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: Not sure categorization needs to be taken to this level. There's no article on "Centre d'information et de documentation du disque" and the fact that a song reached number one in France is sufficiently defining. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:33, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: There's a major confusion concerning French charts on the English Wikipedia. The category is part of my attempt to fix the confusion between different charts. There will be an article on the centre (or rather on the chart it compiled from 1968 to 1977) sooner or later, don't worry. --Moscow Connection (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's the Category:Number-one singles in France that shouldn't exist in its current state. We should find out which chart a song charted on exactly and move it to the appropriate category. Cause I'm afraid there are websites that contain some strange lists of number-one songs without saying which charts those were. And people are using the websites on Wikipedia as sources for charts positions, and it's a real mess, believe me. Could you please not interfere with my attempt to improve the coverage of French charts on the English Wikipedia? I can promise I will add some more songs to the category. It is a step towards reliably sourcing French chart positions prior to 1984. --Moscow Connection (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Best to create the article and lists first before creating a category for it. Please remember that Wikipedia is a collaborative effort and we work towards consensus. If you put it out there in mainspace, anyone is free to contribute. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:57, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"If you put it out there in mainspace, anyone is free to contribute." — That's exactly what I did. I put this category out in mainspace and I thought other people would notice and populate it with some articles. :-) By the way, French Wikipedians know about the chart. Here's an example of a discussion mentioning it I came across: fr:Discussion utilisateur:Lethiernois#article Dalida. --Moscow Connection (talk) 06:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for now until an article has been written and notability has been confirmed. There is no urgency in creating categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 21 December 2017 (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.
I'd be ok with that rename of this category. However to rename other categories they should be cfd-tagged and checked for any articles about radars etc that wouldn't fit the new name. DexDor(talk) 22:21, 15 December 2017 (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: Recreation of category deleted at cfd in 2007. Oculi (talk) 19:55, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Previous deletion IMHO is not a justification for deleting in the present. I started it again because other honor societies have categories. Phi Beta Kappa, as one of the oldest and most prestigious, deserves a category just as much as other honor societies. Postcard Cathy (talk) 20:31, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Previous deletion at cfd is a prime reason for deletion. Please point out other honor societies which have categories and I will add them to the nom (they were all deleted in 2007 - see list of deleted membership categories). Oculi (talk) 21:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That’s ludicrous. For example, someone could have created an article on Britney Spears when she was singing around he hometown, be it the church choir, school chorus, whatever. Fine, delete it as non notable. So, when she becomes an international superstar, are you going to delete the new article because the earlier article was deleted? In this example, it is an issue of timing. In other cases, such as this, it could be that the original reason to delete was erroneous. Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF. If there are any similar categories, please nominate them too. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:14, 13 December 2017 (UTC) (slightly reworded Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 14 December 2017 (UTC))[reply]
Delete I read the Wikipedia on the org and looked at how the category is used. I fail to find any information which leads to me understand how anyone would identify as a member of this organization, and what they would do differently for being a member of this group. As best as I can tell this organization issues a credential which is supposed to be a mark of a person being a good student. According to the wiki article about 10% of students at schools with a chapter of this organization get invitations to join. This seems like a top 10% club. I do not see proof that typical members cite their participation in this organization as a defining life activity. Besides that, we are supposed to apply categories to wiki articles when the text of the article has information and a citation about how the person fits in the category. I cannot readily see biographies which state how membership in this group fits into anyone's life story or what the significance of this organization in someone's life is. This seems like a group with some kind of procedural membership process rather than a deeper meaning to membership. If anyone has another story to tell, then tell the story with text and citations on a wiki article and demonstrate a perspective which builds a case for this category to be "defining". Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then to be consistent, delete all the other honor society categories as well as the other Phi Beta categories. Otherwise all the people listed here can be transferred to the parent category. And there is absolutely no reason why Phi Beta Kappa should be singled out while othe honor society categories remain.Postcard Cathy (talk) 23:50, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OSE. Feel free to nominate the other categories for deletion yourself if you think they should be deleted. DexDor(talk) 06:32, 8 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 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: Simply, WP:SMALLCAT, the category has only 2 entries. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:01, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If merged, the contents should also be merged to Category:Cargo ships. However, it was claimed in another nomination on this page that real and fictional items should not be mixed, in which case let's keep this; there must be scope to add to it. – FayenaticLondon 10:52, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Which nomination is that? I see a few related noms here, but I didn't see that claim. There's nothing at "Cargo ships" to indicate that it's intended only for real ships (maybe there should be?). I'm leaning toward merge on this, but if the feeling is that real vs. fictional should be broken out then keep would seem appropriate. DonIago (talk) 15:09, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's under #Category:Landships. The same nominator has now quoted WP:CATDEF - "Articles on fictional subjects should not be categorized in a manner that confuses them with real subjects." – FayenaticLondon 10:53, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a guideline, but it's one which makes sense to me. I'd thus oppose merging with "Cargo ships", but merging with other fictional cats may still be merited. DonIago (talk) 15:52, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london:The Kobayashi Maru is best known as a test, not a freighter or cargo ship. While the ship is also called "Kobayashi Maru", per WP:NONDEF it wouldn't belong in the category...ZXCVBNM (TALK) 12:51, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A freighter that is not notable enough for an article about it, and a tactical exercise that is. WP:NONDEF says that articles can't be added to categories unless it directly defines the subject of the article, which in this case is about the training simulation. The lede doesn't even mention it's a cargo ship, merely saying it's a civilian vessel, because that fact is unimportant and non-defining.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 14:51, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. With 2 certain articles in the category and one questionable article I would say that SMALLCAT still applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:39, 21 December 2017 (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: Almost all the entries in this category are robots, not tanks. The exception, The Land Ironclads, does not refer to the eponymous ironclads but rather the story about them. It fails WP:NONDEF. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:58, 13 December 2017 (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: The category, currently Trematodes, is much more commonly referred to as "Trematoda." HNdlROdU (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the article Trematoda which appears to have been stable since 2005. Oculi (talk) 18:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: user:Caftaric moved this in October, without notice or discussion. Caftaric, please explain your action. Also, please use WP:CFD processes in future; IIRC, you have seen before how much work it can create for others to follow up your actions. – FayenaticLondon 10:49, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to article name, as usual. This is not a "popularly known" taxon, and the scientific name is better. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:12, 15 December 2017 (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.
Delete no need for a one article category, and the one article is already categorized in appropriate parent categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.I suggest a rename to Voodoo festivals. I've added another to this category. Savvyjack23 (talk) 23:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Savvyjack23: so why do you oppose? The SMALLCAT rationale still applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on deletion, but it should indeed be moved to Category:Voodoo festivals per C2C if kept. See this request for the other "Vodou" categories. --BDD (talk) 16:55, 4 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, category is too small to be necessary. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ZXCVBNM: Please do not propose merges to only one parent, which would remove the contents from the other hierarchies where they also belong. – FayenaticLondon
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: Per WP:SMALLCAT, when you split the real life articles from the fictional ones due to Wikipedia guidelines this category is very small. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 06:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ZXCVBNM, please specify which "Wikipedia guidelines" require splitting this category. – FayenaticLondon 10:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london:WP:CATDEF - "Articles on fictional subjects should not be categorized in a manner that confuses them with real subjects."ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:28, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose; IMHO there is minimal scope for readers to be confused between the real and fictional among these 4 articles. However, without the category, there would remain sufficient linking via the key articles Landship and Fictional landship. – FayenaticLondon 23:12, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Partially merge to Category:Armoured fighting vehicles. After the article Fictional landship has been deleted this category contains only two articles about real life landships and one article about a fictional landship. The two real life articles should be merged, after which the category can be deleted. The fictional article is already properly in Category:Star Wars vehicles. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 28 December 2017 (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:procedural close. Category no longer exists. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Its former articles were not deemed notable and redirected to league season articles instead. Flibirigit (talk) 00:23, 13 December 2017 (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.
