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 (manually) to Category:December events or appropriate subcategories by year. No compelling reason was offered to group articles in this manner. Regarding the concern about pollution, the only practical solution is to try to clearly define each category's scope (e.g. here) and purge articles that do not belong. -- Black Falcon(talk)04:38, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from creator, I agree that the category is questionable. However I created it two years ago because I noticed quite some 'pollution' in the Christmas category tree. For example Christmas Eve 2000 Indonesia bombings was in Category:Christmas events and celebrations while it was not an event of Christmas but an event at Christmas. When this category is going to disappear, it is quite likely that the same kind of 'pollution' will again start taking place. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:22, 25 December 2018 (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: Categorization of just 4 albums doesn't need the double categorization of "album by artist" AND eponymous categorization of the artist as there is no other related article besides the albums. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me22:51, 24 December 2018 (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: Two films don't make a series, and certainly doesn't need its own category. Possible upmerge of articles to this category's parents. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me22:39, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the creator of the category emptied it along with the religious-horror-comedy film category that was nominated below. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:17, 27 December 2018 (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 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: Entirely unnecessary distinction between the district and the island that comprises most (but not all) of it. These two brand-new categories exist only to isolate the 59 communities that are on Manitoulin Island itself from the one that's on Goat Island and the two that are on Cockburn Island -- but that's not a meaningful or defining distinction for the purposes of the category system, because the communities are all still in the same "county" regardless of which of the three islands they're on. And even if there were a valid reason to keep them, communities are on islands, not "in" them. Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 24 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Oppose Most large islands have their own categories, and there is no reason why the largest lake island in the world should not have its own category and subcategories. Places on an island are indeed "isolated" (in the original sense of "isolated") from places on a different island, and it would be hard to find a clearer example of a defining characteristic.--Mhockey (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Large islands have their own categories if they don't basically already have a one-to-one correspondence with an existing category for a geographic entity. For instance, we don't have categories to distinguish "in Prince Edward Island qua province" from "on Prince Edward Island qua island"; we don't have categories for "communities on the island of Great Britain", because the existing category trees for England, Scotland and Wales already completely cover that criterion off; we have categories for "populated places on [Greek island]" only when and where that island corresponds to a political region and not where it doesn't; and on and so forth. There's simply no value in using the category system to distinguish communities on the island from communities in the "county", when there are just three communities in the entire Manitoulin District that are on any island other than Manitoulin. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have separate articles for the island of Great Britain and the country, or for the island of Prince Edward Island and the province. But we do have separate articles for Manitoulin Island and Manitoulin District. Your argument seems to be pointing to a merger of those two articles. Why have separate articles but only one category?--Mhockey (talk) 22:34, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Because "what qualifies for an article" and "what warrants a category" are two different things with very different rules. Everything that has an article does not always automatically need an eponymous category to match it, so "the district and the island have separate articles" is irrelevant to whether they need separate categories or not — what needs an article and what needs a category are two completely different sets of considerations. And incidentally, yes, we do have separate articles for Great Britain, which is just an island and not a country, and the United Kingdom, which is the actual country located mostly on the island of Great Britain but also partly on the islands of Ireland, the Shetlands, the Hebrides and the Orkneys. Bearcat (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, if Goat Island and Cockburn Island would have been big enough they could have had their own category as an island. But since that is not the case, one category is enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 30 December 2018 (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: Per C2D, the main article was Yuen Long FC, thus Yuen Long FC is correct. No need to have a redundant cat tree . It may have potential for the defunct Yuen Long AA which folded in the 1980s, but not "Yuen Long District SA", the former name of the current Yuen Long FC. Matthew hk (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2018 (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 word "religious" isn't even mentioned in either A Haunted House articles. I don't think anyone would categorize them as "religious films". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me22:42, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Meanwhile these articles have been removed. I do not recall the names of the articles that were in here yesterday evening, but it does not really matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:52, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The test that a category has to meet is not "there are films like this that exist", or that "there are going to be more" — to warrant creation of a "genre films" category, "religious horror comedy" would have to be established and critically analyzed as an externally recognized genre of film that reliable sources have already assigned the films to for us. But that hasn't been demonstrated here at all. We don't make up our own genres by triple intersecting multiple genres just because a couple of genre-hopping films exist, we follow the genres that film critics have established as being standard recognized genres. Bearcat (talk) 05:38, 20 January 2019 (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 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.
Delete We categorize by ethnicity, not by race. Having a parent category that horribly violates this rule does not mean we should keep this category as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:04, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The blackness or non-blackness of Egyptians is an issue that gets outright fighting from some, and not taking the position held by some will get you labled racist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 6 February 2019 (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.
Roman Catholic churches by city and Churches by city (miscellaneous countries)
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: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, the Roman Catholic churches categories contain only 2 articles, while the parent Churches categories do not contain any article at all, apart from the Roman Catholic subcat. So this is a double merge nomination, for the Churches and the Roman Catholic churches simultaneously. This is a continuation of this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nominator seems to have decided that per city categories are to be eliminated from Wikipedia (see additional nomination below). I disagree with this point of view. Debresser (talk) 19:53, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is definitely a misunderstanding. The only point here is that cities should have enough content to justify a category. Many cities do have enough content so they will not be nominated. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:28, 25 December 2018 (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 as proposed with the expectation that Black Falcon's concerns will be addressed through the merge process, considering other categories as needed. ~ Rob13Talk10:08, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Having a per country category is a logical layer, and while in some cases there will not be many articles,although there will be many in others, that is not a reason to delete a category, especially one that is part of a tree. Claim of redundancy is not substantiated. Debresser (talk) 19:52, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as proposed, and consider on a case-by-case basis. Merging as proposed would inappropriately clutter the country-level categories and break links to a number of parent categories. For example, categories for Berlin and Hamburg would be out of place directly in Category:Jews and Judaism in Germany, which contains ~20 high-level topic categories (not just geographic subdivisions). Another example: upmerging Category:Jews and Judaism in China by city as proposed would break the connections to Category:Ethnic groups in China by city. While I agree with User:Marcocapelle that there are too many categories involved, I think this is a larger issue with the by-city categorization structure overall. -- Black Falcon(talk)03:53, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will take care of these details when/if the categories are listed on WP:CFDWM. That is something I always do in case a manual dual or triple merge is needed, because issues like these are actually very common. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 22 February 2019 (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.