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: I am not aware of any notable maps that would populate this category, any map of the British Isles has Cornwall in it, and we hardly need a category to keep track of OS Landranger maps because they don't have individual articles. I found it with the single article Hundreds of Cornwall in it, which is not a map, and is correctly categorized in other categories. Dysklyver 21:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You must not empty a category before nominating it for deletion. DuncanHill (talk) 21:54, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What would you do if you found a category that has only one page in it and that page didn't belong in the category? Would correcting the page's categorization and then waiting for someone else to CSD tag the category (for being empty) have been better? DexDor(talk) 07:04, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve been thinking I could turn this into an article, there’s already a bit of content there, and it could refer to OS maps and such. Maps of Cornwall, would be of more use than this category is. Dysklyver 09:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article masquerading as a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We might have an ARTICLE on Maps of Cornwall, but what we have here deserves WP:TNT, as it is written from a grossly Cornish-nationalist POV. Cornwall has for the last 1000, perhaps 1200, years been an ordinary English county in most respects. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
we don't have that article, it is just a redirect I was considering making. Also for the sake of accuracy in the dates, the county of Cornwall was formed in the late 1700's, it was previously a duchy administered by the Stannary Parliaments. So its been a normal English county for about 250 years. Dysklyver 17:55, 12 November 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: Playing word association games at WP with categories is not in spirit of an encyclopedia. Objects aren't definable. How can we have a category Songs about objects? Richhoncho (talk) 18:08, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We really need to par down "songs about" categories. I think this works for things like "songs about World War I" or "Songs about Christmas", but some of these categories are just plain absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a completely random collection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Ridiculously overbroad category that would rope in a significant percentage of all the songs that have Wikipedia articles at all if it were fully populated. People really need to cut this "songs about X" stuff out. Bearcat (talk) 22:29, 14 November 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:merge. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:41, 19 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per previous cfd and other cfds. Oculi (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per many precedents. There may be a case of splitting between fauna of the more habitable coastal strip and fauna of the Sahara, but that is probably a discussion for another day. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
These particular categories have been selected because they were recreated after being deleted. We should move away from categorizing species by which countries they are found in as that leads to absurdities such as Category:Fauna_of_Akrotiri_and_Dhekelia (CFD), some articles being in dozens of country categories, articles being placed in a Foos of Europe category because they are found in a Pacific Island that is governed by France etc. Lists are more suitable. We should categorize species etc by large physical regions (e.g. continents/sub-continents - which may in some cases, e.g. Australia, correspond to countries). Unfortunately this is too big/complicated to do in one huge CFD. DexDor(talk) 20:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I think a list List of mammals found in Libya, which could have sectons for those found elsewhere, and those only found in Libya (assuming there are such) would work. However making it a category over associates some very broadly ranging animals with specific countries. The list would also allow us to include animals that were in Libya in historic times but are either now extinct or have reduced ranges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is List of mammals of Libya which lists 97 (rather than the 3 articles currently in the category). This is a good example of a list that's a lot better than a category. DexDor(talk) 06:26, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep. I fully agree that "[Animals] of [Country]" is lists, not categories. But this needs to be done for the group, not one at a time. - The BushrangerOne ping only 00:17, 18 November 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:Polish resistance fighters of World War II[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:merge, the two categories have the same scope. Neither of the sibling categories adds "of World War II" to the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:52, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Object. The scope is NOT the same. First, its sister subcategory Cursed Soldiers refers to post-WWII era. Second, it is possible in the future we may decide to create a resistance fighters category grouping the participants of the 19th century Polish uprising. Either way, the two categories have a clear parent-child relationship. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Afaics, participants to 19th-century uprisings are never referred to as "resistance". This term is exclusively used for resistance against Nazi Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:55, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- There have been a series of Polish risings. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that the World War II category is part of a larger structure of WWII resistance makes it logical to leave the categories are they are. Even if all Polish resistance fighters had fought in WWII (which does not actually appear to be the case, although some of this gets into the tricky issue of who to categorize as Polish, however ethnic Polish subjects of Russia through the Russian Empire Kingdom of Poland almost certainly count) This is a place where the general structure would justify a parent container category with one sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I have checked articles starting with A to F of Category:Polish resistance fighters and none of them was related to 19th-century uprisings, they were all about WWII resistance fighters. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:19, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we should be specific and this is a viable title. WWII is not the only war where Poland had a resistance, and even if it was, a specific title is always good. Dysklyver 20:04, 12 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination. It is then perhaps better to rename all siblings into "of World War II". Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 15 November 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:merge. ℯxplicit 01:12, 20 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Below is an example nomination. The full list of nominated categories can be found on the talk page.
Support -- For more recent periods there may be enough content to merit such splits, but only in recent centuries. I presume this is a sample nom, to be followed by one or more comprehensive ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:01, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the latter, see first line of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This is just too small a category structure overall to justify this many sub-cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 11 November 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.
Rename -- I cannot think of any other use of Muscat, which would need that we need a disambiguator. This is not a case like London, Ontario or Birmingham, Alabama, where there is room for confusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the grape provides enough potential confusion to justify the categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 11 November 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:Wrestlers who appeared in pornographic films[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: Seems like a trivia, non-encyclopedic type of a category. There is no similar category to this that I can find, and it doesn't fit into any particular trees. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:59, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- clearly a trivial intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, but provide the search link here on how to dynamically create the interesting, as per working tricks towards the bottom of Wikipedia:Category_intersection. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:51, 10 November 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 November 18#Category:Muscat, Oman. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)