< August 19 August 21 >

August 20

Category:Asset Health Management

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 with Category:Maintenance. -- Tavix (talk) 20:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Asset Health Management to Category:Asset health management
Nominator's rationale: The article is at Asset health management. I've brought this to CFD rather than to CFDS because deletion of this category could also be considered. DexDor (talk) 12:32, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to the renaming but I do not agree with deletion as the category is useful as a way to bring together the health management of assets in a way that avoid's confusion with asset management in the financial sense. JPelham (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This category is (via Category:Asset) under Category:Financial accounting (and was so when you created it) - is that categorization correct? DexDor (talk) 13:41, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it should'nt be in (via Category:Asset) but i couldn't thing of somewhere better to put it. In a taxonomic sense it would be at a higher level than maintenance which is the other suggestion JPelham (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 23:54, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a problem with this merge (instead of delete). "Fancy term for maintenance" may be included in the text of Asset health management, this is a lot clearer than the current article text. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 23 August 2016 (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:Bagpipe tunes

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Move to Category:Compositions for bagpipe Ostrichyearning (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2016 (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.

Regions of the Republic of Ireland

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:NUTS statistical regions of the Republic of Ireland. The article title is outside the jurisdiction of CFD so I'll leave that for either an WP:RM discussion or a bold move if someone feels there's consensus for it. -- Tavix (talk) 16:41, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Regions of the Republic of Ireland to Category:NUTS of the Republic of Ireland
Nominator's rationale Per main article NUTS of the Republic of Ireland. Itcontains no region that is not a NUTS region. For example, Provinces of Ireland are not members. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually asgree with the alternative suggestion. I didn't go with it in the proposal because almost every article uses the proposed naming convention. There is one for every EU country. If we go with the alternative, a mass article renaming will become necessary. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:56, 22 August 2016 (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:Radio stations that simulcast on AM and FM

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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-WP:DEFINING category. We don't even have categories for stations which operate solely on one band or the other, so I don't see why we'd need one for stations which simulcast on both bands as being somehow more notable or defining. Of the stations catted here, one is included because it has a low-power FM translator in a small portion of its coverage area (which is not rare -- this category would, for example, have to include most CBC Radio One and Ici Radio-Canada Première stations, and nearly every commercial radio station in the British Columbia Interior that has a mountain inside its broadcast range, if that were a valid basis for inclusion); ten are here because they currently operate as simulcasts of an officially separate sister station, even though their owners could change their formats tomorrow if they wanted to (thus making their inclusion potentially temporary — plus, for clarity's sake, it's worth noting that because the simulcast pairs qualify for separate articles if they have documentable histories as separate stations rather than having always operated as a simulcast, what we're really talking about here is five simulcasts that are being categorized in pairs); and one completely fails to have any content in its article which explains its inclusion at all. I've no objection to listifying if anybody feels strongly that this is a valuable topic for Wikipedia to maintain content about, but it's not a good basis for a category. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 20 August 2016 (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:Heterodox economists

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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:31, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF and WP:OCMISC. Except for one article Frederic S. Lee, the term "heterodox" is not defining for the members of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 17:07, 20 August 2016 (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:Promoters of pseudoscience

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. Note that the category had already been emptied before closing this discussion. (non-admin closure)Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Overlaps Category:Advocates of pseudoscience which is a container category, which must not include articles. Its purpose is to group sub-categories of people who advocate areas currently included under by consensus.
See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 1#Category:Pseudoscientists and Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 12#Category:People accused of pseudoscience. This seems to be part of an effort to brand BLP's with labels that likely violate WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. - MrX 16:35, 20 August 2016 (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:Christian Brother (Irish) schools

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:Congregation of Christian Brothers schools. -- Tavix (talk) 16:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Christian Brother (Irish) schools to Category:Christian Brother schools
Nominator's rationale: 1) The category contains pages for Christian Brother schools worldwide. 2) The organization, Congregation of Christian Brothers, is based in Rome, Italy - not Ireland. Gjs238 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further consideration of category names should await the outcome of the RM discussion(s). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:01, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Hold Until those RMs close. If the names remain unchanged, I assume the votes above would stand but, at least for mine, renaming the main articles would change my position. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:33, 22 August 2016 (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:Christian Brother (Irish) secondary schools

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:Congregation of Christian Brothers secondary schools. -- Tavix (talk) 16:32, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Christian Brother (Irish) secondary schools to Category:Christian Brother secondary schools
Nominator's rationale: 1) The category contains pages for Christian Brother secondary schools worldwide. 2) The organization, Congregation of Christian Brothers, is based in Rome, Italy - not Ireland. Gjs238 (talk) 15:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Further consideration of category names should await the outcome of the RM discussion(s). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2016 (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:Economics and religion

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. -- Tavix (talk) 16:29, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is not just about economics, as a social science, and religion, but more broadly about economic phenomenons and religion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 10:05, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created this category, and I neither support nor oppose this change as of yet. I'm just curious to know if this is being done in pursuant to any established naming convention. --Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 09:59, 21 August 2016 (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:Works about philosophy of social sciences

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. -- Tavix (talk) 20:16, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article currently. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I understand correctly, you support the merge but only to the first target, is that right? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 23 August 2016 (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:Movember

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Movember
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC and WP:SMALLCAT
Movember is an annual event in November to grow mustaches to raise money and awareness for prostate cancer. I have no conceptual objection to this category but, in practice, it is just a loose assortment of people, organizations and companies that have supported the fundraiser. Purging doesn't seem like a good option here because it would leave just 2 articles: the main one and this one with little potential for growth. No objection to recreating this if we ever get up to 5 or so true articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The notified Timpace as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Health and fitness. – RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 20 August 2016 (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