< July 2 July 4 >

July 3

Category:Psychiatric asylum buildings in the United Kingdom

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: manual merge where needed, then delete. – Fayenatic London 07:24, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not convinced that being an called an asylum is defining especially based on the category introduction. Of the article I have checked, they are also in the Category:Psychiatric hospitals in the United Kingdom category. This appears to be categorization by like name. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2014 (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:Ontario road 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: delete; merge contents to Category:Canada road stubs and Category:Ontario transport stubs. Good Ol’factory (talk)
  • Propose merging Category:Ontario road stubs to all its stub parents
Nominator's rationale: Undersized - a quick scan found only 44 stubs which would belong on this category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:27, 3 July 2014 (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: Women philologists

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. For the record, the current members are Dorothea Bleek, Linda Fierz-David, Geneviève Hasenohr, Blanca de Lizaur, Zenta Mauriņa and Donna Shalev. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 8 August 2014 (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:Bahrani women

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. I would upmerge it but the category is now empty, along with the occupational categories for Bahranis. This is at least in part due to the edits of AsimAlsadeh (talk · contribs) who I notice has de-categorised some pages as unsourced. – Fayenatic London 23:20, 20 July 2014 (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:Dietary mineral toxicity

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:Toxic effects of dietary elements
Nominator's rationale: "Dietary mineral" is an outdated term in any case, and should be replaced with "Dietary element". However, the members of this category are all metals. Not all dietary elements are metals, such as chlorine, iodine, and bromine, but I do not think people can get toxicity from these in the context of them being consumed in one's diet or even as dietary supplement treatment. Right now, this category is being used to mean "metal poisoning", and per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_June_11#Category:Toxic_metal_poisoning, this category should redirect to that one until someone makes a case for "dietary element toxicity" outside the context of metal poisoning. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Hmm... those are not metals. I would not call them minerals, because that is an imprecise term and I am not sure those conditions were described as minerals in the past and I do not think they have been called that in years. Yes, this could be worth keeping, but I would rename it to "Dietary element toxicity" and have "metal poisoning" be a subcategory of that top level heading. We can see what comes up in addition to those two important cases you found. Those two should be in a category together and "dietary element toxicity" is the best way I can think to describe it. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:50, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: for consistency, how about "Toxic effects of dietary elements"? – Fayenatic London 20:15, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic london Yes that it is the same. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2014 (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.

Template:LGBT-atlanta-stub

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, replace with ((atlanta-stub)) and ((LGBT-stub)). The stub's creator does not appear to have done what was recommended. – Fayenatic London 16:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't even have a US-level LGBT stub tag; we certainly don't need one for a single city in the US. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we can add both.There is a need. tdempsey (talk) 17:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, there's a difference between “don't have” and “don't need”. I used WP:CatScan to find all stub articles under Category:LGBT in the United States, and it found 1242 articles. It seems that there are enough stub articles to be worth a US-level LGBT stub tag, and almost certainly sub-categories for some US states and some of the larger cities. It looks like the Atlanta editors are ahead of the curve on this one. Let's keep what's been built here, and give the rest of the US time to catch up, rather than tearing down one of the pioneering examples.  Unician ∇  13:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that we need, come up with a list of at least 60 pages (usually through a category scan, which you can do uninng this tool), link to it and propose it at WP:WSS/P. If what you're saying is true, then you should be able to come up with lists for several US states. And this tag is misnamed - Atlanta needs to be capitalized, and probably first.
One important rule: You should generally try and build new category structures from the bottom up - that is, start with the most general categoiry in the scheme, and then go on to specifics. Before proposing a tag for a US tsate, you should go through the US and then the state in question (which, by the way, would be GeorgiaUS, to distinguish from the Asian country by the same name). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:07, 13 July 2014 (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.

Idaho Territory

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/rename. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just like other territories, these should be historically accurate. Idaho Territory existed from 1863-1890. Note that the single article for 1890 still belongs with the territory. I don't think there's a need to create centuries/millennium categories; Everything can just be left in Category:Years in Idaho and Category:Decades in Idaho, etc. Kennethaw88 • talk 01:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Many of these category structures have only been created in the last year or so, and I doubt they are complete. There are very likely many other cities and towns to populate these. Kennethaw88 • talk 00:54, 6 July 2014 (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