Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 12

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. MER-C 10:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

• Category:Telephone numbers in Greece to Category:Telephone numbers by country and Category:Telecommunications in Greece
• Category:Telephone numbers in North Macedonia to Category:Telephone numbers by country and Category:Telecommunications in North Macedonia
• Category:Telephone numbers in Tokelau to Category:Telephone numbers by country and Category:Telecommunications in Tokelau

Nominator's rationale: These three categories only contain the lead article and therefore do not help navigation. All other sub-cats of Category:Telephone numbers by country contain multiple entries. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have two main reasons for objecting to this change.
1. It is important to have a consistent naming structure for all countries. This aids both navigation for users, and editing for contributors.
2. At present, it may be the case that the categories have only one article, but more articles may be added to these categories in future. In which case these changes would have to be reversed. These is little benefit to be gained from making the change, and there is a significant possibility that it would have to be reversed soon even if the reason given (only one article in category) was to be accepted. Orthogonal1 (talk) 00:43, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, all siblings in the tree of Category:Telephone numbers by country may be nominated, as each of the countries is lacking sufficient content. Having just one Category:Telephone numbers by country with articles only, and one Category:Lists of dialling codes by country with articles only, should suffice. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom and per WP:SMALLCAT.

Category:Telephone numbers by country contains nearly 300 pages, but only 22 subcats (including these), so the by-country subcats are clearly not part of an established series.

I see no evidence that categories are likely to be expanded in the foreseeable future ... but if more articles become available, then they can easily be re-created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge there is no reason to have a one article category where the article is named the same as the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 21 April 2019 (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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:15, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Village in Pakistan to Category:Villages in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Merge singular version of category into correctly formatted plural version. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedysupport. Grutness...wha? 02:09, 13 March 2019 (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: split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose splitting Category:Women in film to Category:Women in film and Category:Depictions of women in film

Nominator's rationale: Women in film currently covers both real and fictional women. Oornery (talk) 03:18, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. There is already a sub-cat Category:Female characters in film, which is within Category:Cultural depictions of women, but there are sufficient other "Films about..." sub-cats in here to make this a useful structure. – Fayenatic London 12:16, 13 March 2019 (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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kim Norton (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON Le Deluge (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:RISIBLE. Oculi (talk) 10:54, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's a small category but it requires no maintenance and serves a purpose: it ties the photo to the person. Jonathunder (talk) 14:09, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• The photo, which has just been added, should be moved to Category:Images of Kim Norton, part of Category:Images of American politicians. The article Kim Norton does a good job in tying the photo to the person. Oculi (talk) 14:42, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Textbook example of WP:OCEPON. Grutness...wha? 02:07, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:42, 14 March 2019 (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:Gottfried Leibniz scholars. The nominator @RevelationDirect and others may wish to purge the renamed category of articles for whom the category is WP:DEFINING. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Leibniz scholars

• Propose Selectively Upmerging Maria Rosa Antognazza to Category:Gottfried Leibniz

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT

This category groups academics who focus on Gottfried Leibniz but we only have one article in Wikipedia that definitely belongs in it so far (Maria Rosa Antognazza) and growth potential is limited. There a two other articles in the category: Chad Engelland had a thesis on Leibniz but that is not his professional focus while the Stephen Daniel article makes no mention of Leibniz at all. (Alternatively, if kept, we should rename this to Category:Gottfried Leibniz scholars since we're not in Aristotle/Oprah first name territory here.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Gottfried Leibniz scholars per Category:Gottfried Leibniz. I agree with the nom about 2 of the articles, but I did find 2 others and there may be more. It is my personal view that a focussed subcat such as Category:Leibniz scholars is much better than lumping anyone vaguely connected with Leibniz into Category:Gottfried Leibniz. Or: 'Leibniz scholar' is a defining characteristic for someone devoted to the study of Leibniz. Oculi (talk) 12:04, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with a purge/populate and rename approach as long as we end up with a viable category. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:40, 12 March 2019 (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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:13, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Shakespeare Prize recipients

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

This award certainly sounds defining. It is given by a nonprifit in Hamburg, Germany each year to a British performer or writer in order to promote better relations between Germany and the U.K. Some of the biography articles mention the award in passing with other honours but many articles don't mention it at all. The winners are already listed here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - Hah. It certainly does sound defining. And I suppose it actually might be if it was awarded by the Royal Shakespeare Company. (LOL) Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:05, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- a typical OCAWARD case. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 17 March 2019 (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.