats are about federations. Widening the scope of the category seems preferable to establishing a separate category for what would be a small collection of miscellaneous organisations. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:48, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 at
2018 NOV 6 CFD.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This is a rather tentative suggestion, but I think the point of this category is not about where the organisations are based, but about how they relate to the EU - and this would include a lot of lobbying, thinktank and commercial organisations. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Organisations based in Europe, the relationship of these articles with the European Union is pretty weak. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- Category:Organisations based in Europe includes thousands of articles, and is considerably wider, geographically speaking. There are actually quite a lot of organisations which relate to the EU, but there isn't a category for them. Rathfelder ( talk) 21:16, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
- What type of relationships with the EU are they about? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)
- There are actually only two articles in the category at the moment, but I've just found Category:Cross-European advocacy groups which I think is the same general idea, although there isn't an article to tell me what exactly is meant. I don't like its title because I don't know what it is supposed to mean, and of course even the term European is ambiguous. There is also Category:Pan-European trade and professional organisations. Maybe Pan-European and Cross-European mean the same? So I think we need at least a category relating to the EU, and perhaps another one (or more?), for organisations relating other, wider, conceptions of Europe. I guess most of the organisations I'm thinking about are based in Europe - in fact most are based in Brussels - but where they are based in not the basis of the category. Rathfelder ( talk) 15:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- We already have Category:Bodies of the European Union and I am sceptical whether we need something in addition. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
- That is for official organisations which are part of the EU. There are large numbers of lobbying and advocacy groups and the like which dont belong there. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:54, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- For sure advocacy groups don't belong there. But do they belong in a EU category at all? Can you give some examples of advocacy groups that exclusively lobby within EU government bodies? Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:08, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
- It's hard to tell with advocacy groups whether they confine themselves to the EU, but many seem to focus on it. See European Union National Institutes for Culture, European Round Table of Industrialists, Gibraltar Stronger in Europe. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
- Ok, there may be scope for the category after all. Marcocapelle ( talk) 13:24, 27 October 2018 (UTC)
- If anyone has been removing members since the nomination, please disclose it here. It currently contains 2 sub-cats and 2 pages. EU-Iran Forum is an event, not organization, so should be removed. OCTA is already in other suitable categories. I would delete the category, move Category:Bodies of the European Union up into Category:Organisations based in Europe, and nominate Category:Trade unions in the European Union for merger to Category:Trade unions in Europe. – Fayenatic London 07:24, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 17:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Earth Science has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Earth science#Wikipedia:WikiProject Earth science over a year ago so there is no need for this category. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 15:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 17:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Earth Science has been deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Earth science#Wikipedia:WikiProject Earth science. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 15:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 17:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Earth Science has been deleted. Pkbwcgs ( talk) 15:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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. Timrollpickering 17:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale:
WP:SMALLCAT for the members of a defunct musical duo. As always, every band that exists does not automatically get one of these just because one or both of its members have standalone BLPs separately from the band article -- especially when the band is defunct, so its number of members is never going to surpass two.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete - this is a classic example of a horrible category with no justification for existence (see WP:SMALLCAT). -- Orange Mike | Talk 04:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- Delete per nominator. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
- 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.