< October 2 October 4 >

October 3

Category:Airlines disestablished in 2018

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:05, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To early for 2018. MilborneOne (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2017 (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:Afrikaner culture in Africa by city

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. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category level since it only contains one South-African child category and nothing else. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2017 (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:Afrikaner culture in South Africa

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. ℯxplicit 01:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, this is redundant subcategorization since 90% of the content of Category:Afrikaner culture relates to South Africa. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:06, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: True, but I prefer inefficient categorization to miscategorization. Perhaps the better solution, which would require a separate nomination, would be to upmerge the Afrikaner culture in [City] categories (essentially, dismantling Category:Ethnic groups in South Africa by city), thereby populating the national-level category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:10, 18 November 2017 (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 vestment 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: merge category, delete template. – Fayenatic London 15:13, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only found 6 articles that are still in stub status. Propose to delete category, and double-upmerge the template to Category:Christianity stubs and Category:Clothing stubs. Dawynn (talk) 18:10, 3 October 2017 (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:G.I. Joe characters

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. ℯxplicit 01:14, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are too many G.I. Joe characters clogging up Category:Fictional soldiers. The vast majority of these characters are soldiers, and merit a shared subcategory to reduce clutter. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 17:34, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably not too many, so the category may be nominated to be upmerged later on. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. Support split, per nom and Marcocapelle. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:30, 4 November 2017 (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:Fictional aircraft carriers of the United States Navy

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) 06:11, 11 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Fictional aircraft carriers of the United States Navy to Category:Fictional aircraft carriers
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT these articles are fine within the twin categories of Category:Fictional aircraft carriers and Category:Fictional ships of the United States Navy. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 16:12, 3 October 2017 (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:Biorobots in fiction

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. – Fayenatic London 15:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I was going to suggest moving this to Category:Biorobotics in fiction, per the recent move of its parent category, but then I realized that the category is overly broad. If fully populated, it will encompass literally every work that contains a robot that is either shaped like an organic being, or has organic parts. It seems, therefore, to have little encyclopedic utility. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:54, 3 October 2017 (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:Australian stock and station agents

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: Withdrawn by nominator. VegaDark (talk) 04:43, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, because the content of this category is companies only (in contrast to the New Zealand category below) the category is very poorly populated and it is not part of a broader scheme. The second parent category does not look like a very strong merge target, since these organizations deal with agriculture in general. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:55, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 12:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) Fair enough, in that case the category can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • follow-up. A quick search has found about 30 articles about Australian stock and station agents (not just people who worked as agents for a while, but business founders, long-term general managers, etc). It's also now part of a broader scheme. As such, it's probably a good idea to keep the category. Grutness...wha? 02:35, 16 October 2017 (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:New Zealand stock and station agents

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: Withdrawn by nominator. VegaDark (talk) 05:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "stock and station agent" is not a defining characteristic of the articles in this category. People involved are characterized more generally as farmers / land owners, or as merchants / business people. There are also a few companies in this category that can be moved to Category:Agriculture companies of New Zealand per WP:SMALLCAT like the Australian nomination above. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 12:30, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This occupation is different from hoteliers or auctioneers in the sense that the occupation of hotelier or auctioneer is mentioned in a biography, while stock and station agent is mentioned in hardly any of the biographies that are in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 7 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've removed all those which do not mention their work in stock and station agency. There are still 16 articles left. Is that what you meant by "hardly any"? Grutness...wha? 01:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was wrong phrasing for sure, it was intended as "prominently mentioned" (in the sense of WP:DEFINING). Apologies for the misunderstanding. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 10 October 2017 (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:Churches in Newcastle, Maine

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) 09:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Buildings and structures in Newcastle, Maine. Small category (3 articles) with little chance of growth. TM 12:20, 3 October 2017 (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:Musical decets

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The last (for now) of three cats of bands by number; again, it's not defining, and one would think for instance that a band named "Pentagon" would be a quintet. Mangoe (talk) 10:43, 3 October 2017 (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:Musical nonets

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:18, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another category of bands by number, with the reasoning as below: number is not defining for these groups. Mangoe (talk) 10:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of this category and those of larger numbers, I've gone through the category looking for classical groups and anyone specifically playing music written for the specified numbers. My recollection is that there's nothing here but pop music groups, so for this one there's no reorganizing to be done. Mangoe (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2017 (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:Musical octets

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Moving on from the en masse discussion, I'm proposing a few that should be less controversial. In this case we have a category that consists entirely of bands in a variety of genres. The number of members is a trivial characteristic of these, they were not put together to play music specifically written to be played by eight people, and it wouldn't surprise me that some of these varied in number of members over the years, so I would say this is not defining. Mangoe (talk) 10:14, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the case of this category and those of larger numbers, I've gone through the category looking for classical groups and anyone specifically playing music written for the specified numbers. My recollection is that there's nothing here but pop music groups, so for this one there's no reorganizing to be done. Mangoe (talk) 20:32, 8 October 2017 (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:Four Great Gardens of Guangdong

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) 09:49, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT of Category:Gardens in Guangdong, which already contains the two articles Le Deluge (talk) 10:00, 3 October 2017 (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.

Up to year 1000 in China, England, France and 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 and delete. Once this is implemented, various templates will be edited, to avoid displaying tables of year categories that are now deprecated. Any interested editors are invited to join the discussion here. – Fayenatic London 20:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Below is an example, the full list of proposed merging and deleting is on the Talk page
  • Propose merging Category:502 disestablishments in China‎ to Category:502 disestablishments in Asia and Category:6th-century disestablishments in China‎
  • Propose deleting Category:502 in China‎
  • Propose deleting Category:500s in China‎
  • Propose deleting Category:500s disestablishments in China‎
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, mostly only one article per category. The proposed merge mostly adds some 10 articles to every century category, or to every century (dis)establishments category, so the targets won't get overcrowded. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination does not completely remove the articles from the history by country categories, it is a merge from year to century. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With only one article per year mostly, and moreover many year categories that are completely empty and non-existing, I can't see how this can have potential to become viable categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Although this continues the trajectory of several recent CFD discussions, this will be far-reaching and a lot of work, so a stronger consensus would be desirable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 06:57, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure I understand this comment. Adding information to list articles can be done irrespective of how the categories are structured. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:22, 8 October 2017 (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