< March 1 March 3 >

March 2

Category:Geo TV series

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 DavidLeighEllis (talk) 02:27, 30 March 2014 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is unnecessary. UBStalk 09:40, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Moved from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 25 § Category:Geo TV
Then I would say oppose because the category has two subcategories whose contents would not fit into Geo TV series. LazyBastardGuy 03:08, 27 March 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:Grasshopper-Club Zürich players

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) 22:43, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories C679 09:12, 2 March 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:Spiders by European country

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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:44, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
other categories created after CFD nomination

and any others created during the CFD discussion (Spiders of Vatican City ?)

Note: These categories have not been tagged; it seems unnecessary in this case and makes it harder to keep up with this editor who creates categories at a rate of approx one a minute for hour after hour

Nominator's rationale: If we categorized every genus/species of spider by every European country it has ever been found in we would have a lot of categories on a lot of articles. In practice, many of the articles about spiders don't have a comprehensive list of which countries the species has been found in (e.g. just saying "present in most of Europe") so any attempt at country-level categorization based on the article content is likely to be very haphazard (e.g. Category:Spiders of Metropolitan France currently only contains 10 articles). In a case like this it's better to have reasonably complete continent-level categorization than to have very incomplete country-level categorization (there are about 50 countries in Europe).
For info: The creator of these categories has been asked several times to avoid overcategorization (e.g. [1]), but is still creating categories at a prodigious rate (e.g. [2]) and created 3 more "Spiders of <country>" categories shortly after this CFD nomination (I've added them to the nomination).
For info: a CFD in 2007 resulted in a merge of European fauna by-country categories into a by-continent category, but the by-country categories were then re-created by a vandal/sockpuppet making edits like [3]; perhaps it's time to clear it out again (and salt?). DexDor (talk) 05:23, 2 March 2014 (UTC) Updated DexDor (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
!votes which make a bad faith accusation of 'wall of text' for what is in fact necessary detail and useful well structured background should be ignored on principle. That's my 2c.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:59, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Obi-Wan. Sometimes, a nomination benefits from a detailed rationale. Issues are not always super simple or super clear, so occasionally we will have a nominating statement that is longer than the average nominating statement. I don't see a problem with that, and there was certainly nothing gratuitously verbose about this particular nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:46, 5 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(voted above). Categories are a navigation aid. There are over 30 countries in Europe. I think that the fox occurs in all or most, and countries beyond Europe. Is it really appropriate for the article on the fox to have 30-50 national categories? This is a classic case of category clutter. If a species only occurs in one country, it might be appropriate to have a category for that. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I know my comment was long and rambling, but I essentially suggested that taxonomic articles with large distributions follow the principle of using the geographic category that fits best, whether that be continental for widely distributed species that truly are found in nearly all parts of the continent, regional for smaller distributions (in the way that we have Category:Flora of the Southeastern United States), or country/state/province categories for the finest scale if the species is found in only a few and wouldn't quite fit in the parent regional category. In that way it would truly be a hierarchy that wouldn't need diffusion to the smallest category. So while the red fox should be placed in continent categories, for the most part, the kit fox would be in regional categories for the southwestern United States and northern and central Mexico, and the cape fox would be in no more than five country categories in southern Africa. Rkitko (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain what the inclusion criteria on such a category would be? DexDor (talk) 06:38, 12 March 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:Chuvash dissidents

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:Russian dissidents and Category:Chuvash people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Chuvashia is part of Russia and this category only includes one person. Charles Essie (talk) 03:27, 2 March 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:Anti-Hinduism

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:40, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant cat, we already have Persecution of Hindus Darkness Shines (talk) 01:40, 2 March 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