Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 22 April 24 >

April 23[edit]

Category:County fire departments in Virginia[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. MER-C 12:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only state in the US that has a subcategory for "county" fire stations. Seems unnecessary to break up departments from the Category:Fire departments in Virginia. Seems overly specific to me. Zackmann08 (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Grouping fire departments by type of local jurisdiction (county, fire district, township) seems non-defining and there is no need to diffuse this category. Note that I repopulated the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- We should not split things like this accoring to they type of jurisdiction. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as above. Division at this level impedes rather than aids navigation. Neutralitytalk 19:03, 25 April 2015 (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:County fire departments in the United States[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 12:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one state that uses this category and that one is also up for deletion... Zackmann08 (talk) 22:43, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Combine Nomination Defer to the outcome of the Virginia sub-category, above. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if closure of the other discussion empties it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 25 April 2015 (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:WikiProject Wikislice[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 07:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category content is just one template; the wikiproject is defunct. DexDor (talk) 21:53, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This project is long defunct and has no real talk after 2007. SFB 20:06, 3 May 2015 (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:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit[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 07:00, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unless someone can explain what this category is for I suggest we delete it to remove unnecessary infrastructure. DexDor (talk) 21:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For whatever reason, the now defunct Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians for encyclopedic merit was the logical parent page for this category, although it seems to have been removed out of the category. Personally, I would very much like to see some sort of parent category for the one existing subcategory, but am unsure exactly what that category would be. John Carter (talk) 21:22, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Long inactive project with listings with no future use. SFB 20:09, 3 May 2015 (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:Häggström diagrams works[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 12:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains talk pages (of files that are on Commons), but puts them (via Category:Human body diagrams) under Category:Human body which is a category for articles. For info: the category was created by User:Mikael Häggström. DexDor (talk) 21:13, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find this category necessary now, so feel free to delete. Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:00, 24 April 2015 (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.

14th century BC[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/delete as specified. MER-C 12:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: this was later reversed for births & deaths categories (where dates were justified), see Wikipedia_talk:Categorization_of_people#RfC:_BC_births_and_deaths_categorization_scheme. – Fayenatic London 13:55, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


the rest of the years and decades of 14th-16th century BC
Nominator's rationale: merge the first 57 categories of this list, per WP:SMALLCAT, most of these categories contain one article (or in a few cases two articles, in one case three articles). After merging, the other categories of this list become empty. This is a continuation of this previous nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle -- as long as this does not result in any annual articles being orphaned: I think there are enough merge noms to ensure this does not happen. Annual and decade categories at remote periods are a hindrance, not an aid, to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- I hope this leaves nothing orphaned. I hope Marcocapelle will continue his good work, to merge annual categories into decades for at least another four or five centuries, until we get to a point where decades have a significant population. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per my last comments. Such narrow categories aren't grouping like material effectively. SFB 18:26, 26 April 2015 (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:Welders[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. However, I have made a list at List of welders, following the precedent for electricians. – Fayenatic London 18:41, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nobody in this category is notable as a welder: two are sports figures and two are politicians. The subcategory (which is also up for deletion: see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 21#Friction stir welder) doesn't contain welders at all (they are all design engineers). Seyasirt (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bevan Braithwaite didn't become notable (if he is notable) as a welder. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Note: Categories like this can also be processed by reviewing each article against WP:COP#N and if that results in the category being empty then (after a few days) CSD it. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2015 (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:Fictional tortoises[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. --slakr\ talk / 23:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a needed division. JDDJS (talk) 06:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain more? What is wrong with 'tortoises'. Hajme 07:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was my original idea, but when I went to Tortoise it said "Contrary to popular belief, tortoises are in fact turtles rather than part of a separate group." so adding both to the lead would be redundant. It would be like having a cat for "Fictional bears and Pandas". JDDJS (talk) 16:17, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After removing some of the the ones that didn't belong, there are only 7 articles in the cat which is pretty small. My main concern, however, is that in fiction the distinguish between a regular turtle and a tortoise is usually not clear. Rabbits and hares, which are actually different species, are combined for the same reason. JDDJS (talk) 20:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For info: Category:Fictional hares and rabbits. DexDor (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. Turtle vs. tortoise isn't a consistent distinction across varieties of English, and fictional animals may not be described with sufficient detail to determine whether they are turtles or tortoises. Bixi (mythology) is described as a turtle in the lead, and a tortoise at other points (and probably should be in a Category:Mythological turtles rather than one for fictional creatures). I'm not quite sure how Pokemon evolution works, but Squirtle and Blastoise] only seem to be identifiable as a turtle or tortoise via portmanteau elements of their names. Plantdrew (talk) 22:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and comments above. Suggest also that after the merge a note be left at Category Talk:Fictional tortoises referring to this discussion. DexDor (talk) 07:10, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (amending headnote if appropriate to refer to tortoises). I think we should retain the subject as a cat-redirect or someone will re-create it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge then Rename to Category:Fictional tortoises and turtles - as above. Neutralitytalk 19:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC) Striking out my vote on[reply]
  • That would be redundant because according to the tortoises page ""Contrary to popular belief, tortoises are in fact turtles rather than part of a separate group.".JDDJS (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, that's a simplified explanation; I've edited the article to expand a bit on it. On further consideration, I'm moving my vote to undecided. Neutralitytalk 18:41, 27 April 2015 (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:WikiProject NCSLC members[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 07:01, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: asociated WikiProject marked as defunct, neither of the users in the category has been active in the past 5 years (one not since 2006, the other had a single action in May 2010, and otherwise not since August 2009). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:54, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Inactive. SFB 20:08, 3 May 2015 (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:Cheating in chess[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 03:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category with a single article. MaxBrowne (talk) 02:51, 23 April 2015 (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/2015_April_23&oldid=1074814232"