Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 15 December 17 >

December 16[edit]

Category:Health care[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: keep, given the lack of consensus to move the main article (see Talk:Health care#Requested move 2 December 2018). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:42, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The change of the parent category from "Health care" to "Healthcare" is proposed because "Healthcare" is a recognised noun and when spoken is spoken as one word not two e.g. "Healthcare in Australia" would be spoken without a pause between health and care. The majority of the country subcategories e.g. Category:Healthcare in Australia use one word apart from the 4 or 5 countries below (15 out of 20)
The subcatgories which would also require changing are::Category:Health care in Cyprus,:Category:Health care in France, Category:Health care in New Zealand, Category:Health care in Spain & Category:Health care in Catalonia.
NB: Probably the articles Health care and Catholic Church and health care should also have notices of proposed changes but I am unsure how to do this. Hugo999 (talk) 12:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Waiting for the RM to close...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There are 7 categories included in this nomination: 2 topic-level, 5 country-level. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now oppose, after the RM has been closed as no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. The article and category have been flipping back and forth between "healthcare" and "health care" for years, because people have passionate but honest disagreement about which form should be preferred. Ideally, it would be better if we could find some compromise term which avoids having to continually argue over whether there should be a space between the "health" and "care" elements or not — but whatever is decided, the categories should follow the same spelling as the head article does, and the RM discussion on the article was closed no consensus. Bearcat (talk) 19:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I suggest we might depart from the rule that we follow the main article in the spelling of the category? The category system is scattered with both spellings. There is no logic to it, and I doubt if anyone actually cares about it. I cant say that I care much which we use. But having two different spellings with no reason at all is a nuisance. And, for what it is worth, my impression is that in literature about the topic, businesses etc. there is a slow move towards using one word, especially in information technology. There are certainly a lot more than 7 categories affected. Rathfelder (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The RM was closed as no consensus, and thus the main article is still Health care. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:59, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Marcocapelle in reference to "no consensus" (at least for now) on Talk:Health care. Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:17, 22 December 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.

Category:Theological term[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:00, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First off, really bad name. The apparent intended meaning was something like "Terminology in Christian theology", because it is a subcategory of Category:Christian theology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and all except for (ironically) Religious exclusivism are stubs that are solely within the scope of Christianity and its denominations. Not only that, the current title of the category is singular, against convention.
The subject overlaps significantly if not entirely with Category:Christian terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), which has an impressive collection of undeniably theological terms (Biblical infallibility, Brotherly love (philosophy), Neonominalism, Paraclete) that would be a better place for terms like Fides quaerens intellectum. The title 'Theological term' should then be redirected to Category:Religious terminology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs).  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  21:15, 16 December 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.

Category:Aliases of 76.66[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: listified, and posted to the project's talk. It can be deleted if users there have no utility for it. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:55, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Aliases of 76.66 to article Wikipedia:Aliases of 76.66
Nominator's rationale: I don't see how this topic is relevant to the whole AfC project. Might be better off as a historical page in the project namespace. Flooded with them hundreds 08:01, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Outdated - we don't need to convert this or retain this information. Pkbwcgs (talk) 16:34, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Posted a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. This would be better as a list than as a category. Bearcat (talk) 18:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment never heard of it or seen it used and I do a lot of AfC. Delete unless someone comes up with a reason to keep it. Legacypac (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Don't think there is any reason to keep it. Ben5218 (talk) 20:55, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This range of 76.66 contributor IP addresses was blocked for 6 months from 31 July 2018. @BU Rob13: please could you explain why? Is it only because of this?[1] – Fayenatic London 14:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: I can't comment on whether my range block was related to any specific SPI case, because I made it based on CU data. I will say it wasn't based on logged-out edits, though. It was primarily to block account creation on the range. ~ Rob13Talk 14:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. Well, it looks as if we can simply delete this as obsolete since 2011. – Fayenatic London 15:26, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creepy IP stalking. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:28, 14 January 2019 (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:Progressive Conservative Party of Canada candidates in the 1945 Canadian federal election[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: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As with Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_July_23#Category:Liberal_Party_of_Canada_candidates_in_the_1867_Canadian_federal_election and other past examples, this represents an overly granular distinction for the level of notability that it actually entails. We don't categorize actual Members of Parliament by which individual sessions of parliament they sat in or which individual elections they ran in, so there's no compelling reason to categorize candidates more specifically than we do the actual winners. Further, this creates a significant degree of category bloat, since candidates often do not run just once but frequently try again once or several more times in subsequent elections — and since having been a non-winning candidate for Parliament is not a notability claim in and of itself, but rather people only have articles to file in here if they already had preexisting notability for another reason (e.g. provincial MLAs), it results in most of the categories being unnecessary WP:SMALLCATs with just a handful of entries. Note that I am aware that some parallel categories still exist for other political parties as well — there are far too many to tackle in one batch, so I've been tackling it in pieces one party at a time. Bearcat (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, (just) candidates should not be categorized as such (they are merely politicians), and actual MPs are sufficiently categorized anyway. (If there is no consensus to delete then the merge nomination is the next best thing to do.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Candidates who fail to get elected are NN per WP:POLITICIAN, so that we should not have categories for them, even if they may be notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected candidates are not notable. We need to avoid categories that may suggest otherwise.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:45, 5 January 2019 (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:Anti-nuclear protests by country[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 both to Category:Anti-nuclear protests, and the latter also to Category:Anti-nuclear movement in the United Kingdom. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2 subcats, one of which is nominated for deletion Rathfelder (talk) 16:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 16:53, 16 December 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.

Category:Anti-war protests in the United Kingdom[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: upmerge. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:52, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 (anti-nuclear) subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with the dual merge per nomination above this category becomes empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge as proposed by Marcocapelle. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2019 (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:Peace movement by former country[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: no consensus. While there is a pretty clear consensus these categories should be upmerged, one key question is unclear: should the anti-nuclear movement as a whole, or only the anti–nuclear weapons movement, be considered part of the peace movement? As this discussion has become stale, I recommend renominating these categories in a way that recognizes the need to merge the contents to at least one parent category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:51, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2 subcategories Rathfelder (talk) 16:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 2 subcategories Rathfelder (talk) 16:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:45, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1 article, 1 subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one article and one subcategory Rathfelder (talk) 16:42, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one sub category Rathfelder (talk) 16:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article Rathfelder (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mirror of Category:Anti-nuclear movement by country. The country sub cats almost all only contain the Category:Anti-nuclear movement in Foo Rathfelder (talk) 16:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the articles are about organisations, not a movement. Rathfelder (talk) 16:33, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This proposal aims to remove the category layer Peace movement between Pacifism and Social movements on the one hand and Anti-nuclear movement on the other hand. The layer Peace movement just by itself is almost empty so the idea of the nomination makes perfect sense. However, more merge targets need to be specified in order to ensure that the content remains in the Pacifism and Social movement tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. Yes, these are smallcats, but as Marcocapelle notes the remedy should be merger not deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the actual articles, of which there are not many, are already in those categories, but I will check. Rathfelder (talk) 16:17, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The Anti-nuclear movement subcats should also remain in the Pacifism and Social movements trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:36, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    There are two separate trees - nuclear power, which is nothing to do with pacifism, and nuclear weapons, which is. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    The parents of Peace movement are Pacifism and Social movements. Obviously the Anti-nuclear movement subcats should remain in these two trees. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 18 December 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.

Category:Photometry[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: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An opposed speedy. Renaming is to bring category name in conformity with main article Photometry (optics). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy discussion
  • Oppose The category is currently broader than Photometry (optics) is. The different meanings of "Photometry" that are covered on the disambiguation page are all related to one another, and the category covers the broader topic. We should not rename the category simply to match the article title. If the category is to be renamed, it should be because there is a consensus to narrow the category's scope.--Srleffler (talk) 13:00, 28 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:27, 16 December 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.

Category:Egyptian Premier League footballers[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: no consensus (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think that "footballers" is the correct word to use here. "Players" is more suitable in my opinion and is used in other leagues' categories. I originally moved it by myself but it was reverted after less than five minutes. Ben5218 (talk) 21:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 09:19, 16 December 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.

Roman Catholic churches by city[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 as nominated, without prejudice to recreating if/when there is more content to support categorization by city. It is important to remember that, just because one or two articles are in "category A" and "category B", it does not follow that "category A and B" has to be created. Looking through a sample of the nominated categories, it is apparent that a significant number of Roman Catholic churches in X categories were inappropriately/prematurely fully diffused by city, even if the category contained far too few articles to warrant subcategories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories contain only 1 or 2 articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging most though I question somewhat the inclusion of some of them. I also think that you could have chosen more specific church categories. I'll expand later. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  23:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - most of the cities such as Auckland, Tulsa, Tiblisi, etc. are quite large and it isn't entirely unreasonable to expect that there either other articles on churches that are of the catholic denomination either out there or that could be created, therefore WP:SMALLCAT is not applicable. Also these more specific articles help prevent clutter, both from having too many articles in 1 category, and having 2 categories in the same article when 1 specific one could do the job just as well. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • These are a number of different objections and I'll counter them one by one:
  1. In Auckland 13% of the population consists of Catholics. In Georgia (Tbilisi is the capital of Georgia) 84% of the population is Orthodox and Catholicism is one of many minorities. Tulsa is part of a Protestant Bible belt. In neither of these cities we can expect to have a large number of notable Catholic church buildings.
  2. Having too many articles in 1 category is not an issue here.
  3. Having 2 categories in the same article when 1 specific one could do the job just as well is a poor argument. If we would just want to have as little category designations in an article as possible, every article would simply have its own category. The idea of categories however is that you find a reasonable number of related articles easily.
- Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • To counter your first point, according to google maps there are 20 churches of the catholic denomination in Tulsa, 5 in Tiblisi, and over 40 in the Auckland area. Sure not all these buildings will be notable by Wikipedia standards, but there is a potential for growth here and therefore WP:SMALLCAT is not applicable. Also many of the categories you have nominated are located in countries with more substantial Catholic populations, such as France, Germany, etc. And lastly saying that there has to be a substantial population of religion X to have articles of building X is a poor argument. Anglicans make up a rather small percentage of the total religious population of the United States, but we still have many articles on church buildings of the Anglican denomination because their articles tend to be notable. Inter&anthro (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is really about the interpretation of WP:SMALLCAT. The way I understand it, which is confirmed by the example given, is that there should always be a substantive reason for growth: with a political office, other people will take that office for sure. Extrapolating this to churches in the nominated categories, a substantive reason for growth would be if every few years a new Catholic church is being built in the above cities - but that is not actually the case. Reversing the argument: if there would be no need to provide a substantive reason for growth, one could claim growth potential for really every category and WP:SMALLCAT would become a dead letter. Just numbers don't say anything, because they do not provide any insight in the degree of notability. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I didn't mean to say that there has to be a substantial population of religion X to have articles of building X; instead I meant to say that not having a substantial population is an obvious predictor for not having many notable buildings (not a perfect predictor, but an obvious predictor). Finally, I'm not sure I get your last point. If you mean Anglican including Episcopalian then a substantial part of the US population belongs to it, but if you mean Anglican excluding Episcopalian then there aren't many churches at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with no prejudice against re-creation if more articles are created. A few cities (Augsburg, Vancouver) are a bit surprising to be here, others should clearly be upmerged. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:29, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Catholic instead of Roman Catholic per the article Catholic Church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. While many examples may look unpopulated at this time, the precision of the categories is helpful in many ways in many contexts. Luckily, it's free having categories that are helpful and might also be more used and populated with time. Also, support rename per Johnpacklambert. PPEMES (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There's a high navigational cost of zig-zagging up and down a category tree to find article in under-populated categories. No objection to recreating any if they ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2019 (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:Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party politicians[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: keep. For reference, the move discussion resulted in no consensus to rename the article. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OFFICIALNAME. Druk Phuensum Tshogpa — Bukhari (Talk!) 07:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the other way around, right? Druk Phuensum Tshogpa being the official name, the English translation being the common name. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For example here. The fact that an abbreviation is being added for Druk Phuensum Tshogpa also indicates that Druk Phuensum Tshogpa is the official name. Anyway there would be no point in using another common name in English if Bhutan Peace and Prosperity Party (as an English name) would have been the official name. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Druk Phuensum Tshogpa is the common name. Most of the newspapers use Druk Phuensum Tshogpa (DPT). See my comment here. Thanks— Bukhari (Talk!) 08:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The article still uses the English name. This is an English-lanaguage publication, and a few hundred books have been printed that use the English name. Wikipedia does not follow official names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:49, 5 January 2019 (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:Flora of the Mediterranean[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: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 17:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To clarify the scope of these categories (Mediterranean redirects to Mediterranean Sea, but the text of these categories states that they are about the wider region).
Note: Deletion (with some upmerging) could also be considered as most of the articles in these categories are well categorized by continent/sea and other categories (e.g. Category:Plants of Mediterranean climate).  This applies especially to the flora category as this region is not in the relevant wikiproject's scheme.  Note: Currently this is such a mess that, for example, Chamois is (via intermediate categories) in Category:Marine organisms.
Note: The creator of the flora category has been blocked for category-related disruption. DexDor (talk) 05:27, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd prefer delete to rename (mainly as this region isn't clearly defined and overlaps other regions). Of the subcats/articles I've looked at none would need an upmerge. DexDor (talk) 22:01, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If the categories are deleted then a note should be placed at Category:Environment of the Mediterranean along the lines of "For articles about organisms native to the Mediterranean Basin see Category:Biota of Europe ...". DexDor (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories do not follow WGSRPD, and are causing more harm than good. I think the best thing is to delete. —hike395 (talk) 09:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, at least for Flora; as noted by Hike395, this category does not follow the WGSRPD which is used for plant distributions. I don't know whether the Fauna category is of any value; if it is, I agree that the nominator's suggested name is better. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:49, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The contents of the Fauna category belong mostly to the now-reinstated Category:Fauna of the Mediterranean Sea. Micromesistius (talk) 00:34, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've now moved many of the articles down. DexDor (talk) 19:10, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Flora category as it does not follow the WGSRPD category scheme used for plant distributions. Declangi (talk) 04:50, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Flora of the Mediterranean per WikiProject Plants recommendations for geographic distribution categories. Also agree that Mediterranean Basin would be a better name for a fauna category if that is retained –Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:50, 17 December 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.

Category:Inter Wehnen players[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: Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 20:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary as there is only one entry (Aleksei Spasskov), there is no article for Inter Wehnen/FC Inter Wehnen, and there is little evidence this club exists. The club information on Aleksei Spasskov is also unsourced. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment by creator. I created this only to fill a redlink in Special:WantedCategories. Now that the massive backlog at SWC has been clearly, I devote a little more time to scrutinising such cats, and I might not have created this one if I had done so. So I am happy to accept the nominator's assessment. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:30, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. S.A. Julio (talk) 05:38, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. GiantSnowman 10:26, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The category only has one player in it and the club doesn't even have an article on Wikipedia. Ben5218 (talk) 21:00, 25 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_16&oldid=1138411674"