< July 20	July 22 >

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) 04:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Holidays and observances by frequency (once)
Propose renaming Category:Holidays and observances by frequency (annual) to Category:Annual holidays and observances
Propose upmerging Category:Holidays and observances by frequency to Category:Holidays

Nominator's rationale: The first category doesn't contain a single article on a singular event – the three events are annual. For the second one, correct the weird, non-standard category titles – it shouldn't be a hidden category though. Thirdly, the container category is superfluous. --PanchoS (talk) 23:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support but the "once" items appear all to be annual and should be merged to the new Category:Annual holidays and observances. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. While there may be exceptions, a yearly frequency is a far too common characteristic of holidays and observances to categorize by this aspect separately. I wouldn't have a problem with exception categories (e.g. quarterly or biannually) if there are enough holidays with such frequency. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per Marcocapelle. Just about every holiday is annual, which makes this WP:OVERCAT. -- Tavix ^(talk) 20:13, 11 September 2016 (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.

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. A broader discussion of whether Category:Periodicals and its subcats should be Category:Periodical literature could be held. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Publications by frequency to Category:Periodicals by frequency

Nominator's rationale: Only periodicals may be grouped by frequency, so let's be more precise here. PanchoS (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wouldn't call Whitaker's Almanack a periodical although it comes out once a year. There are many yearbooks for which the word "publication" probably applies better than "periodical". Anyway, the whole matter is completely unimportant and so the outcome is of no consequence. Thincat (talk) 09:43, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Thincat: Per periodical literature, yearbooks such as the mentioned Whitaker's Almanack are indeed periodicals. An alternative, almost equally precise rename target would be Category:Publications by periodicity, but that would still include publications with a periodicity of n=1. Is it unimportant? Well, compared to the nominations of Category:Men with beards or Category:Floodable underpass it is less relevant, but still, lots of minor improvements contribute to consistency and precision of our categorization system. --PanchoS (talk) 11:04, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't doubt they can be called periodicals (and I saw the reference you point out). However, where I live (UK) I don't think such things are called periodicals though to call them that would not be regarded as incorrect. I don't understand n=1. What units are you using? Thincat (talk) 11:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If renamed, Category:Periodical literature by frequency may be more precise, per main article. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2016 (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.

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. A broader discussion of whether Category:Periodicals and its subcats should be Category:Periodical literature could be held. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Defunct publications to Category:Defunct periodicals
Category:Defunct publications by country to Category:Defunct periodicals by country
Category:Defunct publications of France to Category:Defunct periodicals of France
Category:Defunct publications of Turkey to Category:Defunct periodicals of Turkey
Category:Defunct publications of the United Kingdom to Category:Defunct periodicals of the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Publications include monographies and other non-periodicals that by definition cannot be "defunct". On the other hand, websites could be considered publications, too. Together with defunct TV and radio stations, they are however already covered by the parent category Category:Defunct media.
It therefore makes sense to slightly narrow the scope so it both better describes the actual content and is clearly distinguished from its parent category Category:Defunct media. While a redirect from Category:Defunct publications should be kept, additional redirects for the (few) child categories seem superfluous. PanchoS (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

SupportRathfelder (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Useful clarification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per discussion in the nomination above, we might use the term periodical literature instead of periodicals in the category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support JarrahTree 10:09, 2 August 2016 (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.

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 the hyphenated ones and merge/rename the non-hyphenated ones to include the hyphens. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: In WP's articles for professional boxing weight classes, the ones with two words do not contain a hyphen. I propose a mass category rename for consistency. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 21:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC) Individual nominations combined by PanchoS (talk) 22:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose in American English when a two-word phrase is used as an adjective it is hyphenated. So with the hyphens is proper English on this side of the Pond, and there is no overriding reason to change WP:ENGVAR. The reason the articles aren't hyphenated is that they don't contain "boxer" and hence are nouns not an adjectival phrase. (see this and this, and even our own article on the matter Compound_modifier#Hyphenation_of_elements. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have no objection to that. What needs to be done subsequently is for every two-word category (including the anomalous Category:Super middleweight boxers) to include the hyphen, and for several thousand articles to point to the hyphenated categories accordingly. Right now it's all over the place, so a bot will be needed for that. Could it be arranged? Mac Dreamstate (talk) 15:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whoever closes the discussion can do that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm British (and rather a long-standing one!) and I don't regard the hyphen as an Americanism. Am I mistaken? Thincat (talk) 10:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

British too. There was an extensive discussion regarding hyphenation of weight classes here, which resulted in a consensus that U.S. media used no hyphens, whereas the rest of the world does. Therefore the hyphen (in the case of boxing weight classes) definitely isn't an Americanism—quite the opposite. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural note: @Mac Dreamstate: Please nominate the non-hyphenated ones as part of this nomination and tag them accordingly so the discussion can proceed as deciding whether to go with hyphens or no hyphens (or whether the inconsistency should stand). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:20, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Like this?

Propose renaming:

I think that's all of them. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 18:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for hyphens all-round Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 8 August 2016 (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.

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) 22:14, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Superheroes by animated series to Category:Animated superhero television series

Nominator's rationale: Categories are redundant, but Animated superhero television series is the more logical name. JDDJS (talk) 20:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The articles in this category are about series about superheroes, not about superheroes themselves. Some child categories may need to be purged insofar they are about superheroes but not specifically in a series. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 29 July 2016 (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.

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) 04:31, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Wonder Woman television series and Category:Animated Wonder Woman television series to Category:Wonder Woman in other media

Nominator's rationale: There has only been one Wonder Woman TV series. The rest are just TV shows that Wonder Woman was a character in. It is unnecessary. JDDJS (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ido see this as something, but ido feel like it's a TV series. Lg16spears (talk) 20:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Animated Subcategory As the nominator points out, WW is only a character of the Category:Animated Wonder Woman television series articles so I don't think it's defining. (No objection to merging the parent category until it can get up to 5 or so articles.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the animated subcategory to Category:Animated superhero television series and possibly nominate siblings like Category:Animated Superman television series for merger into it. The fact that multiple superheroes are characters in these series is defining. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support merging Category:Wonder Woman television series although I wonder if the (name of the) target category is ideal, with "other" in it. But let's leave that for another time. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 28 July 2016 (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.

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) 04:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ukrainian-Polish culture in Lwów Voivodeship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: An orphan category, populated with one article, about a football club. Rathfelder (talk) 19:44, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- The question is really how places that were in Russia until WWI, then in Poland to 1939, then in Ukraine should be categorised to reflect the changes in political boundaries. The one article concerns an amateur club: is it significant enough to need an article? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2016 (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.

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) 22:07, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Miami Fusion F.C. to Category:Miami Fusion

Nominator's rationale: Article name is Miami Fusion Joeykai (talk) 17:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- It is the article name that needs changing: this is obvious from the logo. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename CFD is never the place for a RM discussion. If the article is changed, we can speedy rename the category back. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, article name probably has been chosen like this to avoid confusion with Miami FC. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2016 (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.

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:North Yorkshire geography stubs. – Fayenatic London 13:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:York geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is no longer a valid stub category. Only about 20 articles, and a few of those on the line for advancement to Start. Propose deleting this category, and migrating the template to Category:North Yorkshire geography stubs. Dawynn (talk) 17:56, 21 July 2016 (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.

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:Films directed by Silambarasan. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Films directed by Silambarasan Rajendar (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The subject (Silambarasan) has directed only one film and has announced no more. Should this category stay, it should be renamed "Films directed by Silambarasan" to match the subject's article name. Kailash29792 (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename per WP:FILMCAT - "A category for a director's films should be created even if they have only directed one film (irrespective of whether they are likely to direct more in the future), providing that the director already has an article." So this should be kept and renamed to match the main article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:08, 21 July 2016 (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.

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 category for now, without prejudice to re-creating it if Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Noongar-stub shows that the stub template is used on sufficient pages. Also, add all talk pages of the member stub pages to WikiProject category Category:Stub-Class Noongar articles. (

Done) Although the discussion shows a strong divergence of views, some comments wanting to keep the nominated category seemed to think that classification for the WikiProject, Category:WikiProject Noongar articles by quality, would be affected. This is not the case. The WikiProject categorisation works on talk pages, and is independent of categories on the article pages. I will keep the template, but upmerge the category to both parents, for indigenous people and Western Australia stubs. I will also tag the talk pages with the WP Noongar code (nys=yes) where needed. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Noongar stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A thorough search through the permanent category yielded about 20 stub articles -- well shy of the minimum for a stub category. Combining this with parent Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs will make a comfortably-sized category of a little over 100 articles. Propose deleting the Noongar category, and upmerging ((noongar-stub)) to Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs. Dawynn (talk) 12:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose - the noongar stubs are linked to the Noongarpedia project and should not be touched as the project is in stages of development, and any sense of minimum has nothing to do with a developing project. JarrahTree 14:17, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is the Noongarpedia project? and how are the noongar stubs linked to it? DexDor^(talk) 21:53, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd guess Wikipedia:WikiProject Noongar but you are talking about 60 articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:11, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

no its something more like 100,000 articles it just a big whole of information thats being addressed Gnan garra 00:22, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So what is the Noongarpedia project? Noongarpedia and Wikipedia:Noongarpedia are both (currently) redlinks. DexDor^(talk) 04:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Its an outreach project in conjunction with Wikimedia Australia and Noongar community to improve content related to Noongar country, people, culture and language. For articles related to Noongar this is the top level category, the Indigenous people and Western Australia are related but neither is a direct parent category Gnan garra 06:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you provide a link to the outreach project's page (e.g. on Meta). Re this is the top level category: which category are you referring to - Category:Noongar stubs? DexDor^(talk) 06:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is meta:Noongarpedia. I see nothing that indicates a reason to change my views on the matter. Nothing has been created (and Category:Draft-Class Noongar articles would be the initial start to me) but nevertheless, if the separate template is kept and there's evidence in the future that the number of template calls indicate that Noongar stubs are significant, then the template can redirected back into a separate category again. Until then, I see no reason for the vehement overreaction to moving the location of a set of stubs, especially when they already exist in another location by the WikiProject. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

- reply - there is no good reason why noongar project stubs should be subsumed into the indigenous project stubs - they are separate projects JarrahTree 10:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - And Algeria is separate from Tanzania but both sets of boxing stubs, as one of hundreds of examples, have separate templates but are stored together at Category:African boxing biography stubs. I understand perfectly. You're complaining about the WikiProject categorization on the talk page and ignoring that we are talking about the stub sorting organization on the main page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:20, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose makes as much sense as deleting ((Welsh stubs)) and merge it with ((Indigenous people of Europe)). Noongar is a Country and a people, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Noongar Gnan garra 23:38, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support deleting the category but keeping the template which I think is the proposal here. The other stubs are located in Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs so I don't see what's wrong with merging the stub category together since it doesn't seem like there's any interest in deleting the template itself. The project can still tag itself to the individual articles both on its own and by just following the template. I wonder if these should be handled by discussion at Template talk:Noongar-stub rather than CFD in the future? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:03, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- you do realise that the articles arent all about people Gnangarra 00:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - The stub articles? Ok but they are about a group that is an indigenous people of Australia, correct? So why would it be wrong for this template to populate Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs since those are also stubs related to indigenous peoples of Australia and also aren't about people as well? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - somewhere somehow you seem to be missing the point. The noongar project is separate from the indigenous project - they are not mutually interchangeable despite what you or the proposer seem to assume JarrahTree 10:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - becuase the Noongar isnt solely about people its about a country, places within that country, organisations and culture putting that all in a people category isnt appropriate. Gnangarra 13:52, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - I believe you're interpreting the word "people" to mean individuals; the phrase "peoples" is used here to refer to a group of people sharing some ethnicity, geography, and/or culture in common. No one is proposing moving the articles to a biographical category for individuals. Her Pegship (talk) 18:47, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reply and clarify strong oppose - xfd is not a process for project space - I have never seen such idiocy on xfd pages. A specific merge to indigenous australia stubs is absurd. To even consider playing with a wikiproject should have had this proposal thrown out, before it even started. The fact that it continues this far is an insult to a specific project and total misunderstanding of the issues relating to project space. The proposers really should take stock of what they are dealing with here. I know there is a general deliberate studied ignorance of project maintenance on wikipedia, and the importance of the stub system, but this proposal is ridiculous. Any xfd partipant who allows themselves to even consider playing with components of project space really should recuse themselves from xfd processes until they get a better understanding of project mechanics. To look at the components of a specific discrete project and measure it in terms of a minimum, and to upmerge to be part of another project really has such a misunderstanding of what projects are, I would ask for this proposal to be summarily abandoned in WP:AGF

For any none the wiser look at [1] - Western Australia, Noongar, and Indigenous are 3 separate specific projects, and not subsumable into each other in any way at all JarrahTree 00:57, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be very confused. For example you refer to a wikiproject and project space, but this discusson is about a category containing articles (not talk pages or pages in Project namespace). DexDor^(talk) 04:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It sclear to me that Jarrahtree isnt confused but that he recognises that the lack of current content means that full project and namespace category trees arent yet a reasonable out come, the specifically over lap. Gnan garra 06:19, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am not in the slightest confused. A limited understanding of projects has encouraged a nominator to propose a move between projects stubs that should not be moved between them. Whatever space - project, stub or whatever JarrahTree 06:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it seems like a proposal to move a separate category created as part of a stub template. The WikiProject has no relationship to the stub categorization. The project should (and does) cover not just stubs. The project already has Category:Stub-Class Noongar articles which is entirely separate from this template and from category. And I have no zero idea what you are talking about because stub categories are regularly discussed at CFD. "Project" categories are also regularly discussed here as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough I can see you are simply not getting it - I repeat - the proposer is offering a proposal to move noongar project stubs into a different project. I object, on the basis of the projects being separate/different - what is hard to understand about that? JarrahTree 10:09, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with this category discussion here. If you want to propose a drastic change and to move out a 65-article project out on its own, first quit attacking everyone here as ignorant buffoons for some reason and actually propose that where it belongs. He's proposing that the stubs be moved to a different category since there's only about 20 stubs on that page. And whether or not the WikiProjects are different has no relationship to how the stub are sorted.There's no even a propose to delete the separate stubs, just move them into a single category, something more like what's done for all the various template for African boxing biography stubs (other than South Africa) being consolidated in Category:African boxing biography stubs and each one of those countries is a different subpart of the same WikiProject. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:18, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For your info from what I have observed, xfd territory is usually a closed shop where most proposers rarely ever go to places other than the specific item. People who inhabit the territory have tended to be the same over the last decade. Whether they have upped their game it's your choice to champion them, fine. I still say that where the noongar stubs are stay there and are left alone. simple. but you and others may wish to offer contrary opinions, thats your option JarrahTree 10:23, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No one is arguing to delete the stubs. We are arguing about whether the category where the stubs are located is needed. The stubs will still remain and the project can separately identify them. The amount of hostility you are expressing is not helpful here given what seems like an complete misunderstanding of what is being discussed here. I still haven't figured out how any of this would affect any Noongarpedia project other than the fact that everyone seems to just ignoring what we are talking about and advocating a method that no one else would possibly think is practical. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updated I have been populating the category but real life calls, Gnangarra 14:46, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok but while you are adding stub tags the WikiProject still isn't included. The project should be the real focus, not knowing a random assortment of pages that need work to be expanded. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:32, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category & upmerge template per nom and Ricky81682. Folks keeping track of these articles on behalf of the Noongarpedia project can use some other way to do so without using stub templates and categories - for example, project talk-page banners. As this is a discussion about Wikipedia and its procedures, any interpretation of the nature and/or content of the category/articles and their use in the Noongar project is not relevant here. Her Pegship (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both template and category. Sure, the category is stilk a little undersized, and I'm not sure about the validity of its recent large expansion; many of the articles there do not yet mention Noongar. However, the nom's proposed merge target of Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs is clearly inappropriate for set which includes so many non-biographical articles.
I think that some of Gnangarra's concerns are misplaced, and the project's goals would be much better served by use the WikiProject banner and its classification options. Hopefully someone will help show them how to get more of that technique.
But -- and it's a BIG but -- the technical case for deletion overlooks the real issue here, which is not technical. We have a group of people working on an area where en.wp has a long-standing systemic weakness: indigenous people. They are evidently still getting off the ground, and still find this stub type helpful in their work. This stub type isn't content, it's metadata ... and relaxing the technical criteria on metadata seems to me to be a very modest step to helping the people doing this valuable work rather than leaving them feel that they are being undermined.
So please, just give em a break. If you can give them a hand too, that'd be even better ... but at least don't impede them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in reply to "the nom's proposed merge target of Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs is clearly inappropriate for set which includes so many non-biographical articles" - Once again, just clarifying that in terms of Wikipedia category nomenclature, "people" and "peoples" aren't really synonymous. Category:Indigenous Australian people refers to individuals, and Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia refers to ethnic groups. So any concern over the biographical content of articles in Category:Indigenous peoples of Australia stubs is irrelevant to this discussion. Her Pegship (talk) 16:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the stub category is about articles related to one specific subject area Noongar, Noongar covers a large area and it crosses over many subject areas the up merge isnt appropriate because it scatters the content where as this point is the highest focal point for that subject area and because the numbers are low other narrower focal points people, places, language etc arent appropriate. In an ideal world the category should be emptied and deleted but wikipedia is a work in progress. While others have argued about project specific issues and I've answered some of those questions. Some of the articles I tagged have vague references through the use of Aboriginal, or Indigenous rather than specifying Noongar but thats another symptom of the lack of information being included through various issues from ignorance to outright racism. Gnan garra 00:40, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know whether deleting and upmerging ((noongar-stub)) is the correct approach, but I don't think that tagging of articles with ((noongar-stub)) is appropriate when the article does not specifically mention Noongar at all. (example: [2]) In particular such categorization appears contrary to WP:CAT#Articles:

Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories.

It would probably be helpful if editors adding ((noongar-stub)) to such articles (that don't mention Noongar or Indigenous people at all) would also add at least a short sentence to the article, mentioning the Noongar people and their connection to the article subject. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is a little small for a stub category, but if there is an active project to address this (as stated), it will be useful to them to have it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the category and upmerge the template. No stub categories are designed specifically for one project - they are intended to be used by general editors across Wikipedia. @Gnangarra: there is no reason why the Noongar project should not do what the vast majority of WikiProjects do and use talk-page templates. These are much more useful to any project that stub categories, as they can classify articles not just as stubs, but grade them in other ways according to their level of !completion and their importance to the project. It would be easy to modify a template such as ((WikiProject Ethnic groups)) for this project. Grutness...wha? 01:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- talk about racism Noongar editors arent considered general editors Gnangarra
  - You're either deliberately or inadvertently misinterpreting something fairly straightforward that has NOTHING to do with "race" or "racism". The distinction is made between editors who curate across the content of the wiki in general, as differentiated from those who are invested in a specific area. It wouldn't matter if it was a project about linguistics, or engineering, or some other area of the world. So the above statement is not only inaccurate, but made in bad faith. Her Pegship (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Gnangarra: "General editors" refers to any editors not involved in a WikiProject, irrespective of that project's subject. I have offered you a way of categorising your projects articles which is far more effective than the use of stub types, and you answer by insulting me and my motives. Please remember that civility is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Grutness...wha? 01:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears rather pointy that the person who proposed this be deleted has started reclassing Noongar stubs as start class[3] Gnangarra 02:23, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How is it wrong to reclass articles that have bypassed the stub stage as start-class? You should be happy that your project's articles are receiving enough attention to reach the higher classes. The more important problem for the Noongar WP is that, in the rush to fill the stub category, editors are not adding any appropriate Noongar permanent categories, and no one is adding appropriate Noongar project notices to the talk pages. That's where the Noongar WP needs to focus its activities: add the permanent categories, and the talk page headers for your project. The Stub Sorting project allows for a category to have a minimum of 30 articles, if it is the main category for a WP. But that should be an *honest* 30 stubs -- not including downgraded start-class articles tagged as stubs just to fill the minimum. Dawynn (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - yep at any one day it could be above or below a specific number so it appears rather pointless taking a snap shot of any one day to decide if a category has enough entries. That by having such a specific number in place means that the category must be populated above that the whole time when the aim is to improve content yet we argue about deleting categories that facilitate purpose. 203.59.100.24 (talk) 02:14, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - stub categories tend to rise in size and then drop as the stubs are improved. If the size of this category is dropping, which it appears to be, it is a definite indication that it has outlived whatever purpose it had. This is ehy snapshots over several days, some time apart are very useful. It is also why it is far more useful for individual projects to have their own system of keeping track of all articles, as previously explained. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment appears rather "pointy" that one of the above users is prone to misunderstanding many salient points of this discussion, not to mention assuming some kind of negative bias on the part of those who support deletion. Her Pegship (talk) 17:49, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is it common for people of a particular ethnicity to be dumped into "ethnicity stub" categories? Or is this being done just to show some critical mass? Others are at "Fooish biography stubs" so at least someone who is interested in biographies or that wikiproject could hope to find them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:24, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it's done so that people who are interested in small "stub" biographies articles of a particular ethnicity can find them. In the alternative, the WikiProject is going to be broader set of articles (beyond biographies for example) and should not be concerned only about stubs but in start class/C/B/A/GA/FA articles. The amount of anger and personal attacks is unwarranted for such a minor issue here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category, with the understanding that it can be recreated if/when there are enough stubs (around 60) tagged correctly with the stub tag. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:18, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category per above discussion, and before the template is upmerged the Noongar stub tag should be removed from geographical articles in this category which are clearly not about Noongar (or about indigenous people in general). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since this is needed for Noongarpedia and per concerns that the category is still in a developing stage. -- Tavix ^(talk) 17:26, 16 September 2016 (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.

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Gouvernment ministers of Switzerland to Category:Members of the Swiss Federal Council

Nominator's rationale: Duplicate, using non-English spelling. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom Jason from nyc (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2016 (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.

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) 22:12, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Al-Wahda S.C.C. to Category:Al Wahda FC
Propose renaming Category:Al-Wahda FC (Abu Dhabi) players to Category:Al Wahda FC players
Propose renaming Category:Al-Wahda FC (Abu Dhabi) managers to Category:Al Wahda FC managers

Nominator's rationale: The official website mainly refers to the club as Al Wahda FC. Other countries have clubs called Al-Wahda SC etc, but this seems to be the only one currently called FC, so there is no need to append "(Abu Dhabi)" to disambiguate. This is not eligible for speedy renaming, as I only just moved the page without discussion. – Fayenatic London 08:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2016 (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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Chinese-owned football clubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: over-categorization. Matthew_hk t c 07:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Matthew_hk t c 07:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not needed, overcat. Giant Snowman 07:30, 22 July 2016 (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.

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. --BDD (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:16th-century establishments in Iran to Category:16th-century establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:17th-century establishments in Iran to Category:17th-century establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1600s establishments in Iran to Category:1600s establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1602 establishments in Iran to Category:1602 establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1604 establishments in Iran to Category:1604 establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1606 establishments in Iran to Category:1606 establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:17th century in Iran to Category:17th century in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1600s in Iran to Category:1600s in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1602 in Iran to Category:1602 in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1590s establishments in Iran to Category:1590s establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1610s establishments in Iran to Category:1610s establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1620s establishments in Iran to Category:1620s establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1630s establishments in Iran to Category:1630s establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1650s establishments in Iran to Category:1650s establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1660s establishments in Iran to Category:1660s establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1670s establishments in Iran to Category:1670s establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1680s establishments in Iran to Category:1680s establishments in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1590s in Iran to Category:1590s in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1610s in Iran to Category:1610s in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1620s in Iran to Category:1620s in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1630s in Iran to Category:1630s in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1650s in Iran to Category:1650s in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1660s in Iran to Category:1660s in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1670s in Iran to Category:1670s in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:1680s in Iran to Category:1680s in the Safavid dynasty
Propose renaming Category:Years of the 17th century in Iran to Category:Years of the 17th century in the Safavid dynasty

Nominator's rationale: Also including the subcategories here but obviously Iran didn't exist in the 17th century. The region at that time was covered by the Category:Safavid dynasty which has a preexisting category and could use a history subcategory and structures from there. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Iranian categories should have long been renamed and thanks for bringing this up. The only thing is perhaps wording "in dynasty" is an awkward English, perhaps "in Safavid Iran" could be better.GreyShark (dibra) 20:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:17th-century establishments in the Safavid Persia per User:Peterkingiron is the best option.GreyShark (dibra) 05:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, we name categories like these after a country, not after a dynasty. Safavid Iran is better, but simply Iran is best. Compare to Category:16th-century establishments in France, it is not Category:16th-century establishments in the Valois dynasty. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Do we name them about the current country though? There's numerous other discussions that delete based on the fact that the country didn't exist then. Safavid dynasty is titled "Safavid Dynasty of Persia" so perhaps 17th-century establishments in Persia or in Safavid Iran as suggested or Safavid Empire as used here but I see no reason to use "Iran" which unlike France did not actually exist during this time period. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There has been yet a final ruling on category policy regarding anachronistic category namings, however in specific discussions we have mostly reached a consensus that modern country names and modern borders should not be applied anachronistically.GreyShark (dibra) 05:49, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Iran is far from anachronistic, per Iran#Etymology. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:17th-century establishments in the Safavid Persia, etc. A dynasty is a succession of people. Things might be established by members of the family or by their subjects. It is clear that the country ruled by the dynasty was rather larger than the present Iran. Persia was the common English name for then country at that period. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iran has been the term used in Iran for millenia. There is no reason to slavishly follow English conventions of the past when they reflected little to no understanding of the people in power there. Iran is the acceptable name for the Empire at the time, and there is nothing gained from being too precise in naming the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:36, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mild Oppose/Keep and Comment - I tend to prefer using modern names over historical purity just because it makes categories much easier to predict when you don't know exactly what you're looking for, and much easier for bots to operate. Just as a FYI, there are members of Category:1610s establishments in Iran through to Category:1660s establishments in Iran although the categories themselves haven't been created yet.Le Deluge (talk) 02:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting. I've created the both categories now. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By "through to" I meant 1620s, 1630s etc. In fact I've just bumped into them as red links in a database report I was clearing and I've created the missing ones from 1590s to 1680s for "in Iran" and "establishments in Iran" and added them to the list above which I assumed would be uncontroversial, as well as tagging the ones you made with this CFD.Le Deluge (talk) 19:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Contrary to some comments this is not a modern vs. historical debate. This is a question of whether we should blingly follow the western naming conventions of the time, or instead reflect the internal names of the place in our categories. The later would suggest the Iranian categories. In the same way, an article on someone born in 1695 should say he was born in Istanbul, not Constantinople, because Istanbul became the name to the inhabitants in the 1450s, even if people in Western Europe did not generally accept the new name until the 1920s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:43, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your first point about "Western naming conventions" starts sounding like Moskva versus Moscow - this is an English encyclopedia so uses English naming conventions. And whilst I can understand a certain purity about what goes into articles, the prime purpose of categories is to make things easily findable rather than to be pure. That's true in spades of Wikipedia categories, which are heavily used by bots and template code, which struggle when names get changed. Fair enough, in some cases you can't avoid name changes because the geography changes significantly (Eastern Europe is a nightmare for that) but where a polity is roughly the same as the modern country, it makes life much easier for bots, templates, and less knowledgeable humans if we use the modern name. That trumps purity every time for me.Le Deluge (talk) 03:58, 30 August 2016 (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.

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) 04:57, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia articles with Citizendium counterparts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categorizing pages by whether they have a counterpart in another encyclopedia etc could lead to a lot of categories on some pages. Note: This category has no proper parent categories. Note: The only content current in this category is a subcategory that I'm not sure really belongs in this category anyway (it's quite possible that a page in Wikipedia might use information from a Citizendium page of a different name). DexDor^(talk) 06:08, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Along with Category:Wikipedia articles with Encyclopædia Britannica counterparts. Trivial.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:37, 24 July 2016 (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.

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 both. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:IEEE-level awards to Category:IEEE awards
Propose renaming Category:Discontinued IEEE-level awards to Category:Discontinued IEEE awards

Nominator's rationale: It's unclear what distinction there is between a IEEE award and a IEEE-level award. These categories are quite small so there's no need to have separate categories. DexDor^(talk) 05:56, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Both (No Keep/Rename) The merge is on point. We don't typically have subcategories for former awards so I would actually favor merging Category:Discontinued IEEE-level awards into Category:IEEE awards. (No objection to rename if it is kept though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've no objection to that. DexDor^(talk) 16:15, 24 July 2016 (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.

July 21

Category:Holidays and observances by frequency

Category:Publications by frequency

Category:Defunct publications

Category:Light-flyweight boxers

Category:Superheroes by animated series

Category:Wonder Woman television series

Category:Ukrainian-Polish culture in Lwów Voivodeship

Category:Miami Fusion F.C.

Category:York geography stubs

Category:Films directed by Silambarasan Rajendar

Category:Noongar stubs

Category:Gouvernment ministers of Switzerland

Category:Al-Wahda S.C.C.

Category:Chinese-owned football clubs

Category:17th-century establishments in Iran

Category:Wikipedia articles with Citizendium counterparts

Category:IEEE-level awards