Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 19

< October 18 October 20 >

October 19

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) 07:09, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unused, replaced by Category:Wikipedia files with disputed copyright information FASTILY 22:18, 19 October 2017 (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:Lok Sabha constituencies in Kerala abolished in 1956

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: upmerge to Lok Sabha constituencies in [Foo], Constituencies disestablished in XXXX, XXXX disestablishments in India and Category:Defunct constituencies of the Lok Sabha. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:46, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are too specific when e.g. Category:Defunct constituencies of the Lok Sabha and Category:Constituencies disestablished in 1956 exist. I am open to the creation of e.g. Category:Defunct constituencies of the Lok Sabha in Kerala as replacements. Number 57 19:50, 19 October 2017 (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.

Edinburgh Comedy Awards

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. A list of winners exists at List of Edinburgh Comedy Award winners. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:25, 29 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NOTDEFINING characteristic. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 19 October 2017 (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 with way too much time on their hands

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) 07:11, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit us to group users by this characteristic. VegaDark (talk) 04:40, 19 October 2017 (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 put coloured oblongs on their Userpage to advertise their awesomeness

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) 07:13, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Joke/nonsense category. VegaDark (talk) 04:36, 19 October 2017 (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:Wikipedia adults disgusted by The Wikipedia Adventure

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) 07:15, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. It does not benefit us to group users by this characteristic. VegaDark (talk) 04:23, 19 October 2017 (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 prefer minor edits

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) 07:17, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This single-user category (the sole member has been inactive since 2008) does not facilitate encyclopedic collaboration. A minor edit is one where "only superficial differences exist between the current and previous versions", so they are appropriate in some situations and not in others. Putting aside the question of whether it is even helpful to know if an individual user prefers minor edits, there is certainly no value in creating a grouping of users (i.e. a user category) who prefer minor edits. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2017 (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.
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. ℯxplicit 06:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The use of "local" links for interlanguage linking was deprecated in February 2013, with this data being centralized on Wikidata. Therefore, this category has been superseded by Category:Wikipedians who contribute to Wikidata. I am not proposing to merge to avoid miscategorizing users who used to add local links but no longer do so through Wikidata. (Pinging User:OlEnglish as a potentially interested party.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:17, 19 October 2017 (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.

Archbishops by diocese in country Foo

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, and rename where target without "by diocese" does not exist. That is:
– Fayenatic London 11:25, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Bosnia and Herzegovina to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Croatia to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Croatia
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Czechia to Category:Catholic bishops by diocese in the Czech Republic
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Hungary to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Hungary
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in the Republic of Ireland to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in the Republic of Ireland
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Portugal to Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Portugal
Category:Roman Catholic archbishops by diocese in Sweden to Category:Catholic bishops by diocese in Sweden
Nominator's rationale Most European countries are so small that only a couple of archbishops are present. Many only have a single archbishop. A handful have more than 4. Should be deleted per WP:Smallcat. A triple intersection of archbishop / diocese / country is excessive. The usual Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Foo is sufficient to contain them as all archbishops are just bishops. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:31, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind instead rephrasing the proposal so as to merge them with more relevant, respective categories, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 16:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Amended to "Merge" as suggested. Laurel Lodged (talk)
@Laurel Lodged: Thank you. Looks more convenient a proposal. However, still not sure, though. Would have to consider more arguments. On a side note, why don't you consider dropping the largely deciprated "Roman" disambiguator for the merge destination while you're at it? Chicbyaccident (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either do this for all countries or for none, to keep the category tree consistent. However if upmerged there must also be a second merge target, for example, it should also be merged to Category:Roman Catholic archbishops in Croatia. The latter would be a more important reason to merge, because every archbishops category contains hardly anything but the by-diocese subcategory. That is even the case in the larger countries, so this is a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm beginning to think that my original proposal to delete was more correct. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably keep -- I agree that 2-4 per country is on the small side, according to the normal arguments; while archbishops are by their ordination merely a variety of bishop. Nevertheless, they are bishops in authority over other bishops. As such the numbers are inevitably small, but the normal solution would be to merge with a higher category, not a lower one, but there is nothing higher that is obvious to use until we get to continent, but that is too high. We might theoetically merge Spain and Portugal to Iberia; Ireland, England, etc to British Isles; Croatia, Bosnia, Roumania, etc to Balkans; etc, butthat would not be normal practice. Accordingly Keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that for now (pending further discussion) we still have the possibility to merge the archbishops-by-diocese categories to the plain archbishops categories, so keeping them all within the same country. That is something we may well do. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. For now go with the merges. Later we'll talk about further deletions / upmerges. Will also need to rename to be rid of the deprecated "Roman" part. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:35, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - if kept, the ...Czechia category should be renamed to ...Czech Republic. The term Czechia is, to the best of my knowledge, not used in WP's category trees. Grutness...wha? 03:34, 19 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merging to a bishops category would not be totally wrong, an archbishop is not only archbishop of a province but also bishop of a diocese, similar to the fact that the pope is also bishop of Rome. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support this alternative. Chicbyaccident (talk) 19:49, 22 October 2017 (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.