May 22
Category:Films set in the 51st century
- 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: double merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Films set in the 51st century to Category:6th millennium in fiction
- Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:11, 22 May 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.
Categories by gender
- 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/delete per nomination, with care in one case as specified by Marcocapelle (the other is already within the sub-cat Executed people). – Fayenatic London 20:46, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Per previous discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 27#Category by gender and WP:CATGENDER.
- Original rationale by SFB: "These are needlessly small pure-navigation categories. No reason why the parents cannot happily contain the two men/women categories directly with the rest of the content. Note that where a topic covers more than just the men/women gender binary, the navigational grouping is more useful (e.g. the main parent Category:People by gender)."
- Notifying participants in original discussion: @Carlossuarez46, Sillyfolkboy, and Vegaswikian: Place Clichy (talk) 14:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/delete per nom unlike certain sports or awards categories, males and females are not competing separately for capital punishment, executive positions, office holders; they compete together or in the case of capital punishment - they presumably try not to obtain the "prize" without regard to sex. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Support by gender tree not useful to navigation given the low scope for expansion. Also support upmerging of the two categories nominated for deletion as there is nothing distinctive about being male as a Czech presidential candidate (they usually come in that variety...). SFB 21:13, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Place Clichy: You forgot Category:Women sentenced to death. Category:Men sentenced to death is currently underpopulated, but it is easy to find more articles. Apokrif (talk) 21:35, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Apokrif: While it is obvious to me that the men sentenced to death category has no encyclopaedic value, the women category is less obvious. WP:CATGENDER gives a few similar examples where one gender-specific category is an eligible topic while the other is not. I am undecided about this one, but it should be discussed separately. Also, I only mentioned that the men category is underpopulated to justify nominating it for deletion instead of upmerge, which is unnecessary; being underpopulated is irrelevant to eligibility. Place Clichy (talk) 22:20, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/delete per nom and Carlos Suarez. - Darwinek (talk) 22:44, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in Category:Men sentenced to death there are two articles that need to be added to Category:People sentenced to death if the former category is deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:54, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @Marcocapelle: of the four articles, I can see only one who is not already in a subcategory of People sentenced to death: Bonaventura Radonić, which can easily be placed in Executed Yugoslav people, at least. I also notice that People sentenced to death is a recent creation (October 2017) which largely overlaps the long-standing Prisoners sentenced to death. Place Clichy (talk) 15:51, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge/del per nom, and with Marcocapelle's caveat in mind. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:16, 26 May 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:21st-century Nigerian bloggers
- 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) 05:59, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Bloggers do not need to be subcatted by century; given that blogging is an inherently 21st-century phenomenon, there's no such thing as a blogger in any other century, and so the category fails to distinguish its contents from any other kind of blogger. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than directly upmerging the individual entries here to Category:21st-century Nigerian writers, it would indeed be preferable to just add Category:Nigerian bloggers to that as a subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - for consistency the category structure for occupations that are "inherently 21st-century" should match the structure for other occupations. Also, blogging is only inherently 21st-century if you assume that it won't exist in future centuries. DexDor (talk) 11:44, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Except that it's going to be another 82 years before we have any content about bloggers in future centuries to categorize. If Wikipedia still exists in 2100 (which is debatable at best, and even if it does the chances of any of us still being around by that point are entirely nonexistent), then we can start subcategorizing bloggers by century once 22nd-century bloggers are actually a thing articles actually exist about. Bearcat (talk) 19:43, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge, and do make e.g. Category:American bloggers a sub-cat of Category:21st-century American writers. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge along Fayenatic london's comment. And do more of this. We do not not need any "21st century bloggers" categories, even if there were a small number of people in the late 1990s doing something we'd call blogging today and who stopped before 21st century rolled around. There's too few to bother splitting the hairs that finely. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 19:18, 26 May 2018 (UTC.
- Merge. We wont need to categorise bloggers by century for at least 80 years. Rathfelder (talk) 19:35, 27 May 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:Video games set in the 48th century
- 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: double merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Video games set in the 48th century to Category:5th millennium in fiction
- Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:38, 22 May 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.