Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 2



Category:Rare (company) stubs

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rare (company) stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Article count just isn't there for a stub category. Only about 15 stub articles.  Propose deleting category and upmerging template to . Dawynn (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Significant company with a wide range of subjects. I could probably find two dozen more Rare stubs. JAG  UAR   17:56, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Then please do so. Otherwise the numbers are favoring the category's deletion. --PanchoS (talk) 12:53, 3 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - What number is considered typical or acceptable? I don't especially work with categories much, but 15 doesn't typically seem like a number I usually have people citing as a number that's too low for a category... Sergecross73   msg me  19:01, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See Procedures for proposing new stub types. Lower limit for stub categories is 60, and pretty much anything less than that is considered underpopulated. Dawynn (talk) 01:37, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The minimum of 60 is for creating another stub category. Obviously this would include some buffer space, so the category does not get rightaway deleted after a few stubs have been expanded/removed. But, at the very least, 30 stub articles would be a reasonable minimum limit. --PanchoS (talk) 11:11, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete This is way below the allowed stub category size. With stub categories it is not enough for the topic to be "significant", we need to have the actual articles in place to justify having it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete and check individual articles of this category when merging the template. Many articles shouldn't end up in a company stub category. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 10 August 2016 (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.

Category:Pope stubs

 * 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. I merged template to, as originally proposed. Some of those currently tagged by the template were neither Italian nor bishops in Italy: eg, Joseph Odermatt. But then again, he's not really Roman Catholic either. If the merge target is not ideal, it will be easy to change the merge target in the future by editing Template:Pope-stub. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting pope stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: As expected, these articles receive enough attention to make most at least start class. Less than 20 honest stubs.  Propose deleting category and upmerging template to . Dawynn (talk) 16:17, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Neutral: although it is a WP:SMALLCAT, the office is the defining characteristic. –BoBoMisiu (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * If upmerged, it should probably be to Category:Italian Roman Catholic bishop stubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:00, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Italian Roman Catholic bishop stubs. That is a workable destination, and we do not have enough stubs here to justify it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Italian Roman Catholic bishop stubs per above. Graham (talk) 07:33, 14 August 2016 (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.

Category:Clone characters

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:34, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Clone characters to Category:Clone troopers
 * Nominator's rationale: The category was created recently by with the intention to categorize pages relating to Star Wars clone troopers. However, the category's name is too vague; it sounds like the same thing as Category: Fictional clones, which this is a subcat of, and it doesn't necessarily exclude non-Star Wars clones or even other clones in Star Wars. (Yes, there are non-clone trooper clones.) The proposed rename is much clearer, as it is most specific: this is a category for clone troopers. I'm proposing a rename rather than, say, a delete because even though it's mostly populated by redirects pointing to the clone trooper main article (and the list should probably be also merged into the clone trooper article imo, but that's not the right forum for that), it's conceivable that the category could grow over time. ~Cheers,  Ten  Ton  Parasol  14:44, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Is deletion not an option? This category contains Clone trooper, List of Clone Trooper characters from Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and four redirects. I see no need for it at all. This editor has created at least one other nebulous category, Category:Fictional wights, which was deleted for the same reason.— TAnthonyTalk 15:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not oppose a deletion. I'm being cautious (if that's the right word here?), quite honestly. I'm just certain that the category cannot remain as it is. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  16:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. It seems a pointless category with no potential. DilMendis82 (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that if the category is going to be deleted, the main article Clone trooper needs to be put in another category, in the tree of Category:Star Wars. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note that the latter already happened. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment from nom. After despairing over List of Clone Trooper characters from Star Wars: The Clone Wars, one of two non-redirect article in the category at the time of nomination, I merged it into the other non-redirect article in the cat. (Well, redirected considering the actually important parts of the list already existed at the article.) If it's believed I've done so improperly with regards to doing it during this discussion, please WP:TROUT me. At any rate, there's only one non-redirect article in the category right now. Really, I still believe that there's a chance for some individual characters to be spun off into their own articles to populate a category like this, but I'm not sure what the acceptable number of articles for a cat is. So, I reiterate, I nom'd for a rename, but I am not opposing a deletion. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  19:54, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment As it currently stands, only Captain Rex has potential for growth. And since it was brought up, what are everyones' opinion in creating an Imperial/First Order character category, a Rebel/Resistance character category, etc.. --Atvica (talk) 20:45, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * As far as creating other categories, this isn't the right forum for it, and I'd advise bringing it up with the WikiProject. ~Cheers, Ten  Ton  Parasol  20:51, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete until we actually get individual articles on any of these this is not justified. There is a character from the most recent star wars film, The Force Awakens, who I was thinking fit here, but then I remembered he was a Storm Trooper but not a Clone, so he would not, so even that would not help this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 7 August 2016 (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.

Category:Former Christian Young Earth creationists

 * 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; merge articles to Category:Christian Young Earth creationists and/or other categories discussed, as appropriate. If there are BLP issues with categorizing them in Category:Christian Young Earth creationists, then just don't do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting former christian young earth creationists


 * Nominator's rationale: The category is ambiguous, and the list is possibly being populated in inconsistent ways. So, for example, Ronald Numbers is possibly now neither Christian nor a young Earth creationist (though this needs a cite to a source), while both Denis Lamoureux and Willem Ouweneel appear to still be Christians but were once young Earth creationists. More generally, I think trying to pigeon-hole beliefs of people is kind of dodgy, and it doesn't reflect the fact that people can hold beliefs with subtle differences. I advocate deleting this category. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 14:27, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Ronald Numbers is miscategorized and the other two are already under Category:Theistic evolutionists where they belong. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:47, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. The category is supposed to be used for people who once were young Earth creationists (from a Christian standpoint, as opposed to a Jewish or Muslim standpoint, for example), but later rejected that view. Thus, this category is equally appropriate to those who remained Christian and to those who completely rejected Christianity. This category is very similar to Category:Former Christians, Category:Former Protestants or Category:Former atheists and agnostics, for example. I'm sure that many of the people in these categories can hold some very different views with each other, but the category still applies to them. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 20:19, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure, 2 of the 3 people are former Christian Young Earth creationists. Is this triple intersection defining? Wouldn't anyone who grew up in certain churches almost automatically fit in this category? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the cat does seem defining for Lamoureux and Ouweneel (and I thought it was defining and accurate for Numbers, as I heard he left the 7DA Church because of creation/evolution). But regardless of whether the cat is appropriate for Numbers or for anyone else who grew up in a certain church, it is appropriate and defining for the two others with this cat. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Christian Young Earth creationists and Category:Former theistic evolutionists, too narrow and not enough content to create a separate category for 'former' at this level. Note that even the broader Category:Former theistic evolutionists currently contains only one member. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The problem is that unlike Category:Former Protestants, Category:Former Latter Day Saints, Category:Former Roman Catholics, Category:Former Muslims categorize people by adhering to religions that while in many cases their formerness is more public disidentification than formal leaving, their being a member was caused by a formal act of inclusion (most clearly in the Latter Day Saints cateogry, where someone has to have been baptized at age 8 or above), this category is more like Category:Former advocates of human activity as the primary cause of climate change. There are just too many ways in which someone can change their outlook on this issue. To begin with, young earth creationism is not an explicit doctrine of any specific religious denomination. Young Earth Creationists are not a sub-group of Evangelical Christianity. There is not a Church of Young Earth Creationism that people can be baptized in, attend, and publicly disaffiliate with. Instead it is a view on a large number of issues of history, biology and geology among others that is held by people from various outlooks. Christian Young Earth Creationism is based on the same texts as Jewish Young Earth Creationism would be based on in almost all cases. Someone can become former to this category is they a-reject Christianity, for example reject that Jesus Christ was divine and that he resurrected, but still accept that the earth was created literally in 6 days about 6,000 years ago, thus we could have someone who is now Muslim or Jewish but still accepts Young Earth Creationism in this category, b-they still accept creationism and are still Christian, but no longer believe that God literally created the earth in 6 days, instead they may feel he did it in 6 creative periods, which each may have been several thousands of years long. Even Joseph Fielding Smith the most vocal literal creationist among Mormons advocated that it took 6,000 years to create the earth, still on the young earth creationist side of things, but a lot less young than many young earth creationists. c- the person could reject creationism altogether and remain Christian, that is they could embrace the idea that evolution happened, that the current studies of science give us generally accurate ideas of the age of the earth, the physical processes under which it was created, the historical length of human habitation, etc, but still accept that Jesus Christ is God, divine and overcame both physical and spirtual death and paid the price for the sins of all mankind. d- they could come to reject all the points involved here. One issue though is that to even be in this category a person has to not only have supported the idea of Young Earth Creationism from a Christian perspective, they have had to done so explicitly and publicly. So it would not be enough that they no longer support such an idea in all 3 points (Young Earth, Creationism and Christian) but that they reject at least one of these points in a public and known way. Former categories are generally reserved for religion categories, and this is not a religion category. What would not work is to put someone who said in a published work "when I was a child I supported the idea of Young Earth Creationism, but as a university student I came to accept that the scientific argument of evolution was overwhelming" in this category. They need to have publicly advocated for young earth creationism, so unless they were a student party to a suit against the teaching of evolution in high school, or wrote an article in some publication against it that received attention, than this is just not defining to them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep - Why should this category be deleted? It contains people who adhered a Christian Young Earth creationist view but who abandoned it later. Wwikix (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , okay, but what do you think they abandoned? Christianity? Young Earth Creationism? Both? The category is ambiguous, and this is why it is being populated in an inconsistent way. Please think about this. Thank you. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , the answer is simple! They all used to believe in young Earth creationism (from a Christian standpoint, rather than a Jewish, Muslim, etc. standpoint) and then abandoned that view for another (OEC, theistic evolution, naturalistic evolution, etc.). Maybe the category should be reworded, but it definitely is not ambiguous. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 16:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and what you say is strictly correct, but that is not how people are necessarily going to interpret it. Clarification, possibly changing the name of the category to "people who were formerly both Christian and Young Earth Creationists but who are now not both", might work, but isn't this whole issue just kind of silly, trying to pigeon-hole people's beliefs in such simplistic ways? This has resulted in a odd mix of people categorised who are certainly now not Christian and not Young Earth Creationists along with people who are Christian but not Young Earth Creationists. Why is such a list useful? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Christian Young Earth creationists and Category:Former theistic evolutionists per Marcocapele Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:34, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Theistic evolutionism isn't the same as creationism, so former theistic evolutionists aren't the same as former creationists. And not every theistic evolutionist is a Christian. Wwikix (talk) 16:48, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I was mistaken about the second merge target. Indeed creationism isn't part of theistic evolutionism, these are quite different views after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:03, 9 August 2016 (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.

Underpopulated Moroccan geography stubs

 * 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 Category:Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab geography stubs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting dakhla-oued ed-dahab geography stubs


 * Propose deleting guelmim-oued noun geography stubs


 * Propose deleting oriental (morocco) geography stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Each of these categories contains less than 30 articles. Propose deleting all three categories, upmerging the templates to .  Willing to remove categories from proposal, if article counts reach 60 or more articles. Dawynn (talk) 10:29, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt the last of these categories would contain more than 60 stubs if it was populated from Category:Morocco geography stubs. There are also about a dozen localities in Sidi Ifni Province that are currently mis-sorted into Category:Souss-Massa geography stubs when they should be in Category:Guelmim-Oued Noun geography stubs. Cobblet (talk) 18:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC) (Edit: mis-sorted articles fixed. The last two categories now contain over 30 articles. Cobblet (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2016 (UTC))
 * Thanks for the edits! Changing proposal to only delete the "Dakhla-Oued Ed-Dahab" category. Dawynn (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2016 (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.

Category:Dad's Army stubs

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting dad's army stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to support a stub category. Only about 15 articles.  Propose deleting category and upmerging template to  Dawynn (talk) 10:19, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. I see no point in a stubs category here. Each item is categorised elsewhere and classed as a stub. DilMendis82 (talk) 16:12, 2 August 2016 (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.

Category:Mammootty - Mohanlal combination 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.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Tavix  ( talk ) 17:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting mammootty - mohanlal combination films


 * Nominator's rationale: There is excessive POV here. Also, categories on duos should ideally be for directors (eg: Krishnan-Panju), music directors (eg: Kalyanji–Anandji) or writers (eg: Salim-Javed). Kailash29792 (talk) 04:10, 2 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete We don't cat films by who acted in them. WP:OVERCAT.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 18:12, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete – per WP:NONDEF &mdash; Vensatry (talk) 08:36, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - As per the nominator, duo on the basis of actors is completely ridiculous. Regards,  KC Velaga  ✉  13:00, 14 August 2016 (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.