< May 25 May 27 >

May 26

Rugby football magazines

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:09, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These were tagged by an anon editor without starting a discussion, so I am listing them now. As the first contains only two articles, it seems a good suggestion, and will match others within Category:Rugby football media. – Fayenatic London 23:13, 26 May 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:Open spandrel bridges

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "open spandrel bridge" (with or without a hyphen) usually refers to a deck arch bridge that has open spandrels. However, there are spandrels (which can be open spandrels) also in through arch bridges (which are not deck arch bridges), towards the ends where the arch is below the deck. The arch bridge article has not been clear on that; open spandrels have in the past been discussed only in the deck arch bridge section. All of the members of the category are in fact deck arch bridges. The more precise term is preferred. I prefer the hyphenation in "open-spandrel" consistent with usage in the arch bridge article, but hyphenation change is secondary here. Currently the category is given parent Category:Deck arch bridges which is possibly inaccurate now, but would be correct after this proposed rename. doncram 22:43, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Your reasoning makes sense. The corresponding through arch bridge subcategory could be created at a later date if needed. I don't have an opinion on the hyphen. I think that's heresy at Wikipedia, but so be it. Lucis Aeternae 03:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
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.
Cotter Bridge

After the CFD is closed: The Cotter Bridge is an example of an open spandrel bridge but it is not an open spandrel deck arch bridge. This provides further support for the rename which was done (for bridges of the open spandrel deck arch bridge type). --doncram 15:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aircraft manufacturing companies of Japan

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant and almost empty. PanchoS (talk) 22:13, 26 May 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:SNCF Network

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT; it only has two sub-categories now, after deletion of 5 regional categories per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_18#SNCF_regions. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 26 May 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:India-focused charities

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. There were arguments for and against, but neither were more based in policy than the other, and support was roughly equally split for and against. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:05, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Operating in" is a more objective description than "focused". We need a whole category tree for organisations based in developed countries but operating in undeveloped countries. Rathfelder (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Rathfelder: I see what your getting at here and the current name is awkward. I'm afraid this rename would inadvertently expand this category to charities operating in India along with 20 other countries, rather than ones focused specifically on India. Maybe there's a different rename?RevelationDirect (talk) 19:53, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rathfelder: You haven't yet addressed the point made above by RevelationDirect, about charities operating in multiple countries. – Fayenatic London 06:36, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is, as commonly, a question about how people will use the categories. I'm interested in having organisations with a significant presence in a country but based somewhere else appear in a category linked to it. I think that is a defining characteristic. There are clearly lots which are based in and raise money in one place and operate in another country - sometimes in a couple. That could mean, of course, that someone would enter Oxfam into 50 such categories. But we already have some categories for international charities where that sits happily. I would say an organisation which only operates in one foreign country doesn't belong in the international category. I've no objection to a category using the idea of focus, but I think that is a different idea.Rathfelder (talk) 07:51, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the point of view of an organisation there is a big difference between an organisation which just collects money for a good cause and one which runs operations. Sometimes they are both functions of the same organisation, but often not.Rathfelder (talk) 15:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • But should we also exclude charities collecting money, when it comes to country focus, like here? I would presume it's more useful to collect all charities in one category when it comes to focusing on a particular country. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That depends on the country. There are thousands of charity articles for the USA. In Southern Sudan a handful. I am trying to deal with a very specific problem here - organisations which are based on one country but operate in another. Our categorisation system at present cannot cope with that. Can we fix this relatively small problem first please? The problem of collecting donations and how we categorise articles about that is a separate problem. I haven't come across any articles about organisations which regularly collect money for the benefit of one other country over a long period without having some operational presence in the beneficiary country. Of course that doesn't demonstrate that there aren't any, but I don't think there are a lot. There are plenty of big fundraising charities but they typically fund lots of projects in different countries.Rathfelder (talk) 11:19, 6 June 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 in the philosophy of history

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) 02:45, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Stefanomione has created a bunch of these "Works in the..." categories, which I think are unique to him, and possibly reflective of the fact that English is not his native tongue. Anyway, the parent categories are Category:Works about history and Category:Works about philosophy, so why can't we use "about" here and make the whole thing less stilted and awkward? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:34, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If this passes we could perhaps speedily rename the siblings in Category:Philosophy of science works. Though if he objects here and this passes, he'd likely object at CFDS too. Anyway, let's consider this a test case. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In Google Books, we have

Stefanomione (talk) 21:22, 26 May 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:Cyprus peace process

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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not saying the situation in Cyprus was outright "peaceful", it is no longer determined by a violent conflict. The ongoing process is about reconciliation or, more precisely, about the possible reunification of Cyprus. PanchoS (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: @Greyshark09: @RevelationDirect: pinging contributors again. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: I actually started writing an article about the (proposed) Reunification of Cyprus (no, not the currently linked Annan Plan) a few weeks ago. Of course that reunification process is not completed, and it may fail again. But even if there were a full breakdown of the process, it probably won't ever be abandoned as an idea, similar to the Korean reunification, the Unification of Romania and Moldova or the Chinese unification, but different to these in that it isn't (necessarily) based on ethnic nationalism. Actually, this is a slightly different perspective to the reconciliation process that indeed in the literature is usually referred to as "peace process". I'm happy to withdraw my nomination until the dust has settled, but would like to invite you, Greyshark09, RevelationDirect and others to team up with me in writing one or even both articles on this topic. This is no talk forum here, but we might want to use this discussion to come up with a plan how to organize the topic and basically how to proceed from here. --PanchoS (talk) 16:48, 2 June 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:Gemena

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) 07:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a city with just its eponym and an airport to categorize, which makes it a WP:SMALLCAT. Every city does not automatically get one of these just because it exists; a city gets one of these when there's a reasonable volume of related content to file in it. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Two articles and I don't see any articles to add. Delete it. Lucis Aeternae 01:05, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
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:Sociocultural evolution

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) 02:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, per WP:NONDEF. The term Sociocultural evolution is hardly ever mentioned in the articles in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see your reasoning more clearly now, thanks. I'm new here and assumed subcategories would be deleted, too. But if not, deleting the general category and keeping the theory subcategory sounds fine to me. The examples I have in mind are all theories, not exemplars of actual evolution. Neoevolutionisn isn't classical theory to be sure, but it still has sociocultural and evolutionary components as defining characteristics. I will change my recommendation to supporting deletion. Lucis Aeternae 16:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
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:History of capitalism

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, merging History of capitalism as nominated and also to Category:Modern economics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
... which was subsequently moved to Category:Modern economic history. – Fayenatic London 22:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge the eponymous article to parent categories, then delete category per WP:SMALLCAT. The one economic historian in this category is already in the appropriate Category:Economic historians. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "history of capitalism" isn't a defining feature of the historian and merging the main article to the related base categories is best. Lucis Aeternae 02:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:57, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The content of article History of capitalism is actually more about History of business than about History of ideology. It may be a slightly wrong article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:26, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough to also merge it to Category:Modern economics. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:21, 5 June 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:Communist Party of the Soviet Union rank-and-file

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) ~ RobTalk 03:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being a rank-and-file member of a political party is not terribly defining, even if (sometimes especially if) it is the only political party the state allows. The people in this category are all notable for other things; they are not notable because they were CPSU members. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 26 May 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