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. I can't merge the Wikidata entries as some other-language Wikipedias will still have both. I'll keep the redirect and leave a note on the talk page of both, for what good that may do. – Fayenatic London 23:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Historic centres to Category:Historic districts, or vice versa

Nominator's rationale: This is a procedural listing of two categories that were tagged with ((Merge)) by User:Luan. Both categories have now been tagged with ((Cfm)) per WP:CFD#HOWTO. I am neutral at this time. Cheers, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 22:54, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, in practice most historic districts are (in) the centre of a city anyway, and I can't see a reason to keep historic districts apart that are not (in) a city centre. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, neither category is informative about what 'centre' or 'district' means so I suspect many wikipedians (certainly me) wouldn;t know which to use.Icarusgeek (talk) 11:29, 24 January 2018 (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.

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 to the corresponding subcat of Category:Years in bodybuilding and Category:History of female bodybuilding (with no prejudice against any future nomination of that category). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:35, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Years in female bodybuilding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Years in female professional bodybuilding (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, there isn't enough content to have years in female (professional) bodybuilding. The vast majority of these categories have zero or one page, with the maximum being four (2008). -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the corresponding subcat of Category:Years in bodybuilding. Yes, this too narrow, but merge not delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I had considered that. However, the article bodybuilding is specifically about male bodybuilding so I'm not sure if it would work. -- Tavix ^(talk) 05:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Para 1 of the lede of bodybuilding ungendered. Para2 discusses both male and female. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:02, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I was going off the hatnote, I hadn't actually read the article. I'll change the hatnote accordingly and endorse the merge. Thanks, -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:57, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to the corresponding subcat of Category:Years in bodybuilding. There is no substantial difference between male and female bodybuilders, so there is no need for gender categories here. Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one parent, Category:Years in female bodybuilding, because in sport men and women almost invariably compete separately. We have 10 annual female body building articles and about 27 more for professional ones. That is probably not too much for one category, but perhaps we should also keep Category:Years in female professional bodybuilding. Merge in all the rest. No objection to merging also to Category:Years bodybuilding, but I do not think it is useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the corresponding subcat of Category:Years in bodybuilding per User:BrownHairedGirl; and also merge the whole lot to a new category Category:History of female bodybuilding, in the spirit of what User:Peterkingiron said, but History is more suitable then Years. Note that Category:Ms. Olympia should become a subcat of this new Category:History of female bodybuilding so that not all yearly Ms Olympia articles need to be individually moved to the new category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:41, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per BHG. Men and women certainly compete separately, but there is unlikely ever to be enough content to merit an annual category for each gender, as opposed to one for both. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• @Tavix, BrownHairedGirl, Dimadick, and Peterkingiron: What is your opinion about the second merge target Category:History of female bodybuilding (to be created)? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK by me. It may need some cleanup after a bot merge, but fine in principle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:52, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see not reason for not keeping a single parent, probably Category:Years in female bodybuilding, into which all the rest should be merged. There are lots of precedents for "Years in XXXX", but I could live with Category:History of female bodybuilding. We do not need to split off "professional", because amateur competitions are unlikely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:30, 22 January 2018 (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.

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: Listify and delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS @DexDor, SmokeyJoe, and Swpb: I have left a list of the category's contents at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 21#Magnetoreceptive_animals. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:06, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Magnetoreceptive animals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING - I checked a sample of the articles in this category and none mentioned this characteristic prominently - most (e.g. wood mouse) don't mention it at all. DexDor ^(talk) 15:22, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Listify to Magnetoreception#Magnetoreceptive animals, then delete. Magnetoreception and its sources dwell heavily on which animals are known magnetoreceptors (my word). I suggest a table with 4 columns: Animal, Proven/documented/studied, how (eg. cytochrom C, Fe2+, magnetic particles), 1-3 references supporting information in columns 2 & 3. The list is able to separate the known and demonstrated magnetorecptivism of pigeons from the less clear-cut cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify per SmokeyJoe. —swpb^{T go beyond} 14:15, 22 January 2018 (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.

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: already deleted per WP:G7. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1648 Books - I wrongly used "Books" instead of "books". --Dick Bos (talk) 12:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Dick Bos: You can solve this yourself, see Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#G7._Author_requests_deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • done! Thanks. --Dick Bos (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2018 (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.

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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 1#Seasonal_holidays_by_hemisphere. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:35, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Spring holidays (Southern Hemisphere)‎ added 22 January
• Propose deleting Category:Summer holidays (Southern Hemisphere)‎
• Propose deleting Category:Autumn holidays (Southern Hemisphere)
• Propose deleting Category:Winter holidays (Southern Hemisphere)‎ added 22 January
• Propose deleting Category:Spring holidays (Northern Hemisphere)‎
• Propose deleting Category:Summer holidays (Northern Hemisphere)‎ added 22 January
• Propose deleting Category:Autumn holidays (Northern Hemisphere) added 22 January
• Propose deleting Category:Winter holidays (Northern Hemisphere)‎ added 22 January

Nominator's rationale: delete as trivial intersections. Holidays are either in a fixed month (hence the season depends on the hemisphere) or in a fixed season (hence the month depends on the hemisphere). In the former case we should categorize by month (rather by than season x hemisphere), in the latter case we should categorize by season (rather than by month x hemisphere).

Perhaps the categories have been created specifically to link Category:Holidays based on the date of Easter‎ with northern hemisphere spring and southern hemisphere autumn. This would not surprise me because the five remaining non-nominated siblings are empty (I have C1'ed them). Note that Category:Holidays based on the date of Easter‎ does not need to be parented to a month or a season category, since individual holidays based on the data of Easter are already in two consecutive month categories (e.g. March+April). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. You are right that holidays depend either on the month or the season. And you are also right that the season depends on the month and the month depends on the season. However, that means that holidays in either hemisphere are a mix of those based on one system and those based on the other, and simply using categories based on season or month will not always be helpful. As such, it makes perfect sense to categorise them by a hemisphere-specific method. You are also right that the categories are virtually empty - that is because the categorisation has only just begun for all eight categories. I was waiting until I had finished categorising month-specific events by country before starting on this (another user had assured me he'd help with the categorising, but that doesn't seem to have eventuated. Give this a few days, and all the categories will be appropriately filled. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • PS - I note that none of the categories have been marked with CFD tags - why is this? Grutness...wha? 00:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • PPS - the "the five remaining non-nominated siblings" are not empty. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• The missing tags was an omission, thanks for pointing that out. I have added the previously empty five categories to this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I suspect that more useful would be to create a new version of this article, Lists of holidays, as a sortable table, including sortable by date. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not quite sure how that would help - there'd still be the problem of working out from the date whether you're referring to that date as it applies to the southern or northern hemisphere. Grutness...wha? 13:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just go by date. Forget season by hemisphere, it is not useful. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the contrary. The reason these categories were created was because the "by date" system was heavily biased in favour of the Northern Hemisphere. For Southern users, the system was a complete nightmare. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't get it. Why is season important in navigating to holidays? Why categorise holidays by season? It generates problems and solves what problems? Where are the parent articles that should that this is not WP:OR? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't get it either. How is Category:April observances heavily biased in favour of the Northern Hemisphere? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: I believe I am the "another user". I kicked off the creation of the southern hemisphere seasonal holidays because I was disturbed to find that there was only one article, Summer holidays, and all the December-February summer holidays in the SH were simply lumped in with those. Totally inappropriate. I promised to do separating out, but found that you (Grutness) had become involved to the extent that we would conflict with each other's work. I decided to let your dust settle before doing any more work myself. Also, it's high summer right now and I'd prefer to put off heavy editing sessions until the weather cools in a couple of months. Akld guy (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - yes, that explains it :) Sorry I forgot who it was! Grutness...wha? 12:57, 22 January 2018 (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.

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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 1#Category:Christmas_nomenclature_and_language. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:51, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Christmas nomenclature and language to Category:Names of Christmas

Nominator's rationale: Option A: rename to Category:Names of Christmas, consistent with its parent Category:Names. Option B: upmerge to Category:Christmas per WP:SMALLCAT and as a trivial or unnatural intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:25, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Christmas. Except Xmas, which is an article specifically about the abbreviation, the rest of the articles are less about names of Christmas than Christmas-linked traditions that belong in Category:Christmas traditions‎ or Category:Christmas-linked holidays. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Names of Christmas (option A); this seems to me to fit the contents well. Yule is the weakest fit, but although it was not originally Christmas, it is in modern times used by some people as a name of Christmas. – Fayenatic London 14:13, 24 January 2018 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 23:32, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:2nd-millennium BC disestablishments in Assyria to Category:2nd millennium BC in Assyria

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently just one article in the category. The article is already in Category:18th-century BC disestablishments so no further merge targets are needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly merge, but why not merge straight to Assyria, or perhaps to a category on the relevant period in its history? I do not believe we normally need millennium categories at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:28, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Good point to merge more categories, this will require a batch nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 22 January 2018 (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.

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. Several editors noted that there are similar categories for about a dozen other states, and no reason was offered for singling out Alaska. A group nomination of all the gubernatorial subcats of Category:American political candidates might produce a consensus one way or the other. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:44, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Alaska gubernatorial candidates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Failed candidates for office are not automatically notable per WP:POLITICIAN, so therefore these articles aren't notable for being losing candidates, but for other things. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - looks like it's part of a larger scheme... 14 US states have similar categories, and there is similar categorisation for about a dozen other countries. Grutness...wha? 06:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and please nominate all similar categories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:19, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reason we wouldn't have Category:Alaskans who applied to work at Starbucks. It isn't a defining characteristic of a person unless they get the job. List articles are a better solution for this, anyways, because it could be presented in tabular form, e.g. List of candidates in the Belgian federal election, 2010. — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of series with 12 states participating. We have Category:United States vice-presidential candidates and Category:United States presidential candidates. --RAN (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably keep -- We would certainly keep articles on failed presidential candidates. We would not for failed candidates for MP, senator, congressman, etc. unless notable for other reasons. The question is where to draw a line between these. I would have thought that it came below US governor. Ultimately this is not of question about this category, but how many failed candidates are nevertheless notable. If they are otherwise notable, eg as a US or state senator, three is no reason why we should not have this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:36, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – As alluded to multiple times, this nomination doesn't address or fix the entire slew of categories underneath Category:American political candidates which have the exact same "problem" as this. It should be a little obvious that being a failed candidate in a particular election year is far less defining to a person's notability than being a failed candidate for a particular political office. While on that point, upon noticing that this category was created, I dug a little deeper and realized that it was created with intent to puff up only one article. Having fixed that, the category now contains 43 articles, which is everyone with a Wikipedia article who appeared on a primary or general election ballot in one or more gubernatorial elections and did not win the election. I did not include anyone who received media coverage for issuing press releases claiming that they were a candidate while not actually campaigning, which is obviously a far different criteria than what's found elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Of those 43 names, only Ken Hinchey and Don Wright did not run high-profile campaigns. That means that these individuals went out and raised and spent a whole lot of money, in some cases into the millions of dollars for a single campaign. They also received a heightened amount of media attention. They also traveled to a far greater extent and met and spoke with people in a greater number of communities and walks of life than they would have had they remained a more localized politician, businessman or community leader. In some cases, these gubernatorial campaigns are the only reason a person is going to be known within the state outside of their home community. Despite the puffery involved in highlighting more positive aspects of his life, a large part of Don Wright's notability comes from being an also-ran candidate in eleven consecutive gubernatorial elections and receiving media attention for claiming that he would keep running for governor until the day he died. Being a multiple-time unsuccessful gubernatorial candidate also weighs heavily on Joe Vogler's notability. Concerning those who enjoyed success in electoral politics but weren't elected governor, Dick Randolph received national media attention for both of his gubernatorial campaigns. In the case of Arliss Sturgulewski, no one remembers her today or is likely to remember her in the future for being a state senator representing a handful of neighborhoods in east-central Anchorage, many of which were underdeveloped compared to today and some of which could even be considered rural at the time. No, people know who Arliss Sturgulewski is because she twice ran for governor and twice won the Republican nomination against solid conservative opposition. Most folks who remember who Eben Hopson was aren't likely to even tell you that he was a state senator, despite his being the first chair of what's known today as the Bush Caucus, a long-powerful group of legislators. Hopson is remembered for being the mayor of the North Slope Borough and not even necessarily for the office itself. He's mostly remembered today because he twice ran for statewide office, including for governor, on either side of his first reelection campaign as mayor. As a result of all this, anyone running for governor or any other statewide office is going to be much better known as a political personality by the people who live in the state than if they were only known as the mayor of or state representative from East Bumfuck. If you're incapable of seeing the difference between that and applying for work at Starbucks in terms of shaping what someone is publicly known for, then perhaps you should re-think why you're here, because you're not fooling anybody but yourself and you're not doing the readers any favors. What is being attempted here is one of the worst of many bad Wikipedian POVs, namely that our approach to "political biography" is really one of creating a pecking order of political offices and a series of arbitrary thresholds therein. It just doesn't wash. Since we have a lot of categorization WP:OWN warriors out there who are obsessed with "non-defining characteristics" as of late, and since we are talking about politicians in Alaska, let me point out Click Bishop, Geran Tarr and Joshua Wright (Alaska politician) as just a few examples of another really bad Wikipedian POV. In the case of all three, one hundred percent of what they're notable for occurred as residents of Alaska. In each case, they aren't categorized according to the communities they resided in while they engaged in the activities for which we deem them notable. Rather, they are categorized solely according to their birthplace. In Bishop's case, he moved to Alaska at age one or two, which means that whatever tiny portion of his life spent in Missouri is especially irrelevant to his notability as a labor leader and politician, all of which occurred as while residing right here in Fairbanks. What I just pointed out epitomizes non-defining categorization. If you're not willing to address this problem, which is far, far more widespread than just these three articles and has continued on unabated for perhaps more years than I've been here, then any arguments about non-defining characteristics ring pretty fucking hollow to me and I just don't want to hear them anymore. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:58, 24 January 2018 (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.