< December 26 December 28 >

December 27

Category:Party of Regions (Ukraine)

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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:08, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale; per Party of Regions. Charles Essie (talk) 20:19, 27 December 2014 (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.

Cricket players by team

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 all. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 15:10, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Most of the contents of Category:Cricketers by team have the problem that the common team names align with a specific area as well, leading to confusion of the difference between, say, Category:Cricketers from Queensland and Category:Queensland cricketers. The proposed change will clearly delineate the separate team and geography concepts, and prevent confusion and ambiguity. In almost all circumstances, players are not limited to their home area team (e.g. a cricketer from Lancashire can play for any other county). In all cases I have used the main article title for the relevant club. I have not included any categories where an obvious team name is present (e.g. Category:Faisalabad Wolves cricketers‎) as these have no potential for confusion. SFB 17:19, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. If it ain't broke, don't fix it per User:AssociateAffiliate above. Furthermore, the proposal misses a key point. Patrons in the earliest known centres of cricket such as Sussex, Kent, Surrey, Hampshire, Berkshire, Essex and Middlesex used to promote first-class county teams before any formal club was ever instituted. The name of the county team sponsored by the Hambledon Club in the 1770s was Hampshire, same as the one sponsored by Hampshire County Cricket Club in the 2010s. When we set up these categories several years ago, we decided to incorporate, for example, all Hampshire first-class players in Category:Hampshire cricketers. There is no difference in status between John Small and Malcolm Marshall: they both played first-class cricket for a team known as Hampshire which represented the traditional county of Hampshire. The scenario is repeated across several English counties and I have no doubt it is equally applicable to Australian states, West Indian islands and so on. The proposal has not been thought through and it just doesn't stand up against the sound reasoning used by WP:CRIC members when the categories were originally created. Jack | talk page 17:03, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, don't see how this can go any further. Can we close it now? Jack | talk page 16:50, 1 January 2015 (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 by gender

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are needlessly small pure-navigation categories. No reason why the parents cannot happily contain the two men/women categories directly with the rest of the content. Note that where a topic covers more than just the men/women gender binary, the navigational grouping is more useful (e.g. the main parent Category:People by gender). SFB 17:00, 27 December 2014 (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 from Meaford, Staffordshire

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small hamlet with just 2 entries. ...William 16:19, 27 December 2014 (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:Songs written by Richard Colburn

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:01, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains one redirect. No navigational use. Richhoncho (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2014 (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:Foundry Type Foundries

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:Letterpress font foundries (implementing obvious capitalization and pluralization fixes). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Foundry Type Foundries to Category:Letterpress Font Foundry
Nominator's rationale: We have a Category:Type foundries which does not specify whether it is a digital foundry or letter-press foundry. We have Category:Foundry Type Foundries which specifies that it not include digital/virtual foundries thus being the exact same as Category:Cold Type Foundries. The title of both of these categories does not make a lot of sense, I believe the accurate definition for a non-digital font foundry would be a letterpress font foundry that makes letterpress type characters for a printing press. David Condrey log talk 01:44, 27 December 2014 (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:Font Bureau typefaces

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 2015 JAN 15 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category merged with article Font_Bureau. David Condrey log talk 01:37, 27 December 2014 (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:Ifremeria

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Extreme case of WP:SMALLCAT: a genus with only a single described species (source), thus requiring multiple extraneous steps to navigate to the article. Adequately categorized in Category:Provannidae --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:34, 27 December 2014 (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:Alviniconcha

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only 6 described species in the genus Alviniconcha (until recently only a single described species) and all are currently redirects to the genus article, per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Gastropods#Proposal:_all_Alviniconcha_species_in_one_article this discussion. I might further add that every taxonomic group need not warrant a unique category. --Animalparty-- (talk) 01:26, 27 December 2014 (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:Left-wing parties in Algeria

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed deletion: Category:Left-wing parties in Algeria
Nominator's rationale: This category only contains one subcategory and no pages. It's redundant and serves no useful purpose. Charles Essie (talk) 00:33, 27 December 2014 (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:Unverified supercentenarians

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. After the bot works, someone should check to cleanup any articles that are in another subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm adding in verified supercentenarians because this is not a useful distinction. This is basically WP:Cherrypicking where editors are categorizing based on some sources (namely www.recordholders.org which is NOT a reliable source). The categories really should be Category:Supercentenarians verified by X (which I presume to be the Gerontology Research Group) based on the creator of these categories. As to unverified, if a person isn't verified, then that's a WP:FRINGE theory that the person lived to be at least 110 years old and why should they be included here at all? We wouldn't have a category of "People who claim to be Doctors but this is unverified", those would just be removed as unverified claims. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:16, 27 December 2014 (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.
More