Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 21

October 21

Category:Organisations based in Khulna

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting:
Nominator's rationale: Too specific to ever be populated —swpbT 16:42, 21 October 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:Egyptian hieroglyphs-Gardiner listed

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:Gardiner's sign list and purge of non-list entries. This is an alternative to deletion that received some support, which also solves the overlap issue that was raised by others. -- Tavix (talk) 15:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs-Gardiner listed to Category:Gardiner-listed Egyptian hieroglyphs
Nominator's rationale: More natural word order, but this was opposed as speedy. Brandmeistertalk 15:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • this category is completely redundant. The Gardiner list aimed at listing all hieroglyphs. While it does not include glyphs of the Ptolemaic period, all hieroglyphs that are going to merit Wikipedia pages are going to be from Gardiner's list. Please delete. Similarly, all categories in Category:Egyptian hieroglyphs by category should be deleted, and most articles on individual (unnotable) hieroglyphs as well. It is not in the scope of the project to have a full page per grapheme, people wishing to describe each hieroglyph individually should do this on Wikitionary (where hieroglyphs are to be listed under their Unicode character, as in wikt:𓀀). --dab (𒁳) 15:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    PS, I note that this entire tangled mess appears to be due to User:Mmcannis, a long-time editor who is enthusiastic, but unfortunately also completely innocent of any expertise in the topics he likes to contribute to, and who I seem to remember has caused unnecessary headache over the years. It would be very useful if a dedicated admin would take the time to clean this up. --dab (𒁳) 15:15, 6 November 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:Jesamine's Carinderia

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate in category namespace —swpbT 15:43, 21 October 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:Palermo Stone hieroglyphs 24th century BC

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. – Fayenatic London 22:40, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Palermo Stone hieroglyphs 24th century BC to Category:Palermo Stone hieroglyphs
Nominator's rationale: "24th century BC" is apparently redundant here, as this is about hieroglyphs from Palermo Stone (was opposed as speedy, however). Brandmeistertalk 15:43, 21 October 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:Boomerang Throwers from Colombia

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Utterly over-specific: we don't even have a Category:Boomerang throwers. —swpbT 15:14, 21 October 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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 22:36, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason I picked one year is that the number of categories involved is huge. It is also not clear that in all cases upmerge is as neccesary. This is a particularly egregious case. It did not seem worth spending the energy on reccomending a whole series of changes without a sense of where the community whanted such to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 24 October 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:Human sciences

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. -- Tavix (talk) 15:35, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: selectively merge per WP:NONDEF, the term "human sciences" does not define the studies of this category. "Interdisciplinary" does define the studies, hence a selective merge is suggested. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:01, 21 October 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:People educated at City of Bath Boys' 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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As these are both the same school, with just the name changing from City of Bath Boys' School to Beechen Cliff School, one category should cover all the former pupils. Sussexpeople (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – a neater solution is to make the former a subcat of the latter, which I have done. Otherwise it is difficult to see the connection between the article and the category. Eg Roger Bannister does not (and should not) mention Beechen Cliff. (It was not merely a change of name: City of Bath Boys' School, a grammar school, amalgamated with Oldfield Boys' School to form Beechen Cliff, a comprehensive.) Oculi (talk) 08:35, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – per Oculi. Schools amalgamation not renamed - I strongly suspect that in law Beechen Cliff was a new school. Rwendland (talk) 08:54, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - my understanding is, as the above editors have already stated, that the school did not merely change its name: Beechen Cliff School is an entirely new institution resulting from the abolition of a grammar and secondary modern school in Bath, namely City of Bath Boys' School, and Oldfield Boys' School, in 1970. Beechen Cliff School is neither of those schools, but an entirely new institution. It was established by the Local Education Authority as a result of an Act of Parliament, and is organisationally different from either of the former schools, including differentiation in such factors as admissions criteria and educational philosophies. Zhu Haifeng (talk) 14:27, 21 October 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 to Category:Christian personal development. -- Tavix (talk) 15:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Christian concepts related to personal development to Category:Spiritual formation
Nominator's rationale: rename as an attempt to more clearly define the scope of this category, per article Spiritual formation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 21 October 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.

1715 establishments in the Thirteen Colonies

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. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 30 October 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:LGBT chambers of commerce

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 to Category:LGBT business organizations and Category:Chambers of commerce (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT. This was created at a time when there were three articles in it, but two were deleted at AFD for being based entirely on primary sources with no evidence of reliable source coverage locatable. It can always be recreated if and when the number of entries justifies it again, but it's not needed for just one article. Bearcat (talk) 00:53, 21 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_21&oldid=1074817370"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 21, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.