< February 18 February 20 >

February 19

[edit]

Category:Wikipedians who have visited User:UBX/Userboxes/Userboxes

[edit]
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: Speedy delete under author request. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who have visited User:UBX/Userboxes/Userboxes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: A bizarre and probably unnecessary category. DexDor (talk) 23:42, 19 February 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.

English footballers by place (small categories)

[edit]
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, but upmerge contents to Category:Footballers from COUNTY and Category:People from ORIGINAL-PLACE-IN-CATEGORY-NAME to retain data. The first five will go to Category:Footballers from Hertfordshire; Ipswich will go to Category:Footballers from Suffolk; last two will go to Category:Footballers from West Sussex. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At a a recent CfD, Category:Footballers from Liverpool was kept with comments that it does/would fill a category. These categories are others in Category:British footballers by city or town that are all rather small and wouldn't appear to have much scope for expansion. Severo (talk) 22:22, 19 February 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:Reminders of Skanderbeg

[edit]
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. And further discussions regarding the Category:Monuments and memorials by person tree appear likely. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just a shared name. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, those are deliberate shared name categories, I didn't know they exist. As these categories are apparently accepted, I suppose the nominated category should also be kept and renamed to Category:Memorials of Skanderbeg. Or otherwise the entire tree of Category:Monuments and memorials by person should be nominated for deletion, but personally I wouldn't expect any consensus for that. In other words: withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 25 February 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:Former constitutional monarchies

[edit]
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: convert to list within section of article, as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Former constitutional monarchies to list within existing section Constitutional_monarchy#Former_constitutional_monarchies
Nominator's rationale: This sub-category was overlooked when the parent category for constitutional monarchies was nominated at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_13#Monarchies. – Fayenatic London 20:17, 19 February 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:Television shows set in Buenos Aires

[edit]
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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 03:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the pages in the category are television programs produced in Buenos Aires, so their plot is set in Buenos Aires basically by default. So, it is a trivial categorization in all cases. The category would not be trivial for some hypothetical show set in Buenos Aires and produced somewhere else, but none of the articles is like that and I'm not aware of any show that may fit that description. Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 19 February 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.

Sportspeople from Canadian small cities and small towns

[edit]
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 categories with under 10 members, manually checking that they are in a sportspeople by province category. In practice, it was easy in most cases to add more members from the parent category, so only Fort Saskatchewan needed merging. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-Categories
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge all. The following sportspeople categories will be upmerging. Because the sportspeople from small cities and small towns are considered too small. And the cities and towns are too small because of the smallest population, mostly towns. Here are the upmerging details. The sportspeople categories have how many articles currently, to the existing "people from categories" for a grand total of articles after upmerging. The maximum of articles on a single category page is 200. From now on the categories will be upmerged, and sometime in the near future someone or I can re-create these Sportspeople categories, but only if it's big enough. Steam5 (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My take on WP:SMALLCAT gets us up to 4 articles, but that still doesn't apply. Maybe it's better to group sportspeople at the provincial level but that's a different argument. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most articles does feature hockey players. Hockey player articles should kept Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario for e.g.. If it's a hockey player from Ontario article, it should kept as Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario, So Category:Sportspeople from Ontario is not needed, but if it's hockey player article. Steam5 (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah okay, so you mean a double upmerge is highly undesirable because (nearly) all sportspeople are in a subcategory at provincial level already. That makes sense, I also noticed a soccer subcategory and some others. So that's an important point. Still, I would keep my hesitance towards too much merging, but then more because too much merging would hinder navigation at a local level. Not only would it become difficult to find sportspeople at local level but also, for examples, if you're looking for local politicians in a certain place, they are now easier to find because you can skip the sportspeople to begin with. After merging you would also need to check the sportspeople to find politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing you're missing is that these subcategories are not only parented by "People from City"; they're also parented by "Sportspeople from Province". And the "Sportspeople from Province" categories are large enough to require subcatting, regardless of the size of any individual "People from City" category. There's no rule that all of the parent categories have to be over 200 people before an intersecting subcategory can be created — if one of the parents is large enough to require subcat diffusion, then that's enough in and of itself and any city which has enough sportspeople from it to escape WP:SMALLCAT is allowed to have one of these regardless of how big its own "People from City" category is or isn't. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those are two wrong conclusions. 1) There is clear consensus about upmerge some but no agreement on any more than that. Note that it is up to the closing admin of the discussion to determine whether or not to upmerge some or all, not only by judging the discussion but also by keeping the guidelines into account. Note that in this discussion I haven't seen any references to guidelines that would support the merge other than WP:SMALLCAT. 2) The discussion is expected to close on Saturday at earliest but I would be quite surprised if the discussion would really be closed so soon, especially while there is no general agreement. It can also take two more months. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tell you what, if anything over 40 articles on any of the sportspeople categories. I will remove one off the board and will be keep. So, thanks for the reply. Steam5 (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's too late user, The majority of users are in favour of upmerge all. And I hate to say this but you're comments are very late by the last moment and this discussion will be closed very soon. Steam5 (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My, aren't you the presumptuous one. Incidentally, are you the same person who has been periodically emptying some of these categories out of process using IPs, or is that just coincidence? Resolute 01:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • M'kay. I found this discussion because an IP tried emptying a category with over two dozen entries this very day, and which is still included in your CFD here. Which is a major reason why the number of "keep some" comments should invalidate this entire discussion. Someone is running around trying to make your desired goal a fait accompli, and it's hard to tell how many articles these categories do or did contain before all this nonsense started. Resolute 01:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, I find it curious that you started this CFD exactly one week after I reverted *hundreds* of articles that were arbitrarily removed from these sportspeople categories by an anon using multiple IPs. I think I might be a fool if I thought that mere coincidence given there are four "per nom" supports by IPs in this discussion also. Resolute 01:23, 18 April 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