Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 15 March 17 >

March 16[edit]

Category:Auto-inflammatory diseases[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) 07:26, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These have different parent categories, but seem to have the same scope, with Periodic fever syndrome as the main article. Merge and combine the parent categories from both onto the target. Note: This was tagged by an anon editor in January without starting a discussion. – Fayenatic London 23:51, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
copy of short discussion on category talk page

@Doc James and CFCF: Hi, I suggest to merge this category with Category:Autoinflammatory syndromes. Kindly, your opinion --محمود (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do not do much with categories but would agree with you. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:01, 20 July 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:Azteca (multimedia conglomerate)[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: speedily renamed already. – Fayenatic London 22:28, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: After several years as just "Azteca", in 2015 TV Azteca restored the TV in its name. See also my requested move at Requested move 16 March 2017, which I took over from a block-evading IP. Raymie (t • c) 22:27, 16 March 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:Middle schools in China[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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 29 as category is not tagged. – Fayenatic London 12:02, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To avoid a lack of confusion between the Chinese "zhongxue" (中学) which literally means "middle school" but actually refers to any secondary school, and the American definition of a "middle school" (Which is equivalent to the Chinese "chuzhong" 初中) - The Chinese government has used this terminology on its education official website http://en.people.cn/92824/94785/94788/6454886.html WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but the category currently contains lots of combined junior- and senior - secondary schools, so the category will need to be reviewed after renaming. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:01, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, currently the articles in the category are named Middle school too. If there is any confusion about that term, it would be better to start renaming the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 19 March 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:High schools in China[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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 29 as category is not correctly tagged. – Fayenatic London 12:03, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To avoid a lack of confusion between the Chinese "zhongxue" (中学) which literally means "middle school" but actually refers to any secondary school, and the American definition of a "middle school" (Which is equivalent to the Chinese "chuzhong" 初中 - The Chinese Ministry of Education uses "senior secondary school" in English: http://en.moe.gov.cn/Resources/Statistics/edu_stat_2015/2015_en01/201610/t20161012_284488.html - Note that the Chinese word for the American definition of "high school" and the English "sixth-form" would be gaozhong 高中. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, but as above the category will need reviewing after renaming to move combined junior- and senior - secondary schools. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 18:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment, currently the articles in the category are mostly named High school too. If there is any confusion about that term, it would be better to start renaming the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 19 March 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:Fictional pickpockets[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) 07:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only 3 articles in it right now, and it doesn't really seem likely for growth. JDDJS (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom A subcategorization of thieves by specialty seems to be unnecessary. Dimadick (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom I also question whether fictional characters who stoop to thievery but don't make a profession of it really belong; i.e. we have Category:Fictional professional thieves‎ which apparently leaves this category for the amateur or occasional thieves - even Sherlock Holmes, Inspector Morse, and Hercule Poirot have stolen at some point in their adventures, but I'd hardly call them thieves. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:54, 23 March 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:Frisia stubs[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 both (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created out of process, empty for 6 months except for {{Frisia-stub}}, which should also be deleted. Her Pegship (talk) 18:17, 16 March 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:UBX-0[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 close, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Playground category. Useless. Kleuske (talk) 13:02, 16 March 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:UBXn[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 close, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless category. Playground stuff Kleuske (talk) 13:01, 16 March 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:XD[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 close, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Playground category. Useless. Kleuske (talk) 12:48, 16 March 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:StopXD[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 close, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Playground category. No definition Kleuske (talk) 12:47, 16 March 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:UserCeption[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 close, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Playground. No definition. Kleuske (talk) 12:46, 16 March 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:Meme users[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 close, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Playground category. No clear definition Kleuske (talk) 12:45, 16 March 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:UBX[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 close, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Playground category, no clear definition. Kleuske (talk) 12:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ya like jazz?[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 close, category has already been deleted (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a category of articles. User has been treating WP as a playground creating many of categories like this. Kleuske (talk) 12:36, 16 March 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:People from Berlin Township, New Jersey[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 !votes to keep were based on WP:SMALLCAT's exceptions for 1) "a category which does have realistic potential for growth"; 2) categories which are part of a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
I will take those two point one at a time:
  1. No evidence was offered to support the claim that this township had "potential for growth"
  2. Those supporting merger noted that there is a not an overall accepted scheme of categorising people by every small place, and that there is a long history at CFD of merging ppl-by-small-populated_place-in-the-USA categories to the parent "People from Foo County" category.
The numbers were evenly tied here, but a closer's job is not to simply count heads. The arguments for merger are more firmly rooted in policy and fact, so the result is "merge". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just three entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SMALLCAT states: "this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". People in a township have the potential. Jack | talk page 16:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment People from Foo categories of small one-county communities have been merged at CFD many times if the community has five or less entries. Note here[1] as just one example and also involved similar sized New Jersey communities....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Question: While this isn't relevant to New Jersey cities, note that in some states cities can cross county boundaries. What would happen in the case of "People from Foo" where "Foo" was in multiple counties? @WilliamJE: WhisperToMe (talk) 22:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Answer I don't remember the specific CFD(s) but a one notabe person community in multiple counties survived CFD. Here's a CFD[2] where the nominator withdrew one category from discussion after several editors opposed its merger based on it being multiple county.22:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Keep Per the actual wording of WP:SMALLCAT: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country", which simply doesn't apply here. Similar categories have started out small and grown as other editors work to build this encyclopedia. The category already has multiple entries and is part of the well-defined structure of Category:People from Camden County, New Jersey, which in turn has several hundred fully viable partners within Category:People by county in New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is not an "overall accepted subcategorization scheme" of every populated place always automatically getting one of these the moment there are one or two articles to file in it — the "overall accepted subcategorization scheme" for this tree is that a place can have one if there are enough articles to justify it, while smaller places just get catted at the county level. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are more articles to file here than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed yesterday's similar discussions as merge and commented "The arguments in favor of keep have been refuted by editors in favor of delete by arguments that are factually correct (longstanding consensus and no overall accepted subcategorization scheme by populated place) and thereafter editors in favor of keep made no further attempts to convince their opponents by new arguments." That it is the same here.
I won't actually close this discussion, because after some retrospective talk about yesterday's closure I may well count as involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 1 April 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:People from Fredon Township, New Jersey[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 !votes to keep were based on WP:SMALLCAT's exceptions for 1) "a category which does have realistic potential for growth"; 2) categories which are part of a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
I will take those two point one at a time:
  1. No evidence was offered to support the claim that this township had "potential for growth"
  2. Those supporting merger noted that there is a not an overall accepted scheme of categorising people by every small place, and that there is a long history at CFD of merging ppl-by-small-populated_place-in-the-USA categories to the parent "People from Foo County" category.
The numbers were evenly tied here, but a closer's job is not to simply count heads. The arguments for merger are more firmly rooted in policy and fact, so the result is "merge". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:33, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county community with just 3 entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:36, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:SMALLCAT states: "this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time". People in a township have the potential. Jack | talk page 16:46, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment People from Foo categories of small one-county communities have been merged at CFD many times if the community has five or less entries. Note here[3] as just one example and also involved similar sized New Jersey communities....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:02, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the actual wording of WP:SMALLCAT: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country", which simply doesn't apply here. Similar categories have started out small and grown as other editors work to build this encyclopedia. The category already has multiple entries and is part of the well-defined structure of Category:People from Sussex County, New Jersey, which in turn has several hundred fully viable partners within Category:People by county in New Jersey. Alansohn (talk) 21:28, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is not an "overall accepted subcategorization scheme" of every populated place always automatically getting one of these the moment there are one or two articles to file in it — the "overall accepted subcategorization scheme" for this tree is that a place can have one if there are enough articles to justify it, while smaller places just get catted at the county level. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when there are more articles to file here than this. Bearcat (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed yesterday's similar discussions as merge and commented "The arguments in favor of keep have been refuted by editors in favor of delete by arguments that are factually correct (longstanding consensus and no overall accepted subcategorization scheme by populated place) and thereafter editors in favor of keep made no further attempts to convince their opponents by new arguments." That it is the same here.
I won't actually close this discussion, because after some retrospective talk about yesterday's closure I may well count as involved. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:07, 1 April 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:Christian denominations by denominational family[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: relist at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 29, category was not tagged. – Fayenatic London 12:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Controversial category. No equivalent Wikipedia article, almost no interwiki links for same reasons. Bordering WP:Original research. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:55, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is a subcat scheme, completely standard and uncontroversial. Oculi (talk) 10:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Any reference to a neutral prevalence of a so called "denominational family" per WP:NPOV, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 12:26, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then a rename to Category:Christian denominations by denomination would be a good idea (it's not tagged so nothing will happen). There is Category:Christian denominational families, which gave rise to a long cfd in 2015. Oculi (talk) 12:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, rather confusing. What's wrong with simply Category:Christian denominations? What is the clear difference between a so called "denomination family", and in fact a denomination, simply? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:37, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then another problem would arise: what is a "family of denominations"? Any WP:NPOV reference to what that is, please? Chicbyaccident (talk) 10:39, 1 April 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_16&oldid=1074282950"