< January 27 January 29 >

January 28

Category:Singles certified sextuple platinum by the Productores de Música de España

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) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Singles certified sextuple platinum by the Productores de Música de España (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Being certified sextuple platinum by the Productores de Música de España is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the two songs (example) currently in this (unparented) category. An example of a CFD for a similar category is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_10#Category:Singles_certified_octuple_platinum_by_the_International_Federation_of_the_Phonographic_Industry_of_Norway DexDor (talk) 23:01, 28 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:Media not suitable for Commons

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Wikipedia files, Category:Wikipedia files moved to Wikimedia Commons which could not be deleted etc. See related discussion Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_18#Category:Wikipedia_media_files_with_subtitles. DexDor (talk) 22:39, 28 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:Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities

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) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Which associations/coalitions a university/college is a member of is generally a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic (many/most of the articles in this category do not mention this coalition in the article text, let alone in the lead). This category also incorrectly categorizes articles about institutions that are not in the U.S. (example). For info: This is part of a series of CFDs for membership of university associations (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_20#Category:Port-City_University_League). For info: there is a list at Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities#Membership. DexDor (talk) 22:35, 28 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:Catholic priests who spied for the Soviet Union

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) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose delete Category:Catholic priests who spied for the Soviet Union
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Little growth potential, since in the Soviet Union there weren't too many Roman Catholic priests. The one article in this category actually concerns a foreigner. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 00:50, 29 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:Transport in Telengana

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) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: spelling error Rsrikanth05 (talk) 20:18, 28 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:Articles for any kind of deletion

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) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one page in this category, which is not currently up for deletion. The proper maintenance category is Category:Articles for deletion. Clearly this category is not in use. Ivanvector (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Apoc2400: Thanks for commenting. Can we consider this a WP:G7 author-requested speedy delete? Ivanvector (talk) 17:12, 29 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:Online-only journals

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) 01:36, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created cat. This cat could have made sense 20 years ago, when there were only a handful online-only academic journals and many other journals did not even have a website yet. Currently, a majority of academic journals is online only and those that still have a print version are rapidly diminishing in number. As it is, this category can be expected to get thousands of members and I don't see how nowadays being "online only" is defining for any journal. Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The OP is confusing the existing Category:Online-only journals with an nonexistent Category:Online journals; everything that they said applies only to the latter, not to the former. The majority of journals is currently online+print and is likely to remain so, at least for the next decade. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I thought I was clear enough: currently a majority of journals is online only, no print. There may still be a handfull of journals that are print-only, but print is definitely on its way out.There are thousands of online-only journals. A part of them are in the DOAJ (only the OA ones, almost exclusively online-only journals, although a very few also have a print version) and that directory has already over 10,000 journals listed (not all of them notable, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Granted, there may thousands of online-only journals, but only a small fraction is notable, thus it's unlikely we'll have excessive members in that category at Wikipedia. In fact, Category:Online-only journals will serve us well in doing quality control, as the lack of a print version decreases the journal notability IMHO. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are navigational aids, not quality control tools. And if you think that only a small fraction of online-only journals is notable, you clearly need to familiarize yourself with modern academic publishing. All BMC journals are OA and almost all of those are notable, to mention just one example. Many large commercial publishers are abandoning print successively (Wiley-Blackwell, for example). Almost any journal established nowadays is online-online, hardly any new print journals (and no print-only journals) are being established any more. As it stands, this cat would already contain hundreds of our current batch of journal articles, possibly even thousands. Being online-only really is nothing special anymore nowadays and not a defining characteristic for any journal. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not just for the literary field, but for all fields. And, as I said above, this one will contain thousands of articles on scientific, social science, and humanities journals. That a small field (relative to all the others together, of course) is perhaps an exception should not be a reason to keep this. --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That also is a quite specialized field. As I said above, this cat will have thousands of members. Do you really think that is useful? Should we also create a cat for journals that have a print edition? --Randykitty (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Randykitty: Can you ask for an opinion from one of the science projects? I don't think Peterkingiron, Fgnievinski or I have the knowledge to confirm that online-only is common for prominent science-based journals. I always assumed Wikipedia categorisation was more the realm of science buffs, but you seem to have garnered the attention of humanities specialists instead. There is a huge difference in culture here – many humanities journals are still working off hard-copy submissions, let alone considering online-only (kind of a death knell for a humanity journal's reputation as it stands)! SFB 13:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll do that, good idea. I'm also pinging @DGG:, who's an expert academic librarian. --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 31 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:Persian-genre 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, clearly created by someone who doesn't understand the process, and populated by a stub tag that doesn't fit the standard naming conventions. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there are a few films that would qualify for a separate category, the stub tag ((Persian-genre-film-stub)) is inappropriate for several reasons. First of all, the icon for such a tag, should not be the movie poster for one of the films using the tag. Secondly, none of the other tags in Category:Film stubs by genre use the word "genre" in the name of the tag, and as Lugnuts points out, ((Persian-film-stub)) is already covered by the Iranian film category. And finally, there simply are not enough articles to warrant such a tag. Per WP:WSS/P stub categories should not be created until there is a significant number of articles (60+) that warrants a separate category. So, I understand your good faith effort here, but the tags and categories that you are creating for it are unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:59, 29 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:Iranian Capitals of Culture

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) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having once been an Iranian Capital of Culture is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of, for example Isfahan. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_30#Category:European_Capitals_of_Culture. DexDor (talk) 07:03, 28 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:Bays of Bridgend County Borough

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; merge contents as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge content to Category:Bays of Wales, "Category:Coast of FOO" and "Category:Bodies of water of FOO". These categories only have one article in them, unnecessary over-categorisation by a serial over-categoriser which hinders navigation. There are a finite number of these large bodies of coastal water so not much scope for expansion. Sionk (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the opportunity of adding Category:Bays of Conwy County Borough to the nomination (it has either been recently depopulated or I simply missed it). Some parts of the Wales coastline are riddled with small bays and coves, others (like Carmarthenshire and Cardiff) are not at all. Overall I'd be uncomfortable to upmerge all of the categories, though they seem to have a somewhat confusing overlap with categories such as the "Coast of FOOshire" series! Sionk (talk) 18:52, 29 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:Spits of Conwy County Borough

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) 02:39, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge content to Category:Spits of Wales and Category:Coast of Conwy County Borough. Considering the tiny number of spits on the Welsh coast (one so far) there's no need to give them each their own sub-category. Sionk (talk) 01:41, 28 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:Past Grand Muftis

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. MER-C 11:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. We don't subdivide categories for people into current/past or living/dead. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 28 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:Islamic extremist groups restricting education

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 11:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure that this is a good way to categorize groups. For starters, "restricting eduction" is a somewhat loaded term and could be interpreted in multiple ways. But in the end, I'm thinking that it's probably not a good idea to categorize groups by the details of their political or social aims, unless they are central to the raison d'être of the group. Ultimately, these groups' restrictions on education are means to an end, not the end itself. It's not defining for them, in other words. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 28 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:Opponents of Islamist terrorism

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 11:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Gosh, isn't pretty much everybody against Islamist terrorism, except for the Islamist terrorists themselves and a few notorious supporters here and there? Clearly, this is too broadly worded a category since it could reasonably encompass close to every current political office holder in many countries of the world. If we want it to be an activists category, I suppose it could be renamed to Category:Anti–Islamic terrorism activists or similar. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 28 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.
More