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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:05, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People who follow a straight edge lifestyle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic. Information already exists in list form. TM 23:01, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Keep but prune. It's def. a defining aspect of several individuals (Ian MacKaye, for one), but I suspect several people in the category don't mention this in their article. Note that lists and categories go hand-in-hand, so having a list is not a reason to delete a category. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:24, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's no more defining than vegetarian/veganism or any other lifestyle choice.--TM 01:54, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete (or rename, add text to restrict and purge) per WP:NONDEF and (essay) WP:DNWAUC. Even the Ian MacKaye article (referred to above) makes no mention of "straight edge" in the text and is well categorized by Category:American indie rock musicians etc. DexDor ^(talk) 17:36, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[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. – Fayenatic London 10:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:New York City public transportation articles with names to be reviewed (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category was created a bit over a decade ago by a fellow WP:NYCPT contributor due to a dispute over subway articles with more than one name. We now have a steady naming convention in place that we’ve agreed upon and now follow to the tee (and have done so now for the longest time) therefore rendering this category unnecessary. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 22:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Delete per nom. All New York City Subway station articles have either (1) a title that was agreed-on by consensus, or (2) is supported by reliable sources. However, I do think this list should be downloaded so, in case of confusion in the future, the alternate names could be referred to. epicgenius (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Comment. For what it's worth, there's a parameter in the station infobox that has an option for alternate/former names, a majority of which do have the parameter in use. —LRG5784 (talk · contribs · email) 17:37, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, so I guess this category doesn't need to be downloaded after all. There can just be a category based on whether this parameter is populated. epicgenius (talk) 18:59, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[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: rename. – Fayenatic London 13:11, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories are tagged in their talk page. An now they are all listed here. I expanded the rationale.

Propose moving 30+ categories with similar names:

• Category:Igneous petrology by geological period to Category:Magmatism by geological period
• Category:Holocene igneous petrology to Category:Holocene magmatism

‎The rationales is that "igneous petrology" is inadequate and magmatism both more precise and clear. These categories group two types of article: 1) articles about volcanism and volcanic rocks and 2) articles about intrusions. Both of these kind of rocks and phenomena are derived from the activity of molten rock under earth's surface, that is magma. Igneous and magmatic rocks are the same, but petrology refers to a science. By analogy do we talk about concise Category:Freshwater molluscs or about Category:Freshwater malacology?

A secondary reason is that igneous petrology sounds extraneous to those unfamiliar with geology while magmatism is easier to grasp. –Mamayuco (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Comment this is follow-up on yesterday's nomination which was closed for procedural reasons and in which User:Volcanoguy opposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep - I know nothing about geology but this is one of several subcat schemes for Category:Igneous petrology, whereas there is no Category:Magmatism (and Magmatism is merely an unreferenced stub). Oculi (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oculi, as said above igneous petrology is the science not the phenomenon or rock itself. While it would be nice to a simiar name to a parent category this is not appropiate in this case. Further magmatism is not the exclusive subject of igneous petrology as it is but also studied in geophysics, planetary science, physical volcanology and so on. Mamayuco (talk) 21:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Take a further look at how rocks are categorized on Wikipedia. Stratigraphic units are categorized under Category:Stratigraphy, not the process by which they formed. Volcanoguy 21:33, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Yes stratigraphy has historically been treated so, magmatic activity not. Stratigraphy has always been a description on the order of layers while igneous petrology has cheifly been the study of magmatic processes and petrogenesis. Your analogy is misleading.Mamayuco (talk) 21:41, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • Source? Volcanoguy 22:11, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • No Volcanoguy, there there is no source. It is an appreciation of non-written stuff. Further, by your reasoning with magmatism and igneous petrology Category:sedimentary petrology should cover the articles about sedimentary formations, not stratigraphy. Mamayuco (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
            • Stratigraphy is not limited only to sedimentary rocks. Volcanoguy 05:32, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Oppose. As stated in the last nomination, the igneous petrology categories are for igneous formations, not a phenomenon. Renaming categories after a phenomenon when that is not what the categories are for is misleading. Also, the categories are not just for magmatic rocks but also volcanic rocks, the latter of which are grouped into a volcanism subcategory which I believe should be changed to volcanology. It's no different than, for example, Category:Devonian geology. Volcanoguy 23:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Volcanoguy, since when are volcanic rocks not magmatic? Where did you got that idea from? Here a few links to help you out of that misunderstanding. [1]. Look at this link [2] how can it be that numerous authors talk about arc magmatism mentioning volcanic rocks? By your view magmatism would only be the emplacement of plutons and batholiths which is non-factual and a ridiculous claim! Mamayuco (talk) 21:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, the meaning of "magmatism" has been widened over the years (by probably too many geologists) to include not only the processes by which intrusive rocks are formed but also the processes by which volcanic rocks are formed. Magma is molten rock below the surface whereas lava is molten rock on the surface. Volcanoguy 21:49, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

and that alleged widening has now made Google Scholar and GeoRef find 20,700 repectively 10,886 "magmatic arc"s. In the vocabulary of modern igneous petrologist magmatism has a meaning that do not exclude volcanism onless explicitely mentioned. Mamayuco (talk) 22:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And since that leads to confusion, I'm sticking with the original definition. Volcanoguy 22:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I concede you that point, that are some works that contrast volcanism with magmatism. The question is if that usage is enough to discard magmatism as a broad term. Mamayuco (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Oppose. Seems rather frivolous - magmatism is not a synonym for igneous petrology. The field of igneous petrology is broader than magmatism as anyone who has studied the subject should know. Vsmith (talk) 21:44, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Nowhere is there any claim thing are fully synonymous. For what the categories are chiefly about magmatism is more appropriate. If any post-magmatic metasomatism or similar things are left out by the updated categorization it can be fitted elsewhere. Frivolous to me would be to retain what is more the name of an actual discipline than of the thing itself and a name laypeople will not understand. Inappropriate for two reasons!— Mamayuco (talk) 21:57, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • ...and laypeople will surely understand magmatism :) If that be the goal - then rename it to rocks formed underground from a molton state or some such. Vsmith (talk) 22:13, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Vsmith, I hope you are aware that igneous petrology does not cover physical volcanology and other allied disciplines that are not excluded by magmatism. My understanding so far is that rejection of magmatism as a catch all concept (I know, not the mantle rocks!) is based on an undue focus on volcanism that in some pappers in contrasted with "magmatism" as a substitute for magmatic activity without known volcanism (many batholiths etc.). Mamayuco (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • So if it spews out of a volcano - its not igneous ... that do be news :) Vsmith (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• @Mamayuco: Speaking as a layperson, I know what igneous petrology is - it's easy to work out from its name - but don't have a clue what magmatism is (what is magmate?). As such, I'd oppose any change based on your reasoning in reply to VSmith. I'd also point out that it makes sense for a broader category for the whole science is more common on Wikipedia. I can't help thinking, though, that this would be better dealt with after consensus is reached through discussion somewhere like WP:GEOL, rather than heading straight to cfd. Grutness...wha? 00:21, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Grutness, so the root "igneous" seem more familiar to you than "magma"? That's a surprise. –Mamayuco (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Igneous is a very common word. So, of course, is magma, but magmatism, as I pointed out, looks like it's something to do with magmat(e) (cf magnetism, parasitism, patriotism, defeatism, hermaphroditism, occultism, etc), which I've never heard of. The link to magma is not an obvious one. I'm pretty sure that that would be the common feeling among laypeople. Grutness...wha? 01:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. Igneous petrology is the study of igneous rocks (looking at their mineralogy or chemistry) whereas magmatism (or magmatic activity) is more about the cause, distribution and timing of igneous bodies. I have to ask, what exactly does "Permian igneous petrology" mean? It's obvious what "Permian magmatism" means - magmatism that occurred during the Permian. It just seems odd to me that the Cornubian batholith should be in an igneous petrology category. N.B. I agree that our magmatism article is not in a particularly good state, although I am working on it. Mikenorton (talk) 10:06, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support. After thinking about it some more I approve of this proposal, although I am still skeptical about making the volcanism cats as subcategories. The Oxford Dictionary describes magmatism as "the motion or activity of magma" and volcanism as "volcanic activity or phenomena" while the Dictionary of Geological Terms describes magmatism as "1. The development and movement of magma, and its solidification to igneous rock. 2. The theory that much granite has formed through crystallization from magma rather than through granitization" and volcanism as "the processes by which magma and its associated gases rise into the crust and are extruded onto the earth's surface and into the atmosphere." Notice how their magmatism definitions mention only magma and not volcanic phenomena? Magma by definition is molten rock below the surface. Volcanoguy 03:00, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support changes so that articles about rocks etc are not in -ology categories - in the same way that articles about birds should be in Category:Birds (not Category:Ornithology which is for people, journals etc). (!vote not bolded as I'm unfamiliar with this topic). DexDor ^(talk) 04:50, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[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: Procedural close. I am sure this was all well-intentioned, but it is a big procedural mess: a nominated category which has been moved already, and possibly some new cats already created. So I will close it, try to restore the status quo ante, and then update this close. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:52, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American Catholics by state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  along with Category:Roman Catholics from California, Category:Roman Catholics from Michigan, and Category:Roman Catholics from South Dakota. Quis separabit? 17:04, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nominator's rationale: -- series of new categories created by another editor, styled as Category:American Catholics by state, which wording was corrected to Category:American Roman Catholics by state as there is no such thing, for taxonomic or encyclopaedic purposes as "American Catholics", unlike "Anglo-Catholics" or "Greek Catholics" or "Eastern-rite Catholics". Individual categories by state were created by another editor as Category:Catholics from Wisconsin, Category:Catholics from Wyoming, etc., which seems acceptable. No sense overusing the adjective "Roman". Quis separabit? 17:12, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Procedural oppose, nominator has moved the category from Category:American Catholics by state to Category:American Roman Catholics by state out of process, without waiting for the outcome of the discussion, and the category hasn't been tagged either. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Procedural oppose per above. Grutness...wha? 00:23, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• APOLOGIES: I see I screwed up. I really have a hard time with CFDs. No excuses, I am just too analog in a digital age. I assumed this would be just a speedy affair given the clear rationale provided and the fact that only three out of the 50 states were ever created. I really do not know what to do or where to go from here. Sorry, again. Quis separabit? 03:40, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bigg Boss participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As all participants in the series are already "celebrities", this category fails WP:PERFCAT. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 21#Category:Celebrity Big Brother (UK) contestants for precedent. --woodensuperman 12:15, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[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.
This is just the latest in a series of CfDs in which there has been a consensus to delete or upmerge categories created by @Caftaric. I will leave a note about this on the user's talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 24 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Angiosperms of Asia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: There is a well understood system for categorizing the distribution of plants, described in detail at Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions. Caftaric made no attempt to obtain consensus for adding additional categories (a habit which has caused problems in the past). See, as just one example, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 March 26#Category:Deuterostomes of Asia. Unfortunately this user has a history of never seeking consensus before creating categories and rarely discussing afterwards. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:34, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support - Caftaric is a nuisance and should not be allowed anywhere near the category system. Oculi (talk) 11:36, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support This opens the door to a huge mess of intersectional categories. We have well-developed non-intersecting category systems in place for plant distributions and for plant classification. We don't need Category:Rosaceae of China when we have Category:Rosaceae and Category:Flora of China Plantdrew (talk) 22:19, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Support The detailed system of WGSRPD flora categories is sufficient. Declangi (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[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: relisted at 2018 June 1. – Fayenatic London 13:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:United Nations non-governmental organizations to Category:Non-governmental organizations related to the United Nations

Nominator's rationale: rename, the current category name wrongly suggests these are organizations of the United Nations, which is not actually the case. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Rename but not as suggested. The majority of the content is national (etc) United Nations Associations, which are organisations whose role is to be cheer-leaders for UN. I am not quite sure what the rest of the content is doing there: are they NGOs recognised by UN? if so, that is a separate category. My preferred target would be Category:United Nations Associations, with anything else purged to somewhere else. This needs more discussion: please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:37, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Agree with creation of Category:United Nations Associations as such. But for the other content, purge to somewhere else sounds quite vague, so I would rather create Category:United Nations Associations as a subcategory of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[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 for now. I will also merge the contents to the sibling Category:Gender inequality by country. – Fayenatic London 10:48, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gender pay gap by country to Category:Gender pay gap

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, this category and its parent category together contain six articles only. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• Support. Actually I don't think WP:SMALLCAT directly applies, since more articles could be created, but at the moment I don't see why a merge wouldn't be appropriate. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Merge, with no prejudice against re-creation if and when there are more articles. Grutness...wha? 00:42, 19 March 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, because a) 5 articles is usually accepted as enough to make a viable category; b) it has plenty of scope for expansion; c) it also allows the by-country pages to be directly grouped under Category:Gender equality by country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]

• The category shouldn't have been created (no need to subdivide a category of 6 articles), the category shouldn't have been CFDed for SMALLCAT. I also disagree with BHG's point c (if the GPG-by-country cat exists then it should be in a by-country parent cat, but that doesn't mean the GPG-by-country cat is needed). On balance - oppose. DexDor ^(talk) 06:53, 17 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• keep no good reason to change; agree with BHG's comments. Hmains (talk) 02:56, 18 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Upmerge -- Until someone finds another way of classifying specific articles, other than by country, there is no need to split out the country articles. The problem is not with the by country subject, but with the parent, which has nothing but a main article and a subcat, which is not enough for a category. I might have argued to delete that, but an upmerge provides a more satisfactory outcome. I am not saying that it is not an important subject, merely that one category is enough. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 26 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Not enough articles in tree to justify such sub-divisions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)Reply[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.