April 21
Category:Friction stir welder
- 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:Friction stir welding experts. – Fayenatic London 18:23, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Friction stir welder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (or rename to Category:Friction stir welders?)
- Nominator's rationale: One of two things needs to happen here, but I'm bringing it to CFD for consensus because I'm not sure which. If there's a substantive reason to keep this, then it needs to be renamed to Category:Friction stir welders per our naming conventions for categories (they're supposed to be pluralized, not singular). However, with only five articles in this category and four in the parent Category:Welders (and little prospect for growth, since "welder" isn't an occupation for which most practitioners would ever get a Wikipedia article), I'm not convinced that we actually have any need to subcategorize welders by the particular type of welding they do. So, frankly, I think it should probably be deleted, with all contents upmerged to Category:Welders — but if it is kept then it must be renamed. Delete or rename? Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- rename? Upmerging is the wrong solution because none of the members are actually welders; they were research engineers who worked on developing the process. I am having considerable doubts that any of these articles should even exist (they read as memorials and were all created by the same user) but in any case having them as a category of "welders" is inaccurate. Seyasirt (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I conclude: Please rename instead of deleting this category. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 22:07, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Friction stir welders; alternatively merge up to Category:Welders. I note that the category title is "Friction stir welding experts", so that perhaps it should be Category:Friction stir welding experts, which would cover the metallurgists who investigate weld failures, but are not necessarily active practitioners. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Fayenatic London: I like Category:Friction stir welding experts. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 13:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge to welders. We aren't getting any benefit by dividing up such a small category. SFB 18:28, 26 April 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:Disasters of the illegal immigration to Italy
- 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:Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean Sea. – Fayenatic London 07:54, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Disasters of the illegal immigration to Italy to Category:UNKNOWN
- Nominator's rationale: Rename, badly named. Nor sure of a good target, but if one does not arise in the discussion, merge to Category:Shipwrecks in the Mediterranean. No matter what, the parent categories need cleaning up. Did all of these wrecks really occur in 3 countries? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggestions - Category:Human smuggling disasters? Category:Transport accidents and incidents related to human smuggling? Neutralitytalk 05:07, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, we already have a category, Category:Migrant boat incidents. Not sure if that is the most descriptive title. Neutralitytalk
- Suggestion Category:Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean Sea. I would also rename the parent from incidents to disasters - C2A to many of its articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I think those are both good suggestions. I'd be on board. Neutralitytalk 12:20, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I wonder from this discussion if the top of the tree should be Category:Human smuggling disasters, with the category being discussed here renamed to Category:Human smuggling disasters in the Mediterranean Sea to follow the name of that parent? I should add that the actual article is at people smuggling. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest merging to Category:People smuggling disasters, or perhaps a subcat Category:People smuggling disasters in the Mediterranean. "Sea" need not be added as there is no ambiguity. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Category:People smuggling disasters in the Mediterranean as the most clear and inclusive form. SFB 18:29, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Question: do we really need to make the category that specific, i.e. should the category only allow people-smuggling disasters? "Migrant boat disasters in the Mediterranean" sounds like a bit more inclusive. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Close the discussion as improperly started. Come back when you know what you want. (I have already seen such kind of closures). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:30, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? This is a discussion to determine a better name. This type of nomination is common here. What name would you prefer from the ones discussed? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:04, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Migrant Boating disasters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Migrant boat incidents in the Mediterranean or similar (i.e. change from "of Italy" to "in the Mediterranean" and from "disasters" to "incidents") and remove the Italy parent category tags. DexDor (talk) 19:34, 19 June 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:Killinaskully
- 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. delldot ∇. 17:59, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Contains itself, a list and a template. The template links to the same section repeatedly and has been nominated for deletion. If it is deleted that will leave just the title article and the list. If it is not deleted there will still only be the title article, template and list. It is not clear why this category should exist. Greykit (talk) 21:11, 21 April 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:Islamic dress (female)
- 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 as nominated. – Fayenatic London 21:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. More natural name, although something like Category:Islamic woman dress is also possible. Brandmeistertalk 18:39, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Not grammatical at all. Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Johnbod (talk) 02:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Brandmeister please add a suitable proposal for the sibling category Category:Islamic dress (male). It makes no sense to nominate one and not the other. – Fayenatic London 12:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Added, I wasn't aware of that category. Brandmeistertalk 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Cheers. It's generally useful to look up, down and around the category hierarchies before making a nomination. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alt rename to Category:Women's Islamic clothing. SFB 18:30, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: the sibling category is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 26#Category:Islamic dress (male). – Fayenatic London 10:24, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:Islamic dress and possibly purge. No other religion splits such categories by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support original proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 17 June 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:Witnesses of the Porajmos
- 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 12:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: What's the scope of this category supposed to be? Wouldn't anyone at a concentration camp where Romani were killed, whether inmate or guard, be a witness of the Porajmos? The creator is blocked for long-term abuse and sockpuppetry, though not on this subject, at a glance. --BDD (talk) 13:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- Porajmos means the Nazi holocasut against the gypsies. Some of the four articles do not even mention gypsies; others only do so in passing. Could we however find a useful category in Category:Trial Witnesses for Nazi genocide or something like that? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, got it, trial witnesses. The legal aspect wasn't clear to me. Category:Witnesses of the Armenian Genocide is better populated but similarly problematic, I think. The corresponding article Witnesses and testimonies of the Armenian Genocide, also doesn't seem to distinguish between witnesses in Wiktionary senses 2 and 3. If these categories are supposed to be for sense 2 (anyone who saw events), they're too broad to be useful. If they're supposed to be for sense 3 (legal witnesses), they need tightening, and perhaps renaming. --BDD (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, if we're going by trial witnesses, Porajmos doesn't mention any trials, and really makes a broader point that these killings have been historically overlooked. --BDD (talk) 14:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom and per BDD. For what it's worth, I just finished reading a fiction book about the Porajmos, written by Lindsay Hawdon, and in the appendix the author mentions as a fact that the Perajmos hasn't played a role in any post-war trials. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:20, 6 May 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:Eureka Seven characters
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Should be deleted
since there are only two entries in this category and they are both comfortably linked to each other from their respective articles. KirtZJ (talk) 12:55, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The category is now empty. It should be deleted. —KirtMessage 08:07, 15 May 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.
1900s short film 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: no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Simply unnecessary. The templates ((1900s-short-comedy-film-stub)) and ((1900s-short-drama-film-stub)) that feed these categories are useful, but they are leaving the parent categories virtually empty. There's simply not enough articles for these templates to warrant their own categories. They should be deleted, and the contents upmerged. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:52, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:1900s film stubs. The two nom categories have 28 articles between them, which is too small for a useful stub type, but too large for plain deletion. If there are (or should be) other parents, I would not object to a wider upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, if the articles for the two templates mentioned are umperged to the parent categories Category:1900s comedy film stubs and Category:1900s drama film stubs, then both would have more than 60 articles. The templates should also populate Category:Short silent comedy film stubs and Category:Short silent drama film stubs respectively. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep So what if the parent cat is almost empty? Each child cat has enough entries to justify having them. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:31, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Lugnuts, with all due respect, the threshold for creating new stub categories is usually 60+ articles. Category:1900s short comedy film stubs only has 56, which leaves Category:1900s comedy film stubs with only 11 articles, and no hope of being populated. Category:1900s short drama film stubs may have 70+ articles, but that leaves Category:1900s drama film stubs with only 12, and Category:Short silent drama film stubs with only 39 articles, again with no hope of being populated. No one is disputing the value of the templates that were created, but those templates simply do not need their own categories. Fortdj33 (talk) 19:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point to the policy that states the parent category has to meet a threshold? Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:16, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Upmerge. I'm not convinced that that the benefits of fine-grained reader-side stub categories outweigh their cost. Category intersection is a more effective way for editors to identify stubs in a particular topic (and there's also talk page stub categories). The costs include the CFD discussions that this parallel categorization scheme causes (example CFD). DexDor (talk) 06:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep - leaving the parents virtually empty isn't a problem, as the deep content counts. Since one of these categories has over 60, and the other is close (55 stubs), I see no reason to delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:08, 4 May 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:Spiders of Corsica
- 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:09, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: That a species (e.g. Titanoeca quadriguttata) is found in Corsica is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the species. Note: There is Category:Endemic fauna of Corsica. DexDor (talk) 06:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge – creatures endemic to Corsica should be placed in Category:Endemic fauna of Corsica. (I have not seen the point of dividing fauna categories into vertebrates and invertebrates either.) Oculi (talk) 10:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Support The endemic category suffices. I would support creating of endemic Corsica subcategories of these types if warranted. SFB 18:31, 26 April 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.