Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating information from the index volume of the DNB with no Wikisource DNB entry[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. MER-C 09:30, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Edit: These categories were populated by {{cite DNBIE}} and {{DNBIE}} when |wstitle= had a value. However, those templates no longer do that because Wikisource:Dictionary of National Biography, Index and Epitome does not exist. For that reason, code in {{cite DNBIE}} and {{DNBIE}} that populated these categories has been removed making these categories unnecessary. This category was populated by {{cite DNBIE}} when |wstitle= had a value. However, that template no longer does that because Wikisource:Dictionary of National Biography, Index and Epitome does not exist. For that reason, code in {{cite DNBIE}} that populated this category has been removed making this category unnecessary.Trappist the monk (talk) 21:46, 19 April 2019 (UTC) 22:52, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As empty categories that no longer will be populated. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Yes, both categories have been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 05:04, 26 April 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.
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 per WP:SMALLCAT, we currently have two articles in each of the two categories, while the parent Category:Alytus has very few articles directly in the category. Alytus is a city in Lithuania (57.000 people). Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Both While there are surely other buildings and companies there, it's unlikely we'll ever get up to 5 or so individually notable ones. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 20 April 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.
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:Category:20th-century models and Category:21st-century models were deleted in a CfD nine years ago because the profession hasn't been around long enough and the amount of content was small enough that the century treatment was not warranted. I think that's still true in general and even more so in this attempt to create such categories by gender as well. Because of this, I wasn't sure this met G4 recreation requirements for speedy deletion. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:08, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Century categories are not useful for anything started since 1900. Rathfelder (talk) 10:57, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, diffusing by century only makes sense for occupations with a longer history. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 27 April 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.
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: Two categories for just one navbox, which itself looks slightly dubious with so little content. Unnecessary. PC78 (talk) 15:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - clearly excessive. Oculi (talk) 16:08, 19 April 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.
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:Rename per revised proposal. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:36, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming all similar remaining categories under the purview of WT:AIRCRAFT & WT:AVIATION (both notified) to match the Wikipedia-wide convention.
Addendum: The closest naming policy I see is WP:CATNAME#Events, which references Category:Decades by country, which uses the "YYYYs" decade naming format. For a broader scope, I recursed Category:Categories by decade to a depth of 3 (1x gave ~2500 results, 2x ~36,000, and 3x ~250,000 and ~20 minutes to run) to find 77,945 subcats, 74,697 cats with numbers, 18,480 cats using "Ys" (\ds), only 148 cats using "Y–Y" (\d[–-]\d), and only 62 were proper decade spans (cats tend to lose focus the deeper you go), of which 38 are WP:AIRCRAFT related + 24 WP:Tropical Cyclones related (Category:1940–49 Pacific typhoon seasons, etc.).
Even though not explicitly mentioned in policy (that I could find easily), this extreme imbalance of "YYYYs" (~99.67%) to non-"YYYYs"-decades (~0.33%) displays a very obvious implicit standard that I see no reason to ignore. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 17:00, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would make more sense; updated nom. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 18:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support all in amended nom. Oculi (talk) 12:34, 24 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all These categories were setup to match the aircraft project convention (the aircraft engine task force is part of the aircraft project), there are many more engine type categories, if this sub set was changed it would be out of line with all the others. An example of the aircraft categorisation can be seen here. If it is intended to change every decade category for aircraft and engines then it needs to be discussed fully at project level (WT:AIR) and with a rationale that is stronger than 'seems to be...' such as a link to a Wikipedia editing policy that demands the change. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by) 19:09, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for pointing that out. That's not a problem; I'll compile a full list in the near future. Will also look for other relevant discussions. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:37, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all this needs much more detailed discussion at WP:AIR, to consider all the ramifications, before bringing it here. It would help the discussion if the nominator could point out which policy the current naming system offends. - Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Subcategories of Category:2010s, say, should follow the naming pattern clearly established at the top level. Oculi (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Policy support survey: and in response to Nimbus227 & Ahunt:
These categories actually go against WP:AIR's own policy. Per WP:CATNAME#Naming conventions, Standard article naming conventions apply. WP:Naming conventions (aircraft) then says Child articles: Articles that are split from, or are sub-articles, of the "parent article" should, as far as is practical, retain the manufacturer-designation-name as the first part of the title and the specific topic of the article after that. Category:Aircraft piston engines by decade, etc. are, and should be, subcategories of Category:Decades, which follow the "YYYYs" format.
Per MOS:DECADE, always use four digits as in the 1980s. applicable only to article contents
"This is what we currently use" at WP:AIR is, by itself, not a reasonable argument, and amounts to WP:ILIKEIT. If there is a good reason behind the hyphenated, counter-multiple-policy decade format, I welcome hearing it. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 12:06, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The MOS links refer to how decades are recommended to be shown in article text, how they are recommended to be formatted in categories is not suggested, mandated or implied. Don't understand at all the reference to aircraft child article naming, aircraft engine article format follows the guideline (Manufacturer Designation Name) such as Pratt & Whitney R-2800 Double Wasp, perhaps it is suggested that an aircraft engine article is treated as a child article of an aircraft article? That would be very odd as the Supermarine Spitfire and its engines have very different names (Rolls-Royce Merlin and Rolls-Royce Griffon). Category:Decades only contains other decades, what we have here is objects sorted into decades which is different. It is odd that the opportunity to 'correct' these categories was not taken in May 2012 when they were all renamed due to having an en dash (or em dash) or the other way around, one wonders what the preferred format will be next year when the wind changes, Still no policy stated that backs this proposal. Nimbus(Cumulusnimbusfloats by) 15:25, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with User:Nimbus227 above. There is no policy reason to change these, just seems to be one editor's personal preference versus a longstanding editing consensus. - Ahunt (talk) 16:19, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alignment with parent categories (like with e.g. Category:1900s in this case) is normally a speedy rename criterion per WP:C2C. Why are you against aligning? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:18, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As User:Nimbus227 explained above you haven't shown any relevant policies that the current system offends. It is up to you to make a convincing case to change this, not up to others to defend the existing categories. - Ahunt (talk) 22:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My Policy support point #1 is better expressed by WP:C2C, to which there's no substantial argument against (WP:C2C says conventions for that category tree, after all, and not "conventions for that category's immediate parent").
My Policy support point #2 has been rightly struck.
My Policy support point #3 has not been challenged. ~Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf) 19:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, there was not a 1900s parent category added yet (and so on for the other decades). I have solved that omission now. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 30 April 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.
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: Three categories containing just one article. The only analogous category to the latter is Category:Anime soundtracks which has more than enough articles to justify it, there are no other categories for "Soundtrack albums by country" (or such) so far as I can tell. As per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 12#Category:Aeni by date, "Aeni" is a somewhat obscure term and there are already existing categories for Korean animation. PC78 (talk) 11:55, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the single article is at best dubious, too. Aeni is a redirect. Oculi (talk) 12:11, 19 April 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.
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: Category contains 2 redirects only, both for the same album. With only redirects serves no practical purposes and fails to be a category of articles. Richhoncho (talk) 06:59, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for Now While WP:SMALLCAT allows for 1 or 2 article categories in this case, it does not allow for zero. No objection to recreating if/when an article comes along. (Also, no objection to creating a hidden redirect category if any editor finds that useful.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 20 April 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.
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 per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article in each of these categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge None are likely to get up to 5 or so articles and all are well-categorized by Egypt/Spain. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not opposed -- Nevertheless, it would not surprise me if the Spanish categories could not be populated with at least 5 articles. However inevitably the English WP pays more attention to British and American history than Spanish or Egyptian. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 21 April 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.
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: There is little to distinguish between these two stub template/categories. There are 340+ articles currently tagged in each 2000s pop song stubs and 2000s pop single stubs, yet if I tried to place all the actual singles in pop song stubs to pop single stubs, there'd only be a few articles left in the pop song stub category. So I'm proposing a merge from pop singles to pop songs because it will allow a reassessment of the types of sub-stubs that can be created to reduce numbers if the category gets overpopulated. Possibilities include "pop rock song stubs", "synthpop song stubs", "dance-pop song stubs". This will be easier to evaluate if all these stubs were in one place instead of split across two that serve the same function. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:18, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We are creating articles on songs not on singles (it is the song that makes the single, not vice versa). --Richhoncho (talk) 08:26, 19 April 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.
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. MER-C 09:31, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: None of these rock single stub categories are too populated and a merge will keep all articles in one category. I'd say over 90% of the song articles tagged as rock song stubs are singles anyway, and there's nothing to say either is incorrect. This proposal will allow a reassessment of the songs/singles stubs because if the rock songs stub categories get overpopulated, we can consider creating "1990s-metal-song-stub" or "2000s-alt-rock-song-stub" or "2010s-pop-rock-song-stub", as may be appropriate. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:48, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support. We are creating articles on songs not on singles. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:25, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Support per nominator. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:40, 19 April 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:Billiard Congress of America Hall of Fame inductees[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:listify/delete. Since a list already exist, the category can just be deleted (non-admin closure)DannyS712 (talk) 05:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Billiard Congress of America Hall of Fame is an annual awards dinner hosted by the BCA and the winners are displayed in the Colorado organization's lobby (see here). Most of the articles mention the award in passing although a significant minority mention it in the lede but that is due largely to a single editor. The recipients are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OCAWARD as we already have a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:00, 21 April 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:International Swimming Hall of Fame inductees[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:listify/delete. Since a list already exist, the category can just be deleted (non-admin closure)DannyS712 (talk) 05:58, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Olympic affiliated International Swimming Federation started the International Swimming Hall of Fame during the 1968 Olympics in Mexico City, although includes a museum in Florida. Competing in swimming at the Olympics and, especially, winning a medal is definitely defining and is how these articles start. Receiving this award later for that same Olympic participation does not seem defining. It's also difficult to navigate this large category when, for example the Ingrid Gulbin, is better categorized in Olympic country, Olympic event, Olympic year, and Olympic medalist categories. (Click on any other article you like to see the same thing.) The recipients are already listified here in a separate list article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Background We previously deleted another Olympic-focused hall of fame here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 19 April 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.
