Trichome

thcscience_admin
< June 20 June 22 >

June 21[edit]

Category:70-minute and longer albums[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; I have started a bare list at List of albums longer than 70 minutes. – Fayenatic London 20:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As well as the following recently-created categories:
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic of an album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 22:37, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:ARBITRARYCAT. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories like this are sorely missing on Wikipedia. These categories will allow to identify longer than average albums. Most LPs are shorter than 45 minutes, although there were some LPs pressed that were up to one hour long, but they had reduced dynamic range and more shallow bass. CD-Audio is officially limited to 74 minutes, but there are longer albums released on one CD. Moreover, there are albums longer than 80 minutes, released on a single CD. This is a very interesting information to any researcher about how physical media was/is used for albums. Most pre-recorded cassettes were 45-minute long, but there are ones that are 80, 90 and even longer, and I mean pre-recorded, not blank tapes. These are quite rare, as in many cases albums longer than 60 minutes are released on 2 cassettes, and albums longer than 74 minutes are released on 2 CDs. There are no other sites with statistics like this. Discogs has some stats, but it does not carry info about total album size, and its query language does not support max(), it only allows to query for an exact match. Wikipedia, on another hand, has track durations and full album durations for many albums, which can make it a prime aggregator of such info. Did you know, that Beatles's Blue Album, which is 99 minute 40 seconds long, had a single-cassette release? To me, this is fascinating! Oh, and by the way, duration is one of the defining characteristics along with the number of songs. It affects whether a release is considered a single, an EP, an LP or something else. - Mikus (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there are no other sites with statistics like this, I assume there are no other print sources with statistics like this either. Thus, how would we populate these categories without running foul of WP:OR? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:ARBITRARYCAT, possibly convert to a list. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - which would allow for arrangement of albums in order of length. If categorising by time band is useful, surely listing in order by length is even more so. Grutness...wha? 05:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Arbitrary and unlikely to aid reader navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 23:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: surely these are misnamed anyway, as all albums in these categories will qualify for the "70 minutes and longer" category, as the 110-minute ones are also longer than 70 minutes... they should have been named "70–79 minutes long", "80–89 minutes", etc. But anyway, I have an additional question: does this only include the length of the original release? Because I imagine that many CD reissues with bonus tracks or "deluxe editions" would be over 70 minutes. Richard3120 (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But what if the length of the album is 89 minutes and 41 seconds? ;) StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Each category has a comment that explains that the intervals are 10 min. I can change the names, but let's keep the categories themselves, because they are useful for research. I can rename them to, say, "Albums longer than 70 and shorter than 80 minutes" or whatever :) Yes, the original idea was that only the original release is counted. Of course, it would be nice to have duration per release, but Wikipedia is not Discogs, although Discogs does not provide this functionality either. The point is, since Wikipedia already stores this info, it should be searchable. If someone can help me writing a script that searches through articles that have album infobox using "length" property, this would be even better, and I won't need these categories. Mikus (talk) 04:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, a list with the exact duration and possibly with notes about different releases would be much more appropriate than categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:03, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The length of an album is not notable. I repeat here what WP:CATDEF says, A central concept used in categorizing articles is that of the defining characteristics of a subject of the article. A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define... We buy (bought) albums because of the name of the artist, a song on the album, the producer, the record label, even because our friends played the album. Nobody bought an album because of the length, and until those supporting keep can persuade me otherwise this is a hard and firm delete. What next, albums by number of tracks? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:19, 26 June 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.

Southeastern Massachusetts categories[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:53, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT. Many of these categories are unnecessary and too small to warrant to split from the parent category. –Aidan721 (talk) 22:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge All There's also some ambiguity about where these informal borders lie. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. --Just N. (talk) 14:55, 28 June 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:Star vs. the Forces of Evil[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think a category is necessary for a show that only has two lists as its primary content. Otherwise, it's just a redirect, a template, and the eponymous article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON, unless there is another article (a tie-in, perhaps) related to this show. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:33, 21 June 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:Wikipedians who do not give the WMF permission to relicense their contributions[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) 01:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate not-based category. This has somehow sat unnoticed since 2004, but that doesn't make it any more acceptable. * Pppery * it has begun...
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:All articles missing payload orbit parameters[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) 01:35, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Articles missing payload orbit parameters, since the underlying category isn't a dated maintenance category (all pages are already in that category, so no need for a merge) * Pppery * it has begun... 16:35, 21 June 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:Australian Labor Party officials[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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not make clear what is the precise role of an official. Should it be understood as party leaders (in which case it duplicates Category:Leaders of the Australian Labor Party), as non-political party staff (as for Category:Labour Party (UK) officials), in which case it should be parented to Category:Political staffers, or any official party member, in which case it should be upmerged to Category:Australian Labor Party politicians? Place Clichy (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (possibly rename) for National Secretaries, but move politicians articles to Category:Australian Labor Party politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    If it is indeed the position this category is for, we could indeed rename to that. However out of the few I looked from the category, it seems that many had other roles: Stephen Loosley is mentioned in footer as General Secretary of the New South Wales Branch, and in article body as National President (a different office to National Secretary according to Australian Labor Party National Executive § Executive leaders); Warren Mundine was also National President; Elizabeth Rose Hanretty served as the Australian Labor Party's South Australian assistant state secretary for forty years; Matt Thistlethwaite, Graham Richardson and a number of others were general secretaries of the New South Wales branch, before joining Parliament; John Graham (Australian politician) was assistant general secretary of the New South Wales branch, before being elected to the state's Legislative Council; Selina Siggins was "the first woman to stand for the Australian House of Representatives" (in 1903) who was later "elected to the [New South Wales] state executive of the Australian Labor Party". This means in short that we have state-level party secretaries, and even assistant secretaries, which may often be more notable by their other roles as parliamentarian or government minister. My knowledge of Australian party politics is pretty short, but these all seem to be administrative positions, the political leadership being elsewhere, both at national or state level. I wonder if it is notable or defining for someone to be an administrative party official at state level. Place Clichy (talk) 13:14, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seems to agree. People primarily known as a politician who also have been a minor party official can be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unsure about Presidents too, but let's keep them until someone else knows better. So support split. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:24, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. This nomination seems to stem from the nominator misunderstanding the category despite the existence of similar categories elsewhere and then shooting first and asking questions later. Place Clichy does then go back and nicely spell out above the range of roles that this category was intended to and does cover, however. There is no benefit in mashing these together with people who were elected to parliament, and as many/most people here would not consider these people to be politicians, it would reinstate the confusion that caused this category to be broken out in the first place. No other word describes these roles as clearly as "officials", and all of the roles Place Clichy listed are quite defining. I am also opposed to randomly reframing the category as "some Australian Labor Party officials" because some officials also held other offices, when it isn't necessarily a sound assumption that the other role was more significant. It's telling that those above who argue for making changes freely admit that they don't actually know much Australian politics in general or these roles in particular, because these changes don't really make sense to people who are familiar with the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 13:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it would probably help if this category had a line of description, or had another parent category such as e.g. Category:Political staffers or Category:Leaders of political parties (take your pick). Are the Leaders of the Australian Labor Party less official than these "officials"? You describe them in this discussion as non-politicians, however it seems that most of them owe the fact of having a Wikipedia article to their status as a parliamentarian. As said I am not familiar with Australian party politics, but where I live non-political campaign organizers do not get that type of public exposure. For a category we need a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Being national secretary of the ALP certainly fits, but the mere notion of being an "official" probably does not. Place Clichy (talk) 19:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    But they're not political staffers (which either has a different meaning in Australia or is being misinterpreted in general) and parliamentary leaders would not generally be described or thought of as "officials". They're not "non-political campaign organizers", a grouping which does not exist here. We're not talking about a category for a party where you live and for whose politics you understand - we're talking about this category, and these people do get that kind of exposure. (NB: national secretary of the ALP is not the highest-profile role in this category - subject knowledge is important here). The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    We're not talking about a category for a party where you live and for whose politics you understand: if this category as it is can't be understood by readers without prior knowledge, what's the purpose? You're writing that they are not this or that, but you're not telling what they are. Category:Political staffers is also a parent of Category:Conservative Party (UK) officials, Category:Labour Party (UK) officials, Category:Liberal Democrats (UK) officials and Category:Respect Party officials. Would you describe these officials as having a similar role to the ALP ones? The UK Labour Party category has a line of introduction; would you find it would apply to ALP as well, or are you able to tell us what would be different? Place Clichy (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    You were able to work out what they are clearly enough when you dealt with your confusion by looking at the articles in the category above - they're party officials. A "political staffer" in an Australian context is an employee of a politician, or perhaps an employee of a political party, not a party official. The UK category absolutely includes people who would not be thought of "staffers" in an Australian context, along with people who perhaps might be, and whose equivalent roles here would almost never make them notable for an article. I don't have a detailed knowledge enough of UK party organisation to know whether doing so makes sense in that case or was another case of categorisation being done by people who don't understand the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:17, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a description line at Category:Labour Party (UK) officials. Do you think it would apply as is to the ALP, or how would you suggest to amend it? Would you support creating subcategories for the holders of specific roles, such as National Secretary, National President and General Secretary of the NSW branch? Place Clichy (talk) 09:02, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The UK one would not because this category doesn't include "aides, staff members and electoral agents, particularly those who have been renumerated by the party" - it's for people who have held internal office within the party. I'm indifferent about creating subcategories for the specific roles - I don't know that it's necessary, but they're notable positions (and the NSW general secretary position holds such power and profile that it basically brings inherent notability) so it's also not unreasonable. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is for the reasons set out by The Drover's Wife. The ALP is unusual with the power & role played by officials who are not in parliament. They are not a politician in the sense they are not elected by members of the public. An official in the party (who must already be notable to be in the category) is not a "non-political campaign organizer", nor are they a staffer - even at a the state level the secretary or president of the party is no mere administrative position & often has far more political power & public profile than many elected members of parliament. There are regular conflicts and power struggles between the parliamentary leader & non-parliamentary officials such that you cannot understand the party without appreciating that dynamic. Leaders of the Australian Labor Party refers to the party leader in the Australian parliament. Yes many officials go on to have a political role, but this is generally a consequence of wielding power outside of parliament. There is no equivalent category for other parties in Australia, not because the roles don't exist, but because the role in other parties is different & less notable. --Find bruce (talk) 23:06, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would add that there probably could be categories for other parties (particularly the Liberals, to encompass people like Michael Kroger) but that they would just have less notable people in those roles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 02:01, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. As a member of the party, I fully agree with reasons set out by The Drover's Wife. There are differences between political parties and the ALP is very different from others in many ways. --Bduke (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm a little bit confused and alienated by these strange specialties of "down under" but I'd think we should respect that those structures are not just the same as in the UK or the US. --Just N. (talk) 15:11, 28 June 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:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts[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 all to Category:Populated coastal places in Massachusetts. bibliomaniac15 21:41, 30 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Massachusetts is the only U.S. state to subcategorize populated coastal places by county. Many of these categories are underpopulated and in the instance of Barnstable County, Nantucket, and Dukes County, WP:OVERCAT applies. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:30, 21 June 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:Wikipedians taking a break from Adopt-a-user[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Category:Wikipedians taking a break from Adopt-a-user

Category:Low linked articles[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) 21:16, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Articles with too few wikilinks is populated by the template Template:Underlinked which has the same scope. Gonnym (talk) 08:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge. Merger would cause any articles to populate the target directly. That would be wrong, because the target is populated by a template. So I have emptied the category by replacing it with the template {{Underlinked}} in each of the to articles it contained: [1] and [2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge These are not at all the same thing, and should not be merged. Category:Low linked articles was intended for articles that had too few pages linking to them, whereas Category:Articles with too few wikilinks is intended for articles that link to too few articles. This category was previously populated by {{orphan}} when passed the |few= parameter, and, when the code to do that was removed in 2018, the category should have been {{db-templatecat}}-ed, instead of kept around as an abandoned relic that only one person has used in the last month (per User:Nardog/CatChangesViewer) and, more generally, absolutely nobody seems to be monitoring. * Pppery * it has begun... 14:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, do not merge. --Just N. (talk) 15:20, 28 June 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.

As usual, Pppery nails this. I wasn't aware that it was required that maintenance categories must always be populated by templates. See earlier discussions at User talk:Wbm1058/Archive 6#Orphans and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orphanage/Archive 3#Deprecating the =few parameter. – wbm1058 (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I might add here that the underlying problem is too many people creating work orders for others to complete, and not enough people completing the work orders that were submitted by others. wbm1058 (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monthly clean-up category (Wikipedians having been offered adoption) counter[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) 01:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption has no monthly categories. Gonnym (talk) 08:31, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless there is evidence that the relevant template has been modified to make the category permanently empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category only ever contained categories of the form "Wikipedians having been offered adoption from month year". Those categories were previously populated by {{adopt offer}}, which was modified to no longer populate them in Special:Diff/971168688. Since no monthly categories are populated by the template, none will ever be created, and therefore there won't be any to populate this category * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @BrownHairedGirl: Do you still oppose deleting these counter categories after my comments? * Pppery * it has begun... 01:45, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pppery: thanks for doing the scrutiny on these cats. But after the personal attacks by the nominator, I don't want to engage any more on these nominations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and Pppery. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "This is a counter category. It contains items specifically for the purpose of counting them, in order to assist with maintenance. It is not part of the encyclopaedia" I've read the affirmations of Pppery above but I'm still not convinced how the adoption process will work better without that mechanism. Please explain! --Just N. (talk) 15:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    How could keeping a category that is permanantely empty and is not linked to anywhere except notifications associated with this discussion and an old database report possibly help the adoption process? * Pppery * it has begun... 17:52, 29 June 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:Monthly clean-up category (Pages where template include size is exceeded) counter[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) 01:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is at Category:Pages where post-expand include size is exceeded and it doesn't have monthly categories. Gonnym (talk) 08:23, 21 June 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:Monthly clean-up category (Low linked articles) counter[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) 01:40, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Low linked articles has no monthly categories. Gonnym (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless there is evidence that the relevant template has been modified to make the category permanently empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category only ever contained categories of the form "Low linked articles from month year". Those categories were previously populated by {{orphan}}, which was modified to no longer populate them in Special:Diff/851003267. Since no monthly categories are populated by that template, none will ever be created, and therefore there won't be any to populate this category. Additionally, this can probably be speedy deleted as G8 once the parent Category:Low linked articles is deleted * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom and Pppery's analysis. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BrownHairedGirl. --Just N. (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Have I not provided the evidence she asked for in my deletion rationale? * Pppery * it has begun... 17:52, 29 June 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:Monthly clean-up category (Articles that do not specify whether all their radiocarbon dates are calibrated or not) counter[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Articles that do not specify whether all their radiocarbon dates are calibrated or not has no monthly categories. Gonnym (talk) 08:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless there is evidence that the relevant template has been modified to make the category permanently empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This does appear the be theoretically populable, as Template:Clarify radiocarbon calibration and Template:clarify radiocarbon calibration in section exist and do populate categories of the form "Articles that do not specify whether all their radiocarbon dates are calibrated or not from month year". This category is correctly counting that no such categories currently exist, not an unused relic that should be deleted, although there's a lot of other cleanup that someone could do to this template set. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:08, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    The creator seems to have been confused about whether they were trying to create a dated category or an undated category, and followed some but not all of the steps of Wikipedia:Creating a dated maintenance category, which caused this mess to arise. I've now converted the series into a proper dated category, so the counter category is no longer empty. I'm fine with someone doing the opposite, and removing all dated-category-related code (which includes deleting this category) and turning this into a fully-undated category, but the half-implemented state is worse than either end so I had to choose one. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:57, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Just N. (talk) 15:37, 28 June 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:Monthly clean-up category (Articles missing payload orbit parameters) counter[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) 01:44, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Articles missing payload orbit parameters has no monthly categories. Gonnym (talk) 08:20, 21 June 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:Monthly clean-up category (TV articles of unclear notability) counter[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) 21:18, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category is actually at Category:Television articles with topics of unclear notability but it doesn't have any monthly sub-categories. Gonnym (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless there is evidence that the relevant template has been modified to make the category permanently empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category only ever contained categories of the form "TV articles of unclear notability from month year". Those categories were previously populated by {{notability}}, which was modified to no longer populate them in Special:Diff/862482169. Since no monthly categories are populated by that template, none will ever be created, and therefore there won't be any to populate this category. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Pppery's analysis. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:35, 26 June 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:Monthly clean-up category (Articles with uncited categories) counter[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) 21:19, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Articles with uncited categories has no monthly categories Gonnym (talk) 08:17, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. AFAICS, I created that category because it was listed at Special:WantedCategories. Has the nominator @Gonnym checked whether the relavnt cleanup template has been modified in some way since then? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose unless there is evidence that the relevant template has been modified to make the category permanently empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:58, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Question @BrownHairedGirl: What forum would be the right venue to reach consensus on changing what admin categories a template creates? - RevelationDirect (talk) 09:43, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RevelationDirect: I dunno. My concern here is narrower: whether the relevant templates(s) are no longer capable of populating monthly categories. I am not so concerned about the merits of that; my interest is that if the templates are still capable of populating monthly cats, then we need these parent categories. OTOH, if the templates can no longer populate monthly cats, then the parents can be deleted.
      Unfortunately, this series of nominations appears to have been made without any effort to find ot what happened ... so we don't know if the current emptiness is permanent or transient. If we delete categories which are going to be populated again, that will just create more work for those cleaning up Special:WantedCategories. So I oppose deletion at least until we know how these categories came to be empty. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      Any template can have dates set and populate monthly categories, that isn't an issue, you just add a |date= parameter and pipe the category in the template. The question is, do these need it? Which is why CfD exists. The relevant people cleaning up these categories can see the discussion notification and say if it is needed. This template as an example, has the following code {{Template other|<!-- Will not categorize if transcluded into the template namespace -->|Articles with uncited categories}}, which shows that it does not use dates, which makes this category a permanently empty category. This was changed by User:Anomie on 24 April 2019‎. That took less than a minute, your mass votes probably took more. As someone who is mass voting, you could, you know, take the time to look at the code yourself and form an educated opinion on the matter, but it is clearly easier to throw blame at others. How unsurprisingly BHG. Gonnym (talk) 11:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      How utterly unsurprisingly Gonnym that Gonnym chooses to blame me for the fact the Gonnym chose not to do the homework on their own nominations.
      Note that I made no direct or indirect criticism of that omission until Gonnym chose to try blaming me. I was quite happy to consider it as oversight, or as something that Gonnym was unsure how to investigate, so I made no criticism; I just noted the omission.
      Clean up your act, Gonnym, and cut out this game of sniping at others for your own omissions. You have played it before, and it's very tedious. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category only ever contained categories of the form "Articles with uncited categories from month year". Those categories were previously populated by {{uncited category}}, which was modified to no longer populate them in Special:Diff/893923391. Since no monthly categories are populated by that template, none will ever be created, and therefore there won't be any to populate this category. * Pppery * it has begun... 15:14, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Pppery's analysis. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:36, 26 June 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:The Beatles and radio[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Category:The Beatles and radio

Category:The Beatles and television[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 26#Category:The Beatles and television

Category:Films with White Washed Characters[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) 03:50, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a distinct trait of the films in the category, seems to border on trivia. I'm leaning towards deletion but if it is kept, the name should be changed to "Whitewashing in film". Dominicmgm (talk) 07:01, 21 June 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.

Indian Jain monarchs[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories in this tree have 1-3 articles, only one has 5. The total amount of articles in the tree is 14. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 21 June 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:Auburn hair[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, contains only two articles. I suggest upmerging. Auburn hair can go in all three categories; I'm not sure that Circassian beauties should be in any of these categories at all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 21 June 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:Biographical dictionaries of women writers[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a small category per WP:SMALLCAT. It can be upmerged to its parents. Note that there is no Category:Biographical dictionaries of writers. (If such a category were created, I estimate that it could have six or seven articles in it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:59, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge Per nom with no objection to recreating if it ever gets to 5+ potential articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:36, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 15:51, 28 June 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:Members of the House of Commons of Canada with military service[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: rename and purge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Purging Of all loose biography articles
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME
It is very common for countries to have military veterans in their national parliaments/assemblies, so much so that it's probably non-defining for individuals. The vast majority of this category contains list articles which seems to be the original intent but individual biographies have gradually been added over time. This nomination is to clarify that the purpose of this category is for lists. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:43, 21 June 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:Masters of foxhounds[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 July 30#Category:Masters of foxhounds

source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_June_21

Leave a Reply