Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 16

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

August 16[edit]

Category:Rissa[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: rename to Category:Kittiwakes – using plural as in parent Category:Gulls and others within Category:Seabirds. – Fayenatic London 20:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
or
or
Nominator's rationale: In this context, "Rissa" refers to the scientific name for the kittiwake bird. Some change is needed to disambiguate it from the other titles listed at the dab page Rissa. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to avoid ambiguity. In these trees the usage of the scientific name (option A or B) is generally preferred. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Kittiwake, since all articles in the category are under their common names using "kittiwake". bibliomaniac15 03:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:43, 16 August 2020 (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:Ford stubs[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) 18:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unproposed, underpopulated, underuseful. It's rare we create stubs for particular companies, and in this case it makes more sense to split by type of vehicle (which is what WP:WSS has been doing for years). The category has two (count 'em!) articles. Grutness...wha? 10:30, 16 August 2020 (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:Children of Medusa[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. bibliomaniac15 22:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, two children and little chance of Medusa getting a third child. The two articles already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for reasons given by the nominator: category with only two entries, and little or no potential for expansion; all of the articles concerned should already link to each other. P Aculeius (talk) 13:49, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Viable small category. Dimadick (talk) 15:02, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:25, 21 August 2020 (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:Elections in Saga Prefecture[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 2 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer, it only contains one subcategory and one template. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. bibliomaniac15 22:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now The proposed category tree allows for navigation of the existing articles. No objection to recreating later if/when the article count grows. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 2 November 2020 (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:Razakar[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. bibliomaniac15 22:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not a defining characteristic of any of the four biographies, and WP:SMALLCAT applies to the two remaining articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of earlier CFDS renaming discussion
@BrownHairedGirl and Fayenatic london: pinging contributors to earlier CFDS renaming discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: would you be willing to indicate whether or not you agree with my previous comment? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you for the ping. After looking into it further, I support the nomination to delete. – Fayenatic London 07:53, 18 August 2020 (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.

Suburbs of Cairns smallcats[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: manual deletion. MER-C 18:47, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
1-page categories
  1. Category:Trinity Beach, Queensland
2-page categories
  1. Category:Freshwater, Queensland
  2. Category:Smithfield, Queensland
  3. Category:Stratford, Queensland
  4. Category:Whitfield, Queensland
  5. Category:Woree, Queensland
  6. Category:Yorkeys Knob, Queensland
3-page categories
  1. Category:Cairns City, Queensland
  2. Category:Edge Hill, Queensland
  3. Category:Parramatta Park, Queensland
  4. Category:Redlynch, Queensland
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 12 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Cairns, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Cairns (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Cairns (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:54, 16 August 2020 (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.

Suburbs of Logan City smallcats[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: manual deletion. MER-C 18:48, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:Bethania, Queensland
  2. Category:Crestmead, Queensland
  3. Category:Daisy Hill, Queensland
  4. Category:Logan Village, Queensland
  5. Category:Loganholme, Queensland
  6. Category:Mundoolun, Queensland
  7. Category:Waterford, Queensland
3-page categories
  1. Category:Eagleby, Queensland‎
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 8 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Logan City, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Logan City (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Logan City (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:54, 16 August 2020 (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.

Suburbs of Mackay smallcats[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: manual deletion. MER-C 18:49, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose manually deleting:
2-page categories
  1. Category:North Mackay, Queensland‎
3-page categories
  1. Category:West Mackay, Queensland‎
  2. Category:South Mackay, Queensland
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 3 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Mackay, Queensland is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.
In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Mackay, Queensland (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Mackay, Queensland (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.
I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.
As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:54, 16 August 2020 (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:Wikipedians who use AutoWikiBrowser[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. As mentioned by the opposition, this is a fairly specific category; there is no prejudice against creating a similar category for JWB users. Primefac (talk) 22:40, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming to Category:Wikipedians with AutoWikiBrowser access because not everyone who has AWB access has a computer that supports AWB, like me and plenty others (AWB is only for those with Windows). My computer, for example, does not support it (it's a Chromebook, so I use JWB instead). ◊PRAHLADbalaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:54, 16 August 2020 (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:Films with screenplays by Fred Hoyle[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. bibliomaniac15 22:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only 1 film categorized here –xenotalk 14:39, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 08:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, currently there are 4 articles in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The additional items are derivatives or adaptions. I note that nothing of this is mentioned in Fred Hoyle, except in passing. No doubt he had a hand in the original TV programme, but writing films was hardly a major activity of this notable astromoner. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:15, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In three of the four articles his name is mentioned in the first sentence. I can't imagine this is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2020 (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:Royal Monastery of San Juan de la Peña[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 18:10, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only two articles and little room for expansion. The two articles already link to each other directly. When the category is deleted, its parent categories should be added to the main article Royal Monastery of San Juan de la Peña. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The other article is on a chronicle written at the monastery, which does not fit with the parents of this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:19, 16 August 2020 (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/2020_August_16&oldid=986775977"