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. Timrollpickering 00:01, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sultan Rahi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Given the content, the title of the category should be Category:Films starring Sultan Rahi but we don't keep such categories. Pichpich (talk) 21:31, 30 June 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 B class. Timrollpickering 10:04, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Bplus-Class mathematics articles to Category:A-Class mathematics articles
• Propose deleting Category:Bplus-Class articles

Nominator's rationale: Only one project has ever used B+ assessments. The rating does not appear at WP:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. It's listed at WP:WikiProject assessment#Non-standard grades, and is the only non-standard grade that is an actual assessment rather than a classifier like "Redirect", "Category", or "Disambiguation". WP:WPMATH historically was using this divergent assessment as a tier of wikiproject WP:Peer review, drawing a thin distinction between B+ and A, apparently. Since they're both subjective assessment processes (criteria for A-class vary from project to project, for the few wikiprojects that still do A-class assessments), on the way from GA to FA, this is a hair-splitting that doesn't really serve a purpose. Worse, if you look at that project's assessment stats, there are 70 wikiproject-assessed mathematics articles, of which only 4 are A-class. That, is, the wikiproject appears to have been been using Bplus-class for what all other projects use A-class for. Any tool, template, category tree, or manual digging around for A-class content will misleadingly give the impression that virtually no assessment/peer-review has been done on any maths articles. It's an unhelpful "process fork" that ghettoizes articles.

Then it gets even more confusing: WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Assessment suggests that this rating is between B and GA, while every other reference to it on the system puts it between GA and A. It could merge to Category:B-Class mathematics articles instead, if that better reflects the level of assessment applied; I don't care either way.

Container category: The presence of the container category has also inspired creation of empty categories like Category:Bplus-Class Chemistry articles [sic – over-capitalized], which has been nominated for speedy deletion since it cannot even be populated (Template:WikiProject Chemistry has no B+/Bplus rating, and the wikiproject itself says to use B or A.) Category:Bplus-Class articles is otherwise empty.

Finally, the regularization of assessment classes is a boon to automation, including consistent input/output in wikiproject banners, transcluded assessment templates (e.g. at "WP:WikiProject Topic/Assessment"), in the bot work being prepared by WP:WikiProject Portals to auto-transclude high-quality article leads into portals for "article of the day" purposes, and so on. We don't need a "mathematics is magically different" assessment class, which seem to be rather disused since the 2000s anyway.
Cleanup: The actual assessment classes on 66 articles will need conversion to A (or B); references to Bplus will need to be removed from Template:Grading scheme, WP:WikiProject Mathematics/Wikipedia 1.0/Assessment category format, Template:WikiProject Mathematics, Template:WP MATH 1.0, etc.; then delete or redirect ((Bplus-Class)).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• WT:WikiProject Mathematics, WT:WikiProject assessment, WT:WikiProject Council, WT:WikiProject Portals/Policy, and WT:Version 1.0 Editorial Team have been notified of this discussion.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to B-class, not A-class. These were all reviewed long ago when standards were different. Spot-checking the first ten of these articles: actuarial science has a citation needed tag from 2010. Affine connection, Boolean algebra (structure), and category theory have big cleanup banners at the top. Angle of parallelism seems too short to cover its subject thoroughly and has inconsistent citation styles. Actuarial science, Bessel function, bivector, Bell number, and bounded variation all have at least one section that is entirely unsourced. Combinatorial game theory is 2/3 lead and overview, also has unsourced sections, and the content is kind of haphazard. Based on this sample it is not reasonable to conclude that these articles are between GA-class and FA-class; they are mostly (or maybe entirely) clearly below GA. (I would also suggest doing something with the four lonely A-class mathematics articles; the mathematics A-class review process has been moribund for years.) —David Eppstein (talk) 18:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll trust your judgment on this; definitely not my area of expertise. PS: That's true of most A-class stuff. They are basically "please nominate us for FA, or at least GA if we don't already have a GA icon". As an assessment class they really don't serve much purpose, though I think WP:MILHIST does active peer review and uses it. I'm not aware of any other active A-class process on the system, though there probably are a few others.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:49, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Make that one lonely A-class article; three of the four were assessed as A-class out of process (apparently there is no automatic check on this sort of thing as there would be for GA or FA) and I have reassessed them. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

      Heh. I wonder how many A-class articles would be left at all, system-wide, after such a cleanup process? I bet it would be sufficient reduction to get rid of the class. Especially since it's redundant with GA anyway.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to B-class Looking at some of the articles, I came to the same conclusion as David Eppstein--most are not close to GA or A level. Ratings on math articles have a lot of variance in their grading, and many are old grades. B is a reasonable compromise for a broad remapping. --Mark viking (talk) 19:49, 30 June 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: rename. ℯxplicit 00:09, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Nationalist Party of Australia members of the Parliament of Queensland to Category:National Party (Queensland, 1917) members of the Parliament of Queensland

Nominator's rationale: Match the article on the state party as this was the entity the members sat in. Although affiliated with the federal Nationalist Party of Australia, the National Party that operated in state politics had a slightly different name and origin. Australian state politics in the first half of the twentieth century has been a particularly messy area on Wikipedia because too many articles and categories have shovelled everything under federal party names when the parties and splits were different. This is an opposed speedy. Timrollpickering 14:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match corrected article info.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match corrected article info. The current title is wrong. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:30, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, clearly a no-brainer. Frickeg (talk) 08:49, 1 July 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 to delete'; rename to Category:Recipients of awards from the United States National Academy of Sciences. Timrollpickering 23:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:National Academy of Sciences laureates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Does not exist

They're called members, not laureates, but apparently Wikipedia made up a new scientific award. Please don't merge this hoax or misinformation after spending years misinforming everyone via Wiki mirrors, just delete the category, and then add the members category to NAS members who are only in the laureates category and remove the laureates category from NAS members who are in both categories.

Thanks. --108.209.228.75 (talk) 13:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Members of the United States National Academy of Sciences, then. Whatever the anon is on about, deleting then adding categories isn't going to have a different effect than merging them; it's the same process.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you merge, don't you leave an edit history and redirect? I don't edit categories, usually just articles, but it seems to me there's no reason to keep a category anywhere on Wikipedia that never should have been created. It's done enough damage, already. --108.209.228.75 (talk) 01:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Please see updated description of the category which was not clear. The category was intended to house all the winners of the various awards given out by the National Academy of Sciences. This is a separate list than the category of members though many members are also awardees. So Herbert Hoover is in the category as he was awarded the Public Welfare Medal. My goal at the time was to create a larger category of awardees rather than several smaller categories for the separate awards. GcSwRhIc (talk) 17:43, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Recipients of awards from the United States National Academy of Sciences or Category:Recipients of United States National Academy of Sciences awards. The nom is correct that we shouldn't make up award titles or use phrasing that suggests one. I have to wonder whether this is a legitimate category, though; shouldn't we have separate categories for separate awards? I don't spend much time in "awardspace", so I don't know if we have a standardized approach to this (i.e., the previous question may be ignorant and worth mocking, heh).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:08, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Recipients of awards from the United States National Academy of Sciences. This makes too much sense to me. I can only think that at the time I was trying to keep the category name consistent with other existing ones. As to to individual awards there are about 36 so each having its own category might be overcategorization. GcSwRhIc (talk) 18:27, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, yeah. We'd still need this category as a container anyway, then.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:53, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This would be fine. Please be careful in the future about calling something by an original name. Wiki mirrors have a special type of NAS member called "laureates" from this creation of yours that took me half a day to figure out for a group of non-English speaking academics, eventually leading me to this category as the source. NAS does not and never has called them laureates, every mention of a laureate in the NAS website is to a Nobel laureate, and our WP article does not discuss NAS "laureates," and your category included no description, but has been filled with members over the years. Please clean up the mess here, and no thanks for creating this fake level of membership in cyber space that can't be cleaned up and wasted my time and my ESL students' time (other than the ultimate real life lesson as to why to avoid using Wikipedia). --108.209.228.75 (talk) 13:02, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is written by volunteers, and no one has to be professor to work on it, nor even a fluent English speaker. Errors like this can be hard to detect, and are not necessarily true errors from all perspectives. This was not capitalized as "Laureates" indicating an actual award title; it was "laureates", lower-case, used as a generic classifier. It's ambiguous and confusing so we'll change it, surely; but it wasn't a "great wrong" done unto the world by evildoers or morons – just a different usage of a word, which should have been thought through more carefully.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:34, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I didn't say it was a "great wrong," maybe that's you projecting. It was a careless edit; there was no information in the Wikipedia category or NAS article to indicate what it is, and the NAS website uses "laureate" all over to label Nobel prize winners. Readers get information from Wikipedia, it's not just a boys club for the editors. "Volunteer" isn't a synonym for "low quality." I always find this Wikipedia post, "Hey, we're volunteers, don't get upset by bad editing," to be pointless, yet a constant on Wikipedia. Did it ever have meaning? I'll try to remember that anything goes on Wikipedia in the future, and reminders off that are important, but care in editing isn't. --108.209.228.75 (talk) 13:58, 4 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We do not normally allow categories for individuals who receive awards. A category for lists of recipients of particular awards made by NAS would be acceptable. Nobel prizes are an exception. The question is how far down this should go. Perhaps we might allow them for worldwide awards in subjects where there is no Nobel prize, but if we allow them for national awards, we are going to get category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think a list category is necessary. The individual award articles have the recipients and there is already an existing Category:National Academy of Sciences awards. GcSwRhIc (talk) 22:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron and per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:41, 5 July 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: Delete. Timrollpickering 16:44, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hospitality companies established in the 2nd millennium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Pointless intermediate category Rathfelder (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Query: Are we doing anything consistent, elsewhere, with "[in the] 2nd millennium"?  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doprendek (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• There is a great deal of inconsistency, so I suppose we need to try to reach consensus about areas where categorisation by millennium is helpful. I don't think this is one of them.Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- I do not believe it is ever necessary to have millennium categories to parent centuries, as there will almost never have been enough centuries in recorded history to require splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 5 July 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: Delete. Timrollpickering 09:33, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Hospitality companies by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary intermediate category with only one entry. Category:Hospitality companies by country is well populated and useful and the companies in Bangkok are already in the Thailand category. Rathfelder (talk) 09:24, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. We arrange stuff like this by larger units (countries, states/provinces) unless there's sufficient need to drill down further.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Doprendek (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per SMcCandlish....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:09, 1 July 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. Timrollpickering 09:32, 7 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Hotel and leisure companies to Category:Hospitality companies

Nominator's rationale: Two names for the same thing. The Hospitality tree is better established and included the subcategories of Hotel and leisure companies Rathfelder (talk) 09:12, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Seems to be an accidental fork.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:29, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. Doprendek (talk) 00:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:18, 2 July 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.