< February 14 February 16 >

February 15

Category:Trump administration proposed cabinet 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is odd as it is temporary. "Proposed" cabinet members will either be confirmed or not, and will then become cabinet members or rejected or withdrawn nominees. Soon enough, this category will be completely empty when every cabinet role is filled. And the category will be of even less use after Trump leaves office. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2017 (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.

Futsal clubs

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 all. – Fayenatic London 00:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categories
Nominator's rationale: Should have same naming conventions as Category:Association football clubs by country Ben Stone 19:52, 15 February 2017 (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:British Library-related stubs

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. Her Pegship (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename per stub category naming conventions. Her Pegship (talk) 18:26, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - we don't use the "-related" form for stub catagories. As to the stub tag, the current name represents a subtype of ((Library-stub)), which it isn't. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:36, 20 February 2017 (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:Wikipedia_good_articles

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: keep. – Fayenatic London 14:14, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are few reasons.. 1. This category is a duplication of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:GA and list of these articles can be easily retrieved there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:GA 2. More importantly people often get confused and think that this page is actually a list of good articles. You can verify it by browsing through langlinks in sidebar. The actual Good Articles category (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Good_articles) has only 12 of langlinks, and most of them are actually equivalents of "Good Articles in English" that obviously isn't available in English Wikipedia. Removing this category would encourage to link Good Articles categories in other languages to proper category, and release langlinks from this category Adam Stankiewicz (talk) 15:35, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because (1) the Good Article reviewing history, including the ((GA)) template that records the event of passing GA status, lives on the talk page, and (2) Category:Wikipedia good articles is a tracking category added by the GA template. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is probably something like one is populated by the GA topicon while the other is populated by "class=GA" in the WikiProject banners. The discrepancy would be articles or talk pages missing one or the other. Another good reason to have one category for this and have it populated in a consistent way. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 16:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The mechanism for creating the topicon and putting the articles into the article category is to have a bot notice the changes on the talk page and update the article to match. And there are currently issues with the bot maintainer preventing changes to the bot (see Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations). Have you even checked whether your proposed change will avoid breaking that bot? —David Eppstein (talk) 17:43, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You really could have made that comment without the hostility. Seeing how I wasn't aware of the process until you explained it, no, I did not check. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 19:51, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with keeping after seeing explanations that a merge is not practical. SilkTork ✔Tea time 11:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is setting up for a separate discussion I'm sure, but I see what you mean: an article rated A-class might also have passed a GA review, so it would not be a member of the related GA-class category, thus it would need to be a part of one of the "Wikipedia good articles" subcategories for tracking. Any solution I can think of at the moment isn't better than what we have now. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 13:07, 16 March 2017 (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:Zaporizhian Sich

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. Note: it currently contains 3 articles and a sub-category. – Fayenatic London 14:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, it only contains the eponymous article and a subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, there will be more. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2017 (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 associated with Kiev Pechersk Lavra

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 parents as a soft deletion. That means that the category may be re-created if it appears useful, although it could then be subject to a fresh nomination. Right now it only contains the new category for monks, so I will place that one into the two parent categories of the nominated category. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose upmerge Category:People associated with Kiev Pechersk Lavra to Category:Kiev Pechersk Lavra and Category:People from Kiev
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:OCASSOC. The one article is about a monk of Kiev Pechersk Lavra, but I'm not sure if there is sufficient potential to create a Category:Monks of Kiev Pechersk Lavra. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, the category is created for the purpose of associating people with the Kiev Pechersk Lavra and the city of Kiev. Upmerging will not solve anything. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't create categories with vague inclusion criteria. Association is too vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 15 February 2017 (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