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. – FayenaticLondon 09:16, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm proposing to delete all of these. None of these composers establish enough notability to warrant their own article, let alone an entire category dedicated to them. These are not useful or helpful for the average reader and most of these don't have a wide scope - some of these categories have like one or two articles listed. Namcokid47(Contribs) 20:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To avoid any confusion, I wanna make it clear that I am proposing these categories specifically be deleted. I am not proposing to eliminate every "video games composed by x" category, as some of these composers are actually notable and warrant such a category. I am only proposing that the categories listed here be deleted, as none of these composers establish any notability. Thanks. Namcokid47(Contribs) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am making sure these are cases where the listed composer is not notable, to which I'd agree. The general idea of a "Video games scored by X" where X is a notable person should be acceptable otherwise. --Masem (t) 21:50, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Specifically for non-notable composers, this is not a defining trait. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete iff the composer has no article and there are fewer than five articles in the category. Some games have scores by notable artists (e.g., David Bowie), and some composers are established enough to have scored dozens of games. Those who fail both of these hurdles, though, shouldn't have categories. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 2 June 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.
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 (as the target has contents) Timrollpickering (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Combine With to be consistent with the outcome is for the above nomination, whether I agree with it or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac15 19:03, 1 June 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:Reggae albums by Puerto Rican artists[edit]
Category:Redirects to Wikipedia project pages[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.
Nominator's rationale: We don't collect redirects by namespace of the target in other cases, why should we do so here? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. 7690 transclusions.. that just kind of just shows you right there it's a popular category. @1234qwer1234qwer4: It's also verifiably untrue that we don't do this for other namespaces because {{R from draft}} exists. Either way, I'd notify Template talk:R to project namespace about this nom. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 19:52, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Well, no. Your linked rcat is for collecting redirects "from pages in the draft namespace (drafts) to articles in mainspace". This category collects redirects from Wikipedia namespace to Wikipedia namespace. This is like collecting redirects from mainspace to mainspace. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@1234qwer1234qwer4: "from pages in the draft namespace (drafts) to articles in mainspace" is an example of a redirect "by namespace of the target" which was your original contention. –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 03:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: okay, maybe I have worded the nomination not clear enough; still, there is an explanation in the description of the category. This category explicitly collects redirects from project space to project space. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:38, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not correct. You can see in those categories that they are redirects within the same namespace. There are also categories for cross-namespace redirects. The naming is consistent. There's no category for all redirects within the main namespace because it would be unnecessary – all redirects that aren't in those other categories are in the mainspace. M.Clay1 (talk) 14:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, my comment would include a big keep because unfortunately the above premise is false. When we look at the functional indexofrcat templates, we find under Navigation aids the subsection called To namespaces. Nine rcats are listed that collect redirects by namespace of the target, rcats that categorize redirects by the namespace the targets are in. Each rcat template categorizes redirects to maintenance categories like this one, categories that are monitored by either individual editors or by bots. Long ago, editors found it to be an improvement to the project to monitor as many redirects as possible, which is why I've spent more than ten years finding uncatted redirects and sorting them to appropriate maintenance categories. So this category and its rcat template, {{R to project namespace}}, should continue to be utilized. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 11:39, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pleasure! Redirect categories are used to get a handle on the many and varied types of redirects. Categories readily show how many redirects are within it, and bots are used to extract other data from high volume categories. Some redirect maintenance categories are used to make sure redirects are not targeting the wrong namespaces and to find redirects that need to be mentioned on their target page, retargeted or deleted. There are probably several more data-collection tasks about which I don't have a clue for which redirect maintenance categories are used. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 18:42, 3 June 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.
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: A non-notable triple intersection of descent, nationality, and political party. User:Namiba 18:20, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both descent category; no explanation of how distant the descent may be, what reliable sources tell us that anyone is of that much, or that this is a notable intersection between nationality, career, and 'descent'. American politicians of Cuban descent notably doesn't exist. The closest article seems to be Hispanic and Latino conservatism in the United States which - apart from aggregating Cuban-Americans with those of an unspecified 'descent' - aggregates those of howeverly-defined 'Cuban-ness' with 'Mexican-ness', 'Puerto Rican-ness' and several dozen other '-ness'es, and then we have the difference between conservatives and Republicans. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. The parent category exists and has not been nominated, so deletion is currently not an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- all such categories were renamed to the target format some years ago, except American ones. The target format is to be preferred as being clearer. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 7 June 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.
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 Category:Redirects to a decade; revisit if unsatisfactory There's no support for the current name but opinion is divided all over on the destination with discussion having ground to a halt and unlikely to revive; this one has the most support Timrollpickering (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. The plural for the category is for the entries, which are "redirects. Each redirect goes to one decade, so "decade" should not be plural. Its rcat template is {{R to decade}}, not {{R to decades}}. If anything, a correct and more precise name would be Category:Redirects to a decade; however, the creators of this type of maintenance category appeared to prefer to leave out definite and indefinite articles, to be concise rather than precise. So this category name is acceptable just as it is. P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 21:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes the plural applies, sometimes it doesn't. There might be more than one modification or more than one diacritical mark in a target title or a redirect title. In this case, in never applies. These redirects always target only one decade, so it would be inappropriate to use "decades" (plural). I would not be averse to renaming the cat to Category:Redirects to a decade; although I could be wrong, it just seems there are much more pressing improvement needs on Wikipedia!P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 12:27, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paine Ellsworth: I would still say that the redirect "point to decades", not to "decade" or "a decade". While a single one always redirects to one decade, they don't target the same one. Would you really use "films about an animal" for films that only address one animal (but each a different one)? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:30, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I would. Either works, I suppose; however, "films about an animal" in this case is more precise than "films about animals" (imho). P.I. Ellsworthed.put'r there 22:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support as nominated. Each redirect is only to one target, but we still use plurals in category names both for "redirects" and for the description of the targets, see [1]. – FayenaticLondon 21:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alt renametoCategory:Redirects to decade articles. The indefinite article doesn't really make sense given our conventions, and the mere plural "decades" seems, for lack of a better policy-related rationale, rather strange. I think if specificity is our main goal, the best way to put it is probably using "decade articles." bibliomaniac15 02:54, 10 June 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.
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: From the description, this should be called "Retired ISO 639-3 codes". 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As the creator of the cats, I support this and the following 2 requests. — kwami (talk) 22:33, 1 June 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.
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: From the description, this should be called "Dubious ISO 639-3 redirects". 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:17, 1 June 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.
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.
I agree with merging. Originally I thought there was a possibility of one or two more articles on reported minor naval bases at Yanbu, Dammam and Mishab. However, I have struggled to find sufficient reliable sources for them. Sildemund (talk) 20:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree with merging these too. If I can find or write new relevant articles, I will recreate these categories. Sildemund (talk) 19:00, 3 June 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.
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.
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.
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:Harvard University alumni from Peru[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.
Nominator's rationale: Feels like WP:OVERCATEGORISATION, there's no other country of origin categories for Harvard and I don't think it's something we should encourage? Le Deluge (talk) 11:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as a trivial intersection. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per trivia - surprised we don't have alumni by Peruvian descent, but that'll come no doubt around here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 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.
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: I am not sure what the Seminole Caucus is. There is no article about it and the description in the category is not clear. It seems to be anon-defining Florida legislative caucus. User:Namiba 11:39, 1 June 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.
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: There is no scheme of [genre] by record label. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:27, 1 June 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.
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: Redlink record label ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:26, 1 June 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.
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, overly precise, none of these music genres is specifically associated with a particular century. Also WP:SMALLCAT applies. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 1 June 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.
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.
Comment: Not opposed to renaming, but the rationale is not quite accurate. Medieval Islam = Medieval Islamic world = the equivalent of Christendom. It refers to the historical period from the 7th to 15th centuries and part of the world where the dominant religious and cultural influence was the religion of Islam. Geographically, medieval Islam extended from the Iberian Peninsula through North Africa and the Middle East, to central Asia. This is how it is defined and used in the academic literature, but I can see why it can be confusing for the average Wiki reader. Al-Andalusi (talk) 15:14, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support It eliminates a reading to Christian eyes that it contains people who are both Christian and "of Islam" which at first glance seems contradictory. The proposal, while wordier, is clearer in its intent and cope. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- A much more satisfactory name. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 7 June 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.
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:no action. – FayenaticLondon 21:54, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree with Marcocapelle; these should all go - although the concept is well-understood and is probably defining for some in the tree, there are better ways to express the concept and define the limits. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that there are others that should go also. Thanks for pointing them out. TimTempleton(talk)(cont) 23:24, 5 June 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.
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. – FayenaticLondon 21:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT and the spirit of WP:C2F, one eponymous article
No conceptual objection to this category but the only thing in it is the main article, Computer Olympiad, and Template:Computer Olympiads which is already in that same main article. There's no navigational purpose for this category and I don't anticipate future notable articles but, if I'm wrong and we ever get up to 5 articles, no objection to recreating. (Alternatively, if kept, rename to Category:Computer Olympiads to fix the capitalization.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*RFC There is an open request for comments on proposed changes to WP:OCAWARD. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome here. -RD
Comment and !vote - I've rarely seen a main article more ripe for splitting into multiple articles by Olympiad. Perhaps this is a case of delete for now and re-create once the split has been done using the properly capitalised name. Grutness...wha? 03:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now per above discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 1 June 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.
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. bibliomaniac15 02:47, 10 June 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.
Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 June 10#Category:Cox Television
