< February 23 February 25 >

February 24

Category:The Hunger Games trilogy

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Hunger Games trilogy article has been merged with The Hunger Games article, and the former's category now only includes three pages as a result. I think there is no longer a reason for these two categories to be separate. Charles Essie (talk) 21:18, 24 February 2015 (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:Latter-day Saint Wikipedians

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. – Fayenatic London 17:53, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate user categories.The capitalized version is correct. Liz Read! Talk! 21:04, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They should all be gotten rid of - it doesn't matter a whit what one's religion is - we're supposed to edit using an NPOV regardless. So, putting your viewpoint on politics, religion, etc. out there really doesn't encourage NPOV cooperation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:56, 27 February 2015 (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:Ancient Greek sites 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: no action. – Fayenatic London 18:03, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Ancient Greek sites by country to Category:Ancient Greek sites by continent or simply Category:Ancient Greek sites
  • Propose merging Category:Ancient Greek sites in Central Asia to Category:Ancient Greek sites in Asia
  • Propose merging Category:Ancient Greek sites in Western Asia to Category:Ancient Greek sites in Asia
Nominator's rationale: rename. Per actual content, Category:Ancient Greek sites by country is not a by-country category at all. Let's merge Central and Western Asia so to make it a by-continent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative, not only for easier navigation by location but also and especially for including "archaeological" which better clarifies the scope of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:06, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Ancient Greek sites in Africa‎, Category:Ancient Greek sites in Western Asia‎, Category:Ancient Greek sites in Central Asia‎, and Category:Ancient Greek sites in Europe‎ to Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites
Delete Category:Ancient Greek sites by country as it gets empty with the prior merge.
Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't understand why all ancient Greek sites should be merged in one category, without a geographical distinction (per modern country?).Alexikoua (talk) 16:03, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal aims to keep a geographical distinction, per modern country. There will be some 15 country child categories which is very manageable. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: could you ping me when closing? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:17, 18 March 2015 (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:Objects within 100 Gly of Earth

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. All objects in the known Universe fit into this category. The text is also factually inaccurate. My apologies if this is in the wrong place. nagualdesign 18:56, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Considering the fact that there have been the existing categories for 10 ly, 100 ly, 1000 ly, 10000 ly, 100000 ly, 1000000 ly, 10000000 ly, and 100000000 ly, I figured it would only make sense to continue with the rest of it. Yes the text may be inaccurate, but that can be fixed without deleting the category. It also serves a non-redundant, simple purpose, to include all distant objects further than 10 Gly, and create a category for the most distant objects in the universe, of which there can't be more than 50-100 known. If you were to delete this category, you would have to delete all the others, which would lead to the question of exactly where to cut off, especially considering many of these categories existed without challenge for months or years. exoplanetaryscience (talk) 19:14, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category tags fixed. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The categories beyond 10 million light years are completely useless, they don't even define distance properly, as your category 10Gly does not either. Cosmological redshift means that light travel distance is distinct from comoving distance, and for all objects residing at cosmological distances will have atleast two different distances for each object. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:29, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would like someone knowledgeable on astronomy in wikipedia to enter into this. Perhaps the other articles' creator, JorisvS? exoplanetaryscience (talk) 21:03, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These categories serve to group objects at various distances from us for easier navigation. It makes sense to have a category for those objects not included in any of the other distance categories. Given that the 100 Gly category includes all the objects in the Universe not included in the 10 Gly category and hence "100 Gly" is not an actual cut-off point, I think it makes sense to rename it to something like Category:Objects beyond 10 Gly of Earth. --JorisvS (talk) 22:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Ashill about renaming the categories so they are more specific. Deleting a categories for stellar mass objects less than ~20 light-years from the Sun would be foolish. -- Kheider (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would say any stellar mass object within 20 ly of the Sun is notable by definition. There are only about 100 known stellar systems within ~20 light-years. -- Kheider (talk) 22:02, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We only currently have categories at 10 and 100 ly, and 20ly is similar to "5pc or something like small" ; so "20ly" would be acceptably small by that count. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
..Actually, there's already a list of the most distant astronomical objects. Maybe just work on that? nagualdesign 18:47, 26 February 2015 (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:Deputy Lieutenants of Haddingtonshire

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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 18:08, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Haddingtonshire is an archaic name for the Scottish lieutenancy area of East Lothian. The head article Lord Lieutenant of East Lothian does not distinguish the two names.
If the merger proceeds, the old title should be recreated as a ((category redirect)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 24 February 2015 (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:Subcultures of religious movements

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. – Fayenatic London 18:11, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename. Proposed name more clearly explains the scope of the category, being the counterpart of Category:New religious movements that deals with movements outside established religions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It could also go without 'established', so Category:Movements within religions, which is still much clearer than the current category name. Or do you have a better suggestion? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fair comment, although there are a few Judaism articles in the nominated category as well. I would not object to purging these Judaism articles in combination with any of the following two alternatives: either merge the nominated category to Category:Christian movements or rename it into Category:Christian movements within existing denominations and parent it to Category:Christian movements. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:55, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any content in this category that you would consider to be subculture but not movement? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 30 April 2015 (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.

Old Believer movement

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: Upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, this tree shows a clear case of overcategorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:29, 24 February 2015 (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:1959 establiishments in Alaska

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 to Category:1959 establishments in Alaska. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Misspelling of existing category Category:1959 establishments in Alaska. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 03:12, 24 February 2015 (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:Polish popes

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One member, with low likelihood of much expansion. Editor2020, Talk 02:34, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose deleting the Argentinian category because the English category is not nominated, or vice versa. - Please let's then nominate the small categories together.
- Keep small categories per exception in rule in WP:SMALLCAT as part of a large established tree. - Well actually this isn't a large established tree because very few countries are represented.
As a possible compromise, I'd also be willing to discuss introducing a category for non-Italian popes. After all, once a pope, his nationality has lost most of its relevance as he has become a world leader. And if anything is still relevant, it's Italian versus non-Italian. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme is Category:People by occupation and nationality. Oculi (talk) 11:39, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't you be opposing? Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2015 (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 that are cats

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 per WP:G3 as a hoax. Cats are wonderful, but they don't edit encyclopedias. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Completely useless joke category. Inappropriate user categorization per WP:USERCAT. - Eureka Lott 01:40, 24 February 2015 (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