< December 7 December 9 >

December 8

Populated adjective places

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. and nominate the relevant sub-cats for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic London 10:00, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This proposal includes all child categories with "Populated ADJECTIVE places" as the core part of the name, e.g. "populated coastal places", "populated riverside places", and "populated lakeshore places". I've tagged these three child categories, as well as Category:Populated waterside places by country, but there are so many child categories that it would take an inordinate amount of time to tag all of them.
Why this odd wording? I'd never use this construction, and it isn't normal English — it's similar to Tolkien's "green great dragon" (link, if you don't know what I'm talking about). "Populated place" is the core of the term, so the adjective should come first. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's also a reasonable idea. I remember the "Settlements" ==> "Populated places" debates (I think we'd be better off with "Settlements", but I don't think I'd get much support...), but thanks for mentioning in case I wasn't aware of it. Nyttend (talk) 00:27, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subcategories Fishing communities and Ports don't quite fit in "by waterside". Would you then suggest to remove them from the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not quite clear what you mean. Is your point that ports and fishing communities aren't a type of waterside, or are you addressing something else? Nyttend (talk) 20:10, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ports and fishing villages are almost by definition by the waterside. I do not see any reason to remove them. we also have Category:Populated coastal places which I would suggest should become Category:Populated places on coasts. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile I see what I was confused about. Sorry for bothering, just forget about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 30 December 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:Cut (cards)

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) 01:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 8 December 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:Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:44, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This needs either deleting or a major overhaul. A category that puts both Taiwanese bands and thermometers under category:Dutch physicists has severe problems SpinningSpark 19:34, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what is the criteria for inclusion of category:Fahrenheit? If it is only to be things connected with the Fahrenheit temperature scale, then there will probably only be two entries: Fahrenheit and Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit. If it is anything connected with Mr. Fahrenheit in any way, then the bands do belong. One of the articles claims to be named after the Fahrenheit scale and one is °Fahrenheit, clearly also an association. We don't have similar categories for the names of other inventors of temperature scales. There is no category:Celsius, category:Kelvin or category:Rankine. Hell, there is not even a category:Newton (except as a dab) or category:Einstein. However, there is category:Isaac Newton and category:Albert Einstein so perhaps purge is the answer. SpinningSpark 18:38, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see it is already in Category:Wikipedia categories named after scientists, which is appropriate. I do not know why the bands took their name, but guess it was from the temperature scale. However that seems too distant from the scientist and from temperature. The scope should be the scientist and things directly derived from his work. In this case it will be things related to temperature. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:19, 12 December 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:Sega Genesis 4 player games

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) 08:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Sega Genesis 4 player games to [[:Category:]]
  • Propose deleting Category:Sega Genesis 3 player games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Sega Genesis 2 player games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small category that is also excessively specific. Also fails WP:DEFINE. Should be upmerged to the two separate parent categories. Izno (talk) 14:40, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have combined these, as they raise the same issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 9 December 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:Ghost Ship (2002 film)

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) 08:08, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category appears to have been created to link all items associated with a single film. Not a typical use of categories, and I doubt that this film in particular is a good precedent to set. DonIago (talk) 14:28, 8 December 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: Northward flowing rivers

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) 01:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Poorly defined, unmaintainable, arbitrary category that reinforces the much repeated misconception that rivers flowing north are unusual. A current discussion at the Rivers project shows that there are strong feelings about its usefulness. Previous related lists were summarily deleted due to similar arguments here and here...Jokulhlaup (talk) 10:39, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Lacks a clear definition, perhaps — but could be given a better one, yes? No reason to delete! (And Ohio: no; Ob: yes. By virtue of "the general south-to-north direction" in the Ob article, and "a roughly southwest and then west-northwest course" for the Ohio.)
(-dav4is (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  1. a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. Each river identified by finding "flows north", usually in the lead section of wikipedia articles.
  2. if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, See previous.
  3. if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, Too broad!
  1. Avoid categorizing topics by characteristics that are unrelated or wholly peripheral to the topic's notability. Again, note that the specific articles chosen for inclusion in the category mentioned that they flowed north!
Attempts to dispel the notion that all or most rivers flow south by forbidding listing of contrary evidence just doesn't work!
@Dav4is: You appear to have commented with a keep !vote above. Please avoid !voting twice. --Izno (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry! (-dav4is (talk) 04:04, 9 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]
  1. Category is now well defined.
  2. Category is as maintainable as any.
  3. Category is no more arbitrary than "18th-century occultists".
  4. Category will dispel the misconception that rivers flowing north are unusual.
  5. Category deletion should not be governed by past mistakes.
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:Noise

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: split as proposed. As noted, in uncertain cases individual articles could be double categorized in both. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split per the two very different main articles Noise and Noise (electronics). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 8 December 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