< November 26 November 28 >

November 27

Category:Black days

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 16:53, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Would seem to run afoul of WP:SHAREDNAME. Does the idea that these are generally considered "bad" days make them "directly related", per that criterion? BDD (talk) 23:00, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you interpret the word "disaster" _very_ broadly - solar eclipse, police used excessive force, financial markets ... DexDor (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most black Fridays in the list were named so because of a disaster (not the two recurring Fridays, but the single Fridays are). And the category is not about disasters randomly lumped together, it is about days lumped together because of disasters. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but it's not Category:Disaster days or something like that. They're grouped explicitly because of the shared-name aspect. --BDD (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might support renaming to that, if that is what you are after. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the larger part they are lists (in functionality) rather than disambiguation pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The pages are dab pages and dab-like SIAs. The pages aren't about a topic such as disasters. DexDor (talk) 16:58, 30 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The SIAs contain references and (for many items) more text than a dab (by the way, I don't think they should be SIAs). Was Black World Wide Web protest (for example) really a disastrous event? DexDor (talk) 22:13, 30 November 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:Canon law legal 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. Timrollpickering 10:47, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: manually merge to Category:Canon law. Like most terminology categories, this category does not contain articles about terminology (i.e. about language) but instead it contains particular terms that each belong in (and mostly are already part of) a content category. In this case, most articles are already in some other subcategory of Category:Canon law, e.g. in Category:Canonical structures, and the few remaining articles may be moved directly to Category:Canon law. We have deleted/merged many of this type of terminology categories before. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 27 November 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:Russia location maps

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 10:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Russia location maps to Category:Russia location map templates
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, all categories use the Foo location map templates format. (I am pinging the category's creator, User:ValeriySh.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:12, 27 November 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:Location map templates crossing 180th meridian

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. Timrollpickering 10:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Location map templates crossing 180th meridian to Category:Location map templates crossing the 180th meridian, or merge to Category:Location map templates
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of this category is unclear to me, and I think it could be upmerged. Then again, I don't work much with location maps, so I may be wrong. At a minimum, the category needs to be renamed to add the missing "the". (I am pinging User:Zyxw as the category's creator.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:09, 27 November 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:Location map by country 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: Rename. Timrollpickering 10:49, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Location map by country templates to Category:Country location map templates
Nominator's rationale: The current title is a little awkward, and needlessly long in my opinion. At a minimum, it should be Category:Location map templates by country. (Pinging User:Woohookitty as the category's creator) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:02, 27 November 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:Cooperatives in College Park, Maryland

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. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 17:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Uplevel what will always be a WP:SMALLCAT, with the hope other members will be created/identified. UnitedStatesian (talk) 16:06, 27 November 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:Controversies about women in science and technology

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 (Talk) 14:09, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Controversies about women in science and technology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary WP:GHETTO. Redundant to Category:Computing-related controversies and disputes and Category:Scientific controversies and Category:Sex scandals. This may not be obvious, but this category will generate an insane amount of contentious discussion at best, and an ArbCom show at worst. That's because there has already been so much discussion about whether Arb-GG applies to unrelated articles, and it is still being discussed. wumbolo ^^^ 14:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't think it "ghettoizes" women since 4 of the 5 articles in this category are about male scientists and technology leaders (Tim Hunt, Alessandro Strumia, Lawrence Summers and Matt Taylor), not articles about women. I would support changing this category to Category:Controversies about gender in science and technology since both men and women are impacted by disputes about gender. Liz Read! Talk! 03:52, 28 November 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.

Lost (TV series) season categories

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:Lost (season 1) episodes. Timrollpickering 10:50, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Lost (TV series) (season 1) episodes to Category:Lost (TV series) season 1 episodes:
  • Propose renaming Category:Lost (TV series) (season 2) episodes to Category:Lost (TV series) season 2 episodes
  • Propose renaming Category:Lost (TV series) (season 3) episodes to Category:Lost (TV series) season 3 episodes
  • Propose renaming Category:Lost (TV series) (season 4) episodes to Category:Lost (TV series) season 4 episodes
  • Propose renaming Category:Lost (TV series) (season 5) episodes to Category:Lost (TV series) season 5 episodes
  • Propose renaming Category:Lost (TV series) (season 6) episodes to Category:Lost (TV series) season 6 episodes
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for double disambiguation. The "season #" is part of the category name - i.e. the category is about the "season # episodes". Gonnym (talk) 13:42, 27 November 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:Wikipedians who work at Google

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 13:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that this cannot foster collaboration. It is not helpful to categorize Wikipedia users based on their employer. Sets a bad precedent to allow categories for any number of other employers out there. We already have Category:Wikipedians by profession if someone wishes to self-identify in their particular field of employment, but I see no encyclopedia-benefiting rationale for keeping categories for specific employers such as this one. And, if this were kept, we would need to establish arbitrary guidelines for what employers were allowed categories or not. VegaDark (talk) 04:53, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps as a userbox or userpage notification, but to retain a category would suggest a grouping of such users would be helpful to the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 20:42, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you are planning on creating a category such as this, I would hope that you use established naming conventions for user categories. In this case, it sounds like Category:Wikipedians interested in Google would be the appropriate name, so long as we don't think that this proposed category would have an overly narrow scope for collaboration. (Personally I've been advocating for a change to the established naming conventions to something like Category:Wikipedians interested in collaborating on topics related to Google to better focus the category on collaboration). VegaDark (talk) 09:33, 1 December 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:User qwh-0

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 all. Timrollpickering 11:45, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 0-level category, which cannot help support collaboration. Violates WP:USERCAT. Extensive history of deleting similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 04:21, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • As unencyclopedic templates, I would suggested they be userfied at minimum. VegaDark (talk) 06:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • And, yes, the template can be modified to stop populating this category, by deleting the | usercategory = and | nocat = parameters. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:23, 27 November 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:User fr-0.5

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 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful babel category. "This user is learning French, and does not understand the language well." "0.5" babel categories have been deleted previously. Let's keep the babel system somewhat useful for encyclopedia improvement; there's absolutely no reason to group users who do not understand the language even to the point of classifying themselves as level 1 proficiency. In other words, I cannot think of any encyclopedic purpose to search through a grouping of users in this category. Alternatively, merge to Category:User fr-1. VegaDark (talk) 04:14, 27 November 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:Wikipedians in regions seeking members

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, speedy per WP:G7 and the category has already been emptied. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I see the use of a category of Wikipedians in regions seeking members but that doesn't seem to be the way this category is being used. Instead of pages being assigned to this category, there are somewhere around 50 or 100 parent categories (I didn't count) that are assigned to this category and so all of the parent categories show that they have a category assigned to them when they might otherwise be empty and be deleted. See Category:Wikipedians in Burundi as an example. I think that if editors want to prevent these categories from being deleted they, like 15,000 or 20,000 other categories, can have an ((EmptyCat)) or ((PossiblyEmptyCat)) tag on them. But assigning this category to them all seems like a workaround. Liz Read! Talk! 02:22, 27 November 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:Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994 film)

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 11:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Will never be more than a WP:SMALLCAT. Only two articles and wont be more. MarnetteD|Talk 02:15, 27 November 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:Bram Stoker's Dracula (1992 film)

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 11:43, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Will never be more than a WP:SMALLCAT. Only three articles and wont be more. MarnetteD|Talk 02:07, 27 November 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.
More