Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 23

December 23

Category:Enneatypes

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) 22:11, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Enneatypes to Category:Enneagram
Nominator's rationale: Only two members, neither of which deal with specific “enneatypes”. Fails WP: SMALLCAT. The Category:Pseudoscience label may also be appropriate for the larger category. 108.210.216.182 (talk) 18:29, 23 December 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:Discworld cities and towns

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. No need to merge since the one article is alreay in Category:Discworld locations. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 22:14, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wrong name (should be Category:Discworld populated places), and has one member, potentially failing WP:SMALLCAT. 108.210.216.182 (talk) 17:23, 23 December 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:Juliette Benzoni

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) 22:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON, "eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." This is not the case here and the 3 photos categorized here are all included in the main article anyway. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:59, 23 December 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:Rajput clans of Punjab

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure which direction would be best for this merge but the two categories are essentially dealing with the same thing. Sitush (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A clan is not a person. A person is not a clan. My argument succeeds on first, 2nd, 3rd and subsequent principles. If Category:Punjabi Rajputs (a people category) categorises people by caste, then it should be deleted, not merged. But then Category:Punjabi people seems to have several 'by caste' categories. Oculi (talk) 14:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • You miss my point, I think. One or other of the categories needs to go but that requires merging the content of which ever one goes in so far as the articles within it are not actually biographies. I don't know which would be the preferred cat title. If Category:Punjabi people seems wrong to you then propose something. - Sitush (talk) 14:38, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no idea. Oculi recategorised some articles around the time they first commented here, which confuses the issue. It is well known that I really dislike this particular venue, its regulars and indeed pretty much the entire categorisation system, so forgive me if I bow out. - Sitush (talk) 13:50, 24 December 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:21st-century social history

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:21st-century social history (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:21st-century social history by country tagged December 31st
  • Propose deleting Category:21st-century social history of the United States tagged December 31st
Nominator's rationale: Category:Social history is currently just subcategorized by topic and by country. While there may not be an objection against subcategorizing social history by century, it goes too quick to start intersection categories by century and country right away. Also it is very strange to see that an editor starts building a completely new tree and then leaves it alone after having done less than 0.1% of the required work. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:43, 23 December 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:Psychedelics and religion

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 Category:Psychedelics and religion
merge Category:Ayahuasca and religion to Category:Psychedelics and religion and Category:Ayahuasca --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:34, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently only one article. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We also have the larger Category:Ayahuasca and religion, maybe some merger of the two if folks agree that ayahuasca qualifies as a psychedelic? Goonsquad LCpl Mulvaney (talk) 10:36, 23 December 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:Portuguese Way

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) 09:40, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. One article, little chance of expansion. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:07, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • not for Porto but definitely for Pontevedra, Barcelos, Redondela etc. it is; 30K tourists annually staying overnight in a town of 30K makes quite an impression JJ Hantsch 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)jjhantsch
  • That it has lots of visitors isn't a defining characteristic. That a town/city is on a hiking trail may be of interest to you, but other people may be more interested in other aspects of the place (e.g. an event that happens/happened there). DexDor (talk) 07:46, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The town's article is not exclusively about the hiking trail or the participants, but to ignore that level of interaction is inappropriate. Imagine Las Vegas without mentioning the visitors JJ Hantsch 14:27, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

No one here is saying that the trail shouldn't be mentioned (in the article text). DexDor (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we agree. A grouping for all the towns with this same characteristic, and for geographical completeness larger cities on the same trail, would seem logical. JJ Hantsch 16:13, 1 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jjhantsch (talk • contribs)

No - that could result in articles about cities being in hundreds of categories for characteristics that are non-defining. DexDor (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2018 (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/2017_December_23&oldid=872002744"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 23, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.