Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 2

August 2

Category:Discalced Augustinian bishops

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Discalced Augustinian bishops (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT, little potential for population —swpb^T 21:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – these are bishops of the Order of Discalced Augustinians, 9 articles, no reason whatever to delete it. Oculi (talk) 14:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Only had one article at the time I nominated it. —swpb^T 15:39, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I do not see why we should not categorise Catholic Bishops by their order; in this case order of friars. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 5 August 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:1942 reestablishments

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. ℯ xplicit 04:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:1942 reestablishments (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No other "reestablishment by year" categories exist outside of musical groups, and it's not clear this new categorization scheme would be valuable. The present category only has one subcategory and no pages. —swpb^T 17:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No reason to exclude relevant pages from the establishments category tree. Dimadick (talk) 06:40, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:14, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, deleting would leave the child category orphaned. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- No it wouldn't; this is not its only parent. —swpb^T 14:52, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  - I see, two parent categories are now nominated for deletion (including this nomination), a third one should probably be nominated for deletion as well, and so the child category would just stay in Category:Military units and formations established in 1942. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:39, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the equivalent establishments, perhaps leaving the child unchanged. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose We have lots of musical groups reestablished in year x categories. This has a lot of potential for growth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:24, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom along with the other two parents of the child. I don't buy JPL's WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument either - I don't feel strongly about it but I'd tend to argue that "reestablishment" is not WP:DEFINING for musical groups and it's a really horrible grey area. How do you define a "disestablishment" in the first place, they tend to leave all the companies etc in place for royalty collection purposes and there's a continuum from "going on holiday" to "sabbatical" to "maternity leave" to "not talking for 20 years" - there's seldom a formal "divorce" moment for bands. You have the likes of Robbie Williams semi-detached from Take That - he sang with them on a TV show this year but followed them on stage at the Manchester gig, or Beyonce having the other ones from Destiny's Child join her at gigs. I don't think we need that kind of ambiguity. There's also potential for clutter - many RAF squadrons have been reestablished a number of times, as wars start or aircraft types are retired and introduced, so they'd have a number of such categories. Let's just not go there.Le Deluge (talk) 16:32, 20 August 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:Gospel pop hits

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) 07:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Gospel pop hits (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: "Hits" is way too vague; otherwise just a duplicate of Category:Gospel songs. —swpb^T 17:23, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose keeping I first named the category "U.S. gospel pop hits." However, I realized that several of the songs had also charted in Australia, Canada, UK, etc. Therefore I changed it to just "Gospel pop hits." While it is mostly a subset of "Category:Gospel songs", only a select few of those songs have ever appeared on any popular music chart during the Rock era (post-1955). And the most recent song in the category is from 1974, making the chronology rather finite. Therefore it is a distinct group and should be retained. - JGabbard (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing about the category name or description delineates which articles belong and which do not. —swpb^T 15:43, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There are no other "hits" categories except for #1 songs, which is very distinct criteria. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 17:32, 8 August 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:Nova Scotian Settler families

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) 05:46, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Nova Scotian Settler families (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT - only one apparent entry, and the plausible parent cats don't even exist —swpb^T 16:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- the name is misleading, it is about settlers from Nova Scotia, not in Nova Scotia. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:25, 5 August 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:Sierra Leonean families of Irish descent

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 second category, delete remaining two. ℯ xplicit 04:48, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sierra Leonean families of Irish descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT - only one apparent entry, and the plausible parent cats don't even exist —swpb^T 16:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sierra Leonean families of African-American descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT - only one apparent entry, and the plausible parent cats don't even exist —swpb^T 16:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Sierra Leonean families of Nova Scotian descent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT - only one apparent entry, and the plausible parent cats don't even exist —swpb^T 16:14, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Combining 3 related items. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to equivalent people by descent category. This appears to be about one of the early settlers in the new colony of Sierra Leone. We normally categorise people not families in descent categorises, but this is not stretching the concept too far. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge only the second category to Category:Sierra Leonean people of African-American descent. This is all about one single family of African-American descent, the Easmon family. Delete the Irish category (non-defining) and the Nova Scotian one (we don't even have a tree for Nova Scotian descent). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:14, 17 August 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:International women film directors from India

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:18, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:International women film directors from India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Other than the "international" part, whose scoping is unclear, duplicate of Category:Indian women film directors. —swpb^T 13:42, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Indian women film directors. Same scope, but the articles should be parented somewhere. Dimadick (talk) 06:42, 3 August 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.