Trichome

thcscience_admin
< November 5 November 7 >

November 6[edit]

Category:Top of the Pops people[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT. This is a "performance by performer" type of category. (The page List of Top of the Pops presenters should be upmerged, but no others) anemoneprojectors 22:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – for some of these it is a defining characteristic, which takes precedence over WP:AnythingElse. (There is no consensus to delete the similar Top Gear people, presently at drv.} Oculi (talk) 01:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I had another look at the people in the category and of all the people I've heard of (most of them), this isn't a defining characteristic. What defines them is their job of being a television or radio presenter or disc jockey. This is just one of many presenting jobs for all of them. anemoneprojectors 10:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. I looked at five articles (1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and it goes beyond not being defining and listing with many other jobs. It doesn't even get credit as a unique job: just a minor assignment as part of working for the BBC. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2016 (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:Wikipedian newpage patrollers[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. The discussion for the target category is still open. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created today, but it seems redundant with the much older Category:Wikipedian new page patrollers (which is itself up for deletion). Psychonaut (talk) 22:13, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gjs238 do you actually have a rationale fr this vote other than you were the creator of it at the time? Are you aware of the new user right having been created? Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The people in these categories are not New Page Patrollers as the designation does not exist. If the cat is renamed, or merged it must be emptied as these editors have not been accorded the user right: New Page Reviewer. Also, an examination of the list may reveal that a significant number never patrolled pages, are blocked, or are trolls using the userbox to grace their user pages. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:04, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, see also this previous discussion which is still open. If that earlier discussion ends in a delete, then this category (which currently just contains a redirect) should also be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, assuming the other is kept. Delete if not. This is an obvious misspelling. ~ Rob13Talk 16:19, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Category does nothing to help improve the encyclopedia. Violates WP:USERCAT. Merging would be a distant second choice. VegaDark (talk) 00:21, 21 November 2016 (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:Sri Lankan country music[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, seems to be a misunderstanding. – Fayenatic London 23:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As previously discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 21#Category:Sri Lankan country music, this newly recreated category is a sub-subcategory of Category:Country music, but the articles it contains don't seem to have anything to do with country music. If the category is to be kept, it probably needs to be renamed and recategorized. Psychonaut (talk) 22:06, 6 November 2016 (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.

Ancient roman forts in the United Kingdom sub-cats[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: renamed. A merge proposal may be nominated separately. -- Tavix (talk) 00:13, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Renaming them to avoid losing them, as part of the CFD on ancient roman forts. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the term used by archaeologists is "fort", not "fortress", except perhaps Legionary ones. I still say that the Snowdonia category for this should be abolished. The rest of the tree relates to the local government areas. National Parks are only such for some limited purposes, such as Town and Country Planning. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 18 November 2016 (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:Albums produced by The Beat Bully[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since an article about a record producer has been deleted per AfD, this category relates to the same, so it counts for discussion. DBrown SPS (talk) 16:13, 6 November 2016 (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:German-language video game magazines[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; merge contents to Category:German-language magazines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. It is equivalent to its subcategory Category:German video game magazines. The1337gamer (talk) 14:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While it could be argued that its subcategory is equivalent to it, it's certainly not the case that it's the equivalent of its subcategory. In other words it may be accurate to say that if a magazine is a German magazine then it's also a German-language magazine, but it's wrong to think that if it's a German-language magazine then that means it's a German magazine. Both Austria and Switzerland are German-language countries that are not in fact part of Germany. There are also large German-language populations in Italy (South Tyrol), Belgium, and Liechtenstein.
At the time when the category was created it was intended to group a number of German magazines together with the German-language ones from Austria (like GamingXP). It looks like the articles on the Austrian magazines have now been deleted or redirected and the only ones that remain are the German ones, but I'm rather doubtful that there are no notable German-language video game magazines outside of Germany. If we delete this category then I assume it will just be recreated down the road when a proper article is written on topics like GamingXP.
If there is a reason to delete the category until such time as articles are again written on Austrian, Swiss, etc. magazines then I have no objection, but the rationale that the category is redundant is incorrect. -Thibbs (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as part of trivial intersection scheme but merge to Category:German-language magazines. Please nominate other language video game magazine categories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had just written a long comment filled with examples of how language and nationality are anything but a trivial intersection, but then I was struck by the thought that you probably meant the video game magazines and language intersection to be trivial. I am a little bit surprised, but evidence of standard practice at Wikipedia suggests that you are right. Category:Video game magazines by language‎ kind of stands out like a sore thumb from Category:Magazines by language. Given this I am inclined to agree that a merge might be for the best at this time. -Thibbs (talk) 21:31, 28 November 2016 (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:American cricketers of Indian descent[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; merge contents into Category:American cricketers and either Category:American sportsmen of Indian descent or Category:American sportswomen of Indian descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:39, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining trait, should be deleted per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:OCEGRS – "Dedicated group-subject subcategories … should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right." American cricketers of Indian descent are not collectively regarded as a "distinct and unique" topic. IgnorantArmies (talk) 14:05, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I probably should have stated that. They should also be (re-)added to Category:American cricketers. IgnorantArmies (talk) 09:37, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you give examples of other categories with EGRS intersections that are equally trivial and narrow as this one? They should be deleted as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 19 November 2016 (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:WikiProject Worcester Central School members[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) 07:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Decade-old tracking category for the members of a long-abandoned pseudo-WikiProject. Since none of the three members have edited since 2010, it's reasonable to assume that this is serving no useful purpose.  ‑ Iridescent 13:32, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- There is a user's project page that contains an article that is not yet fit for uploading. There is no indication of whether the school is and not categories. It deserves TNT. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2016 (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:Anti-globalism activists[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, by far most people in this category are not described as Anti-globalism activists in the text of the article. It looks like a case of WP:OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unclear scope/unclear inclusion criteria; too vague to be defining or unifying characteristic. Neutralitytalk 19:21, 12 November 2016 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_6

Leave a Reply