Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 25 September 27 >

September 26[edit]

Orlando City SC[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match parent articles Orlando City SC and Orlando City SC (2010–14). – Michael (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 05:37, 27 September 2014 (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:Romanesque architecture in Scandinavia[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 (NAC). DexDor (talk) 20:35, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Please note that the one article in this category is already parented to Category:Romanesque architecture so no need to upmerge in this respect. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without Upmerge The only article, Fieldstone church, is really a church by material type that is often Gothic and in Germany according to the article. The Romanesque categories for Sweden and Norway are populated but there's no need for an overlapping Scandinavian category. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:16, 27 September 2014 (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:History of Great Britain by period‎[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT applies, especially so because the island of Great Britain doesn't have a large established history tree - check this with its parent Category:History of the British Isles. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose straight deletion as it would leave Category:Centuries in Great Britain without a GB parent category. In general, if a category is taken to CFD for failing SMALLCAT then it should be upmerge rather than deletion. DexDor (talk) 18:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fact the category that is nominated to be deleted is already without GB parent, because a history parent for the GB island simply doesn't exist (rightfully so, I would say). For the century and millenium child categories the problem had been solved by incorporating them in the United Kingdom tree. One could also argue whether these century and millenium categories for the GB island should exist at all, but let's leave that for another time. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the category nominated for deletion is in UK and British Isles categories. DexDor (talk) 20:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck my oppose vote. This part of the categorization tree would benefit from simplification and I'm not keen on "History of" categories, but I still think that any SMALLCAT-based CFD should be to upmerge to all parents. DexDor (talk) 05:25, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very narrow way of dividing up a category that does not aid navigation. SFB 20:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Having the two subcats in their appropriate UK parent should be quite sufficient. I may be that any northern Ireland subcat should be in an all-Ireland parent for categories before 1800. If so, the UK category would in fact only be parenting categories for GB for earlier periods. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 12 October 2014 (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:Live video albums recorded in Australia[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; upmerge contents as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge to both respective categories. Neither Category:Live video albums nor Category:Live albums recorded in Australia need diffusion and the scheme at Category:Live video albums by recording location only includes this subcategory. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:43, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Live albums in X" format is useful diffusion enough. SFB 20:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator. Excessive 3-way diffusion. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:28, 7 November 2014 (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:Government bonds issued by Canada and other countries[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) 02:44, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose proposed upmerge as it would remove articles from Public-finance-in-<country> categories. DexDor (talk) 18:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination has no intention of removing articles from Public-finance-in-<country> categories. Unfortunately in most of these countries a category like that does not exist so that's why I've nominated for upmerge to Government finances, Goverment and State Government respectively. The one article in Israel is already in the Government category, the two articles in the UK are already in the Public finance category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, I should have looked more carefully. Neutral as I don't see this categorization doing any harm and I'm not sure SMALLCAT applies as these categories may have potential for growth. DexDor (talk) 20:12, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support for Canada, Strong Support for All Others to me, the WP:SMALLCAT's exception for a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" doesn't apply for a half dozen categories that are each underpopulated. My arbitrary cutoff for a cat is 5 articles but Canada comes the closest with 3. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is an area in need of growth (finance is not well covered here) and the national subdivision is a pertinent one. SFB 20:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tend to oppose - certainly as regards UK. Calling governement debt "bonds" is a recent application of American terminology elsewhere. In UK, the traditional name was "gilt edged stock" or simply "gilts". Premium bonds do not come within that, but there are a number of other classes of stock that do - War Loan; Treastury Stock; Exchequer stock; Gas stock and Transport Stock (which arose from nationalisation in the 1940s); and perhaps a few more. Historically trhere were other classes of government debt, such as Navy Bills and Ordnance Debentures. I suspect that there is another category for British government debt, to which the British category would be better being merged. This could be a subcategory of the presetn target. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 12 October 2014 (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:Government bonds by the country that issue them[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: since the discussion above was "no consensus", this category will be kept by default. Rename to Category:Government bonds by issuing country. (I thought this was probably clearer than the "country of issuance" suggestion. If anyone disagrees, let me know.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This categorization layer is no longer needed if the above nominations per country are granted. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:58, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. In a case like this it's best to wait and see if the other nomination succeeds - in which case this category can then be CSDed as empty. 19:02, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Not quite empty, because the USA remains untouched in the above nomination. But point taken. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural Oppose Per above. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:21, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would suggest that a closer will judge the two nominations together. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 27 September 2014 (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:Jews in porn[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Likely the inadvertent recreation of a deleted category. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 29#Category:Jewish pornographic film actors closed as delete. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 15:26, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I (Deisenbe) created this category. I was unaware of the previous entry, but that was only Jewish pornographic film actors. This is broader.

I am myself Jewish and my intent in creating this category was not to denigrate Judaism, but to praise it. Please see the category Judaism and sexuality (cannot be hotlinked, but put category:judaism and sexuality in the search box). deisenbe (talk) 15:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I think in the previous discussion the consensus to delete wasn't particularly strong, especially the comparison with Category:Hispanic pornographic film actors hadn't really come to an end. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and WP:OCEGRS. Only one pornstar I could think of that is actually known for being Jewish, and that's Joanna Angel. Possibly James Deen, too. There are obviously naming issues with "Jews in porn" as well. Nymf (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that WP:OCEGRS does not apply, since the topic already exists. Search for Jews in Porn on the Internet and you'll find plenty on it, and not hostile, either. deisenbe (talk) 17:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Here's an example:[reply]

It is a case of the traditional revolutionary/radical drive of immigrant Jews in America being channelled into sexual rather than leftist politics. Just as Jews have been disproportionately represented in radical movements over the years, so they are also disproportionately represented in the porn industry. Jews in America have been sexual revolutionaries. A large amount of the material on sexual liberation was written by Jews. Those at the forefront of the movement which forced America to adopt a more liberal view of sex were Jewish. Jews were also at the vanguard of the sexual revolution of the 1960s. Wilhelm Reich, Herbert Marcuse and Paul Goodman replaced Marx, Trotsky and Lenin as required revolutionary reading. Reich's central preoccupations were work, love and sex, while Marcuse prophesied that a socialist utopia would free individuals to achieve sexual satisfaction. Goodman wrote of the 'beautiful cultural consequences.' that would follow from legalizing pornography: it would 'ennoble all our art' and 'humanize sexuality' Pacheco was one Jewish porn star who read Reich's intellectual marriage of Freud and Marx (lukeford.net):

"Before I got my first part in an adult film, I went down to an audition for an X-rated film with my hair down to my ass, a copy of Wilhelm Reich's Sexual Revolution under my arm and yelling about work, 'love and sex'."

As Rabbi Samuel H. Dresner put it (E. Michael Jones, 'Rabbi Dresner's Dilemma: Torah v. Ethnos' Culture Wars, May 2003), 'Jewish rebellion has broken out on several levels' one being 'the prominent role of Jews as advocates to sexual experimentation.' Overall, then, porn performers are a group of people who praise rebellion, self-fulfilment and promiscuity. http://www.fpp.co.uk/BoD/origins/porn_industry.html deisenbe (talk) 17:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

  • Delete per logic of prior deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I did a quick search when I found Ed Powers was being added (using his name), up came [1] and [2]. I removed it - his article doesn't say he's Jewish for a start. Dougweller (talk) 18:45, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I still don't get the rationale of deleting this category while not deleting Category:Hispanic pornographic film actors, can someone explain this? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Doesn't look like it has ever been nominated for deletion, which makes it a moot point. Nymf (talk) 08:28, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Ethnicity is of great importance in pornography. The ethnicity of performers is practically always of importance to the audience and is often a key facet in the definition of the performance itself (consider the emphasis given to ethnicity in the material). Whatever the medium, pornography is often distributed in a strictly defined ethnic fashion. Consider the dearth of black models in Playboy and the significance of Darine Stern's appearance. This is a tree we should be populating, not deleting. Does anyone seriously think ethnicity is not defining in pornography? For the above nominated category, why not have a read of this Jewish Quarterly article and rethink the relevance of this categorisation. SFB 21:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Ethnicity (or skin color, actually) is indeed an important aspect of pornography, but Jewish ethnicity is not. You have white (with a few subgenres, such as Eastern European), ebony, asian and latina. That's it. Nymf (talk) 16:37, 30 September 2014 (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:Coins of England[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 Category:History of English coinage to Category:Coins of England. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All coins of England are historical as the Kingdom of England ceased to exist in 1707. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that's a bit messy, so this is a first attempt for a clean-up. If I understand correctly you propose to reverse the merge? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:31, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, having just drawn out the category tree on the back of a (large) envelope I think a reverse merge would be better (i.e. avoiding "History of" and "coinage" in favour of the standard "Coins of ..." category naming). If you concur please withdraw this nom then one of us can do a nom for the reverse. DexDor (talk) 20:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Envelopes are useful for almost everything :-) I'm okay with withdrawing the original nomination in favour of a reversal but I've seen many occasions here in which a reversal has been decided upon during the discussion, so without a formal second nomination. Just writing reverse merge in bold seems to be enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a chance the closing admin will say "Hold on - the category I was about to delete hasn't been CFD-tagged" so you might want to move the CFD tag to the other category. DexDor (talk) 21:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reverse merge Coins of England should be the parent. The "history of" child is not subdividing the material is a clear, definitive way. SFB 21:16, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- England did not cease ot exist in 1707. There was no discontinuity. The Royal Mint continued without a break. The differnece was that Scotland at some point ceased to have its own currency. No objection to a reverse merge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
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:Space Shuttle landing sites[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That an airport/airbase was designated as an (emergency) Shuttle landing site is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic; in many cases (some examples) the articles in this category make no mention of the Shuttle. For info: there is List_of_space_shuttle_landing_sites (and also a list at Space_Shuttle_abort_modes#Emergency_landing_sites). The list article should be upmerged to Category:Space Shuttle facilities. DexDor (talk) 06:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree not really notable or defining to the subject airports. MilborneOne (talk) 14:49, 28 September 2014 (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:Pollinators in Oregon[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; list has been created. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not debating the existence of the category, but if it's a legitimate category, it needs to be renamed per WP:CATNAME (fauna). Valfontis (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree I created the category. I'm not big into creating categories, but have some thoughts on how I want to use this category and/or a list for a project I am working on. I tried my best to find a convention for naming this category. Pollinators of Oregon oddly makes it sound like they are trying to pollinate Oregon... But really, I'm agreeable to whatever the naming conventions dictate .
BTW: There are ~ 850+ possible species falling into this category...
See also: Pollinators in New Zealand article. This was my rationale for chosen naming of the category...
* if it would be better, perhaps a List of Oregon Pollinators (or Pollinators of Oregon) similar to the List of world bumblebee species. thanks. —Gaff ταλκ 04:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This type of category (and, by the way, if you look at Category:Pollinators this stands out as an oddity) could lead to an article about a species being in dozens/hundreds of categories for which it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. It may work as a list, but not as a category. DexDor (talk) 07:01, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I follow. How is it different that say Category: Plants of ***? Of which there are many... Although I am agreeable to having the category deleted, can you expand on your reasoning? What does this mean "could lead to an article about a species being in dozens/hundreds of categories"? This is not an article. And the fact that there are not more categories of these specific creatures with these specific characteristics in this specific place in this instance, does not mean that there are not many other such categories on WP...—Gaff ταλκ 15:56, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If a "Pollinators of <country/state>" tree was fully established then a species that is a pollinator in 100 countries would belong in 100 categories. Note: We have been deleting fauna-of-country categories (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_16#Category:Moths_of_Andorra). DexDor (talk) 19:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you propose using lists to further breakdown something like the potentially huge category Category:Pollinators ? —Gaff ταλκ 19:50, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Pollinators needs breaking down then it would be better to have categories such as "Insects that are pollinators", "Mammals that are pollinators" etc - that way you aren't creating either an incomplete category tree (why have a category for Oregon and not for every other state/country?) or attempting to put some articles in dozens/hundreds of categories. DexDor (talk) 20:03, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Better question: why NOT have a category for Oregon and not for every other state/country?—Gaff ταλκ 15:23, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how much you understand wp categorization so please read WP:NON-DEFINING then consider whether, for example, Sitka bumblebee (an article that doesn't mention Oregon) belongs in any Oregon categories. DexDor (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, makes sense. I will create the list, then depopulate the category. (Hopefully that is acceptable). There are a lot of us in Oregon that will find such a list useful and interesting. Thanks... —Gaff ταλκ 15:20, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to depopulate the category; if the result is delete then a bot will do it. DexDor (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete Oregon is not a clearly defined sphere for Fauna. Given the scope, we could categorise certain bees with thousands of locations where they act as pollinators. This category is not definitive for the articles or creatures at hand. SFB 21:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So I was ready to let it go and just depopulate this category, which was my creation. However, I then received a "thanks" for the edit I made putting Monarch Butterfly into this category. The Monarch Butterfly is listed in many, many categories similar to this category. I wonder who it is that finds this objectionable: the Wikipedians doing the work on these articles; the lay public reading these article and discovering these new connections; or the Wikipedians monitoring CfDs? This category is not entirely arbitrary, like a Category of cities with the second letter being N or some other winners I've seen. As far asDexDor's comment above, that the Sitka Butterfly article does not mention Oregon, I would point out that the article reads "North America from Alaska and British Columbia, and Washington, to northern Idaho, western Montana, and the coastal parts of California.[2][4] That would strongly imply Oregon is included. For clarity, however, I have expanded the section with references to maps and more info about the Sitka Bee. A pet-peeve of mine that I see all too much in these AfD and CfD debates is nothing short of intellectual sloth: arguing that something must not be true, because it is not already mentioned in the article, without actually doing any leg work. —Gaff ταλκ 19:32, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That the Monarch Butterfly article is in some other similar categories is irrelevant to this discussion. I've never argued that it's not a pollinator in Oregon, but that being a pollinator in Oregon is not a defining characteristic (there is a difference). DexDor (talk) 21:10, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting..."Other stuff" about articles and categories is different: WP:OTHERCATSEXIST and I get your point that Pollinators of Oregon may be too focused of a category. So, I have created the list. (As an aside, the initial reason for starting this CfD was not to argue whether or not Category:Pollinators of placename , but it started because I named it Category:Pollinators in placename) My question: is it not important/appropriate, even if we get some big categories, to be able to categorize pollinators by location? Why is it important? Because things like climate change or pesticide use might impact different areas differently. Local regulations in one area may differ from those in others. Such things might locally impact bees, butterflies, hummingbirds, and bats in the Pacific Northwest differently than in the American South. These are the sorts of categories of things that make Wikipedia useful. Your proposed scheme above (Insects that are pollinators, etc) doesn't quite get at it. —Gaff ταλκ 22:46, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If being a pollinator in a particular area is important (at least to people in that area) and that status has changed due to climate change (or anything else for that matter) then it's much better served by a list (which can have notes such as "an important pollinator for the <fruit> crop in <state> in <decade>, but (possibly due to the widespread use of pesticides in <decade>) is now almost extinct in that state"). Categories are very blunt. DexDor (talk) 20:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I'm good with that explanation. Thanks for your patience; you have a lot of experience on this... I don't think anyone else will object to listify and delete of this category (I have already made the list). So seems consensus is now there... —Gaff ταλκ 02:13, 1 October 2014 (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:Condensed phase[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 Category:Condensed phase. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Per discussion Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Cyclical categorization. Only "Category:Condensed matter physics" remains. Kazkaskazkasako (talk) 10:14, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support deletion, but with the caveat that the category could be recreated in future if we decide to separate articles about condensed matter from articles about the study of condensed matter (like we have Category:Birds and Category:Ornithology). Note: To answer the question I posed above, I think the category for the discipline should go below the category for the thing being studied (e.g. Category:Study of religion is below Category:Religion). DexDor (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2014 (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/2014_September_26&oldid=1138399977"