September 6
Category:Mayors of Redwood City, California
- 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 (also to Category:Mayors of places in California). MER-C 08:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Category only has only 2 entries. Mayors of cities this size (86 thousand) aren't automatically notable. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:10, 6 September 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:People Who Have Studied Law and Economics
- 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. MER-C 08:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Law and economics scholars. DrKay (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, just the type of education is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, per both nom and previous commentator. 107.190.33.254 (talk) 15:57, 7 September 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:Pyridoisoquinolines
- 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 manually to parents. MER-C 09:00, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Of the four categories in Category:Pyridoisoquinolines, the largest substructures common to all four compounds seem to be COc0cc1CCNC(CCC(C)CC)c1cc0OC, COc0cc1CCNC(CCCCC(C)C)c1cc0OC, and COc0cc1CCN2CC(CC)CCC2c1cc0OC, all of which have a substructure of tetrahydroisoquinoline. According to PubChem, pyridoisoquinoline appears to be pyridine fused to isoquinoline in a certain manner, resulting in a fully aromatic group of three rings with two nitrogen atoms, neither of which are in the center ring. By contrast, the tricyclic substructure common to the four members of Category:Pyridoisoquinolines, c0cc1CCN2CCCCC2c1cc0, has only one aromatic ring, has only one nitrogen atom, and has a nitrogen atom on the border of the first and second rings. None of the four compounds have a substructure of pyridoisoquinoline. I conducted a PubChem substructure search for pyridoisoquinoline and looked at the page for each of the ten results on the first page. The fact that none of those ten pages had a link to the English Wikipedia page for the compound (and furthermore did not even have a link to a Wikipedia page in another language or a link to a Wikidata page) suggests that Wikipedia doesn't have any pages about pyridoisoquinolines. In summary, all four members of Category:Pyridoisoquinolines are tetrahydroisoquinolines, none are pyridoisoquinolines, and Wikipedia does not appear to have any pages about pyridoisoquinolines, so the category should be deleted and its members moved to Category:Tetrahydroisoquinolines. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 20:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I think in the 1st sentence of the nom "categories" should be "articles". DexDor (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment, neither Pyridoisoquinolines nor Tetrahydroisoquinolines seems to be a defining characteristic of these four articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and place the articles in more appropriate categories if appropriate. I don't understand the chemistry (and I suspect most other CFDers don't either), but Pyridoisoquinoline is a redlink. DexDor (talk) 11:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I know nothing of the chemistry but it is standard to upmerge a category to its parents (which do not include the target, at present). Oculi (talk) 16:19, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @The Nth User: it may help if you react once more. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:18, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support upmerge to parent categories as this is a potentially confusing categorisation. SFB 12:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason that I proposed merging Category:Pyridoisoquinolines to Category:Tetrahydroisoquinolines and not simply the former's parents is because all of the articles in Category:Pyridoisoquinolines seem to fit into Category:Tetrahydroisoquinolines but not Category:Pyridoisoquinolines. All of the articles in Category:Pyridoisoquinolines are incorrectly categorized and should be moved to Category:Tetrahydroisoquinolines. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 23:45, 15 September 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.
Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC BY-SA
- 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/merge. MER-C 10:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC-BySA-1.0 to Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC BY-SA 1.0
- Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC-BySA-2.0 to Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC BY-SA 2.0
- Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC-BySA-2.5 to Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC BY-SA 2.5
- Propose merging Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC-BySA-1.0-IntEng to Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC BY-SA 1.0 (else rename to Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC BY-SA 1.0 IntEng)
- Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC-BySA-2.0-IntEng to Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC BY-SA 2.0 (else rename to Category:Wikipedians contributing under Dual License with CC BY-SA 2.0 IntEng)
- Nominator's rationale: For consistency with the parent categories and the article Creative Commons license, both of which suggest "CC BY-SA" is more appropriate than "CC-BySA". The IntEng categories are for those use the International English versions of the CC BY-SA 1.0 and CC BY-SA 2.0 licenses; however, my understanding is they are still the same licenses. (Category creator not notified because: bot) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 10:20, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless someone can produce a plausible explanation of how categories like this might possibly be useful to anyone. From looking at what-links-here I've not found any processes referring to these categories. Even if there was a process to (for example) check whether every surviving edit to an article was under a particular license it'd probably not use these categories (as they don't tell you when the user added the userbox to their page). This appears to be categorization just for the sake of categorization. DexDor (talk) 11:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a fair point, perhaps. In truth, I do not know if these categories are meaningful in any way; however, it does not seem right to delete just these several categories and leave the many others in Category:Wikipedians by Wikipedia contribution licensing. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:20, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support for consistency. Agreed that the value of the category is unclear, but that is a question for the 1000+ users currently in the category rather than the small, uninvolved audience here. SFB 12:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support It is stylized as CC BY-SA, not CC-BySA. — MusikAnimal talk 02:41, 26 September 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:Jazz Jackrabbit games
- 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. MER-C 16:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: "Games" disambiguation is unnecessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:55, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as eponymous named category is preferable in first instance. SFB 12:14, 15 September 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:EverQuest games and expansions
- 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. MER-C 16:35, 17 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: No need for a game subcategory for a video game series. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as exclusively a games series. SFB 12:14, 15 September 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:Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception
- 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. MER-C 08:31, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one article beside the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:37, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- There is nothing here but the main article and an award (with a category for it which will probably be deleted - next item below). That is nowhere near the normal minimum of 5 items for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:23, 8 September 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:Patronal Medal winners
- 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. MER-C 08:32, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD and WP:NONDEF, in some articles the award is not even mentioned at all, e.g. in Mother Angelica. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:35, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:10, 6 September 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.