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:upmerge. --Tavix(talk) 17:44, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: I suppose you mean that currently all articles within Category:Cettiidae are stub articles. But is that a reason for deletion? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:11, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that this is fully populated but remains well below the standard for a properly sized stub category (60 articles). ~ Rob13Talk 12:16, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@BU Rob13: Ah okay so essentially per WP:SMALLCAT being applied to the much stricter threshold for stub categories. There are discussions elsewhere on CfD going on here and here about whether in general it is useful to merge/delete stub categories if their size drops to significantly below 60. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 1 September 2016 (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: The content of this category has one thing in common: it's about mathematics. But apart from that, the category is completely incoherent. Just as an illustration of the mess, Category:Mathematical problems is currently not a parent category but a child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
merge. Carefully as it’s not just articles but categories, but they should all be put under Category:Mathematics if they are not already then this deleted.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 21:24, 10 August 2016 (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. --Tavix(talk) 19:06, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article Bliki is merely a redirect to Wiki software, where it receives but a single mention as an obscure alternate term, from what I understand. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a defining term for the articles that are in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2016 (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:Australian rugby league biography, 1990s birth 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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2016 (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:Footballers who have played in India[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:speedily deleted by RHaworth (G7). --BDD (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Irregular category that doesn't add anything to existing structure ("Footballers in country" and "Footballers in country by competition"). The subcat should be moved up to Category:Footballers in India and this deleted. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. --BDD (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2016 (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:WP:SMALLCAT. Possibly consider a navbox instead. ~ Rob13Talk 14:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and replace with navbox: WP:SMALLCAT. Kernoskytalk2me! 13:05, 13 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kernosky (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.
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: A category for a single album is overkill Walter Görlitz (talk) 12:36, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – part of Category:Albums by artist: "note that all single-artist album articles may have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded". The artist is the paramount defining characteristic of an album. Oculi (talk) 12:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT as a category that is part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the long-standing structure scheme of albums by artist, even if they only record a single record. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 18:00, 10 August 2016 (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. --Tavix(talk) 17:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm just not sure about this name grammatically -- I'd have a preference for the adjectival form, journalistic, but others may disagree. Anyway, I think this maybe one case where C2D might usefully guide us to match the main article, Source (journalism). Will it lead to confusion for users using Hotcat, with main category Category:Sources? I don't think so. Anyway if we can't reach consensus on this one it's not a problem if it remains as is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:11, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, no compelling reasons to deviate from WP:C2D. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2016 (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: Nowadays, almost any academic journal is available online and more and more journals are abandoning print altogether. Journals that have no online presence have become a rare exception. Ergo, this category can reasonably be expected to contain about 90% or more of all articles in the Category:Academic journals and its subcats. Being "electronic" is nowadays not a defining characteristic anymore. Randykitty (talk) 11:45, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. it was meaningful once upon a time. It is not meaningful now. If someone wished to start a list or category on journals published as electronic journals before 1990, there might be a point to it. DGG ( talk ) 22:56, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Repurpose and purge -- Journals that have no print presence at all (electronic only) would constitute a valid category, but most things are electronic these days or are working towards that. "Print only" journals would also be a valid category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2016 (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:Place names of Dutch origin in New York[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.
Nominator's rationale: Clearly not defining - where the name comes from doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the place itself. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:13, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SHAREDNAME; like the eponymous places deleted long ago. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:15, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Because of the history of NY, this is a significant category. They are not merely names that happen accidentally to be from the Dutch. DGG ( talk ) 22:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's hardly defining that locations in the former New Netherlands have Dutch Names. What reader will want to navigate easily between Wall Street and the Catskills? This would make a great list article though. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:01, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as creator - my rationale for creation was that they are often mentioned in reliable sources ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], etc.). They are easily verifiable, and notable enough that they are mentioned regularly in media. Furthermore, as DGG said, they are not coincidentally of Dutch origin. The category crosses with Category:Dutch-American culture in New York and is historically defining, as it not only shows a place's historical Dutch influence but also notes its remaining feature (the name). As mentioned before, various media have noted that there is a general ignorance about their origin and actual meaning (with Fishkill being unrelated to murdering fish, for instance), and in that sense it remains relevant to the subject. I do however like RevelationDirect's proposal for a list article. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 10:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is that you create a list, which would then join others in Category:Lists of United States placename etymology. See that we have lists of US place names of French, indigenous, etc. -- as well as Czech, Swedish, Welsh origin US place names -- but not a Dutch list for NYC. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is a shame the list is no longer associated with New York. If I was looking for this information it would never dawn on me to look in a general United States category. Ottawahitech (talk) 04:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)please ping me[reply]
Listify -- The area of New York where Dutch names are most common no doubt reflects the settled area of the New Netherlands, before its conquest by GB. We have in the past deleted similar lists for native American languages; and this should follow that precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 14 August 2016 (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: Non-defining category. Programming should be categorized by original network/distributor only. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I used to support categorization of television shows by any network that carried them at all, until "category bloat" became more of an AFD concern — since a show can theoretically be sold to any television network in any country on earth, and can change networks in both its home country and the countries where it's been sold to as well, a show could potentially have to be filed in dozens of network categories. A show is defined, however, only by its home network in its home country. Bearcat (talk) 21:39, 10 August 2016 (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: Non-defining category. Programming should be categorized by original network/distributor only. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I used to support categorization of television shows by any network that carried them at all, until "category bloat" became more of an AFD concern — since a show can theoretically be sold to any television network in any country on earth, and can change networks in both its home country and the countries where it's been sold to as well, a show could potentially have to be filed in dozens of network categories. A show is defined, however, only by its home network in its home country. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2016 (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: Non-defining category. Programming should be categorized by original network/distributor only. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I used to support categorization of television shows by any network that carried them at all, until "category bloat" became more of an AFD concern — since a show can theoretically be sold to any television network in any country on earth, and can change networks in both its home country and the countries where it's been sold to as well, a show could potentially have to be filed in dozens of network categories. A show is defined, however, only by its home network in its home country. Bearcat (talk) 21:40, 10 August 2016 (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:Programs acquired by TV5 (Philippines)[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.
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. Programming should be categorized by original network/distributor only. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:52, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I used to support categorization of television shows by any network that carried them at all, until "category bloat" became more of an AFD concern — since a show can theoretically be sold to any television network in any country on earth, and can change networks in both its home country and the countries where it's been sold to as well, a show could potentially have to be filed in dozens of network categories. A show is defined, however, only by its home network in its home country. Bearcat (talk) 21:41, 10 August 2016 (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: Non-defining category. Programming should be categorized by original network/distributor only. Rob Sinden (talk) 08:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A show is definedonly by its originating broadcaster, and not by every network or streaming service that ever purchased rerun rights. Bearcat (talk) 21:42, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yep, good catch. Netflix acquires a LOT of content in markets worldwide. It is not defining. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:44, 10 August 2016 (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: category was relisted on August 24. Since there's no point in having two separate discussions simultaneously operating at cross purposes to each other, I'm closing this one as a stale discussion that's unlikely to attract any new input, and consolidating it with the new discussion. Bearcat (talk) 17:16, 24 August 2016 (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. --Tavix(talk) 16:14, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge to at least one parent category (I'm not too sure about the other parents), this is a redundant "by" category layer. We only create "by" categories if those can be diffused into a large number of subcategories and that is not the case here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support yes this was another Stefanomione category, at a time when he was creating a lot of now deleted "by type" or "by parameter" subcategories. There's almost nothing in the main category and it's an unneeded layer. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Shawn in Montreal: Since you claim that user:Stefanomione has created many "by type" or "by parameter" subcategories which have been deleted, I traced all the "by type” categories created by this user. I found only 2 (out of 21) by-type-categories were deleted:
I do not recall it at all, checking the logs and deleted content, looks like it was a request for wp:CSD#G6 deletion, because it presumably has been merged as decided in the deletion discussion on June 2 (The link looks fine to me) I have no involvement in the other deletion, but from the logs and content it looks like a similar case, after a deletion discussion from July 24Nabla (talk) 17:29, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as proposed.. The extra layer of categorization is not helpful. Pichpich (talk) 16:33, 10 August 2016 (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:Full-block structures in New York City[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. --Tavix(talk) 16:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This doesn't appear to me to be a defining type of building. There is no main article, that I can see. Even in my hometown of Montreal, there are numerous structures that happen to span an entire block. Yes, we do rank buildings by height (skyscrapers, supertalls) but are we going to start a global categorization scheme for buildings that take up a block? I don't think so. I understand he's probably talking about taking up the full area of a block, length and width. The complete square delineated by the city grid. Still don't think its defining. Indeed one of the building so categorized, Flatiron Building, is like an early sliver building and doesn't take up much ground floor area at all -- it happens to be on a short, narrow block. Think of how many buildings we could say that about, in the cities where we live. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blocks are different sizes, even in NYC, so this isn't really a consistent category. Are buildings with a plaza or courtyard included? Seems pretty non-defining11:22, 10 August 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by RevelationDirect at 11:23, 10 August 2016 (talk • contribs)
Yes, that was my question too. Also, come to think of it, the inclusion of Flatiron Building means that this category is also dependent on a building happening to be erected on a small block, as much as anything intrinsic. At least with skyscrapers, we have agreed upon criteria for minimum height. Blocks is obviously not a standard unit. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:35, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Though blocks are of different sizes, its still defining.It's a significant characteristic of a building. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not defining, most articles in this category don't even mention that a building is a "full-block structure". Marcocapelle (talk) 20:17, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not WP:DEFINING. "Block" itself also has two slightly different meanings, depending on context — it can mean the area defined by an immediately adjacent pair of streets, such that the next street immediately over automatically defines the next new block, or it can mean the area defined by major arterial streets, such that minor side streets and alleyways remain within a single block rather than defining new blocks at each street. And if there's that much subjectivity about what a term even means, then it's not a good basis for a category. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As has been said the size of a block in New York varries. I think this is for structures that cover the whole square block, such as from 1st to 2nd from A to B. In common parlance in the US, a block is often meant to be both sides of A between 1st and 2nd, but the census uses the latter, and the later is more likely, since very few buildings have a strett running under them. Another problem with this category is that it could come to no longer apply to a building with no changes to the building itself. In downtown Salt Lake City the block length of Main Street between South Temple and North Temple was torn out and replaced by a park-like plaza area complete with a reflecting pool. True, both Temple Square to the West, and the block to the East that included The Church Administration Building and the Church Office building of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the Joseph Smith Memorial Building as well as the Lion and Beahive houses, had about 6 buildings. However north across North Temple from the Salt Lake Temple is the LDS Conference Center, which I believe does encompass the entire area of that block. Yet, if President Monson, Bishop Causse and their associaties wanted to, they might be able to convince the government of Salt Lake City to sell them Main Street from North Temple to 2nd north, and make more green space, and make the conference center not the whole block. In the same way, there is no particular reason why New York City could not create an additional park in the city by tearing out an entire block of street of the 1st from Street A to Street B type, all the more so if there are buildings there covering the entire block because this would not isolate a small building. This removal of a block would not alter anything about the building, it would not involvbe addition or substaction of the structure which would be needed to change the building height, so it shows that there is nothing intrinsic to the building itself that it happens to cover an entire block.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 28 August 2016 (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.
