< August 20 August 22 >

August 21

Category:Internet Protocol addresses

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. ℯxplicit 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "IP address" is an abbreviation for "Internet Protocol address"; the scope of these two categories is identical. I'm proposing using the abbreviation, rather than the full name, because the parent article is IP address, and Internet Protocol address is simply a redirect to it. Nyttend (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, we probably ought to rename it to "Individual IP addresses"; see Category:Individual chickens and its parent Category:Chicken. However, that kind of thing is important with individual animals, with individual signs underneath Category:Signage, etc., but in those cases there are lots of articles in both levels of the tree, so splitting between the broad concept and the individual examples is important for size reasons. Here, we have only 37 pages between the two categories; merging won't produce a category that needs to be reduced in size. Nyttend (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changing that to Comment. I have no strong feelings either way. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:10, 24 August 2017 (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:Catholic politicians

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 6#Category:Catholic politicians. ℯxplicit 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT that violates WP:CATEGRS. We do not create or maintain categories for every possible intersection of religion with occupation -- Catholicism is simply a denomination of Christianity, not a thing that has a WP:DEFINING impact on a person's political career in any manner different or distinct from any other Christian denomination. And regarding the potential that Catholics have a tendency to sometimes be more centrist to centre-left than other Christian denominations, well, just look who the one entry actually is if you think that's the point here. This is not a defining characteristic for the purposes of categorizing politicians. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm not disputing that Jeb or Rick Santorum's politics are influenced by their status as religious conservatives — but is there any evidence that being specifically Catholic influences their politics in a manner that's distinct from if they were members of any other Christian denomination that has a socially conservative ideology? Bearcat (talk) 15:39, 1 September 2017 (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:Panda Bear (musician)

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) 05:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough content to warrant an eponymous category per WP:OCEPON and numerous CfD precedent. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:57, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 13 of which are already in standard Panda Bear related categories. The key to making this necessary isn't counting how many articles are in the subcategories — it's counting how many articles need to be filed directly in this category because there's no standard subcategorization scheme in place to categorize them as being related to Panda Bear. Bearcat (talk) 14:43, 22 August 2017 (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:Undrafted National Basketball Association players

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. ℯxplicit 01:05, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 11 agreed that sorting player's biographies by the drafted/undrafted standard was not a notable characteristic. TM 11:32, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I concur with the July 11 discussion. Categories should be for reasons that cause subjects to be notable. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:44, 22 August 2017 (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:St. Gallen Group

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: speedy deletion per WP:G10 by User:Drmies. non admin-closure by Mangoe (talk) 17:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: High dubious category has been created - seemingly linked to conspiracy theory. None of the individuals have themselves ever identified with belonging to such a group. Nor does it seem that such a group is notable enough in itself to require specific categorisation. Implication is to link individuals to group by association - concerns over WIKI:BLP. An article already exists to discuss the so-called St Gallen Group which is sufficient. The identification of such a group is limited to a small number of fairly minor sources. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:39, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete, in Belgium this group is considered as important for church political reasons, and has received multtiple important media attention.[1][2]

References

  1. ^ https://restkerk.net/2015/09/23/exclusief-kardinaal-danneels-hield-elk-jaar-met-7-andere-kardinalen-geheime-vergadering-om-roer-kerk-om-te-gooien/
  2. ^ http://deredactie.be/cm/vrtnieuws/binnenland/1.2449171
Yes but is it sufficient to have a separate category as well as an article as well as mention in individual articles concerning the relevant bishops? I simply don't believe there is enough substance in this to merit it. The sources you've flagged are also religious news sites - I worry that we've not had sufficient coverage in mainstream sources. Contaldo80 (talk) 15:08, 21 August 2017 (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