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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:List of Rabbinical Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Created today by User:Wallnutter and is redundant to Category:Jewish seminaries. If kept, the name should be Category:Rabbinical schools, without "List of" and without the capital "S". Debresser (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Rabbinical schools or merge to Category:Jewish seminaries. Since I'm not an expert on Jewish education. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:05, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The term Rabbinical school currently redirects to Yeshiva, a type of school devoted to the studies of Jewish religious texts. The term Jewish seminary has an article of its own, but the definition it gives includes a number of distinct school types: the Yeshiva, the Mesivta, the Beth midrash, the Midrasha, the Kollel, and the Bais Yaakov. And depending on the type, they educate students from elementary age to their adulthood, and cater exclusively to either boys, men, girls, or women. The term seminary may be misleading here, as I doubt that all these students are being prepared for careers as rabbis.Dimadick (talk) 23:37, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All the 39 articles that the creator of this category added to it are indeed Rabbinical seminaries, and 15 of them are already in Category:Jewish seminaries. Debresser (talk) 11:57, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User:Wallnutter created Category:Rabbinical schools today, re-categorized al the articles there and then blanked Category:List of Rabbinical Schools. I undid all of this as out of process, and an evasion of the possible outcome of this discussion to delete. I left him a message on his talkpage. To closing admins: I made other improvements to those pages as well, so even if the discussion will be closed a rename, do not simply revert my edits. Debresser (talk) 11:57, 10 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. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:25, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:TEDx (conferences) to Category:TED (conference)

Nominator's rationale: TEDx conferences are private TED-like conferences for which TED licences use of the name "TED". Do we really need to separate these? There is limited content in both categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Both categories are relatively small and the "x" isn't a clear navigation distinction for most casual readers. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:39, 7 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. WP:TRIVIALCAT seems to support this as well, although no participant mentioned it. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:30, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Flags with trees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic TM 04:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. This is similar to recent discussions on Red and white flags and Coats of arms by charge, both of which ended in "no consensus". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:47, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it's not clear that any of these are related to each other, so it's a matter of coincidental choice. Not defining in the same way as Category:People who wear glasses might be - yep, they may look something in common but not something we need to categorize on. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 6 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: purge and rename. All categories should be moved to talk pages before renaming the category. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:38, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Articles in Wikipedia Primary School Project SSAJRP to Category:Wikipedia Primary School articles

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if deletion is the right idea here or renaming at least but this looks like it's somewhat related to the WikiProject at Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa/Wikipedia Primary School but somewhat not. That project, while housed underneath the WikiProject South Africa banner, is entirely hosted at meta and seems to have been a project from meta that identifies pages that South African primary school children would be interested in but that's an odd way to organize this as a project. Either way, the category naming convention is out of place, the name " Wikipedia Primary School Project SSAJRP" is cryptic as all and I don't see any reason why the pages that are worked on by a particular project needs to categorize separately by that project. The project itself can create a page listing their pages, the category is unnecessary so I'm suggesting a rename to a separate title based on the project and the removal of the mainspace categorization used here, leaving only the pages that are here by the talk page tagging I believe. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ricky. I probably need to give a bit of context. I am currently working on that project, but I was not part of it during its first year of operation, so some of its current architecture has been done by someoneelse. The project is a research project. During the first year of operation, a selection of articles important for South Africa primary curricula have been identified. Several of them then went through a review process by external experts. And all of them (about 200) are now in a process of being improved. Most of the project has been described on meta, but it operates here. When I joined, a wikiproject of two pages had been set on Wikipedia, under the umbrella of South Africa WikiProject.
When I joined the project at that point, I had no mean to actually follow what was going on on the articles and was not too familiar with the WikiProject modern set up either... So one of my first actions was to create the category above mentionned. You are actually correct that the name is too cryptic... sorry. I see no problem whatsoever with a renaming.
Later on, I thought it would be much easier for me to do the follow up of articles assessements as part of the WikiProject (right now, I do that in a google document that I update manually... ugh). Recently, I set up an assessment page Wikipedia:WikiProject South Africa/Wikipedia Primary School/Assessment. I thought I could entirely remove the current category system once the WikiProject assessement is ongoing. Only to realize afterwards that having the project a subproject of South Africa WikiProject was an issue (because some of articles in the Primary School project do not reasonably belong to South Africa... ). This is what I ran into... [1] (his argument is perfectly fair). I am currently trying to figure out better how to deal with that issue. If you know how to deal with this... please help. Is there a way to feature a sub-WikiProject in a talk page rather than the full WikiProject ? Or should I entirely move the Primary School Project as a standalone project not attached to any country ?
Meanwhile, I have no objection to moving the category from the main page to the talk page... Anthere (talk)

@Anthere: I think a better example to follow is Wikipedia:WikiAfrica. That project worked on creating stubs rather than revising current pages but perhaps you could revive it instead. It kept everything in a separate Category:WikiAfrica rather than as a subproject of a current WikiProject and still has a number of stubs to be worked on and reviewed (we've cleared out some of the more empty ones here. I still think having the project identify with categories pages it is interested in is not the way to go because you could imagine that pages eventually will be filled with dozens of categories corresponding to each project that attempts to work on them. Instead, if it's a separate project, there would little objection I imagine to tagging the pages as they are actually worked on (not different than identifying articles based on a class or an edit-a-thon). The naming is what is strange as it's not technically a WikiProject in the traditional sense. It may be best in fact to merge this into a subproject of WikiAfrica even though it's broader than that as that project is closer to your goals than the current WikiProject South Africa (or even Africa). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why not indeed... I see 3 main arguments in favour. 1) Primary School is already a WikiAfrica project anyway 2) The instigator of the PP project is Iolanda, who is one of the creator of WikiAfrica mouvement and ran Share Your Knowledge project with the incubator, and 3) I run several projects already part of WikiAfrica (m:Wiki Loves Women, c:Commons:Wiki Loves Africa and m:WikiFundi) so I know it would fit well. Main argument against is... that I need to check with Io if there was a specific reason why it was created a sub of South Africa project in the first place... perhaps it was on purpose... perhaps it just happened... Main side benefit of moving the project there would be that I could take some time to clean up the outdated pages of WikiAfrica ... looks like a good idea. I will ponder on this.

The thing that would be still unresolved though is... there would be no mean to automatically retrieve the quality assessment of those articles for a quick overview. Or do you think there would be a mean to collect this info automatically even without being in a WikiProject ? Anthere (talk)

Anthere, you need to be signing your posts with four tildes, or the archiving bots are going to get confused.

Driving bots crazy. Lol. Ok. Anthere (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The answer to your Sand problem is to tell the other editor to read WP:PROJSCOPE. The third paragraph of that section addresses the problem very directly. It might also be helpful to point him to the line "WikiProjects are allowed to have strange, arbitrary, or unpredictable scopes" – such as supporting an article that matters to the group in question, even if that's not obvious from the name of the group.

If that's not enough, then take the dispute to WT:COUNCIL (and ping me). The WikiProject Council gets a question about this problem often enough that it's in the FAQ. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All right. Given that only one editor removed only one tag... we may have a good lead here. Anthere (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and Move to Talk Pages, If Kept I'm all for admin categories if we have editors who find them helpful, and I give a lot of leeway there if someone comes here to defend them. But this needs to begin with "Wikipedia" and be moved to the talk pages so it doesn't confuse readers trying to navigate between articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a hidden category. Readers can't see it at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You're right, most readers have settings that won't display it. Nonetheless, other Wikiproject cats are typically located talk page and should be named clearly. Again, no issue with the underlying admin purpose. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:34, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone that could help with a bot to 1) remove the current categories from the articles themselves and 2) add the new category to the articles talk pages ? Where can I ask for help on that ? Anthere (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Good Olfactory, BU Rob13, and Marcocapelle: I know we've had several CfDs that ended with moving the category to the talk page. Anthere was wondering if there was an automated tool to do that. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be too hard to make a bot request that says "look in this category, if it's in mainspace, remove this cat and add this to the talk page unless the talk page is there too." @Anthere: I only suggested WikiAfrica as one idea. I actually suggested renaming to Category:Wikipedia Primary School articles first so it's directly named to the project (or perhaps Category:WikiPrimary Schools articles to reduce some confusion, more like WikiAfrica). It will then match meta's name as well. From there, we can create a template to add to the page instead of the category alone split off from the South Africa one and then from there. To be honest, this project feels like a mix of Wikipedia:Vital articles but dealing with Wikipedia:Systemic bias as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:37, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete or remove all articles from this category. If anyone wants to create a list of articles for their own purposes (e.g. "articles important for South Africa primary curricula") they should create a list - e.g. in Wikipedia namespace or elsewhere than Wikipedia. A list would have many advantages (e.g. it could explain why a particular article is important, could cover Simple English Wikipedia...). DexDor ^(talk) 10:25, 10 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.