Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 August 23

< August 22	August 24 >

August 23

Category:Fictional hills

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 to Category:Fictional natural features of Earth. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:41, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Fictional hills (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a WP:SMALLCAT that simply doesn't have enough notable articles to ever form a meaningful category. Shooterwalker (talk) 15:42, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Fictional natural features of Earth (rather than delete) per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Fictional natural features of Earth. I can't foresee much potential for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 12:18, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as nominator, I support an upmerge if it will help close this discussion. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:58, 14 October 2020 (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:Defunct newsletters of wikiprojects

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Category:Defunct newsletters of wikiprojects

Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 October 25#Divisional Secretariats of Sri Lanka

Category:Old Testament editions

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 to Category:Hebrew Bible versions and translations, except for Benedictine Vulgate. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Old Testament editions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and one subcategory. The article Benedictine Vulgate should be moved to Category:Old Testament, but the subcategory shouldn't as it is part of the Hebrew Bible tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle: I added articles to the category. Veverve (talk) 12:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All these articles should be moved to Category:Hebrew Bible versions and translations. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Hebrew Bible versions and translations & delete. Johnbod (talk) 20:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, but with the exception of Benedictine Vulgate. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support the Benedictine Vulgate cannot be included in "Hebrew Bible versions and translations" since it includes deutrocanonical books that were sourced from Greek originals. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:19, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category includes 9 articles, so WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. Dimadick (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As said, the articles that were added later belong in Category:Hebrew Bible versions and translations. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed, since the Benedictine doesn't qualify for the other suggested category. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:39, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support suggested merger -- The presence of deutrocanonical books should not affect this as there are parts of the "Hebrew Bible" that are in fact in Chaldean. LL's objection will best be resolved by ensuring that the article has categories appropriate to having editions of the apocrypha. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:09, 27 August 2020 (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.

Suburbs of Noosa Shire smallcats

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: manual deletion. MER-C 18:44, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually deleting:

2-page categories

3-page categories

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 5 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Noosa Shire, Queensland, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Noosa Shire, Queensland (so need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Noosa Shire, Queensland (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manually delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 23 August 2020 (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.

Suburbs of Mount Isa smallcats

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: manual deletion. MER-C 18:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually deleting:

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Both of these subcats of Category:Suburbs of Mount Isa, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one other page.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Mount Isa (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Mount Isa (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manually delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:56, 23 August 2020 (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.

Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region smallcats

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: manual deletion. MER-C 18:43, 10 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose manually deleting:

2-page categories

3-page categories

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Each of these 11 subcats of Category:Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region, Australia is tiny, and likely to have little chance of expansion. They each currently contain only the head article plus one or two other pages.

In each case, the head article is already in Category:Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region (so no need to merge), and the other pages don't belong in Category:Suburbs of Moreton Bay Region (so merger would be wrong). But the categories should be manually checked to ensure that all pages are adequately categorised.

I haven't checked for the availability of other articles to expand the categories; there are too many of these Australian smallcats to check. However, I make the nomination without prejudice to re-creating any of them which can be legitimately populated with more than five pages.

As with many New South Wales locations, the creation of geographical subcats in Queensland has been indiscriminate. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manually delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2020 (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:RTT

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 to Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate Timrollpickering (talk) 18:45, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation. RTT is dab page, but this page is a Wikipedia maintenance category relating to the WP:WikiProject Medicine/Translation_task_force. It needs renaming somehow, and "Wikipedia RTT" is just my opening suggestion. There may be better ideas.
Note that the category is related to this tool[1], which may need to be tweaked to support the rename. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename For clarity. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the talk page "RTT" stands for "Ready to translate", so a better name should be "Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate" or something. --Gonnym (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's fine by me. My main concern is that we disambiguate somehow. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support alt rename to Category:Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate in order to avoid acronyms. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting comment: consensus is to rename, but to what? MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: would you also agree with Category:Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:00, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was actually gonna close this as a rename to the title Marcocapelle suggested (assuming that nearly two months of silence meant no real objections), but I wanted to let Magnus Manske know about it and give him time to potentially fix up his tool that BHG linked to [2]. But the relist is fine too; there's no rush. bibliomaniac 1 5 17:58, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification Support Category:Wikipedia medicine articles ready to translate. (This is a follow up to my iVote above.) RevelationDirect (talk) 22:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addit to above: Please also take into account this related category: Category:RTTEM. These are Wikiproject categories (Actually they are more like meta categories as the content relates to non-English Wikipedias) and I wonder if it is more appropriate to link to them on talk page space.--Tom (LT) (talk) 04:30, 10 October 2020 (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:Aboriginal Shire of Kowanyama

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 21:43, 14 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Aboriginal Shire of Kowanyama (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT: contains only one article Kowanyama, Queensland.
Even if the head article Aboriginal Shire of Kowanyama, that's still only 2 articles, and I haven't found anything else to be added.
The article Kowanyama, Queensland is already adequately categorised, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is a current local government area and WP:SMALLCAT does say "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" which is the case here. We have (or should have) categories for all current LGAs, because Queensland is the 6th largest state in the world so we do need to have geographical sub-division. And given that this is an Indigenous Shire, this runs the risk of being perceived as culturally insensitive/offensive (particularly with the worldwide protests about #BlackLivesMatter) Kerry (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kerry Raymond, this is about the 150th SMALLCAT created by you which I have CFDed in the last few days, as I cleaned up the forest of smallcats for Australian localities. It's a great pity that you didn't exercise some restraint in creating them, but it's nice to see you finally bothering to respond to one of the 27 notifications currently on your talk page.
  There is no benefit to anyone in having a category for every LGA if there aren't articles to populate them, and the geographical size of the state is irrelevant: per WP:CAT, the primary purpose of categories is navigation, and a category of only one article is precisely zero help to navigation. The aboriginal status of this category is also irrelevant: other smallcats have also been nominated, e.g. Category:Shire of Pittsworth (CFD). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shire of Pittsworth is not a current local government area, that's the difference. A better place to discuss Australian categories would be at the Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board and build consensus there. Kerry (talk) 07:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kerry Raymond. Categories are routinely discussed at CFD, and any interested editors can join this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, all Aboriginal Shires in Queensland are exceptionally poorly populated. Would it make sense to merge them? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MER-C 09:55, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I struck my previous comment. Kerry Raymond is right that the smallcat exception rule applies here ("unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"). Hence concur with the oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:06, 23 August 2020 (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:1786 in Ohio

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: dual merge Timrollpickering (talk) 14:51, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:1786 in Ohio to Category:1786 in the United States and Category:Pre-statehood history of Ohio

Nominator's rationale: Anachronism. Ohio didn't become a state until 1803, the preceding Northwest Territory wasn't established until 1787. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:36, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dual merge also to Category:Pre-statehood history of Ohio. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:07, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Marcocapelle. I have added that second merge target to the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:26, 23 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge. Good catch. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 21:41, 24 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dual merge is certainly the right answer. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 27 August 2020 (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.