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. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We need this to show what films and shows did Studio Ghibli's division Ghibli Museum Library distribute in Japan on DVD or the museum. DragonKing22 23:46, 5 June 2017
Delete per nom. By the way, there is a list to show what films and shows did Studio Ghibli's division Ghibli Museum Library distribute. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:59, 7 June 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:keep. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, and generally the category structure is unnecessarily complicated, it should be very simple because there is very little content beyond the articles about each of the 16 kingdoms and the people subcategories. So one main category Category:Sixteen Kingdoms with one subcategory Category:Sixteen Kingdoms people should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - WP:SMALLCAT means "small with no potential for growth". These categories are small(ish) but far from lacking potential for growth. Chinese history has been richly documented for thousands of years, but is poorly covered by English Wikipedia. These former kingdoms went through numerous crises, wars, and coups. They also built numerous Buddhist temples and grottoes such as Bingling Temple. Hopefully some day articles will be written about them. See similar discussions at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 24#Category:Chen (state). -Zanhe (talk) 01:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It concerns small states with a short period of existence and even the "overview articles" of each of the 16 kingdoms are very brief. If there is more content to be added, it should surely be added to those 16 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but that's a very ignorant comment. Most of these "small states" were larger than major modern countries such as Britain and France, and despite their short lives, had enormous impact on the history and culture of East Asia. The XiongnuFormer Zhao, for example, burned down the Chinese capital Luoyang, which was recorded in the Sogdian Ancient letters (see [1]), whose discovery by Aurel Stein was an sensational event in archaeology and helped identify the Xiongnu in Chinese records with the Huns of European history. The JieLater Zhao massacred Han Chinese and Ran Wei in turn massacred the Jie, erasing them from history. The Former Yan destroyed the ancient Buyeo kingdom in Manchuria and Korea, and sacked the Goguryeo capital Wandu (its ruins are now a World Heritage Site), forcing Goguryeo to move their base to Korea and changing Korean history forever. The Former Qin conquered the Kucha kingdom on the Silk Road, and the Later Qin ordered the famous Kumārajīva to translate numerous Buddhist texts into Chinese, which unleashed the spread of Buddhism to China, Korea, Japan, and Vietnam. Hundreds of books have been published about Kumārajīva's translations and their impact on Asian cultures and languages, and that's just one person from one of the short-lived "small" states of the Sixteen Kingdoms. They've also left numerous archaeological sites such as the enormous tomb of the Western Liang king Li Gao in Jiuquan. I could go on and on but I think I've already made my point. Note that almost none of these enormously significant events and archaeological sites have English Wikipedia articles. -Zanhe (talk) 14:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose on the bases that Zanhe mentioned; also, there should be more articles about each of these states. If not by me, then by other people. --Nlu (talk) 03:02, 8 June 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:delete. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge drastically, it should be restricted to articles that have opposition to Donald Trump as their main topic, per WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No other categories like this exist. Unnecessary. --‖ Ebyabetalk - Opposites Attract ‖ 19:34, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This kind of thing tends to be heavily newsy and recent-ish, and as it's been done here it definitely is. Perhaps such a thing can work, but please start by creating, populating, and demonstrating the utility of such a category for politicians who have been dead for a couple of centuries. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair comment. But primarily it makes me wonder if these separate articles should exist and/or shouldn't be merged into just one, about opposition to Donald Trump. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends what's done by the secondary sources, such as histories of the Trump administration; do they even cover this subject? Oh wait, the Trump administration is still ongoing, so there can't be any secondary sources yet. PS, addendum to original comment: try the Tyler administration, especially the coverage of people rejecting his claim to be president in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 11:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on the articles available. There is nothing against having Category:Opposition to John Tyler or Category:Support for Donald Trump per se, provided that we have a number of articles specifically about those topics. Now for opposition to Donald Trump we have a number of articles, but the question is whether they should exist separately per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM, that's really an issue in article space and not in category space. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:16, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Purge or Delete, but with no objection to anyone creating a new category of the same name for articles that are specifically about opposition to Trump - this is not an appropriate way to categorize, for example, Hillary Clinton or The David Pakman Show. DexDor(talk) 20:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not an appropriate category. Too few articles could credibly be sorted together in this way. AusLondonder (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm counting two subcats and more than 10 articles that fit the category, that's not too few (though admittedly it's way less than 40 articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This has been a significant category for going on two years, with many solid articles in the category. Like many categories, editors need to be judicious about which articles to include. But "opposition to Trump" is a real, significant, and useful category.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:12, 15 June 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:keep. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:delete in the spirit of an empty category, its only content is a biography that should not be in a history category and which is correctly categorized in the businesspeople tree already. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Note that I have made a start at populating it. Sweden has a long significant industrial history, I merely went to the obvious industries: steel, shipbuilding, gunmaking, and found solid articles to fill this category.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:07, 15 June 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: A bit of a pointless category as it contains only redirects all going to the same article which offers no details about the albums themselves. Doesn't benefit readers. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the redirects provided sourced information about each of the albums, it would be beneficial to readers. Clicking on any of these to always go to the same page that only provides a listing of these albums with no details is a waste of the reader's time. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – compare with Cajun Dance Party (album), a useful targeted redirect to a section on the specific album, with a tracklist. I don't personally think that un-targeted redirects deserve to be categorised at all. Oculi (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's pretty frustrating - while the category suggests there is a lot of content - readers will find there is no information at all after clicking 10 links in vain. No objection against recreating the category once articles are being written. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 13 June 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:Cultural depictions of Christiaan Huygens[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 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 articles in this category are generally about rivers, canals and bridges and are categorized as such - this category is unnecessary. Categorizing some canals (e.g. Lancaster Canal) in Category:Bridges is strange. DexDor(talk) 05:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support – even the articles with 'culvert' in their names are in fact bridges. This seems to gather together anything that goes under or over a water course at some point. Oculi (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Culverts are small bridges (see File:Old Enon Road Stone Arch Culvert, northern side.jpg and its article, for example), so it makes sense to have bridges categorised as culverts. However, it's not particularly useful to separate culverts from other kinds of bridges; as far as I can tell, the dividing line is subjective. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Britain a culvert is an underground channel, not a bridge, anywhere in size from a substantial yet shortish drain to a lengthy artificially buried river. Ah, I now see culvert tells me the latter is a specifically UK usage. River Moselle (London) isn't a bridge. Has anyone categorised the Lancaster Canal as a bridge? I see the article says "the canal was culverted in three places, despite a local campaign for bridges to be built" so is that something to do with it? Thincat (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. But the other folk above seem to be saying culverts are bridges which certainly isn't true where I live. In the light of all this I agree that "culvert" isn't a good name for a category at all. A typical culvert (for me) wouldn't be notable anyway and a big one one would be better categorised as Category:Subterranean rivers or whatever. Things some people call culverts that i would call bridges can be categorised as bridges. For me, Lancaster Canal isn't any of these. It does not seem to be defined by its culverts or bridges. BTW, I'd like to distinguish artificial underground rivers from natural ones. Thincat (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename then purge -- There is room for a category for watercourse (rivers, brooks, etc) which are culverted for a substantial part of their course, but some of the articles are about waterways (such as Lancaster canal) most of which is not in a culvert. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 10 June 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 19#Category:Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash albums. ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
