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. – FayenaticLondon 12:39, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent page for this category is under consideration for deletion for a whole host of issues.Trumpetrep (talk) 23:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That AfD looks like it's going to go to keep IMO. Maybe withdraw this and come back if the article is deleted. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 06:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename—The contents of this category are pieces of music rather than episodes of "wanton or unrestrained behaviour" (Wiktionary definition). The fact that the music caused a riot at an early performance is notable. I'm not sure exactly what wording to suggest, but what about Category:Classical music that caused a riot? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of these "riots" has enough material for a solo article. Ephemeral events with little consequences seem to be only historical footnotes. Dimadick (talk) 20:18, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF, the riots or the unruly audience response are not a defining characteristic of the music. Listification is fine and has apparently already happened. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Au contraire, any mention of the works in question will inevitably point to the scandal they caused. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:27, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, the paragraph that mentions the audience response is often called "Background", as it really doesn't define the music. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nondefining as above. Neutralitytalk 22:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marcocapelle. This is the sort of thing that should be handled by a list and not by a category. Note: the list could/should be upmerged to Category:Music riots. DexDor(talk) 04:57, 2 June 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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 20:47, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only Not happy about either title. Is this category for albums made by or for children i.e. Boy band albums --Richhoncho (talk) 12:09, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There seems to be a distinction between the two. "Children's albums" seems self-explanatory to me as there are even awards given for best children's albums. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 07:54, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all children's albums are musical in nature. Dimadick (talk) 20:20, 17 May 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:Delete. This is an unnecessary category intersection of Category:Pinus and Category:Flora of China (or Category:Trees of China). Many of the articles in the category are already in those two categories, making this intersection superfluous. We do not usually subcategorize genera categories by their location and genera categories are normally not diffused. Rkitko(talk) 21:37, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal updated per comment below -- most article are already in both parent categories, but a few are not, thus requiring an upmerge. Rkitko(talk) 16:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Potential Upmerge -- The two articles that I checked were not specifically Chinese: one also occured in Burma and the other in South Asia. Another has Korea in the name. I think we need to agree a seriues of subcontinental areas for biota categories. Perhaps Southeast Asia, East Asia (Korea, Japan, and east of Russia) China, South Asia (=pre-1947 India with Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bhutan), Levant (Turkey to Afghanistan), Arabian Penninsula, Central Asia, Causcasus, Siberia, Cental Asia (= republics formerly of USSR east of Caspian). However perhaps that needs to be done at a higher level than a genus. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge where? The articles are already in the two main parent categories, which is why this is an unnecessary category intersection. I agree that we need an agreed-upon category hierarchy. You suggested regional categories for Southeast Asia, East Asia, China, South Asia, Levant (though what you described is not the Levant), Arabian Peninsula, Central Asia, Caucasus, and Siberia. We already have these! I would refer you to WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD for the full details, but your suggestions are nearly identical to the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions categories:
Nearly all of these categories have explanations of their circumscription and I've been adding maps to help clearly see how the WGSRPD defines these regions. That way there's no squabbling over different interpretations of regions -- we have an authoritative source that does that for us. The genus level is indeed too low of a taxonomic rank to be breaking down by region; even family and order are questionable, depending the number of species in the family or order. The genus Pinus is not an exceptionally large genus and this category will certainly not aid in navigation. It only adds another category on top of the flora of China/trees of China and genus category on the articles. Rkitko(talk) 22:01, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Upmerge is fine by me. I only suggested Deleting because all of the articles I checked were already in a Flora of/Trees of China category and Category:Pinus. Thanks for catching the few that would have been adversely effected by deleting. I'll change my nomination above. Rkitko(talk) 16:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've no objection to upmerging to both Category:Pinus and at least one of the of-China categories. DexDor(talk) 19:06, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: I support the removal of this category, but I'm not familiar with the actual mechanics of such a removal. I agree that current members should retain an "of China" category; Category:Trees of China would work for all. I should have said "would adequately categorize" above. Can a remove and reassign/upmerge be done administratively? If so, then only two current members, P. hwangshanensis and P. squamata, already have Category:Trees of China in addition to Category:Pinus of China. Those duplicates could be removed manually or I believe there's a bot that would find them in time. Declangi (talk) 15:55, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Declangi. It's quite common for a CFD discussion to conclude that the pages in a category should be moved to one (or more) of the category's parents - known in the jargon of CFD as an "upmerge". The admin who closes a discussion as upmerge can use a bot to re-tag the pages (like they would use a bot to remove the category tag if the discussion is closed as straight delete). I.e. if you think that the Pinus-of-China category should be deleted but the articles still belong in the parent categories then you can !vote Upmerge to all 3 parent categories. DexDor(talk) 21:34, 18 May 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 12:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: poorly worded category. content is psychiatrists Editor2020, Talk 21:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support this is an odd one. SFB 17:48, 17 May 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:rename. MER-C 12:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The meaning of "type" needs to be more narrowly defined to "by method", which is the given purpose of this category in contrast to Category:Terrorist incidents by target (target being another way you could type an incident. The "failed terrorist attempts" category would need to be re-catted to the broader parent for this change. Alternatively, we could merge the by method category into its parent as there is no broader tree that it is supporting. I don't see that outcome causing confusion. SFB 20:53, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I think "method" covers weapon-type, which is really what this is about. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:51, 13 May 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:Terrorist incidents in Iraq by type[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:merge. MER-C 12:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is barely populated and can easily contain categories by type. The "Terrorist incidents by type" parent is the best choice for going through by type and I see no way in which an additional layer of by type by country is useful. Also note that the "by type" country categories mix up both the structure of method of attack in the "by type" tree with the target of attack in the Category:Terrorist incidents by target tree. SFB 20:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This is an unnecessary level of categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:49, 13 May 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:no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge into both marketplaces and Category:Terrorist incidents in Iraq trees. These are not large categories that benefit from subdivision by country at this time. SFB 20:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, this is a worthwhile intersection of the two parent categories. If not kept, it should be merged to both. – FayenaticLondon 20:46, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london and DexDor:Feel free to add any of these to the appropiate subcat off Category:Terrorist incidents in Iraq by year, regardless of this discussion; once there, they will all be in the Category:Terrorist incidents in Iraq tree even if we only do the upmerge I proposed. And these intersections should only be done if one of the parent categories would end up being oversized if the entire scheme were gone, which doesn't seem to be the case here. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:08, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This still looks worth keeping to me at the moment. However, I wonder whether Category:Bombings in the Iraqi insurgency would be a better focus for attention; it should probably be split between the time periods 2003–11 and 2011–present, following its recently renamed parents. Given the existence of that part of the tree, I concede that the separate Iraq sub-cat of marketplace bombings is not so important. – FayenaticLondon 18:06, 1 June 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:Television series by CBS Paramount Television[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:merge. MER-C 12:53, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. CBS Paramount Television is currently known as "CBS Television Studios" since 2009, so why is the category still known as "CBS Paramount Television"? It wouldn't make sense if the category would still remain as "CBS Paramount Television" if the studio is currently producing programs under its current name and CPT no longer exists. Secondly, Paramount Pictures since 2013 has revived its Paramount Television studio. King Shadeed 00:07, May 10, 2015 (UTC)
Support This was just a name change for the same group, so makes sense to retain all the content in one place under the current moniker. SFB 20:59, 10 May 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. – FayenaticLondon 17:56, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Apart from being poorly named, this category adds an unnecessary layer of categorization. Except for the page Northeast Texas, these are the only members of the target. In addition, other regions do not use this extra category layer. See Category:Texas Panhandle, for example. kennethaw88 • talk 02:57, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Grouping counties by sub-state region (the apparent intent here) would just make navigating Category:Texas counties more difficult. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Texas counties are already directly in Category:Texas counties and there is no need to have this intermediate level category. No other state has such intermediates; Texas does not need one either. Hmains (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: How come all the "delete" votes? Surely a merge is needed. They are two different outcomes. – FayenaticLondon 08:01, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This raises a more fundamental question whether or not it is meaningful to have a category level for regions at all, between states and counties. That is the 'part-of-established-tree' argument. If it is meaningful to have that level, then Category:Northeast Texas should become better populated. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My concern is based on this particular region being really fluid and difficult to categorize. This Wikipedia category is relying on Northeast Texas article which relies on the Northeast Texas Genealogical Society's service area (???) but the Northeast Texas Girl Scouts have a different definition and so do most other non-profits. Differences as to where informal regions begin and end are common around the edges, but not to this degree. I can certainly nominate that category separately after this one closes but, in the mean time, I don't see the advantage in adding the 23 NTGS-serviced counties. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, we can then also turn the argument around: is it helpful to categorize Texas by region at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support The Northeast subdivision is not very helpful to navigation as the grouping of all Texas counties within one easily-read state-level category is desirable. SFB 20:59, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not totally opposed to deletion (including the parent category), but the category might have potential to be kept if enough articles on metropolitan areas or geographic features exist (although I don't have time to thoroughly check right now). kennethaw88 • talk 04:11, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (upmerge) - unnecessary; impedes rather than aids navigation. Neutralitytalk 22:09, 28 May 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.
