< January 1 January 3 >

January 2

Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara Oblast

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. ~ Rob13Talk 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there is currently only one article and the category can realistically only ever contain max 2 articles (the other being Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Counter-argument. This category has been designed to contain the lists of monuments and memorials for each city/town of Samara Oblast in the future. Here is the list of administrative divisions of the region. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apart from Tolyatti and Samara the other cities in the oblast are way too small to create a similar list. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except the mentioned cities, there are another two settlements with more than 100.000 population. Anyway, in my opinion, it’d be better to keep the special category for appropriate articles than merge it to a broader-scope category and make it messier.
P.S. I’m currently organizing the articles within the Category:Lists of monuments and memorials to help us reach them at least by country. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) Agree to that. I have adapted the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping the opinion that the existing structure helps to allocate the lists by geographical location more accurately and has real capacity to be more populated in the future. Is there a wiki-rule which requires from us to collapse such structures of categories? Leonid Dobrov (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Categories are meant to facilitate easy navigation between related articles. Navigation is made unnecessary cumbersome by creating multiple category layers each with very little content. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same thing indeed. That category will only ever contain an additional a list for Rostov-on-Don and that will be it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2019 (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:The Twilight Zone Guest Appearances

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This fails WP:NONDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support: ... not to mention that it violates WP:INCOMPATIBLE (a person is not an appearance) and WP:CAPS. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror. These are just examples; it could also be something much better. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 08:42, 3 January 2019 (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:Egyptian Premier League footballers

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 per nom. There is a clear consensus that this should be "players", not "footballers". The arguments for renaming this to "Players in the Egyptian Premier League" to avoid ambiguity are not without merit, but they have been countered by arguments that the wider category tree treats similar categories as the nominator suggested. No prejudice against a wider nomination of all potentially ambiguous categories involving national-specific "Premier Leagues". ~ Rob13Talk 18:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Footballers isn't the correct word to use here. Most of the "league players" categories like this one, if not all of them, ends with "players". For example, We have Category:Premier League players, Category:Bundesliga players, Category:Qatar Stars League players, and many other examples; and because of that I believe that this one should match rest of the categories. Ben5218 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: Despite it might actually sounds ambiguous, but most other league with the name "Premier League" has a category with the same name. For example, we have Category:Ukrainian Premier League players, Category:Armenian Premier League players, Category:Kenyan Premier League players and Category:Israeli Premier League players. I believe that Egyptian Premier League players is the most suitable name for this category to match the league's article title, and to use the same naming system that all other leagues use. Ben5218 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: But that won't match the naming system all other leagues use. Plus, there are already some categories with a similar name like the ones I mentioned above. Don't you think that it would be better if this category's name is changed the naming system all other leagues use? Ben5218 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We should rename all those other categories as well. We need precesion in naming categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It rather the naming of the whole system. The Serie A had namesake basketball (and other sport) competition in native language, while in English language the football competition certainly is the primary topic, so that Serie A players is reasonable naming without much assumed knowledge to other reader. For club, any club ending with FC, either association football or other rule football, "Category:foo FC players" is a reasonable naming due to the FC. It may applies to FK, AC, CF (despite CF in Italian can stand for women's football, which differ from Spanish CF = FC) for assumed knowledge on the meaning of the affix . The naming of "Category:foo league players" actually require assumed knowledge one by one which sport the league was. Matthew hk (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2019 (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:Japanese-Canadian internment

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: Renamed to Category:Internment of Japanese Canadians. WP:C2D does not seem to apply here. Miniapolis 23:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not the internment that is Japanese-Canadian, it's the internees. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2019 (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:Asian-American novels

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 WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 19#Category:Asian-American_novels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Asian-American authors rather than books. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2019 (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.

Commons category tracking

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 delete. Tracking categories now empty because tracking has been restructured looks to me like a WP:G6 issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose deleting Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata
  • Propose deleting Category:Commons category with page title different than on Wikidata‎
  • Propose deleting Category:Commons category without a link on Wikidata‎
Nominator's rationale: These three tracking categories can be deleted as they have been replaced by a new set of tracking categories, see Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories, and the related discussion at Template_talk:Commons_category#Please_test_a_new_version_of_this_template. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2019 (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:Capacitive touchscreen mobile phones

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/2019 February 25#Category:Capacitive touchscreen mobile phones. ~ Rob13Talk 18:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created when capacitive touchscreen was a novelty. Now this is expected from any touchscreen device and would require all phones created in the last two decades to be included if we aimed to be complete. uKER (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2019 (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:Battles won by Indigenous peoples of the Americas

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: listify. ~ Rob13Talk 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not fit into any wider battles-won-by category scheme (in fact, this category currently has no parents). Battles are already categorized by date/location/war etc (and various combinations of those) so this categorization is unnecessary. Many battles don't have a clear winner so this isn't a good way to categorize. If anyone thinks we should categorize (all) battles by winner (and loser?) then that should be discussed at WP:MILHIST first. The category could be listified.
If this is not deleted then it should be renamed to use a lower case "i" in indigenous peoples of the Americas and parented. DexDor (talk) 07:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Hello, I created this category. I am all for converting it into a list and also agree with the capitalization change. I created this list because I think it is of high importance.
Retinoblastoma (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: I think we should delete the category and replace it with a list (note, I created this category but I am a very casual contributor and in retrospective it was a bad idea) Retinoblastoma (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2019 (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:Radom Confederation

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. ~ Rob13Talk 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only an eponymous article that is already in Category:Polish confederations. The subcategory should be kept but does not need this category as a parent, especially not because there is a direct link to the Radom Confederation article in the header of the subcategory page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2019 (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.

Churches by city (Spain)

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 per nom. ~ Rob13Talk 01:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories only contain 1 article and/or 1 (Roman Catholic) subcategory. There is only one merge target, because the content of every category is already categorized in a Roman Catholic churches category of a region. For example, the article in Category:Churches in Alcoy is already in Category:Roman Catholic churches in the Valencian Community. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2019 (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:New South Wales Stations/Wharves with map

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. ~ Rob13Talk 05:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is populated by articles that have had an external link showing a map of connecting buses in the area. There are endless ways public transport infrastructure articles can be categorised by, but usually it is kept to a fairly high level; Stations in Sydney, Wharves opened in 1923 etc. This category is doing so by features of the article, rather than features of the subject matter, so really an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. JCN217 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2019 (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:X86 Supercomputers

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. ~ Rob13Talk 05:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Categorization#General conventions, regular nouns are not capitalized. 99Electrons (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2019 (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:African-American Ivy League academics

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of any of its members per WP:CATDEF; non-notable intersection of race and educational affiliation. General Ization Talk 03:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These characteristics are certainly relevant to the topic, as precedented by the existing of similar category constructs like Category:African-American educators, Category:African-American schoolteachers, Category:American people of Mestizo descent, Category:American academics of Mexican descent, Category:Jewish musicians and the so very, very many others. Maybe reword following the precedent of Category:American academics of Mexican descent or Category:American writers of Mexican descent, but then what would the real difference be? The inclusion of the "African-American" designation? But why designate of "Mexican" (or any other) descent? What's REALLY going on here? LumaNatic (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A number of these may be nominated for deletion as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2019 (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:African-American Ivy League alumni

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. — JJMC89(T·C) 23:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection of educational affiliation and race. TM 03:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Abandon the play at oppression olympics. All of these groups have been systemically and institutionally excluded from education in the US, and the western education system at large, and thus Wikipedia should reflect these historical (and present day) discrimination if it is to be an accurate encyclopedia. Those advocating for Delete seem adverse to documenting the US/West's history of discrimination, and thus seem disingenuous. There is no need to follow a "rule" or "law" that seems to have been made in error, or at the very least seems intent on white-washing history. Wikipedia has no place replicating such practices.-LumaNatic (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@LumaNatic:Thom Hartmann mentioned on one of his radio/TV shows that he once paid a visit to the Heritage Foundation,as he looked around he saw banks of interns sitting at computers, those that could see were busy editing wikipedia. From the amount of votes to delete categories dealing with minorities and White Supremacy and comments at Teahouse. I find validation of his observations. If not Heritage interns, then fellow travelers sharing the same bias. Not all of course, but enoughOldperson (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2019 (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.