< September 21 September 23 >

September 22

Category:Satire anime and manga

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 2018 OCT 6 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:57, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three members (WP:SMALLCAT) and whose inclusion in this category are no supported by reliable sources per WP:CATVER. —Farix (t | c) 22:45, 22 September 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.

Category:Turkish drama television series in Pakistan

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) 04:55, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Completely self-serving, pointless, non-notable, fan list-grade category. What's next, "Category:Fox drama TV series syndicated to CBS"? Category:Israeli cooking shows broadcasted in Tennessee? "Category:San Franciscan period dramas on Harvey Milk broadcasted in Uganda"? (WP:G5, CAT:NNSD) ItsAlwaysLupus (talk) 19:44, 22 September 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.

Category:Critics of the white genocide conspiracy theory

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) 12:43, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a major part of the biography of any of these people, except possibly George Ciccariello-Maher. Pharos (talk) 19:18, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That category is for people for whom the criticism is a substantial part of their careers, not like here where most people are in the category because of a single comment, and holding a position that 95% of people would agree with. I would not be opposed to upmerging the category for anyone who does actually fulfill that criteria of it being a major part of their career.--Pharos (talk) 18:58, 23 September 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.

Category:Eponymous scientific concepts

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) 04:54, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overbroad, unhelpful, and non-defining. See discussion at Category talk:Eponymous scientific concepts. It's overbroad because a large fraction of scientific concepts (maybe a majority) are named after somebody, so the category ends up either being incomplete or huge. This could to some extent be addressed by subcategories but doing so would end up replicating most of our category tree of science, for no good purpose. It's unhelpful because usually what readers are going to want to know is not that it was named after someone, but who it was named after and why it was given that name. This is the sort of information that could be provided in a list, but not in a category. And it's non-defining because it's about the names of topics rather than about the topics themselves; see WP:NOTDICT. See also Category:Lists of things named after scientists (a much better category in my opinion, and one I am not proposing to change) and deleted category "Eponymous musical terms" at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 29. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:35, 22 September 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.

Medieval Ireland

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 2018 OCT 7 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:22, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more nominations with one merge target
more nominations with two merge targets
more nominations to delete decades
Nominator's rationale: merge years to centuries per WP:SMALLCAT, the large majority of categories contain only one article. The tree of years in Ireland is a bit special because most content consists of articles like 1101 in Ireland. Categories that only contain an article like that require just one merge target, namely (in this example) Category:1101 in Europe; it does not require a dual merge to Category:12th century in Ireland because it is already in Category:Years of the 12th century in Ireland. Note for closing admin: the categorization of articles like 1101 in Ireland is controlled by Template:Year in Ireland. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:33, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel Lodged, IIRC, there was a much larger CfD for most of Europe months ago, and one of the criticisms there was to split up by country first. A few hundred at a time are better than thousands, and better than multiple country-specific nuances to geo-political self-identification.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  18:43, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply on 2nd criticism: regarding Category:1180 in Europe as a merge target, while diffusion by continent may well be abolished (i.e. just have a Category:1180) that would require another nomination; however for the time being Category:1180 in Europe it is the immediate parent category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 23 September 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.

Category:Drug control law by country

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very substantial overlap. Unhelpful distinction. Only 5 categories, which can happily sit in Category:Drug control law. Not enough articles to populate a comprehensive category tree. Rathfelder (talk) 14:32, 22 September 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.

Category:Spiders described in the 1750s

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) 04:49, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1750s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1760s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1770s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1780s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1790s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1800s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1810s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1820s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1830s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1840s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1850s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1860s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1870s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1880s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1890s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1900s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1910s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1920s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1930s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1940s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1950s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1960s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1970s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1980s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 1990s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 2000s (0)
  • Propose deleting Category:Spiders described in the 2010s (0)
Nominator's rationale: Follow-up removal of empty spider decadal categories, per WP:TREE RFC @ Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tree of Life#Request for comment: categorizing by year of formal description. See previous, related CfD here.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:38, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WT:TREE & WT:Spiders notified.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  12:46, 22 September 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.

Category:People associated with the Human Potential Movement

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) 04:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:People associated with the Human Potential Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, it concerns a non-defining characteristic for most people in this category. It is often not even mentioned at all in the article text. The few people for whom it was defining are already listed in the Human Potential Movement article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 22 September 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.

Category:Non-profit organizations based in Ontario 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneccessary intermediate category Rathfelder (talk) 19:03, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Hhkohh (talk) 05:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No. Canada lines up with American rather than British spelling on the -ise/-ize thing — i.e. we organize things rather than organising them. Canadian English is a mix of "American" spelling in some contexts and "British" spelling in others, not invariably "British" across the board. Bearcat (talk) 22:34, 26 September 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.
More