< September 1 September 3 >

September 2

Category:Scientific phenomena by status

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; maybe this could be re-assessed if more than one valid subcategory ever exists. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see a good rationale for having this category. It contains only a single sub-category (and no articles), and thus serves only to impede navigation. Unless somebody can come up with at least 2 other viable sub-cats it should be deleted. Notified Category creator using ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 23:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those categories you've added aren't "by status" (active/extinct etc) categories and shouldn't be categorized with the "Volcanoes by status" category. DexDor (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I interpret "by status" differently. I do not see it as "just" an active/extinct classification. By status means that it has been labeled with some sort of measure, whether it be active/extinct, F0 - F5, tropical depression - category 5 hurricane, etc does not matter, they are all statuses (A ... condition, position or standing relative to that of others.). Technical 13 (talk) 15:47, 9 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The key word here is "standing", which derives from the same root as "status". A phenomenon that can have a status ascribed to it has, in effect, been "standing still" long enough to so describe it. That is fundamentally different from the other kinds of parameters, such as magnitude. Cgingold (talk) 01:46, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there are enough viable subcats of this sort, they could perhaps be placed in an umbrella category along the lines of Category:Phenomena by magnitude. But I agree that these new subcats are not actually "by status" categories, and should not be parented by this particular category. Cgingold (talk) 22:18, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like I said above, I have no objection in principle to having this category if other sub-cats can be found that actually involve status, as distinct from magnitude, etc. Cgingold (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2013 (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 use Microsoft Windows

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) 21:56, 12 September 2013 (UTC) Upon further discussion with Technical 13, I have agreed to relist this for discussion. It has been relisted at 2013 SEP 13 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:25, 13 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per this DRV I am relisting this CFD to discuss a new argument raised by the DRV nominator. This cat was properly deleted after this cfd. As DRV closer I am neutral Spartaz Humbug! 20:25, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific? e.g. in what situation would a category populated with 20 people who use MS windows be useful for some technical reason?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, just to be clear. This category is unnecessary and pointless because you can just ask me, correct?—S Marshall T/C 19:41, 6 September 2013 (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:Candan Erçetin

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 2013 SEP 18 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:03, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 2 September 2013 (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 from Guin, Alabama

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 (only nominated category). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small town with only three entries....William 15:16, 2 September 2013 (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:Greek MPs 1923–1926

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:50, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Greek MPs 1923–1926 to Category:Greek MPs 1923–1925
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The IV National Assembly, elected in 1923, was disbanded in September 1925 by the dictator Pangalos, and new elections were not held until November 1926. Constantine ✍ 12:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, Greek practice certainly does not view the MPs as continuing until the next election, especially given the very tumultuous nature of Greek political history. I am really surprised that anyone would suggest we pretend that a parliament sat until 1926, even if it had been legally dissolved and superseded by a dictatorial regime, because it would presumably be "neater". As to upmerging the categories, this is really not the place for such a suggestion, nor do I see the rationale for abolishing the distinction by parliament, which I for one find useful. Constantine ✍ 17:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, and oppose upmerger (changing my !vote). I am persuaded by Constantine's explanation that the new name more accurately reflects the category's purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:11, 5 September 2013 (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:Australian television programs

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: Withdrawn by nominator. Technical 13 (talk) 00:52, 4 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose renaming Category:Australian television programs to Category:Australian television programmes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per standard Australian spelling. Grutness...wha? 06:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Withdrawn. Grutness...wha? 00:34, 4 September 2013 (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.

New Kingdom-related 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. No consensus for an upmerge; if one is needed, it can be discussed in a new CfD.. Dana boomer (talk) 03:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: User:koavf recently created these categories to cover a specific event, the foundation of Antinopolis by Hadrian in 122. They are anachronistic, since the New Kingdom of Egypt actually covers the 18th, 19th, and 20th dynasties of Pharaohs or the 16th to 11th century BC. The period actually covered by these categories is Egypt (Roman province), or simply "Roman Egypt". Also he/she misplaced the year 122 in the 1st century, when it is actually part of the 2nd century. Dimadick (talk) 05:54, 2 September 2013 (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:Perris Block

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 2013 SEP 18 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 18:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize articles about geographic features by their underlying geology - especially when all/most of the articles don't mention the geology. For info: Many/most of the articles in the category are in the lists in the Perris Block article. DexDor (talk) 04:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Its not a matter of perf-by-perf - it's about consistency of categorization. Most/all articles about geographical features specify what they are (hill, lake etc) and which state/county(s) they're in - hence those are good characteristics to use for categorization. Very few articles (and that includes the articles in this category) specify which lump of bedrock the feature is above. An article (e.g. about a region or a country) might mention which tectonic plate it's on, but AFAIK we don't categorize by that characteristic. DexDor (talk) 19:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That the block is little recognized supports the view that it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Articles about geology are fine, but I don't think we want to extend categorization to have by-geology categories for articles about places where (for non-geologists) the geology isn't that important (when compared with things like which state the place is in and whether it's a hill/lake/river etc). DexDor (talk) 18:42, 5 September 2013 (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:Politics of Westminster

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:Politics of the City of Westminster. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:42, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To avoid ambiguity.
This category covers the politics of the City of Westminster, a local govt area in London. However, the word "Westminster" is widely used colloqially to refer to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, which is housed in the Palace of Westminster. A Google search for "Westminster Politics" shows that the phrase is overwhelmingly used to refer to Parliament rather than to the borough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:24, 2 September 2013 (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 North Korea

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As the Internet (nevermind Wikipedia) is not available in North Korea, if you were in North Korea, you would not be able to access Wikipedia, making this an impossible categorization. If this is to be kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians from North Korea and the meaning changed in that manner. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure restricted access is available for the elites. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:48, 2 September 2013 (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 Pyongyang

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:45, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As the Internet (nevermind Wikipedia) is not available in Pyongyang, if you were in North Korea, you would not be able to access Wikipedia, making this an impossible categorization. If this is to be kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:Wikipedians from Pyongyang and the meaning changed in that manner. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2013 (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