< June 12 June 14 >

June 13

Category:Role-playing video games by year

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 action. There is a consensus in this discssusion that the sub-categories of Category:Role-playing video games by year should not exist, and AFAICS that they should be merged to one of more parent categories. However, none of those categories have been included in this nomination, so the only effect of closing this discussion as "delete" would be to remove the parent category which groups Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 1975‎, Category:Role-playing video games introduced in 1977 etc ... which would pointless.
Furthermore, none of the sub-categories has been tagged, so it would be quite wrong for any action to be taken upon them when the readers of those categories have not been notified of this discussion.
So, if anyone wants to start a new CFD discussion which actually lists all the categories involved and sets out the proposed actions to them, then feel free to do without delay. Pinging all the editors involved in this discussion ... @AdrianGamer, Ferret, The1337gamer, Mindmatrix, Hellknowz, and Marcocapelle: if you want help constructing a group nomination, feel free to ask on my talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The consensus here and here show that this category and all its subcategories are vague and unnecessary. AdrianGamer (talk) 13:30, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I see the relevance of WikiProject Vermont here. If there is a relevant discussion in its archives, please link to it. (I assume you were referring to the linked discussions above and mistakenly used an incorrect shortcut?) Mindmatrix 17:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected. --The1337gamer (talk) 17:33, 15 June 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.

Category:Art music

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) 04:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Art music
Nominator's rationale: No potential for expansion, since the same role is already fulfilled by Category:Classical and art music traditions. CN1 (talk) 19:00, 13 June 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.

Category:Companies established in 578

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/rename as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
Companies by year/decade of establishment
Organizations by year of establishment
Years in economics
  • Category:1141 in economics to Category:12th-century economic history and Category:1141
  • Category:1198 in economics to Category:12th-century economic history and Category:1198
  • Category:1255 in economics to Category:13th-century economic history and Category:1255
  • Category:1298 in economics to Category:13th-century economic history and Category:1298
  • Category:1407 in economics‎ to Category:15th-century economic history and Category:1407
  • Category:1472 in economics‎ to Category:15th-century economic history and Category:1472
  • Category:1488 in economics‎ to Category:15th-century economic history and Category:1488
  • Category:1498 in economics‎ to Category:15th-century economic history and Category:1498
  • Category:1503 in economics‎ to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1503
  • Category:1520 in economics‎ to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1520
  • Category:1526 in economics‎ to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1526
  • Category:1534 in economics‎ to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1534
  • Category:1554 in economics‎ to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1554
  • Category:1563 in economics‎ to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1563
  • Category:1584 in economics‎ to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1584
  • Category:1586 in economics‎ to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1586
  • Category:1590 in economics‎ to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1590
Decades in economic history
  • Category:1140s economic history to Category:12th-century economic history and Category:1140s
  • Category:1250s economic history to Category:13th-century economic history and Category:1250s
  • Category:1290s economic history to Category:13th-century economic history and Category:1290s
  • Category:1400s economic history to Category:15th-century economic history and Category:1400s
  • Category:1470s economic history to Category:15th-century economic history and Category:1470s
  • Category:1480s economic history to Category:15th-century economic history and Category:1480s
  • Category:1490s economic history to Category:15th-century economic history and Category:1490s
  • Category:1500s economic history to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1500s
  • Category:1520s economic history to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1520s
  • Category:1530s economic history to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1530s
  • Category:1550s economic history to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1550s
  • Category:1560s economic history to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1560s
  • Category:1580s economic history to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1580s
  • Category:1590s economic history to Category:16th-century economic history and Category:1590s
  • Propose renaming/merging:
Companies by year/decade of disestablishment
Banks/Hotels by (dis)establishment
Nominator's rationale: While these are established schemes at least from the 19th century on, in early centuries they produce WP:SMALLCATs that aren't helpful for organizing our content nor for navigation. PanchoS (talk) 10:31, 13 June 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.

Category:Birds of Angola

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 as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 17:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
categories for other countries
Nominator's rationale: Many birds have a distribution that includes many countries - e.g. see categories at Common waxbill or Goliath heron (currently in 42 country categories most of which aren't mentioned in the article text). The folly of this sort of categorization is demonstrated by Black-headed oriole which says "It breeds in much of sub-Saharan Africa from South Sudan and Ethiopia in the north to South Africa in the south." and has thus been placed in categories for the 3 countries specifically mentioned (i.e. the countries at the extremes of its range), but not in the countries between them. Red-billed firefinch says "in most of Sub-Saharan Africa", but it is not (currently) categorized for most African countries - so the categories don't even work as complete lists.
Note: Most/all of these categories contain a "List of birds in <country>" article which should stay in a category for the relevant country, but all I've checked are already in a suitable category (e.g. Category:Lists of biota of Angola) so no upmerge is needed. Similarly, Category:Important Bird Areas of Niger is already in a Niger category.
Note: Categories for islands (e.g. Madagascar) are not included in this nomination.
Example of a previous CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_18#Category:Birds_of_the_Palestinian_territories. Note: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_13#Category:Birds_of_Africa (closed as no consensus) DexDor (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-Saharan Africa (at about 15% of the World's land area) is about the right size for these categories (it puts most birds in about 1-3 such categories and few in more than 4); we are trying to categorize here, not to shoehorn an encoding of the distribution of each species into the category system. Article text (where complications can be explained and references provided) and diagrams are a much better way to present information about distribution of a species to readers (and, of course, we can have list-of-birds-in-area articles for quite small areas). As a matter of practicality it's likely that more editors/readers are familiar with the meaning of Sub-Saharan Africa than are familiar with, for example, Central Africa. DexDor (talk) 17:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now, I'm waiting for some more input, but if that's the case (1–3 categories of these per bird on average), then I'm fine with the proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 09:33, 14 June 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.

Category:Organizations of the Jack Abramoff scandals

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, while merging some of the contents to Category:Jack Abramoff scandals, as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: listify and delete, these are organizations associated with the Jack Abramoff scandals, we don't categorize by mere association. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:02, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RevelationDirect: You allege that these companies "are front companies and non-profits whose primary purpose was to launder money in Abramoff's financial shell game." As regards Preston Gates, the company that incorporated Microsoft and was its lead outside lawyers for decades, please provide reliable sources or retract your comment. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right, I spoke too broadly See below for examples that go the other way. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:09, 13 June 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.

Fictional Buddhist monks

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with parent categories; inclusiveness is better than creating more categories. --Atvica (talk) 04:53, 13 June 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.

Mayotte

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. There may be consensus for a more restricted, but the arrival of the compromise proposal part way through the discussion makes that hard to evaluate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Two articles in this tree. ~ RobTalk 04:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose part of a well-established tree with many large cats and some small cats, reflecting the size of the countries / dependencies and the attention they have received on enwiki. I'll add some other Mayotte year establishments to flesh out the tree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fram (talk • contribs) 07:22, 13 June 2016‎
Could you describe how a one-article category hidden within multiple layers of container categories helps readers find articles, which is the point of categorization? The SMALLCAT exception is not a suicide pact. ~ RobTalk 07:26, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I have seen that dramatically titled user subpage you have before. It's obviously not part of our guidelines, so you can link to it as much as you want but I don't really care for it and don't take it into account. WP:BEFORE: before suggesting to upmerge categories, first check if there aren't more pages that belong in these categories. Instead of 2, we now have 9 pages in this tree, which makes e.g. Category:Establishments in Mayotte by year a useful page. It can be expanded further if the establishment year of the airport, some political parties, football grounds, ... can be added. You suggest upmerging to e.g. Category:1978 establishments in Africa, but these continent categories are not supposed to have loose articles in them, they are intended to have pages by country. At the moment, 15 of the 25 subcategories there only have one article in them, so it's not as if the Mayotte one is an exception here. Fram (talk) 08:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends on whether you truly are looking for articles about that subject (establishments in Africa in that year), or whether you are using it as a navigational aid towards articles about establishments in certain countries in Africa. I think the latter happens more than the former. Fram (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Eliminating 10 articles in exchange for adding a few categories to 2 articles seems like a good trade to me. These categories are conceptually fine but I don't think WP:SMALLCAT justifies whole un/underpopulated category trees. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:38, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said above, it is no longer about 2 articles, but about 9 (with the potential to add some others as well). Fram (talk) 12:06, 15 June 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.

Fictional characters by religion

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:20, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories were deleted in 2008. They keep getting re-created and speedily re-deleted. Given that it has been eight years, I figured we may as well revisit the issue to see if consensus has changed on the matter. I am neutral, though if the head category is kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:Fictional characters by religion. (Category:Fictional Jews was also deleted in 2008, but it was kept in a 2010 discussion as an ethnicity category, so it is not included in this discussion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A more inclusive name would be Category:Fictional practitioners of a religious denomination or theology, as not every "belief" or "spirituality" is strictly religious. --Atvica (talk) 05:38, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Good Olfactory - can you provide some info re "keep getting re-created and speedily re-deleted"? DexDor (talk) 05:51, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the initial deletion, Category:Fictional Muslims has been speedily deleted four times as re-created material. Category:Fictional Christians has been speedily deleted twice, as has Category:Fictional Buddhists. I don't mean to imply that the categories are being created every month or anything like that. But since 2008, these three categories have now been re-created a combined total of 11 times. Good Ol’factory (talk) 14:29, 16 June 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.

Category:Inspirational literature

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 inspirational result of the discussion was: delete both. The bot will do the inspirational works to eliminate them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:42, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, subjective inclusion criterion. See also this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:59, 13 June 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.
More