Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 15

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 15

[edit]

Category:Star Wars Anthology films

[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn, though merging somewhere is a live option and could be discussed in a nomination that proposes that. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:13, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. While Lucasfilm previously announced the spin-off series to be "Star Wars Anthology", they are now referring to them as "Star Wars stories", with the naming convention being "TITLE: A Star Wars Story". Hence, the first name in the series is "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story". DARTHBOTTO talkcont 20:02, 15 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.

Category:Hasidic communities displaced, diminished, or destroyed by the Holocaust

[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. MER-C 11:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think we don't need this, or at least not with this name, so raise a discussion. Debresser (talk) 17:48, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron, there is no need to merge, since they are all already in such a category. Merging is a rather specific process, and should not be recommended when not applicable. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 16 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.

Category:Opponents of the Articles of Perth

[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, without prejudice to creation of a new category, as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT, only two articles of which one article claims it was the only D.D. vote against the Articles of Perth. Probably no need to upmerge to Category:Puritans since neither of the two articles mentions Puritanism. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and repurpose -- I think there is room for a rather wider category. The Five Articles of Perth (correct name) were James VI & I's attempt to impose Anglicanism on the Church of Scotland. This resulted in a period of unrest in Scotland, leading to the Bishops Wars. I am not good on the history of the Church of Scotland, but there was a significant struggle between Presbyterianism and Episcopalianism in Scotland. We probably need a category for that (if we do not have one) dealing with this period of conflict. WE have Covenanter and Category:Covenanter, but they deal with the events of 1638 and beyond. I have not got a clear view on what my proposed category should be called. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 16 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.

Category:People born in Monken Hadley

[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. MER-C 11:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories mean the same thing, but "People from" is preferred. Auric talk 14:12, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Born in" was created in error. I blanked it which I thought would lead to its automatic deletion. Philafrenzy (talk) 14:56, 15 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.

Category:Netherlands Reformed Congregations Christians from the Netherlands‎

[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) 01:10, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article which isn't even a biography. Probably no need to upmerge, the parents of this category aren't really appropriate targets and the one article in the category has been parented well. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:54, 15 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.

Category:Kingdom of England emigrants to the Thirteen Colonies‎

[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: procedural closure. Nomination was withdrawn without !votes. (non-admin closure) Kraxler (talk) 20:15, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge because it's not clear how the two categories distinguish themselves from each other, especially when taking in mind that the Thirteen Colonies did not exist yet during the Kingdom of England. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:30, 15 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.

Category:Lay Puritans

[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) 01:09, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge for consistency, with people by religious belief categories we usually do not have a separate Lay subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge as it's not very clear what "patron" implies in this context. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:54, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Or then inflicted it under the Commonwealth.... Johnbod (talk) 03:39, 22 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.

Days in year

[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) 01:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Deprecated as replaced by Category:2003 by day, etc. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 00:23, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The "by day" categories aren't holding mainspace redirects from individual dates; they're holding portalspace "current events" subpages. That's why they're "different": they're not serving the same purpose that the categories which have been nominated here are serving. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- As far as I can see both categories consist entirely of redirects: that makes it a pointless category. The one item that I looked at appeared to have been merged into an article on the month February 2004 and I presume that applies generally. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Wikipedia has long had a consensus against creating separate mainspace articles for every individual day in any given year, so these exist only as redirects to a longer article about the month rather than standalone articles about the individual day — and in that context, there's no need for every individual day's individual redirect to be categorized as such. The fact that we have a different category scheme for a different type of dated content, located in portalspace instead of mainspace, does not make these necessary. Bearcat (talk) 18:35, 16 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.