< June 8 June 10 >

June 9

Category:Sanctions

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; re-create as redirect to Category:International sanctions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:10, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains just one article (that is in plenty of other categories), has no parent categories and has some unusual category text ("...we reallu do need it as the article deals among other issues with..."). Do we really need this category? DexDor (talk) 22:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
this seems like a good idea to me Elinruby (talk) 03:19, 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:Bramfelder SV

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) 05:12, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With just one (eponymous) article and no parent category tags this category is not performing any useful purpose. DexDor (talk) 22:46, 9 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:Christian worship

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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename/merge, different denominations use a different term (either worship or liturgy) for a very similar concept. Rather than having different categories for every term, this proposal suggests to combine the both terms in one category name. The proposal definitely does not suggest renaming any of the child categories of the nominated categories. See also this earlier discussion and this recent discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 9 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:Electric power transmission systems by continent

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. – Fayenatic London 07:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
  • Propose creating:
Nominator's rationale: The definition of "systems" is rather obscure, and tends to compartmentalize individual parts of an infrastructure that actually belong to a single national or even continental system. While I already created a catch-all parent level Category:Electric power transmission by continent, this should mostly be about infrastructure, and the proposed names are better in line with its other parent Category:Electric power infrastructure by country. PanchoS (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I'm absolutely okay with the alt merge you're suggesting. Note to the closing admin: The older categories should be renamed to replace the ones I created. --PanchoS (talk) 22:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have an objection per se against Electric power transmission systems, it merely seems a case of WP:SMALLCAT. Upmerge to parents, in that case. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rob: You're free to have your opinion, but this is no way procedurally contestable. I purposely didn't nominate Category:Electric power transmission systems as it contains a totally different kind of articles that may (or might not) be "systems", but either way have to be discussed separately. All I can do in response to your objection, is explicitly proposing Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure to be created (see abvove), though category creations don't have to be proposed. It goes without saying that a missing parent category is created. Category:Electric power transmission systems, supposed to contain actual "transmission systems" would be left unchanged, unless merged in the course of a separate nomination. --PanchoS (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PanchoS: Wait, was you original nomination to remove this from the systems tree entirely? Maybe I misunderstood. I thought you were proposing that these children of the systems tree were to be renamed because the "systems" name is not clearly defined. Was your nomination based on something else? ~ RobTalk 20:26, 22 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:Electric power transmission systems by country

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. – Fayenatic London 07:46, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: I can't figure out why we would restrict these to transmission "systems" if the subcategories anyway contain their operators, along with incidents etc., and as long as the natural parent Category:Electric power transmission by country doesn't exist. We're thereby artificially excluding regulatory bodies, laws concerning electrical power transmission etc. We should have per-country categories for the whole topic first, before possibly subdividing by actual "systems" or other subtopics.
Alternatively, we can rename all to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure by country (better in line with its other parent Category:Electric power infrastructure by country, as per precedent Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in India) and create the above proposed category scheme Category:Electric power transmission by country as an additional catch-all level. --PanchoS (talk) 13:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • So I do. I just tried to avoid losing any information, so the nomination wouldn't be opposed on those grounds. --PanchoS (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is a good solution and it improves the overall Energy by country categories tree. Beagel (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beagel: Did you mean withdrawing is a good solution, or the original proposal? You !voted Oppose above. --PanchoS (talk) 10:32, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for being unclear. My comment was about creating the missing level Category:Electric power transmission in X. Beagel (talk) 10:44, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Beagel: There's nothing wrong with a Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in the United States (etc.) subcategory, as long as there is enough content in Category:Electric power transmission in the United States (etc.), and I currently don't see that happening for any other country. But how about a dual upmerge of Category:Electric power transmission systems in Germany (etc.) to Category:Electric power transmission in Germany (etc.) and Category:Electric power infrastructure in Germany (etc.)? --PanchoS (talk) 11:34, 25 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:Eros in ancient Greece

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:Sexuality in ancient Greece. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 06:57, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current title is ambiguous and may mean god Eros as well. The category's content basically reflects eroticism. The main article for this is Ancient Greek eros, so an alternative title could be Category:Ancient Greek eros which is currently a soft redirect. Brandmeistertalk 13:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: More discussion is needed to figure out what target is preferable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:45, 9 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:Paintings by national location

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:Paintings by country of location. This is an incremental improvement but probably not a final solution to this category tree. Everyone agrees the current name is unclear. There's disagreement over whether appropriate categorization is by country of creation or country of location, but the current scope is country of location. There's no clear consensus to rescope. This close is without prejudice against future focused nominations to discuss deletion or rescoping. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 07:02, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category on Wikipedia that seems to be named "by national location", as far as I can tell. It is for categorizing articles on individual paintings by their physical location by country, and is child to Category:Arts by country. It subcategories, such as Category:Paintings in United States, are children to Category:Arts in the United States, which is part of Category:Categories by country. Through I feel that "by national location" is perhaps a bit more clear, we have a dilemma: rename for standardization or consider introducing an entirely new tree for many other concepts that would be "by national location". And considering that we have Category:Sculptures by country, and so on, which work pretty well, I think we should just rename this outlier and move on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems that Neutrality's suggestion has consensus (i.e. rename to "by country" but clarify which country that is meant to be). We still need to figure out if we want to repurpose this to be "country of creation" or "country of location", however. Either way, this will require purging.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 01:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carlossuarez has a good point here, it's actually surprising that none of us came up with this thought before, so I wouldn't object to deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 10 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:Incest in television

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 but purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Is this category really necessary? —Prisencolin (talk) 00:38, 9 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