< September 2 September 4 >

September 3

Category:Star Trek crossovers

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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 08:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems to be somewhat WP:OC#ARBITRARY - for example, Q2 (Star Trek: Voyager) isn't in the category, despite Q from Star Trek: The Next Generation playing a significant role in the epsode; nor is Through the Looking Glass (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine), despite the fact that the mirror Tuvok is a character there. In both cases, you could argue that the episodes don't meet the criteria - that Q isn't a true TNG character, and that Mirror Tuvok isn't the same as this universe's Tuvok; these issues can be handled better in an article (Star Trek crossovers) than in a category. Other issues include whether the Emergency Medical Hologram in Star Trek: First Contact is the same character as the same hologram on Voyager, having developed over time; and whether Keiko O'Brien, showing up in 8 TNG episodes but 19 DS9 episodes after having moved to the space station, truly counts as a TNG character. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've got no real view one way or another. However, you did use an out of date deletion argument from a previous discussion. For example, you argued that "Through the Looking Glass" wasn't in the category - but it was when you wrote that. It just wasn't back in January when the argument was previously used. To demonstrate how easy a fix it was, I just took two minutes to add the other missing articles. What should be further considered is that this isn't just a Star Trek issue. These categories also exist: Category:Buffyverse crossovers, Category:Doctor Who crossovers, which of course all sit within Category:Crossover fiction. I would dare say that your argument that crossover fiction is artitrary would affect the main category, not just a group of Star Trek articles. Oh, and the query about Keiko O'Brien - not a crossover. She was a recurring character on one series, and then on another series. Otherwise, every episode of DS9 in which Miles O'Brien appears would also have to appear. But a fair argument would be whether "All Good Things..." would count as a crossover - after all, O'Brien was a main character on DS9 at the time but appeared on TNG. But again, I'll leave it up to others to decide whether or not crossover categories themselves should exist more generally. Miyagawa (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    As to your comment about Miles O'Brian, the linked article, Star Trek crossovers, explicitly lists the transfer of Worf and the O'Brians to DS9, although it doesn't list their episodes (for obvious reasons). My point still stands - this can be handled in an article, not so well in a category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:26, 4 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.

Category:Amphetamine alkaloids

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete this category per WP:NARROWCAT. Members should be recategorized in both Category:Alkaloids and either Category:Phenethylamines or Category:Substituted amphetamines as appropriate. Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 16:24, 3 September 2016 (UTC).[reply]
  • Oppose at least until the question has been answered. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:31, 18 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.

Category:Methamphetamines

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:07, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Category:Methamphetamines with Category:Substituted amphetamines. Substituted methamphetamines are substituted amphetamines which have a N-methyl group. It is a well defined chemical class. However, it is not an especially relevant chemical property about a drug. The scientific literature rarely if ever talks about this chemical class (unlike substituted amphetamines and substituted cathinones)

There are a lot of possible substituents that can be attached to the nitrogen atom other than the methyl group. For example: isopropyl (isopropylamphetamine), ethyl (etilamfetamine), butyl (methylenedioxybutylamphetamine), hydroxy (3,4-methylenedioxy-N-hydroxyamphetamine). For consistency, we should either have a category for all such substitute or else for none. Since neither of these categories are especially relevant with respect to SAR (structure-activity relationship), I believe that it is better to delete (by merging) the only such category that we have currently.

By comparison, Category:Cathinones is about a relevant chemical property by SAR and is mentioned as such in scientific literature. As an heuristic rule, the cathinone counterpart of releasing agents are typically reuptake inhibitors; cathinones are more lipophilic, are not monoamine receptor agonists and are not neurotoxic.

Mario Castelán Castro (talk) 15:38, 3 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.

Category:Carniolan theologians

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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:05, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NARROWCAT, Carniola was a small duchy within the Habsburg Monarchy. It might well be an option to start a broader Category:Theologians of the Habsburg Monarchy but right now this doesn't even exist yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 3 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.

Category:Censuses in Australia

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:34, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page in it, and unlikely to have more. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:03, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but there are no articles to place in this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree that we can create it again in future if more articles are created. Mitch Ames (talk) 07:53, 4 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.

Category:Power transmission operators

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
more similar categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Most countries only have one power transmission system operator, so having this scheme fully elaborated to all countries results in many one-article categories and is merely a hindrance to navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's exactly the point of the nomination: this topic is not suitable for having a large overall sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is just an opinion, not a fact. At the moment there are 36 categories in the sub-categorization scheme. This is a proof that the sub-categorization scheme exists. Not all of these 36 categories are listed here which is a proof that the WP:SMALLCAT argument is used without following the logic of the sub-categorization scheme. Beagel (talk) 16:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The logic is that one shouldn't nominate a single category from an overall scheme. In this case the whole scheme is nominated, that's different. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As not all categories of the scheme are nominated, it is incorrect to say that the whole scheme is nominated. There are enough remaining categories to be considered as the scheme. Beagel (talk) 08:47, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I left out the US and a few other countries that don't qualify for SMALLCAT. The discussion however is whether or not this should be an overall scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you let these categories out, that means that you did not nominated the scheme but used only WP:SMALLCAT argument. Remaining categories are enough to be considered as a scheme and if the scheme exists, it should be expanded to all countries which have relevant articles. Beagel (talk) 05:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of a guideline that prohibits a scheme with a diffusion of only those few countries that have sufficient content. For example Category:Statistical_organizations diffuses organizations of only three countries and that's perfectly alright. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:33, 8 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.

Category:Roman Catholic Church in Cambridge

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:58, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename and purge a little. Except for London and this category, we do not have any other "Roman Catholic Church in English city" or "Catholicism in English city" categories. The main reason that this Cambridge category is quite well-populated is because of the Catholic institutions and chaplains to the University of Cambridge. So let's be more precise about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further, Category:Catholicism includes Eastern Orthodox, which as far as I know has not established much of a foothold in Cambridge in recent centuries. Oculi (talk) 22:36, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The tree of Category:Catholicism is also used for Catholic people, buildings, organisations etc. that are not necessarily within the scope of the Catholic Church. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I wouldn't be against this alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:27, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that the coherence of the category is an issue (partly related to the university, partly to the city) so I wouldn't oppose deletion in the sense of upmerging to its parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 18 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.

Category:Steamboat terminology

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) 06:57, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category (e.g. Hog chains, Snagboat) are not articles specifically about language. See also WP:OC#MISC and previous CFDs (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_19#Category:Seismology_and_earthquake_terminology). DexDor (talk) 06:09, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category is a subcategory of Category:Nautical Terminology. The specialized nature of this terminology would be lost if it were changed to Category:Steamboats.Mtsmallwood (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Per WP:OVERLAPCAT All Wikipedia articles are about "terms" (aka article names) and then we use letters to construct meaning through language to explain that term/article name. It will aid navigation better for readers to group these terms by what they mean. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 4 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.

Category:Steamboat articles by route

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:Steamboats by body of water. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:32, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Steamboat articles by route to Category:Steamboats by route
Nominator's rationale: By convention we don't use the word "articles" in the names of categories for articles. Note: most of the articles in this category are articles like Steamboats of Lake Okanagan. Other names for this category (e.g. Category:Steamboats routes) could be considered. DexDor (talk) 05:19, 3 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.

Category:Fictional jewels

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) 06:55, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Some articles are technically not jewels; inclusive categories are better. --Atvica (talk) 04:22, 3 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.
More