Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 29

< October 28	October 30 >

October 29[edit]

Category:Renaissance architecture in Romania[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 23:36, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Renaissance architecture in Romania to Category:Romanian architecture by period

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only two subcategories, and neither of the two subcategories is about the Renaissance in a narrower sense anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Part of an established category tree Category:Renaissance architecture by country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:33, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it odd to keep it while it only contains subcategories of around the year 1800 and around 1900? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge per nom. Just N. (talk) 14:58, 5 November 2021 (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:Lists of people by nickname[edit]

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lists of people by nickname to Category:Nicknames

Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, the articles are mostly about a nickname and contain a list, therefore they are in or belong in both categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:38, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. It's also a sub-cat of Category:Lists of people by name. Some names are rightly contained in it e.g. Ange (given name) because they have a section listing people by that nickname, but are not primarily about a nickname. – Fayenatic London 11:32, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the content of Ange (given name) I can't see much harm in having the article in Category:Nicknames. Probably Category:Lists of people by name was originally meant for spin-off articles that only contain a list (if that were not the case the category would contain many more articles). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 5 November 2021 (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:Nicknames in basketball[edit]

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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Nicknames in basketball to Category:Basketball culture

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - The rationale doesn't exist.--寒吉 (talk) 16:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is no longer only one subcategory after having added two lists. Yet it remains a case of WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth. --寒吉 (talk) 07:57, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this is also part of Category:Nicknames in sports. – Fayenatic London 11:34, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: the subcategory which was the only content at the time of the nomination is already in Category:Nicknamed groups of sportspeople. I agree that the two articles that were added later to the category should be moved to Category:Nicknames in sports. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Definitely useful for our users to preserve the category. --Just N. (talk) 15:17, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment why is this not also being proposed to be merged into the nickname heirarchy? -- 64.229.90.53 (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

All content of the category is already somewhere else in the nicknames hierarchy. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2021 (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:City of Manningham[edit]

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) 06:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:City of Manningham (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category contained one article: City of Manningham, which was already correctly categorised under Category:Local government areas in Melbourne. I removed the redundant category from the article and the category now serves no purpose. ClaudineChionh (talk – contribs) 12:55, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, not a problem about the removal. JarrahTree 12:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Small category that is not likely to get larger. FOARP (talk) 13:05, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category has been emptied. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:21, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2021 (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:English anti-fascists[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 4#Category:English anti-fascists

Category:Reptiles of Niger[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 11:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Reptiles of Niger to Category:Reptiles of West Africa

Nominator's rationale: per rationale of 2018 January 13#Category:Fish of Burkina Faso, which includes 2 'reptiles of' categories. Oculi (talk) 00:23, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep and comment - this may be the tip of a large iceberg. I count 114 country-specific reptile categories, plus several for lizards and snakes. Unlike fish and birds, reptiles don't tend to travel very far, and are quite often found in one country but not its neighbours. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, all three reptiles in the category also live in a large number of neighboring countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- This has been a longstanding issue. Categorising biota to countries or islands (except where they are endemic to it and only occur there) creates category clutter. Biota distributions do not respect political boundaries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Support, state frontiers are absurd in natural habitats. --Just N. (talk) 15:31, 5 November 2021 (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.