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.
So, by that logic, we should also delete Category:2016 births, since why would someone want to read a list of infants? Canuck89(have words with me) 11:49, January 4, 2017 (UTC)
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.
Shooting in FooCountry
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.
Nominator's rationale: The phrase "Shooting in FooCountry" is ambiguous, because it can reasonably be read to include school shootings and other forms of gun crime. The scope of these categories is for shooting sport, as defined by a hatnote on each category page. It would be better to make the scope explicit in the title, following both the head article Shooting sport and the containing Category:Shooting sports by country (parent Category:Shooting sports).
I can see arguments in favour of both the singular and the plural forms, so I have listed the both as options. So far, I have no preference between them; both resolve the ambiguity, so either is fine by me.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors below make a good case for preferring the plural form (Option B), and I am persuaded by it. I still support either option, but now prefer "B". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:09, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
:Actually, as a User:en-gb, this is one of those occasions where that rule doesn't apply. To these British English ears it feels more natural to refer to shooting sports - biathlon versus target shooting versus "hunting" are a group of distinct sports rather than the collective noun for a single sport.Le Deluge (talk) 17:25, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, though Option B sounds better to me. We have the slight discrepancy that the top level category is Category:Shooting sports but the main article is Shooting sport. Because the article lists a variety of sports, I think "sports" is more correct in the circumstances. Sionk (talk) 11:17, 2 January 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:Corporate finance
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.
Nominator's rationale:merge, the target consists only of two subcategories, so there is one redundant category layer. In addition the nominated category and the target category have the same JEL tag on the category page. (A reverse merge is also possible.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 31 December 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:Order of the Colonial Empire
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 Portuguese wikipedia says the canonical source of the recipient is here. You have to select between "cidadãos nacionais" (national citizens) or "cidadãos estrangeiros" (foreign citizens) on the bottom left menu. From a quick google search on a couple of recipients, it is a defining characteristic of Salazar, but not of Eça de Queiroz. Therefore, I'd rather have it kept.
Comment Clearly this wasn't a purely colonial decoration, although it was perhaps more so than say the Category:Order of the British Empire. However, for someone in Mozambique or Cape Verde I'd suggest that certainly the higher levels of this (certainly Grand Officer, perhaps lower) were at least as defining as Category:Congressional Gold Medal recipients or some of the Category:Order of the British Empire recipients. Whether that is defining enough for Wikipedia I leave to others, but without getting too WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-y I think we should at least be consistent on high-level civilian decorations, and not have one rule for the US/UK and another for "foreigners in Africa". Broadly it seems to be that the top levels of civilian awards are considered defining, roughly of a level equivalent to British knighthoods, of which ~60 are awarded per year in a population of 60 million. So I'd suggest a loose "1 in a million" rule when it comes to these things, I'm not sure where that would put the cut-off here.Le Deluge (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note that we categorise all levels of the Order of the British Empire and all the other British honours, from lowest to highest. So this is actually a non-issue. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually have no idea if this award would be defining for the colonial people for which it was intended. We don't have any of those articles to look at, either because the recipients are not notable or because African biographies are under-represented in Wikipedia. But, ultimately, categories are designed to aid navigation and readers clicking on this one would probably be looking for biographies of people in Africa or Asia but all they would find today would be high-ranking Europeans. (If and when these other biography articles show up, that would be a good point to re-evaluate.)RevelationDirect (talk) 03:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you'll find that it was predominantly aimed at Portuguese people serving in the colonies, not people from the colonial territories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:59, 1 February 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:Recipients of the Order of Pahlevi
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 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:British zombie comedy films
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.
Nominator's rationale: With so few entries in both cats, sub-categorization seems needless. 2600:1008:B044:86A7:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 (talk) 01:30, 31 December 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:Wikipedians who put really really long redlinked categories at the bottom of their userpage as a conversation piece
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 but don't empty. Early closure per WP:IAR, to declutter CFD. This is one of a series of CFDs on joke user categories which I am closing in exactly in the same way. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Extended rationale until recently, these categories existed only as redlinks on a single userpage, or occasionally on one or two other userpages There is no support for keeping any of them as category pages, so the issue at stake is whether to also delete the entry from the user page, or leave it as a redlink.
The category page itself was one of a series created byUser:Rathfelder, who believes that a category should either exist properly with a category page, or not at all. In other words, the creation of these categories was an attempt to eliminate redlinked joke categories on user pages. That's a rational view, which Rathfelder is entitled to hold. However, the effect of creating category pages for all these redlinked joke categories has been to trigger CFD debates on deletion, flooding CFD with a series on near-identical debates on the same question: is it permissible for a userpage to contain a redlinked catefory? Whatever anyone's views on that question, WP:MULTI applies. This question should be resolved by a centralised discussion, rather than by cluttering CFD pages with a series of discussions on the same question. So this early closure restores the status quo ante, without prejudice to the outcome of any centralised discussion. WP:RFC is thataway, folks. ---BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a bad joke gone badly wrong - the "redlinked" is a clue that this category was never supposed to actually exist and was simply a way of trying to "out-EEng" EEng. Ritchie333(talk)(cont)00:41, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, this CfD stuff is a whole new world of crazy I didn't even know existed. Just above we've got someone worrying about whether Category:British zombie comedy films should be merged to Category:British zombie films. Talk about deck chairs on the Titanic! EEng02:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, crazy that a legitimate CfD entry somehow slipped into this chat page. --2600:1008:B044:86A7:5980:1AD4:B2A9:E1B9 (talk) 02:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really create any of them except the idiosycratic one - which I will defend, as I think its useful. All the others I merely regularised. I don't object to people making jokes. What I object to is having them all appear as red links in the list of categories. If they are to be deleted I want them deleted from the pages where they exist.Rathfelder (talk) 10:24, 31 December 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:Women scientists by century
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.
Nominator's rationale: Hierarchy was 'Women scientists by period' > Women scientists by century, Ancient women scientists, Medieval scientists. (1) While a century can be conceived as a subunit of a longer period, it is also a period in it's own right so it is a redundant level. (2) There are only going to be about 8 subcats in the Period (Ancient, Medieval, 15th, 16th, etc.) so it is unnecessary and cumbersome to create the "by century" sub category. (3) An individual may conceive of the centuries to be subunits in their own mental hierarchy but that does not mean the wiki categories need to mirror that instead of being pragmatic JBVaughan (talk) 00:24, 31 December 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.
X
Diese Website benutzt Cookies. Wenn du die Website weiter nutzt, gehe Ich von Deinem Einverständnis aus.OKNeinDatenschutzerklärung
