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.
Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate from the other titles listed at
Donalds. Since this is asset category, the proposed new name is the plural of the head article
Donald (hill).
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 23:15, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle I don't think that the list is the main article; that's
Donald (hill). It's unhelpful that the head article and the list disagree about whether to call them mountains or hills, but convention is to follow the head article. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 07:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Supportas originally proposed, per standard naming conventionsCategory:Donalds (mountains) or
Category:Donald mountains, as the cutoff height of 200 feet (61 m) is the commonly accepted definition of a mountain. Some people may think that this category is for people named
Donald. –
LaundryPizza03 (
dc̄) 12:35, 27 June 2020 (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:Don Valley
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.
Support. Certainly not the most well-known Don Valley.
Grutness...wha? 04:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment, there is no main article for the valley (just for the river) and we do not have any other valley categories in Ontario. We may consider merging / deletion instead.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Support per Grutness
Johnbod (
talk) 00:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Support this rename for consistency.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:40, 27 June 2020 (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:Fictional military brats
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.
Nominator's rationale: Not
WP:CATDEFINING, any more than fictional offspring of doctors or lawyers (though Indian Native American chiefs may have a shot).
Clarityfiend (
talk) 23:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete, consistent with earlier
deletion of category for military brats in real life.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 04:59, 23 June 2020 (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:Cuniculus
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.
Nominator's rationale: The current title
Cuniculus is a disambiguation page. The category should be renamed to match either
Cuniculus (genus) or (the redirected scientific name) or the redirect target
Paca. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename to avoid ambiguity. Option A is consistent with the general usage of scientific names in biology categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:02, 23 June 2020 (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:Cualac
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 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:Corydon
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 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.
Participants seasons
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.
Question, isn't this a case of a trivial intersection?
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions.
GiantSnowman 11:35, 23 June 2020 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: per what should be the head article
Achaeans (Homer). The bare title
Achaeans is a disambiguation page. Alternatively delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, since it contains only one article. I dunno enough about the topic to know whether it is a reasonable possibility of expansion, or whether such expansion would help.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 17:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom; avoids ambiguity and this whole ambiguity shows how ethnicities are subjective and fluid.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 21:36, 24 June 2020 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Created the former while I was unaware of the later. Both are identical in purpose, but could be combined to improve
Category:Female villains(Oinkers42) (
talk) 17:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose, not all antagonists are villains.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Oppose One seems to be about the work featuring the character, the other is about the characters.
Dimadick (
talk) 09:42, 23 June 2020 (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 projects
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.
Nominator's rationale: There doesn't appear to be any clear distinction between these categories. DexDor(talk) 16:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom, assuming that all content is US-related. The term 'black project' is too ambiguous, also because it is not clear whether it refers to all secret military projects or just the American ones.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
It could also (badly) refer to housing projects aimed at African-Americans. Too ambiguous.
Grutness...wha? 04:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Merge that meaning wasn't my first thought, seeing it.
Johnbod (
talk) 00:42, 25 June 2020 (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:Fairy Tail episode lists
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.
Nominator's rationale: This page was recently blanked, removing the categories which set off a red flag. Before we revert, is there going to be more than one list?
Fuddle (
talk) 12:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete unless the category is better populated, but it is unlikely that this will happen.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 18:18, 22 June 2020 (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:Asylum buildings in the United Kingdom
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. bibliomaniac15 03:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)reply
This was created a few years ago as a replacement for a category that did not follow the rules, unfortunately, I was unable to take part in the discussions at that time, and I am not happy with the result, so I'd like to re-visit the topic if I may.
The intention was to create a category that brought together all the historical UK asylum buildingspurpose built between 1830 and ~1910. These being of a similar very distinctive design (actually there were just two design frameworks) and history of creation.
I have three issues with the current title:
Some of these asylums were not intended or used for psychiatric services, but instead were built as asylums for other conditions, such as learning difficulties, or epilepsy. As the buildings were of broadly the same design and age, it seems sensible to include them in this category as the aim is to link the buildings whose function was a place of safety and treatment rather than a condition.
Some of these buildings are also in Wales and others may be in Scotland, Northern Ireland and other UK islands too, so I feel this category should cover the whole of the UK where the building design and broad function is the same.
Alternatively we may consider that there is a need for a 'former psychiatric hospital category' as a separate categorisation.
Ianmurray5 (
talk) 16:05, 6 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Comment and request: the category is from 2009, that is quite a bit older than "a few years ago". Please provide a link to the discussion that you are unhappy with.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 17:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Response from Nominator: The original conversation may have been lost when the category was renamed.
Ianmurray5 (
talk)
It certainly seems to me like these are two completely different categories. I don't support changing the Former psychiatric hospitals in England category at all, since that implies that it's a psychiatric hospital, in England, no longer in use, whereas the nom seeks to group specific hospitals built during a specific time frame. We already have specific Scotland and Wales categories as well, if any of these hospitals are miscategorised they should be properly re-categorised, so we don't need to upmerge this to the UK.
SportingFlyerT·C 17:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Response from Nominator: I agree, my only reason for suggesting a change is that I proposed this in the first place in 2008, but my category name and use was subsequently changed by others to not mean my intention.
Ianmurray5 (
talk)
Oppose "asylum" has many meanings other than psychiatric hospitals.
Asylum is a disambiguation page, including churches, orphanages, and all sorts of things...
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 20:28, 9 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Response from Nominator: I agree my intention was for this to be an architectural style used for a period of time when perhaps 100 UK built asylum (hospital) buildings for psychiatry, learning disabilities, and others were built to one design with wards made from enlarged corridors, and with a later modification of stand-alone large houses or villas. I felt a category encompassing these similar buildings was a sensible addition, regardless of whether still standing, original use or current use. This style of building was not, as far as I am aware, used for churches, or orphanages. These groups of buildings usually included a church, a ballroom, farmland and other outbuildings (stables, blacksmith shops, laundries, etc. and were designed to be a place of safety and treatment for those suffering from a range of illnesses of the mind.
Ianmurray5 (
talk)
Oppose per above and also there is no article about asylums as an architectural style.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 20:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Procedural relist, was not properly tagged until today.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 07:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Response from Nominator: Yes, I think that this is the talk written after my creation of this category and subsequently removed/redesigned. I would be happy with a new category with a name that links this type of buildings together in the UK. Scroll down this page to see map images of this type of building.
The suggestion in the previous discussion to create an article with a list, instead of a category, is still valid.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:44, 22 June 2020 (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:Bristol buses
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 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:Boston Braves
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 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:Bobrek
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 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 family
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.
MER-C 18:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. This category is for the family of Canadian newspaper owner and fraudster
Conrad Black. Conrad isn't currently in the category, but even if he was added, there would still be only 4 pages. If kept, the category needs renaming (possibly to
Category:Black family (Canada)), because
Black family is highly ambiguous.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 06:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, noting that Conrad Black's family isn't even listed in the
Black family disambiguation page. bibliomaniac15 04:48, 24 July 2020 (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:Big Three
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 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:Aura
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.
Nominator's rationale: disambiguation. The bare word "Aura" is highly ambiguous, and this small video game series is definitely not the primary topic at the dab page
Aura. The convention of
Category:Video game franchises is to disambiguate with "(video game series)".
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 03:59, 22 June 2020 (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:Assumption
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.
Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation. The bare word is highly ambiguous: see the lengthy dab page
Assumption.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 03:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Renaming to
Category:assumption (reasoning)? Logic is too strict, and many of the existing subcategories do not belong under
logic, but would under
reasoning. The category was intended to be general/vague and applicable before logic and applies to other domains. For example, a particular framing of a problem for logical analysis - it is the framing that is an assumption outside logic. All the axioms of mathematics (and there can be conflicting ones) are assumptions, but in mathematics and not logic. Every discipline in science makes assumptions about how that discipline furthers knowledge, and epistemology, for example, has questioned whether philosophy has actually done so. The point is that these are much more than logic understood in the narrow sense. Even science itself progresses non-deductively, i.e, by assumptions to be empirically tested. Hence I propose reasoning in the larger sense. PS. The textual content of the category is a bit over long, so what is missing is a related main article such as
assumption (reasoning) or whatever the new name would be - but perhaps that is a problem for another day.
Dpleibovitz (
talk) 04:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
@
Dpleibovitz, I think that the distinction between "reasoning" and "logic" may be a little more precise than we need here, but I won't oppose "reasoning" if that's the consensus. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 06:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Rename to avoid ambiguity. I do not have a preference between the nominated and the alternative proposal.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:55, 22 June 2020 (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:Recipients of awards from the United States National Academy of Sciences
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.
MER-C 17:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)reply
A
City of Military Glory was a Soviet award for cities that showed courage during World War II. I was about to nominate this category for speedy deletion because we had already deleted it but, unbelievably, I was thinking of a different Soviet award for cities that showed courage during World War II. (That was
Hero City and we deleted the category
here.) Anyway, this award has the same problem: it categorizes cities that have existed for centuries/millennia for a five-year period. A specific war is defining of battlefields, but not typically whole cities. The contents of the category are already lisitifed
here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 00:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Keep. Perfectly acceptable category. You just can't say that something is non-defining because it only applies to something that happened briefly. That's like saying that winning an Oscar is non-defining because it only applies to a brief part of an actor's life. It's preposterous. The Hero Cities category shouldn't have been deleted either; looks like a no consensus result to me. --
Necrothesp (
talk) 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OCAWARD; winning these awards doesn't affect these cities nor defines them.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 21:43, 24 June 2020 (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.