Category:Big Ten Conference athletic team seasons[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) 16:20, 18 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. If the band had more than just albums and songs categories, maybe this would be warranted. But for now, its unneeded when one cat can link to the other with a {{Category see also}}. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 20:58, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete What else could this contain...? If they had films, I guess this could be warranted, but just upmerge it to Category:LMFAO. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:35, 11 September 2011 (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:No rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:55, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes about reorganizing stuff that is volcanic and stuff that is not volcanic. I came up with the volcanology categorization idea yesterday and it is probably better than categorizing oceans, countries and continents by volcanism. Volcanism is a topic of volcanology and Category:Volcanism is a subcat of Category:Volcanology. As I stated on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes, categorizing by volcanology goes well with Category:Geology (a parent of Category:Volcanology) because there is Category:Geology by continent, as well as Category:Geology by country. This is the same for other scientific topics, such as Category:Geography by country. I propose renaming all of the above Volcanism of XXXX and Volcanism by XXXX categories to the more proper Volcanology of XXXX and Volcanology by XXXX categorization. Volcanoguy 19:33, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question: isn't volcanism "volcanic activity" and volcanology "the study of volcanoes"? That is fairly big difference in meaning. Crisco 1492 (talk) 10:26, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Volcanology is the study of volcanoes and volcanic phenomena, such as volcanic activity, lava, etc. Volcanoguy 19:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So this would change the scope of the categories as well; including the national agencies which study volcanism, notable volcanologists, etc. ... Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:20, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would expand their scope substantially. --Avenue (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename as the change in scope would require a more involved discussion by knowledgeable editors, which as noted below has not reached a consensus. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:31, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename until the current discussion at WikiProject Volcanoes has reached a consensus. That discussion has identified problems with how some articles on intrusive igneous formations and activity have been categorised, and I think there's a general feeling that more expansive categories would be helpful. But it's not clear to me that most feel (a) that renaming the volcanism categories would be best (instead of creating some new categories), or (b) that an extensive set of geographically focussed "Volcanology of XXX" categories is the best alternative (as opposed to "Magmatism of XXX", say). There is also the question of what to do with non-geographic subcategories of volcanism (e.g. by geochronology or tectonic setting). --Avenue (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Quit. I have enough of this bullshit so I am leaving the project. Nobody answered me on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Volcanoes on whether or not that would be a good idea except for User:Babakathy. I try my best to do what is good for the project but nobody takes it. So good bye. Volcanoguy 18:54, 13 September 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Categorizing by work and by work?!?!Curb Chain (talk) 05:36, 11 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:21, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It is not normal practice to create categories for sister cities. also sister cities of Y, say cities A, B and C. does not mean A, B and C actually talk to each other. LibStar (talk) 14:25, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I suspect this was already debated at some point since only three other categories of this form exist. It's too trivial to be a defining characteristic of a city. I will also nominate the other three sister cities categories. Pichpich (talk) 14:19, 18 September 2011 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories created by User:Stefanomione, this is another example of how he creates "x by y" and "y by x" parallel categories, unnecessarily imo. I believe all period-related contents can be adequately and better grouped in a single category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We don't really look at periods by the works produced in that period. In anycase, this would be too hard to categorize, and overlap is common.Curb Chain (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2011 (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:Upmerge Another unneeded 'x by y by x' subcategory by User:Stefanomione, created quite recently. I thought he had agreed and understood that such categories were rejected by the community as unnecessary, and that he would therefore stop. Apparently not. If this continues, I think we'd be justified in blocking him from category creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:06, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge This "x by y by x" is for a database program, and we just don't categorize that way. I suggest nominating Category:Works about creative works for Upmerge or delete as well because this is just a too narrow categorization.Curb Chain (talk) 05:32, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you take a closer look, I think you'll see that Category:Works about creative works is a useful parent for things like Category:Works about film and the like. It's not works by work, it's works -- books, films, etc. -- that have other works as their subject matter. I think it's okay. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:51, 11 September 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Notariat" is the German word for a notary; the category was set up to match the German one in 2006, but there is no reason in the world to use a German term that is not an English word. Notariat in fact redirects to Civil law notary, but this category covers common law Notary publics (as in UK & US) also. There is a biographical subcat, also covering both. "Notary" seems to be the way to go. Johnbod (talk) 12:01, 10 September 2011 (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:Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:39, 12 September 2011 (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:Nazi concentration camp victims by occupation[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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:04, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I suspect that this is not a defining characteristic for most of those listed. It is also a triple intersection which we generally avoid. If consensus develops to support an action here, the subcategories will either need to be added or listed in a follow on nomination. Another option is to upmerge to Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps. If kept, the parent category of Category:Holocaust victims by occupation should be loked at since these two might really be rather the same in content and there would not be a reason to keep both trees. I think that Category:Holocaust victims by occupation needs a looking at after this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but move out of Holocaust victims by occupation - Not everyone who died in the Holocaust died in a Nazi concentration camp (millions of Jews died in the massacres in Eastern Europe, Ukraine and occupied Russian or in Hungarian, Romanian, Vichy French, Fascist Italian or other concentration camps not directly administered by the Nazis - and they are considered victims of the Holocaust in particular. Not everyone who died in a Nazi concentration camp died in the Holocaust, which is generally considered to be about racial extermination and even then, the Roma tend to use the term Porajmos rather than Holocaust. See Holocaust#Non_Jewish. I think the category needs to be moved away, and while there might be overlaps, they are certainly different and both serve different purposes.--Cerejota (talk) 07:03, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OCTrivial: intersection of two unrelated traits. r.e.b. (talk) 18:11, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You want both deleted? One but not the other? Which one?--Cerejota (talk) 20:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A lot of work went into subcategorizing these articles, and it would be irrecoverable if deleted. Also I do not see how this is a triple intersection. It is "people who died in a camp" intersecting with "occupation". Whether occupation is a relevant characteristic of the victims' shared fate is not a valid reason to delete all of the subcats, I believe. The idea is to find a means of subcategorizing the people who died in the camps because they are so many. One means is by camp. This is the next most logical means, unless someone has a better one.Hoops gza (talk) 01:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well intentioned work is not in and of itself a reason to keep. Categorizing by camp may well be a better way to categorize these. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:06, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is a reason to keep in this context: it demonstrates this was not a casual, unthinking categorization, but rather one that satisfy a clear needed. In other words, as a response to the claim this is WP:OCTrivial - trivial implies easy to make and irrelevant as a topic, and saying that much work and thought went into this is a response to a claim of being trivial. Your original nomination does seems to take this into account, even if I do not agree with it, but the one other delete !vote here is clearly wrong in arguing WP:OCTRIVIAL.--Cerejota (talk) 03:04, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Did I claim these are trivial? But again, satisfying a need does not mean that we should have a category. I do see the merit in the case for deleting based on WP:OCTrivial. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep we had this discussion about six months ago and the decision was to keep. At the very least the nominator should bring up all the relevant subcategories. The failure to do so is why this discussion has not involved as many participants as the last one. Even if this move succeeded, the attempts to implement it lower down would be overwhelmed, so we should leave this schema intact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for some of the victims their occupation was directly related to their being victims. Also, there are so many articles on victims of the Nazis, that seperating them in some way to make seraching through the articles more manageable is a useful thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2011 (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: No articles, no parent categories. Ϫ 02:27, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think the category is needed articles about popular hackathons should be added to Wikipedia. As for parents categories, I have added some obvious ones.— Preceding unsigned comment added by El Pantera (talk • contribs) 10:47, September 10, 2011
But wait. The "obvious" parent you are using is Category:Hacking events, a category you've just created to use it as a parent! All of this can be safely upmerged to Category:Hacking (programmer subculture) a convenient category because it's relatively small. Further dispersal of these categories into subcategories just makes browsing more tedious. By the way, the two images currently contained in Category:Hackathons should be moved to Commons and the only article that would currently fit in there would be the main article hackathon. So the category is basically empty. (oh by the way, if the closing admin needs a word in bold then Delete) Pichpich (talk) 16:26, 14 September 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was a category for an under-used template being updated to take into account CC-BY-SA and the existence of WP:CWW which the template pre-dates. The new category does the same task (include tagged pages), but has an updated name. Since category is currently empty, I am not sure if to request merge or delete so I am playing it safe. Cerejota (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2011 (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.
