April 8
Category:Old World warbler stubs
- 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 nominated; any individual article may be placed in an appropriate subcat. if one exists. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: According to the main article (Old World warbler), this categorization is based on an abandoned taxonomic structure. Recommend deleting this category and merging the template with {{Sylvioidea-stub}}. Individual articles may be moved to appropriate categories that match current taxonomic allocations. Dawynn (talk) 19:29, 8 April 2017 (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:Ember
Category:People from Marlborough Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania
Category:Category:Skyscrapers in Montana
- 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) 07:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: There are no skyscrapers in Montana. Wikipedia's Skyscraper article describes skyscrapers as "at least 40–50 floors". The tallest building in Montana has 22 floors. Dlabtot (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose as nominated. This categ has two subcats, and if @Dlabtot's rationale is correct in its assessment, then it applies equally to them. If all three categs are nominated together, then we can have a meaningful discussion ... this proposal would just orphan the two subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:22, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought it was obvious that I was proposing deletion of the subcategories as well. The point is, there are no skyscrapers in Montana, therefore Wikipedia shouldn't say that there are. Dlabtot (talk) 15:46, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlabtot: if you want to nominate a category, you need to tag it and list it. The subcats are not tagged and not listed, so they are not nominated. Instructions at WP:CFD#HOWTO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:49, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm very sorry that I wasted my time nominating this category for deletion. The focus here is apparently on process rather than on improving the encyclopedia. It seems to me pretty obvious that an eight story building like the Wilma Theatre should not be categorised as a skyscraper. Dlabtot (talk) 15:32, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Dlabtot: Wikipedia works by WP:CONSENSUS. There's not much point in launching a consensus-forming discussion if you have already implemented your desired outcome. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:11, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- please stop mentioning my name in your comments; I'd prefer not to receive alerts about a conversation that I'm sorry I started and to which I have nothing constructive to add. Dlabtot (talk) 23:27, 10 April 2017 (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:2100 in science
- 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. I considered a merge to Category:21st century in science, which contains decade categories and the nominated category for the final year, but the contents are already in another subcat Category:21st-century solar eclipses. I won't create Category:2100s in science because Category:22nd century in science does not currently have decade sub-cats; Category:2090s in science is currently the last. – Fayenatic London 13:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: We don't need that much precision this far ahead. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:08, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't care. There's also Category:2099 in science and backwards. It's mainly astronomical events that can be accurately predicted ahead like this. Tom Ruen (talk) 17:46, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- So how far ahead do we sustain by-year categorsiation? Year 3100? 9100?
- We can gave articles on these topics without having a whole nest of by-year categories underneath them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:24, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete regardless of whether WP:OTHERSTUFF currently exists, this is just WP:TOOSOON when the year isn't even going to arrive for over 8 decades, and few (if any) predictions can be viably made about scientific achievements for that time period so far in advance. Snuggums (talk / edits) 23:53, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- This is probably the wrong forum to discuss this issue. Many articles about future astronomical events have been created, apparently, and while it is perhaps reasonable to nominate these articles for deletion as "too soon", for now it is a fact that these articles exist and need to be categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:04, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to Category:2100s in science provided this is a sample nom. This needs to be done with all such categories for 2030 and beyond. In any other context I might have cited CRYSTAL as a reason for deletion, but we do have a significant number of articles on predicted eclipses. In the 2020s, there are also certain articles on space flight, presumably on when probes (already launched) are expected to reach planets they are targeted on. We can expect no more content for these categories for many years, so that they will remain small categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2017 (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:Seasons in Irish ice hockey
Category:Television series by Disney Television Animation
- 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) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (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:Television series by It's a Laugh Productions
- 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) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (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:Television series by Disney–ABC Domestic Television
- 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) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (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:Television series by Lucasfilm
- 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) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (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:Television series by Saban Entertainment
- 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) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series.ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (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:Television series by ABC Signature Studios
- 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) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (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:Television series by ABC Studios
- 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) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (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:Television series by Disney
- 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) 08:09, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Since i learned that Buena Vista Television still exists as a corporate name for Disney TV,The time has come to revive the Buena Vista category as the home of all Disney branded and non branded TV series. ZPIncorporated (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2017 (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:Financial history of the Dutch East India Company
- 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 16:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: delete, random collection of finance terms, has nothing to do with the Dutch East India Company apart from the fact that the company was the first to issue stock. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I said "most". I agree Isaac Le Maire is related to the company, but the rest of it is about stock market issues generally, not about the company specifically. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Delete. The recent creator of Category:Financial history of the Dutch East India Company (and the equally problematic Category:Financial history of the Dutch Republic) keeps stuffing them into articles with little or no apparent connection, in a vain attempt to disprove the redundancy with Category:Dutch East India Company and a forest of related categories, as though every feature of the modern stock market should automatically be credited to 17th-century Dutch Tulip traders. The user's probable sock account did the same thing before recently being blocked. I try to delete the unsourced article categorizations periodically, but it would be better if the spam categories themselves were deleted, once and for all. —Patrug (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2017 (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:Lithuanian national athletics champions
- 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: WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 16:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Being national champion is not a defining characteristic for an athlete, since for most countries in the world (including Lithuania), virtually every notable athlete will also be a natonal champion.. Geschichte (talk) 07:05, 8 April 2017 (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. – Fayenatic London 16:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This is awkwardly named and there is a scheme using the phrase "Christian music" (including one of the parent cats.) ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:43, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. I was expecting there to be a misguided distinction here between "Christian music songwriters" and "songwriters who happen to be Christian in their personal lives but don't make Christian music per se" — but on actually examining the category I see no identifiable evidence of that, and even if I did it wouldn't be a good basis for a category anyway. Bearcat (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Just wondering if Category:Christian music songwriters could be a bit ambiguous, someone might perhaps read it as "music songwriters who are Christian". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:20, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- I think "Christian songwriters" would be more prone to that — it's precisely why the clarifier "music" is present in the middle, to clarify the distinction between Christian as a genre of music and Christian as a property of the songwriter, when we actually don't do the same for e.g. Category:Jazz songwriters or Category:Rock songwriters. (We do for Category:Country music songwriters, but that's because "Country songwriters" could potentially get confuzzled with Category:Songwriters by nationality.) "Music" would be redundant if it were there to modify "songwriters" rather than "Christian". Bearcat (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bearcat: Definitely agree that "Christian songwriters" would be more prone to that, I was rather thinking along the line of Category:Writers of Christian music songs or Category:Songwriters of Christian music, in order to have "writers" before "of Christian". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 22 April 2017 (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:Recipients of the Military Merit Cross (Mecklenburg-Schwerin), 2nd class
- 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 16:22, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Military Merit Cross (Mecklenburg-Schwerin), 2nd class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, 2nd-tier decoration. None of the subjects are known for having received this award. Created by a user who seems to have started multitudes of such categories. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:36, 8 April 2017 (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.