Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 28

< January 27	January 29 >

January 28

Category:Scottish Marches

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 Category:History of the Scottish Borders. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:15, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Scottish Marches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the only article in the category is the eponymous article. No need to merge, the article is well-categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and populate -- We also have a subcat for Lords Wardens; and I would suggest that the Scottish counties over which the Warden had jurisdiction could appear in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:39, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Scottish Western March, Scottish Middle March and Scottish Eastern March don't have their own article. It would presumably not be correct to add any anachronistic (later) geographic names to this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:24, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Anglo-Scottish border. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(nom) Support this alternative. This is actually a better solution than the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to its child Category:History of the Scottish Borders is even better. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scottish Borders is less ambiguous. I thought it was a category about demonstrations. Rathfelder (talk) 15:57, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Per above. Avoids small cat and is a clearer name. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(voted above) I could go along with that as an alternative to my suggestion above. This is essentially a historic category from before the union of the crowns in 1603. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 5 February 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.

Category:Car bombs

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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:29, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Car bombs to Category:Car and truck bombings‎

Nominator's rationale: I don't see any reason why there should be 2 separate categories for that. Fixuture (talk) 19:49, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The category car bomb is about the explosive mechanisms themselves, not individual bombings. Dimadick (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge for Now"" Only 1 article, Tilt fuze, fits that description though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:49, 5 February 2017 (UTC)Mer[reply]

I'd like to retract the nomination / also support the distinction now - good point by Dimadick, not sure why I didn't get the distinction right away. I though the 2 categories were created separately in error. --Fixuture (talk) 03:37, 5 February 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.

Category:Communities of Mithila

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 Category:Social groups of Bihar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Communities of Mithila to Category:Social groups of Mithila

Nominator's rationale: This is how we usually do it for communities in India, eg: Category:Social groups of Bihar, Category:Social groups of Tamil Nadu, Category:Social groups of Rajasthan Sitush (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nominated or merge to Category:Social groups of Bihar. Rationale for merging: we don't have any other Indian social group categories for a region within a state so we might merge these to state level as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with a merge. I suspect the category's existence may have something to do with a long-running campaign for Mithila to become a state in its own right (on linguistic grounds). But we can deal with that if/when it happens. - Sitush (talk) 19:17, 5 February 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.

Sundance

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:21, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sundance (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Sundance 2015 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Sundance 2016 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEF to each film and causes category clutter. A bad idea to start adding categories to every festival a film may have been screened at. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 18:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Lugnuts. If it wins a major award like the Palme d'Or, categories already exist for this per Category:Palme d'Or winners, but just playing a festival engagement is non-defining. Betty Logan (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. A simple screening is non-defining, many films get screened on numerous festivals. Daß Wölf 01:45, 4 February 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.

Category:United Kingdom crime history

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. – Fayenatic London 23:29, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:United Kingdom crime history to Category:Crime in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT and the content fits the parent category equally well. Besides there aren't any other crime history by country categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. A 4-item category doesn't fit well with WP:SMALLCAT, esp when it is not part of a wider tree. And in this case, 3 of the 4 items in Category:United Kingdom crime history are a weak fit for a history category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 17 February 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.

Category:Restorationism (Christianity)

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. – Fayenatic London 23:31, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Restorationism (Christianity) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete as subjective and non-defining. The category is supposed to contain Christian groups believing that a purer form of Christianity should be restored using the early church as a model, but for most articles it's far from obvious why they should be in this category. (Note, this category should not be confused with Category:Restoration Movement.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:36, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- It is adequately populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Let's take an example, Jehovah's Witnesses. Where can we find that Jehova's Witnesses believe that a purer form of Christianity should be restored using the early church as a model? Let alone that this characteristic is defining... Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment While I would not oppose deletion (we have far too many categories on silly concepts involving Christianity), the main article Restorationism provides sourced definitions of the concept and a historical development from the Middle Ages onwards. Calls for Restorationism/Primitivism by the Lollards, the Hussites, the Brethren of the Common Life, Huldrych Zwingli, John Calvin, the Puritans, and a who-is-who of new religious movements from the 19th century. In most cases, they do not seem to explicitly model themselves on Early Christians. They provide contradictory definitions of "primitive" Christianity and then base themselves on their favorite definition. Dimadick (talk) 19:31, 3 February 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.