mic_none

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 25 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_25

< March 24 March 26 >

March 25

[edit]

Category:Gorizia and Gradisca

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and add article Princely County of Gorizia and Gradisca as the main article in the header of subCategory:Gorizia and Gradisca people. Note that the Princely County of Gorizia and Gradisca was a tiny subdivision of the Habsburg Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:03, 25 March 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.

Category:Earthsea locations

[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:Earthsea locations to Category:Earthsea. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category only includes one single article and is unlikely to include any more. JIP | Talk 22:17, 25 March 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.

Category:Pages to import images to Wikidata

[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 7#Category:Pages_to_import_images_to_Wikidata. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category contains many, many non-free images which may not be imported to Wikidata (P18 only allows images from Commons), but which can not be cleared from this category either. Basically, the vast majority of pages in this category don't need (are not allowed to have) the "maintenance" it is intended for. (Of course, Wikidata maintenance categories belong on Wikidata, not here, but that is a different discussion.) Fram (talk) 12:41, 25 March 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.

Age of Discovery

[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: rename, more accurate description of what is in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 25 March 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.

Category:Astrology Wikipedian userboxes

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, and per the Foo user templates convention within Category:Userboxes. I considered nominating the 12 subcats for upmerging (it would bring the total number of pages in this category to ~100, which is not nearly enough to justify a dozen splits) but was not sure if others felt it was a useful way of organizing the category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:12, 25 March 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.

Category:Upcoming films by language

[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. The precise intent is unclear, because the only category listed is a {{container category}}, but the rationale refers to (but does not quote) a previous CFD which involved a container category and its subcats. A query was also raised about whether the numerical effect claimed last time still stands.
So this discussion cannot be considered a consensus to do anything. Please feel free to make a fresh nomination which a) lists and tags all the categories which are proposed for merger, and b) sets out clearly what the rationale is, rather than just pointing towards a previous discussion. Pinging the participants: @Erik, Lugnuts, Inter&anthro, DannyS712, Marcocapelle, and Liz --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose merging per the same rationale as the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 13#Category:Upcoming films by genre. Category:Upcoming films is a temporary category and should be treated as such, per Bearcat's argument in that discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: category was not tagged - I assume this is meant to apply to all subcategories too, so {{doing|tagging}}  tagged
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 25 March 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.

Category:Charles Goodyear Medal recipients

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Charles Goodyear Medal is awarded each year to a scientist for improving rubber technology. The biography articles in this category do tend to mention the award but in passing with other honors. so it doesn't seem defining. Those articles are already well categorized in Category:Tire industry people and/or Category:Polymer scientists and engineers. The recipients are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 25 March 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.

Category:Museum of Polo and Hall of Fame inductees

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The Museum of Polo and Hall of Fame started giving out this award in 1990 and also gives out two other awards every year. Many of the recipients were active in polo decades earlier as they catch up and the articles are already in the Category:Polo players by nationality tree. The biography articles in this category do tend to mention the award but in passing so it doesn't seem defining. The recipients are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - I don't know anything about the world of Polo playing, so I am wondering if there are other awards that are similar in stature -- and whether we should perhaps factor that in. If this is the only "world-class" award -- which appears to be the case from a quick look at what's listed in Category:Polo -- it might possibly be a valuable category in terms of highlighting who the best polo players have been, for people like me who otherwise wouldn't have a clue. Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Anomalous+0: With a lot of nominations, I see one award clearly be more prominent in the biography articles but that is not the case here. Maybe that's because polo was only briefly at the Olympics due to cost and that's usually the defining one for less common sports. From my perspective, I don't think Wikipedia should pick a winner though if no awards is apparently defining in a field/sport. If this passes, the articles will still reference the list in the main article; we're just removing the category and, who knows, if some of these awards later become defining over time, we can re-evaluate. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 25 March 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.