Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 29

May 29

American political candidates by date

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. MER-C 11:11, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All article titles inside contain years only, not dates. Brandmeistertalk 20:22, 29 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:History of religions school

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The result of the discussion was: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 11:12, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only an eponymous article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Populate -- This term refers to a collection of theologians at Gottingen Univoiersity in 1890s. The one article will be appropriate as a main article for a category covering the members, a number of who have articles. I may need to be renamed Category:History of religions school members‎ Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 30 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.

1786 elections

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:United States gubernatorial elections, 1786 to (new) Category:Gubernatorial elections in the United States by year; keep the others. This is a revised close to this CfD. Initially I kept only Category:1786 elections and created 18th-century categories, but on reflection (having tried it) it does not make navigation clearer if we remove the small initial categories from Category:Elections in the United States by year and Category:Elections in the United States by year and state. There are only four year-categories (1777, 1780, 1783 & 1786) with only one member, and after that there are multiple members. Category:Elections in the United States by state and year should remain complete, and keeping Category:New York elections, 1786 saves category clutter on the article (because otherwise the page should be added into multiple parent categories). – Fayenatic London 07:06, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I made a follow-up nomination at July 30. – Fayenatic London 09:48, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of these categories either contain each other or the article New York gubernatorial election, 1786. This appears to be the only article on 1786 elections in Wikipedia. Origamiteⓣⓒ 17:32, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that it's reasonable to keep it in the tree of gubernatorial elections, but don't agree it should be kept in a single-member category. Suggest merging Category:United States gubernatorial elections, 1786 to Category:1786 elections and to Category:New York gubernatorial elections. Also, merely as a suggestion, I would be fine with creating a new Category:18th-century gubernatorial elections in the United States in which this article can also have its place. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:43, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all but one or two. This is another case of putting up a slender tree (or rather a twig) for the sake of parenting an article. At the top of this tree is elections by year, which is split into North America and Europe. I cannot see the merits of a continential split at this period: there were far too few countries that held elections. I would suggest that the parent should be Category:18th-century elections by country, with US, UK, France, etc subcats. Until these are better populated, no child categories should be allowed. We might also keep Category:1786 elections as a worldwide category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of 18th-centure elections by country, but how many elections were there in 1786? There are currently no articles on them in the encyclopedia. Also, for the sake of completeness, I'd like to point out that I've put up for PRODding List of elections in 1786, a pseudo-disambiguation page which, again, only contains the New York article. Origamiteⓣⓒ 03:34, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If those would be country categories for the whole century they can be decently populated. The Great Britain subcat already exists with some 20 articles. I like the idea but it needs a separate nomination to delete all separate year election categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Are you talking about separate years for countries, or top level (e.g. Category:1786 elections)? I would strongly object to any attempts to delete the latter, but would be open to the country-by-country cats going. Number 57 12:21, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Peterkingiron was talking about creating Category:18th-century elections by country presumably instead of the separate year categories, and I like that idea. So yes it's top level. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As stated, I think that's a very bad idea. Number 57 20:41, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My object was to limit the number of slender twigs on a tree. US Presidents and governors are elected every four years; there is an election for the senate and congress every two. In UK, there were general elections every 7 years at this period; every 5 after 1832, with by-elections for casual vacancies. I am not sure about other countries as there were few democracies at that period. My proposal I that we have "18th-century elections by country" and allow categories like "1786 elections" (or possibly instead "1780s elections") as a worldwide category. Category:18th-century elections in the United States should also be allowed. At the same time we abolish the continental level. If the 18th-century US category gets more than a couple of dozen articles, we could consider splitting it. However the current trend is towards merging thin thread annual category trees into ones covering decades or even centuries. Many of the colonies had legislatures. I would suggest one category of all the Continental colonies' legislatures; and another for other British colonies, perhaps covering 17th and 18th centuries together. With more democratic polities in the 19th century, we will probably need decade categories, rather than centuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 5 June 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:Cossacks in Ukraine

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 to Category:History of Cossacks in Ukraine. As mentioned, it might be a good idea to rename Category:Ukrainian Cossacks to Category:Ukrainian Cossack people. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Recently added redundant category, populated with a couple of articles which just as well fit the old category. I don't see any reason to split hairs. Serves no purpose Eg does one want to have "Don Cossacks in Ukraine" or "Ukrainian Cossacks in America"? I doubt one is going to do such hair splitting of categories, up to "Ukrainian Cossacks in Ukraine". -M.Altenmann >t 14:42, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The problem is that the target (and to some extent the subject) is a mixture of articles on the Cossacks generally and bio-articles on individual people. The latter should perhaps be in Category:Ukrainian Cossack people. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 29 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:Films directed by Sharmeen Obaid-Chinoy

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: keep. MER-C 11:13, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we "really" need this category? I mean the person just got into feature films and the user just created the category with one feature film in the list and one documentry. Umais Bin Sajjad (talk) 13:25, 29 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.

Hidden categories

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. – Fayenatic London 14:05, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning:
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (to be determined)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (2 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (3 days)
the rest of holidays by duration
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (4 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (5 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (6 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (1 or 2 weeks)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (1 week)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (7 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (8 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (9 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (10 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (11 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (12 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (21 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (27 days)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (1 month)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (4 months)
  • Category:Holidays and observances by duration (1 year)
  • Alternative 1 Collectively unhide these categories, without prejudice against future merge or delete proposals for individual categories.
  • Alternative 2 Collectively delete these categories.
  • Alternative 3 A mix of alternative 1 and 2: delete the first category per WP:NONDEF, unhide the others.
  • Nominator's rationale: there is no point in hiding any of these categories. Either they're useful and should be visible or they're not useful and should be deleted. I like alternative 3 the best, but alternative 1 and 2 are okay as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • See also this discussion: Holidays and observances by duration (1 day).
  • Project Holidays has been notified about this nomination. The creator of these categories is not currently active. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:50, 29 May 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • The value of the "TBD" category would indeed be as a hidden maintenance category, for editors to review and improve articles which are missing the necessary information to be included in one of the "specified length" categories instead. But the "specified length" categories have no particular reason for being hidden as maintenance categories — they should either be unhidden as mainspace categories if consensus deems them useful, or just deleted. My own preference would be to delete them all — to me, the length of any given holiday or observance isn't a substantive point of commonality between otherwise unrelated events, but is essentially just WP:OCAT on a superficially shared characteristic. The two-day category, for instance, contains events as diverse as Hillbilly Days, Gawai Dayak, Independence Day (Turkmenistan) and the Trinidad and Tobago Carnival, which is an absurd set of topics that have nothing in common besides how long they happen to be. And if we delete those, then the "TBD" loses its reason for existing as well — it has value only if we're keeping all of the others. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 31 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.

A few more award categories

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 all. – Fayenatic London 14:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCAWARD, per WP:NONDEF, per previous discussion and many discussions before. The categories mainly contain heads of state, nobility and politicians to whom the granting of the order is merely a gesture. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most -- King Dmitar Zvonimir seems to granted by Croatia to its own citizens and is thus evidence of their notability. Charles III is somewhat older and I am less sure about it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 29 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:Holidays and observances by scheduling (two dates)‎

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 11:18, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete because the three articles in the category have nothing in common with each other. One article concerns two dates because of a time zone difference, one article concerns two dates because it is a night celebration, one article is a plain two different dates (4 days in between). Also delete the category per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 29 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:Holidays and observances by scheduling (same week each year)‎

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 11:17, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Holidays and observances by scheduling (same week each year) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. No need to merge, the article is well-classified in Category:Thematic weeks already. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 29 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:Aditi Singh Sharma songs

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: speedy delete (G5) by Anthony Bradbury. MER-C 11:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Was not sure how to tag this-but this category is basically the same as Arijit Singh songs from what I can tell. Wgolf (talk) 03:48, 29 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:19th-century introductions in Scotland

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/delete as below. – Fayenatic London 19:46, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no other introductions by countries within Category:Debuts or elsewhere. Should be moved to Category:19th-century introductions and possibly into Category:19th-century establishments in Scotland. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:12, 29 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_29&oldid=1138409127"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 29, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.