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. You may want to try again in a couple of years.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:11, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The general structure of everything is under "Africa" not "North Africa". Logically, for a parallel, look at Category:Roman amphitheatres in Spain. This would fall under Category:Ancient Roman buildings and structures in North Africa and then Category:Buildings and structures in North Africa and then Category:Visitor attractions in North Africa and a bunch of others. There is a category structure under Africa overall rather than North Africa. - Ricky81682 (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which is why I said the general structure. Looking at Category:Regions of Africa, there's also Central, East, Horn, West, Southeast, Southern, etc. In terms of buildings and structures and visitor attractions, it's done by the entire continent. It doesn't make sense that Roman amphitheaters will be the only thing within that structure. Are there any Roman amphitheaters in the other parts of Africa so this distinction is needed? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Oculi. I think we may well acknowledge that the history of North Africa has been quite different from the rest of Africa. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Surely this category structure is getting ahead of itself when we don't have Category:Roman amphitheaters? SFB 19:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Roman amphitheatres in North Africa to match the parent. British spelling vs. American, but the change is appropriate to match the parent as noted by Oculi above. Since Roman amphitheaters were not constructed in Africa except in the North, it's appropriate not to uplevel this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Roman amphitheatres in North Africa. Since this is not in America we should be using the British spelling, or possibly (since France was the colonial power in part of it) an anglicisation of the French spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, rename spelling only is fine. If they are all in North Africa, it seems a fitting name for the category. British spelling is probably okay, also. MicroPaLeo (talk) 03:53, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Split to reflect modern country location as do the Spain, France, Italy and United Kingdom categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Category:Language creators
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 per current article and parents. No comment on the benefits of creator vs. inventor. SFB 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The current term is 'constructed language', not 'invented language'. The latter was formerly used but is not current. I think it's better to use the term that matches current usage. However, I think there's no harm to having a redirect from one to the other, so that both work. --Sai¿?✍ 17:36, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Saizai: I can imagine that 'creators' or 'constructors' may be a better name than 'inventors'. Could you have the main article moved to the appropriate name? Because category names tend to follow main article names. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: What main article are you referring to / what change to it? (FWIW, I've never seen "langauge constructor" used; it's "constructed language" but "language creator".) --Sai¿?✍ 16:36, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per new name of main article - provided that the rename holds and is not being reverted by consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Seems reasonable to me. --Sai¿?✍ 03:08, 17 February 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:Rakkah 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 per the consensus that WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT apply here as does WP:OTHER. Note that the inter-wiki links to other language articles carry no weight in English Wikipedia discussions. Philg88 ♦talk 09:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:OVERLAPCAT (with Category:Libyan rabbis). The Libyan rabbis cat is just beginning to be expanded, but the Rakkah cat has no potential for expansion. Aside from the two Adadi articles, none of these people are notable enough or have adequate sourcing for an article on the English Wikipedia. I do not understand the addition of the family tree at all. Family trees are not even done on Judaism topic pages on the English Wikipedia, other than for Hasidic dynasties. Yoninah (talk) 22:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There are nine linked entries in the family tree. Admittedly, many of them are red links, but there appears to be sentiment to create these articles. The category creatory has added entries to the family tree that are not yet actually included in the category, but that's a clerical issue. And clearly, the family tree itself does not belong on the category page. (Perhaps a main page of Rakkah family or Rakkah (Hasidic dynasty) would be an appropriate place to include such a family tree?) WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both policies cited are applicable here. It's very small subset of an existing (sufficient) category. The family tree is a nice image, so perhaps it could be used in the 3 articles? In any case, the 3 articles can naturally link to each (when explaining the family) and be linked in See also. Kudos to whoever is writing these rabbinic biography articles. HG | Talk 01:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other stuff exists is not a valid deletion discussion. And I guarantee you that none of those redlinks will ever be expanded, because they are not notable by Wikipedia standards. Yoninah (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you don't know who is Rabbi Gavriel Rakkah, he is rabi and great researcher of libyan jewry.העורך היהודי (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I know who Gabriel Raccah is. But you do not understand the Wikipedia policy about notability. PLEASE READ IT! If there are not enough reliable sources to create an article about him, he is not "notable" on Wikipedia! Yoninah (talk) 17:43, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He wrote this book[1] and here there are here [2] two books that he wrote. העורך היהודי (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is enough for Category. I added links to pages in other languages. ציון הלוי (talk) 07:47, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:ציון הלוי, this is the English Wikipedia. Readers do not expect to click on articles in other languages when they come here. The links that you added also direct to pages that have no reliable sources and are therefore not notable according to Wikipedia standards, which is why the Hebrew pages were useless for me when I started the articles on Mas'ud Hai Rakkah, Abraham Hayyim Adadi, and Nathan Adadi. Yoninah (talk) 09:25, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Relisting comment:PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:58, 22 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 17:58, 22 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:Men and the arts
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 is a container category for two totally unrelated child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not seeing the value in this as constituted. No prejudice against recreation in the future if there's a genuinely useful purpose that I'm missing. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. contrived category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This appears to be a very sensible and broad topic that should be able to serve a navigational purpose. However, I'm having difficulty in conceptualising exactly how that would be created. A focus on arts with men or masculinity as a specific theme could be useful. SFB 21:48, 6 February 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:Kings of Arts
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: I'm not sure what this category is supposed to be, but I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia doesn't need it. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. According to the history, the user who created it did so with his own username included as a redlinked entry on the page, so I'm guessing either (a) misplaced Wikipedian category (not that it would be appropriate in that space either), or (b) dumb bit of vandalism. Bearcat (talk) 22:17, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & common sense. Not sure what this is supposed to group together... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pointless, parentless, and probably POV too. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:12, 8 February 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:Amateur radio repeater sites
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Amateur radio repeater sites (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is a classic example of creating a list using a category. The current contents include towers (e.g. CN Tower and Bremen TV tower), hills/mountains (e.g. Rigi, Gehrenberg and Melibokus) and other things (e.g. Darmstadt University of Applied Sciences) for which being a repeater station is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. In fact, many/most of these articles don't even mention the repeater - hence I don't propose to listify. DexDor (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. All the articles in the category are the sites of amateur radio repeaters. The reason why this is not mentioned in some articles is simply that I used information from German Wikipedia where the the articles in question are more developed and do mention the repeater site. Even if we remove those articles, many articles will still be left so I don't see a reason to delete the entire category. BTW have you notified the radio/comms community (of which I'm not one)? Hope that helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am a member of WikiProject Radio Stations, and I don't see being an amateur radio transmitter or repeater as being a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the sites. Being an amateur radio transmission site is not something that would get a geographic location or a structure into Wikipedia in and of itself, if no other substantive claim of notability could be made besides that — everything in this category is notable for something other than this, and being an "amateur radio repeater site" is just WP:TRIVIA that's irrelevant to its encyclopedic notability. But we don't categorize on every individual characteristic that a topic happens to possess — we categorize on WP:DEFINING, and onlyWP:DEFINING, characteristics of the topic. Delete per nom (listifying per SFB also acceptable.) Bearcat (talk) 22:51, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You may have misunderstood how the category is being used. These articles are notable in their own right as mountains or prominent structures. They also have amateur radio repeater stations as well. HTH. --Bermicourt (talk) 19:56, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't misunderstand how the category is being used; I specifically addressed your point in my explanation that "thing that's notable for X, but also happens to possess some other non-notable characteristic" is not the basis for a category on that secondary characteristic under Wikipedia's categorization rules. We categorize on characteristics that are WP:DEFINING — i.e. central to their notability — characteristics of the topic, not on every trivial characteristic that a thing happens to possess. Bearcat (talk) 20:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Not defining of the topic, but surely a citable fact that we can build a useful list from what's in the category. I do have to say that I think no categories should be placed on a page where there is no coverage of that fact (regardless of it's importance). We should be working on articles first. Categories are, in a way, just window dressing for the meat of articles. SFB 21:50, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category per nom, neutral on listifying. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 3 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:Bibliographies
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.
Keep one is for individual bibliographies, the other is for the class/topic of "bibliography" -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:11, 4 February 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:Plagiarism controversies involving Led Zeppelin
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.
Propose deletingCategory:Plagiarism controversies involving Led Zeppelin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: We should not have a category that depicts something negative towards a group of living persons without good reason. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 11:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep All of these articles come from the parent cat Category:Plagiarism controversies. How can you say "without good reason"? There obviously is good reason - there is an abundance of cases wherein Led Zeppelin plagiarized music. - Bossanoven (talk) 16:23, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:BLP carefully, specifically the part "It is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 16:52, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Plagiarism controversies. Or rather – remove all articles which are not controversies (all but one are songs, not controversies) and upmerge the controversy. Oculi (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "sensationlist". There were lawsuits brought against Led Zeppelin on this topic, and Led Zeppelin lost the cases. - Bossanoven (talk) 18:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There were no lawsuits involving "You Shook Me", so that should be removed from the category altogether. WorkArtMusic (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge proposal by Oculi. In addition, I would upmerge the controversy article to Category:Led Zeppelin. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. Nobody's arguing that the articles in question shouldn't be included in the general Category:Plagiarism controversies — but we do not need to subdivide that into separate subcategories for individual artists. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the article Controversy over Led Zeppelin songs, remove the individual songs from the category, and then delete. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 08:04, 4 February 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:Turtles as pets
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 per the previous discussion and the discussion before that. BencherliteTalk 11:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The "... as pets" categories are for articles about animals as pets (e.g. see Category:Cats as pets) not for articles about species (e.g. Striped mud turtle). We don't (currently) have any articles about turtles as pets (note: no objection to this category being created in the future if we do have a few suitable articles). See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_26#Category:Pet_Turtles (note: that category was created by the same user who is now blocked). DexDor (talk) 07:41, 3 February 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:Imperial Chinese dynasties
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:Dynasties in Chinese history. – FayenaticLondon 15:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category contains all Chinese dynasties, including the pre-imperial Three Dynasties (Xia, Shang, and Zhou). The name should be changed to match the scope. Zanhe (talk) 05:59, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would the scope expand to ethnic Chinese dynasties outside of China? -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:12, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This has the effect of removing the notion that these are ruling families. Any business or political families could reasonably be placed in the proposed name, though this problem is actually quite common at Category:Dynasties by country. Perhaps some reorganisation around "ruling dynasties of X" would be a better way forward? SFB 19:40, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In the context of Chinese history, dynasties always refer to the country or the period of rule, not any political or business family. If we want to eliminate any possible confusion, another alternative is Category:Dynasties in Chinese history, matching the article Dynasties in Chinese history. -Zanhe (talk) 20:11, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't entirely resolve my stated issue, but I'm happy to support a rename based upon the current article name. SFB 21:51, 6 February 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:American ethnic media
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, the merge having already been performed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:19, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:American ethnic media
Nominator's rationale: duplicate of Category:Ethnic media in the United States. Now an empty category, as I've moved the 6-ish pages to the latter category. Forbes72 (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The category isn't CFD-tagged. I've CSD-tagged it as empty. DexDor (talk) 07:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have re-tagged it with a link to this discussion. I don't think it's eligible for speedy, as it was emptied out of process, and neither category is newly-created. – FayenaticLondon 17:16, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, this category actually existed before Category:Ethnic media in the United States did — what happened is that Category:American ethnic media existed with the individual articles in it but no subcategories, and somebody else created Category:Ethnic media in the United States at a later date as a container for the subcategories without noticing that "American ethnic media" already existed. We definitely don't need both, but strictly speaking the target was the duplicate and this was the already existing category, not vice versa. But there's room for some debate here about which wording should be retained and which one should be categoryredirected, so we should let the discussion run for an appropriate length of time rather than speedying it either way. I'd personally prefer to retain Category:Ethnic media in the United States as the category, as it's more in keeping with our naming conventions for the media tree — we use Category:Radio stations in the United States rather than "American radio stations", Category:Television stations in the United States rather than "American television stations", Category:Newspapers published in the United States rather than "American newspapers", and on and so forth — so I support the merger as proposed and performed. That said, I still encourage the nominator to be more careful in the future not to empty categories out of process. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support "American" isn't an ethnicity, and the way this is formulated, it could be construed to mean "American" media outside of the United States. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:13, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dup; also "ethnic media" is a constrained concept do media have ethnicities (are we going down the path that there are Jewish companies, African-American companies, etc.) and how do we characterize a company as such (do they discriminate in favor of their ethnicity, is that what we are supposed to infer?) And then we have the problem of what is an "ethnicity"; in the United States, the census bureau only recognizes one: Latino/Hispanic. According to the US censue bureau: African-Americans are a race, not an ethnicity. Jewish-Americans are not separately counted (religions are not inquired about in the census). Italians, Germans, English, Scots-Irish, and the other European-Americans are not ethnicities either - so how would WP try to figure out what "ethnicity" a corporation is when we cannot find out what "ethnicity" owns it or constitutes its target market. Seems like racial profiling, which we ought not do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:17, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- It may be worth leaving the present category as a category redirect, to prevent inadvertent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 8 February 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.