Category:Singles certified sextuple platinum by the Productores de Música de España[edit]
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.
Delete and merge information to Productores de Música de España. WHile the information is truthful, songs are not typically defined as such by this achievement. Certainly the amount of times rendered platinum would be a piece of knowledge that very few people would associate with these songs, and cause navigation because songs without a great deal in common. Fine as detail for a list in the main article. SFB
Delete per nom. I've always thought the same thing regarding these numerous subdivisions of multiplatinum certifications. I've successfully had this type of division for albums certified by the RIAA merged into a single "multiplatinum" category in a CfD in July 2011 and nominated all the certified album categories for deletion in March 2012 (but resulted in no consensus). Whether one by one or all at once, this type of categorization should go. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:55, 29 January 2015 (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.
Support nomination for clarifying this as a technical, internal category. Separately, the idea of a "FOP status" is not widely understood or intuitive and probably needs changing too. SFB 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Media or files make no difference for me so just go ahead :-) As for FOP it is just a "maintanance" category I suppose; so as long as there is a good description in the category it is okay with me. --MGA73 (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2015 (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:Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities[edit]
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.
Delete This is not a highly prominent grouping by which the institutions identify themselves as (unlike Category:Russell Group, which is frequently mentioned by those universities and when discussing them. Listify if any missing at Coalition of Urban and Metropolitan Universities. SFB 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- as with membership of various other such associations. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:47, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We have consistently deleted such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 1 February 2015 (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:Catholic priests who spied for the Soviet Union[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Little growth potential, since in the Soviet Union there weren't too many Roman Catholic priests. The one article in this category actually concerns a foreigner. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William 00:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no obvious way this category is going to gather multiple biography articles to warrant its own navigation. Soviet spies by religion is not an existing (or useful) tree to build. SFB 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Lenticel(talk) 01:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For what it is worth this is spies by occupation, not by religion, but not all that useful either way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 1 February 2015 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale: There is only one page in this category, which is not currently up for deletion. The proper maintenance category is Category:Articles for deletion. Clearly this category is not in use. Ivanvector (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: there is a previous discussion for this category. Seems it was kept because the creator was planning to use it for deletion sorting, but five years on that idea seems to have been abandoned. Ivanvector (talk) 17:35, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am the creator. Feel free to to delete it. I cannot remember exactly what I wanted this category for. --Apoc2400 (talk) 17:54, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Apoc2400: Thanks for commenting. Can we consider this a WP:G7 author-requested speedy delete? Ivanvector (talk) 17:12, 29 January 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Recently created cat. This cat could have made sense 20 years ago, when there were only a handful online-only academic journals and many other journals did not even have a website yet. Currently, a majority of academic journals is online only and those that still have a print version are rapidly diminishing in number. As it is, this category can be expected to get thousands of members and I don't see how nowadays being "online only" is defining for any journal. Randykitty (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The OP is confusing the existing Category:Online-only journals with an nonexistent Category:Online journals; everything that they said applies only to the latter, not to the former. The majority of journals is currently online+print and is likely to remain so, at least for the next decade. Fgnievinski (talk) 00:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought I was clear enough: currently a majority of journals is online only, no print. There may still be a handfull of journals that are print-only, but print is definitely on its way out.There are thousands of online-only journals. A part of them are in the DOAJ (only the OA ones, almost exclusively online-only journals, although a very few also have a print version) and that directory has already over 10,000 journals listed (not all of them notable, of course). --Randykitty (talk) 09:03, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, there may thousands of online-only journals, but only a small fraction is notable, thus it's unlikely we'll have excessive members in that category at Wikipedia. In fact, Category:Online-only journals will serve us well in doing quality control, as the lack of a print version decreases the journal notability IMHO. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are navigational aids, not quality control tools. And if you think that only a small fraction of online-only journals is notable, you clearly need to familiarize yourself with modern academic publishing. All BMC journals are OA and almost all of those are notable, to mention just one example. Many large commercial publishers are abandoning print successively (Wiley-Blackwell, for example). Almost any journal established nowadays is online-online, hardly any new print journals (and no print-only journals) are being established any more. As it stands, this cat would already contain hundreds of our current batch of journal articles, possibly even thousands. Being online-only really is nothing special anymore nowadays and not a defining characteristic for any journal. --Randykitty (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not really convinced that the statement in the nomination. Certainly in the literary field, there are very few online-only journals that would merit having an article. Perhaps a later by-subject subdivision would resolve this? SFB 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is not just for the literary field, but for all fields. And, as I said above, this one will contain thousands of articles on scientific, social science, and humanities journals. That a small field (relative to all the others together, of course) is perhaps an exception should not be a reason to keep this. --Randykitty (talk) 18:05, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- It is not my experience that a lot of good peer-reviewed journals are "on-line only". Being print only is still not that unusual, but most top-level journals are available in both formats. My experience is as an academic historian. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That also is a quite specialized field. As I said above, this cat will have thousands of members. Do you really think that is useful? Should we also create a cat for journals that have a print edition? --Randykitty (talk) 06:39, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Randykitty: Can you ask for an opinion from one of the science projects? I don't think Peterkingiron, Fgnievinski or I have the knowledge to confirm that online-only is common for prominent science-based journals. I always assumed Wikipedia categorisation was more the realm of science buffs, but you seem to have garnered the attention of humanities specialists instead. There is a huge difference in culture here – many humanities journals are still working off hard-copy submissions, let alone considering online-only (kind of a death knell for a humanity journal's reputation as it stands)! SFB 13:35, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll do that, good idea. I'm also pinging @DGG:, who's an expert academic librarian. --Randykitty (talk) 15:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have to disagree with Randykitty. There are indeed a great many online-only journals--some true journals, some repurposed blogs, some abusive publication. A smaller percentage of them are significant as compared to those published in the normal modern fashion of print + online. And, as mentioned many smaller humanities journals especially from small countries remain print-only. Certainly new journals are likely to be online only; new journals are also less likely to be notable. (The financial advantages of starting in this fashion are pretty obvious; the great cost decrease in the barrier to entry for journal publishing has had both good and bad effects.) One of the reasons why online + print remains relevant is that the UK VAT discriminates between print, which is not taxed, and online, which is. The EU taxes both--this gives a perverse incentive in the UK for online + print even if only the online will be used.) discard the print.) I think the category remains useful. I see no harm whatever in a category with thousands of items--the normal course is to divide it alphabetically, tho dividing by subject is also possible if someone is prepared to do the work and resolve the ambiguities. DGG ( talk ) 16:57, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In my admittedly limited experience, primarily with a few Historical and Mormon Studies publications, true journals still tend to have a print component. Those that are online only often lack peer review and struggle to be seen as notable. As I think I have thought of two I know of, but I would say that it is a defining characteristic that they are only on-line, so this is in my experience a defining characteristic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2015 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category, clearly created by someone who doesn't understand the process, and populated by a stub tag that doesn't fit the standard naming conventions. Fortdj33 (talk) 13:22, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no such thing as "Persian-genre" and it's covered by the Iranian film category and sub-cats. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 14:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note Persian is a language but cinema of Iran used to have a particular genre as Persian Film. Persian Film or Farsi Film is the genre of movies produced normally in Cinema of Iran before Iranian revolution in 1979. The major focus for Persian Films were thrillers, melodrama, music, and introducing unrealistic heroes.___ Alborzagros (talk) 08:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if there are a few films that would qualify for a separate category, the stub tag {{Persian-genre-film-stub}} is inappropriate for several reasons. First of all, the icon for such a tag, should not be the movie poster for one of the films using the tag. Secondly, none of the other tags in Category:Film stubs by genre use the word "genre" in the name of the tag, and as Lugnuts points out, {{Persian-film-stub}} is already covered by the Iranian film category. And finally, there simply are not enough articles to warrant such a tag. Per WP:WSS/P stub categories should not be created until there is a significant number of articles (60+) that warrants a separate category. So, I understand your good faith effort here, but the tags and categories that you are creating for it are unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:59, 29 January 2015 (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.
Support deletion, though I'm quite surprised the Category:European Capitals of Culture was deleted, being a recognised award supported by a full Wikipedia article. But considering none of the articles about the Iranian cities even mention 'Capital of Culture' and neither is there a Iranian Capital of Culture article, I can't see a basis for Category:Iranian Capitals of Culture. Maybe it would be better to contain the information in article form? Sionk (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & precedent. Being an award based on something that already is categorized and lasting only a short time can hardly be defining for a city that's 3000 years old. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No main article and not something which is definitive of the cities present. SFB 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (listify if necessary -- "capital of culture" is in the nature of an award, attracting funding to improve culture. We do not allow award categories, but usually listify them, if there is no list. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. --Lenticel(talk) 01:05, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The question is not "is the award recognized" but "is it defining". For cities especially virtually no award is defining, because cities can live virtually forever. We need to avoid categories that applied over only a short period of time. Thus while some aweard categories work for people, I am unconvinced any work for cities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2015 (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; merge contents as proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:37, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete and upmerge content to Category:Bays of Wales, "Category:Coast of FOO" and "Category:Bodies of water of FOO". These categories only have one article in them, unnecessary over-categorisation by a serial over-categoriser which hinders navigation. There are a finite number of these large bodies of coastal water so not much scope for expansion. Sionk (talk) 01:59, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge The overall "Bays of [Welsh county]" structure is incapable of being well populated and the limited contents can be gathered at the national levels. @Sionk: Pretty much the same applies to all the "Bays of..." children (except for Swansea) - can these be added to the nomination? I would also suggest double upmerge to Category:Bodies of water of Wales by locality, but I feel that grouping has exactly the same problem. SFB 17:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the opportunity of adding Category:Bays of Conwy County Borough to the nomination (it has either been recently depopulated or I simply missed it). Some parts of the Wales coastline are riddled with small bays and coves, others (like Carmarthenshire and Cardiff) are not at all. Overall I'd be uncomfortable to upmerge all of the categories, though they seem to have a somewhat confusing overlap with categories such as the "Coast of FOOshire" series! Sionk (talk) 18:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Wales. This is a clear case of unnecessary fragmentation, with a possible parallel merge to geography of [county]. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:58, 30 January 2015 (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.
Support Single article does not warrant this level of categorisation in the tree. SFB 17:38, 29 January 2015 (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. MER-C 11:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. We don't subdivide categories for people into current/past or living/dead. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:24, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per well-reasoned nom. & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:45, 29 January 2015 (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:Islamic extremist groups restricting education[edit]
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. MER-C 11:49, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm not sure that this is a good way to categorize groups. For starters, "restricting eduction" is a somewhat loaded term and could be interpreted in multiple ways. But in the end, I'm thinking that it's probably not a good idea to categorize groups by the details of their political or social aims, unless they are central to the raison d'être of the group. Ultimately, these groups' restrictions on education are means to an end, not the end itself. It's not defining for them, in other words. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:20, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion. The category seems to have been created as a comment about Islamic extremism rather than identifying a useful sub-set. Sionk (talk) 02:16, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we don't need to categorize various groups on what their position on each issue is; we don't do it with regular political parties or pressure groups, we ought not for these groups either. Category:Political parties restricting education, anyone...? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator and besides, it is really just Western education they restrict, not education all together. Jackninja5 (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does a group get so categorized if they ever bomb a school anywhere? If they ever burn a book? This is too potentially broad. It also ignores the fact that a group that today says women should not go to school, might take a different approach if it gains power somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Against deletion. Currently the category contains one page, Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. However, the Taliban also restricted education: Boys could only attend religious schools and girls couldn’t attend at all. Probably a number of other Islamic groups have also restricted education. However, the category could be renamed “Islamic groups restricting education” (delete the “extremist” part); after all, “extremist” is a judgmental political/ideological label with strong, usually negative connotations, akin to racist, terrorist, bigot, fanatic, etc.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 05:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What about a government of a 99% Islamic country that due to economic factors cuts back funding for its national education department, which means that there are not enough paid teachers in the country anymore? That government (and country) would become an Islamic group that restricted education. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:51, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unclear and not very defining.--Loomspicker (talk) 11:46, 1 March 2015 (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. MER-C 11:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Gosh, isn't pretty much everybody against Islamist terrorism, except for the Islamist terrorists themselves and a few notorious supporters here and there? Clearly, this is too broadly worded a category since it could reasonably encompass close to every current political office holder in many countries of the world. If we want it to be an activists category, I suppose it could be renamed to Category:Anti–Islamic terrorism activists or similar. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not useful; presumably there are gradations, where some folks will be opponents with words, others with money, others with deeds, and some will consider some Islamist terrorism justified while other Islamist terrorism is unjustified. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to ambiguity. We don't even have a standard about what counts as an opponent. --Lenticel(talk) 01:04, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - *coughcounterterrorismanybodycough* Jackninja5 (talk) 11:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Much too vague to be of any use, and lets be honest, pretty much everyone is an opponent... EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 23:42, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Too many terms to define. Category:Opponants of Islamists would be a little less ambiguous, but it is hard to categorize by being "opposed" and in the long run we avoid categorization by political postion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 6 March 2015 (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.
