Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 18

< June 17	June 19 >

June 18

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Australian geishas

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 both categories to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Geishas. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:32, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Australian geishas (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose merging Category:Japanese geishas to Category:Geishas (added to nomination on relisting): Nominator's rationale: There is only one Australian geisha at this time. Don't believe this category is necessary or helpful. Cannolis (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A category of one serves no purpose, I would keep if it was just a matter of populating the category, but there is only one Australian geisha, and there is most likely not to be another. Once depopulated we do not need Category:Japanese geishas since all will be Japanese, and all can be in Category:Geishas --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 23:29, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - It is precisely because non-Japanese Geishas are so unusual -- make that exceptional -- that this category is not only legitimate but downright necessary. Cgingold (talk) 00:14, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From my understanding, categories are meant to group like pages together and serve as a navigational tool between said pages. If there is but one page in a given category, doesn't that nullify the stated purpose of a category? Cannolis (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As above, a category of one serves no purpose, and this category is highly unlikely to become more populated in the near future. Even the main Category:Geishas category is sparsely populated, with just seven Japanese names, so there is no obvious need to sub-categorize by nationality. --DAJF (talk) 01:51, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
delete It's been a long time since that name popped up on my radar... anyway, we obviously don't need a category for the one non-Japanese geisha, especially since she's also in the parent category as well. Mangoe (talk) 13:45, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There was actually another one recently, a Hungarian lady working under the geimei of Ibu at a resort IIRC. --Pitke (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extreme case for a unique entity category. --Pitke (talk) 20:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it might need to be renamed to non-ethnic Japanese geisha instead. To include all instances where non-Japanese have become geisha/maiko; -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:50, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete About as relevant as a category such as "Australian-born operators of dodgy tourist accommodation in Wanaka". Unlikely to ever contain other members, already covered by category Geishas, more likely to be a "look at me" element. Tenaqzn'f Fbvyrq Gubat (talk) 12:10, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the above. This excessive subcategorization impedes, rather than aids, navigation. Neutrality^talk 16:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge both this and the Japanese Geishas category to a generalized Geishas one. With 8 articles no sub-division is justified. If later on we have more articles on Geishas we can revisit the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:19, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge this and the Japanese category back to Geishas. The whole tree contains just 8 articles. Fiona Graham is actually already in the parent, so that a plain delete will do for the nom cat. Her nationality is indicated by other categories in her article, so thsat the intersection is not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:28, 5 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: tagging the Japanese category as well
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:52, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Geishas, the total amount of articles is too small to subdivide by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:28, 19 June 2015 (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:Romanian timelines

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; the single article added to Category:Romanian timelines‎ could just as legitimately be in Category:Romanian history timelines‎ (the terms of Romanian presidents are part of Romanian history). This can be re-evaluated if more articles develop over time. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:46, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Romanian timelines (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, its content is already in Category:Romanian history timelines‎. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:37, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: as another editor had removed the CFD template from the page
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 19:02, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both naming patterns are used in Category:National timelines, but clearly only one is needed per country. – Fayenatic London 19:05, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Rgvis (talk · contribs) removed the template again; I have restored it without a further relisting, but the discussion must be left open for at least another week. – Fayenatic London 19:18, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: No more overlapped categories (these two categories are quite different now). Besides this, it is not a singular case, there are other similar categories in the same situation, for other countries, too (for example: Category:Canadian timelines + Category:Canadian history timelines); it is expected that the content could evolve, in time. On the other hand, you were reverted as per WP:DEL, for failing to give a reason for deletion on discussion page (Category talk:Romanian timelines) - Thanks, (Rgvis (talk) 07:37, 27 June 2015 (UTC))[reply]
There's only one additional article now, so this attempt to split fails per WP:SMALLCAT. The one article fits perfectly in Category:Romania history-related lists. (On the side, please note that we use the CfD templates to link to the discussion here where the reason is given, so deleting the template is really counterproductive.) Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 27 June 2015 (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:Murders in the United Kingdom by year

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 (merge contents of year-specific categories to ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:YYYY crimes in the United Kingdom and ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.› Category:Murder in YYYY. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Murders in the United Kingdom by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:2003 murders in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1962 murders in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: the 2 year categories here each contain only 1 article, notable murder rate in UK unlikely to need this category tree. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose. The parent categories (e.g. Category:2003 crimes in the United Kingdom) contain articles such as Murder of Jodi Jones that should be moved down into the more specific category. If the categories are deleted it should be an upmerge rather than straight deletion. DexDor^(talk) 19:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge to "20XX crimes in the United Kingdom" and "Murder in 20XX" Hugo999 (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- While each murder that gets widely covered by the press gets an article whose title usually ends off in the form Murder of Jodi Jones, we do not get enough to merit annual categories. Possibly there should be a third target Category:2000s murders in the United Kingdom, etc. I suspect that we get one or two of these each year, so that a decade article might get a reasonable population. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to crimes in year x category. Currently Category:2003 crimes in the United Kingdom has 8 articles including 1 in a sub-cat. This is not enough to justify subdivision by type of crime.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, per Hugo999, to Category:1962 crimes in the United Kingdom and Category:Murder in 1962 and likewise for the other nomination, to begin with. I agree with Johnpacklambert that more merging is needed, but let's better keep that for a next nomination (as it would concern all year crime categories in the UK). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 26 June 2015 (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:Blocks in the periodic table

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Blocks in the periodic table (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: All members redirect to single article. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:15, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not quite – G-block redirects to a different page, Extended periodic table. However, this may not justify the existence of the category. – Fayenatic London 18:40, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (assuming no articles need to be upmerged). DexDor^(talk) 19:33, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not useful, nothing missed by a searching reader. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2015 (UTC), (cat creator)[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.

Buildings and structures in Zonguldaks Province

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: speedy merge to Category:Buildings and structures in Zonguldak Province under WP:C2E. – Fayenatic London 18:35, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleton: Category:Buildings and structures in Zonguldaks Province

Creator's rationale: Misspelled title. Correct one is already existent. User:CeeGee 11:58, 18 June 2015‎

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.

Racially motivated violence in England

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:42, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose upmerging:

Nominator's rationale: I propose merging the racially motivated violence categories for England (7 pages, 1 subcategory) and Scotland (1 page, no subcategories) to the parent category for the United Kingdom (no pages, three subcategories including the nominated two). I don't see a need to have separate categories for England and Scotland here as none of the articles are really relevant to which country of the UK they took place in. Thryduulf (talk) 09:31, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you notice that these two categories are also in a number of England- or Scotland-specific subcategories? Upmerging purely to one parent will remove them from the other category trees, which is a bad idea. And as we have racism and violence categories for England and for Scotland, of which these are subcategories, rather than UK-wide categories, these seem to be a logical subcategorisation. So oppose but if the result of the discussion is "upmerge" it has to be "upmerge to all parent categories in each case", not just to one. Bencherlite ^Talk 21:57, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
keep based on the parent category structure which will not be well served by merging the content upward Hmains (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- England and Scotland have different legal systems, so that there is a difference. We frequently split UK inot the 4 home nations. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Four nations, but three legal systems (Wales and England have one unified system). Neutrality^talk 22:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/alt rename. If this category is kept, the England one needs to be renamed Category:Racially motivated violence in England and Wales, since England and Wales have a unified legal system. Neutrality^talk 22:30, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Triple merge, per Bencherlite, to Category:Racially motivated violence in the United Kingdom, Category:Racism in England and Category:Violence in England, similarly for Scottish category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2015 (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:Clinton family

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Clinton family to Category:Family of Bill and Hillary Clinton

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think that something needs to be done with this category and a renamme would be my preferred option. The category name currently relates to the redirect Clinton family which was previously referenced as cat main. Greg Kaye 04:59, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the fact is that the George Clinton/DeWitt Clinton family has more notable members and existed over time making it more of a family. The current name can not function.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:32, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename to Category:Bill and Hillary Clinton. Shorter, and the "family of" is not really necessary. Also, category:bill Clinton is a subcategory within this category, and that subcat has more than just family-related articles. Neutrality^talk 22:27, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Question, do we really need a narrow family definition as a category? I can also imagine, the other way around, that we populate the category with additional members of the extended family while keeping the current category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There are not more extended members of the Clinton Family. De Witt Clinton and his various notable relatives are not related to Bill and Hillary Clinton. The rename is to make it clear which Clinton Family we are referring to, not to refer to only a small part of the family.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair enough. I'll close the discussion since I did/do not have any strong opinion about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 4 August 2015 (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.