< July 10 July 12 >

July 11

Category:Briarcliff Manor media

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:Non-free images of Briarcliff Manor, New York (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These seem to be the only two categories for categorising non-free media associated with a specific place in the United States. They're also placed in Category:Images of Westchester County, New York, part of the residual free images categorisation scheme, and the New Rochelle category contains articles on radio stations (i.e., local media in a different sense of the word) in the place. I'm not sure any such granular thematic categorisation of non-free images is needed, and certainly we need some more clarity on organisation here, which may require renaming etc. —innotata 22:04, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I only created the Briarcliff one after seeing the New Rochelle one, and I think it makes sense. How are non-free images categorized on Wikipedia? Among categories full of articles, which would be extremely messy? No, there should be categories simply for the images/audio/video about a subject or place. This reminds me of the Villa Savoye, which also has its own Wikipedia category simply because a lot of nonfree images exist of it that also cannot be put on Commons. We must not discriminate against categorizing images simply because of the nature of their copyright. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 22:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's awkward, and also - merely a lack of good display options in software should not prevent us from categorizing in order for users and editors to find important relevant content. As for the "no resolution" bit: not everything needs a formal RfC to end a practice. It's clear nonfree images are now being categorized in normal categories, and with a lack of opposition (save for you now), it should be kept that way. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 12:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It makes things a lot harder for people looking for free images to illustrate articles, or identifying issues with images on a certain theme, which should be the main reasons for these categories existing. Non-free images are meant to have just a restricted set of uses, while including them in the image category scheme would seem to encourage more uses and so on... Maybe the solution is for all the main image categories to have non-free subcategories? Category:Non-free images of Westchester County, New York and so on. Also, these two categories in particular presumably need some sort of renaming to distinguish them from categories for media organizations. —innotata 18:40, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just realized the New Rochelle category is only being used for media organizations now, apart from a questionable free file that I've moved to the erstwhile parent category. I'm converting it to a category for media organizations, and withdrawing it here. I propose moving the remaining category to Category:Non-free images of Briarcliff Manor, New York (or such; and deleting the redirect left behind). —innotata 18:54, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support those renamings, that's definitely clearer. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 19:01, 13 July 2018 (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:Community organizing

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/2018 July 25#Category:Community organizing. xplicit 06:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is way too much overlap in their category trees, and the semantic difference between the two are minimal if not non-existent.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  17:23, 11 July 2018 (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:Students of Sandra Seacat

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. Timrollpickering 09:30, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic per WP:CATDEF of any of the actors added to the category (all by the same editor who created it); seemingly intended merely to promote Sandra Seacat. General Ization Talk 15:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sandra Seacat which was closed Keep in 2012 but may have some background to offer. General Ization Talk 15:52, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There should be a certain level of notability for such a category. Others in the same overall category are Category:Pupils of Avicenna‎, Category: Pupils of Rembrandt‎ and Category:Pupils of Socrates‎. Also, many of the actor articles don't even mention that she was their teacher, or how influential she was on them. --Ebyabe (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: As above. Seacat is no Socrates. Additionally, if there was something which said that students of Seacat were somehow different (won more Oscars, etc.) then I could see it. But at this point there is no defining quality that makes these students stand out from the background noise that is the rest of actors in Hollywood. †dismas†|(talk) 12:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Well, so much for the 'Nays,' I'm afraid. (Thx again to General Ization for the heads up & the link.) Although I had been deleting the bare-bones portion of my initial adds—i.e those w/ no more than student-teacher confirmation—in hopes of meeting the defining characteristic threshold, that's just not happening. And in terms of notability, if an acting-coach precedent were to be set within this parent cat, Seacat clearly has to stand in line. Moreover, I think the need for interactivity can be served simply be ensuring that the wikis of all those who've made special mention of Seacat's influence on their careers include some wiki-linked evidence of that fact. Apart from that, I think user-and researcher-friendliness would be best served by simply including as comprehensive a list as possible within the main article (as in Hagen or Meisner, although preferably alphabetized and fully sourced). DavidESpeed (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2018 (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.

Cooperative banking 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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 25#Cooperative banking by country. xplicit 06:07, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: these categories have hardly any general content about the topic of cooperative banking, but only articles on banks. The sub-cat Category:Credit unions by country is well-populated, and Category:Mutual savings banks by country has three sub-cats, but those national sub-categories do not need a "Cooperative banking in Foo" layer above them. Some other countries already have categories "Cooperative banks in Foo" and there was a Speedy-page proposal to rename them to "banking", but this was opposed on the grounds that these categories work well as sub-cats of "Banks in Foo". It will be more useful to do away with those that are a redundant layer, and rename others from "banking" to "banks". As for the two articles that I have suggested for removal, I have added "See also" links to these on the sub-category pages. – Fayenatic London 09:31, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a very sensible proposal. Rathfelder (talk) 17:39, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mutual savings banks and credit unions categories will be kept as child categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 18 July 2018 (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:History of the Blagoevgrad Province

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains 1 sub-cat for modern period, after merger of ancient, medieval & Ottoman categories per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 29. – Fayenatic London 08:18, 11 July 2018 (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:Armenian writers

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: reverse merge. (Just in case this needs undoing later, here are the bot contribs showing the former members.) – Fayenatic London 19:57, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I figured most people consider "Armenian" in the first category to refer to nationality/citizenship and "Armenian" in the second category ethnic Armenians of any nationality/citizenship - other views differ. If these sorts of categories are not going to be maintained as they were outlined (and by parent category, organized) then they ought to be merged; if they are, they ought to be purged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • An editor posted on my page claiming these two are identical, and has reverted a change reflecting what was my contrary understanding. Also, if you peruse the subcat Category:Armenian male writers for example, you'll see lots of people of the Ottoman Empire who were ethnic Armenians categorized there (depending on the results of this merger proposal, that cat can either be nominated later or purged afterwards). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize you're trying that argument against a person whose ethnic background, as far back as I've ever been able to trace, involves ethnic Germans who lived in Congress Poland, Volhynia and Russia, completely outside of even historical "Holy Roman Empire" Germany let alone the contemporary borders of 21st-century Germany? I'm sure if I could get 100 years further back than I can, I'd find ancestors actually living in Germany proper — but as of about 1780 they were already living in an identical situation to the Armenian side of the distinction you thought you were making. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a reverse merge is proposed, the target category requires tagging, which I have now done.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xplicit 07:17, 11 July 2018 (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:Economic development, innovation, technological change, and growth

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. Timrollpickering 09:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Economic development, innovation, technological change, and growth to Category:Progress
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, a container category with only two subcategories is not helpful for easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 11 July 2018 (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:Classic microsoft windows operating systems

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) 05:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Newly created category with ambiguous wording. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 03:38, 11 July 2018 (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:Translation Request/sd

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 for now without prejudice to a fresh larger nomination with this category included. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty, historical category. I don't see value in keeping it, other than to trick learning editors using HotCat, maybe.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  02:09, 11 July 2018 (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:Typescript libraries

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) 05:20, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one TypeScript framework is notable and has an article at this time. If kept the category needs to be renamed to "TypeScript libraries". — This, that and the other (talk) 00:45, 11 July 2018 (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:Other wikis user templates

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. Timrollpickering 09:31, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Due to simillar usage, it needs to be merged. kwan-in (talk) 00:19, 11 July 2018 (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.