Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 17



Category:Fictional American people of French descent in video games

 * 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) 04:42, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting fictional american people of french descent in video games


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily specific category, it also sets a precedent for making a huge amount of similarly over-specific categories about fictional American video game characters from every European country. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 22:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Pointless.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 07:34, 18 August 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.

Category:Child saints

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  01:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Child saints to Category:Christian child saints
 * Nominator's rationale: rename as follow-up on this earlier discussion, clarification of actual content. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Islam seems to also have its saints. Dimadick (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:49, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and per my own arguments in starting the earlier discussion. If we should have "Christian" in the ante-Nicene saints category, a context that doesn't exist for non-Christians, it's definitely important to have it for child saints, a concept that presumably exists in all religions that maintain a concept of "saint".  Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 25 August 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.

Category:Wikipedia categories named after aircraft

 * 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:  at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 4.  ℯ  xplicit  01:27, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedia categories named after aircraft


 * Nominator's rationale: Pointless category. We have a category "Aircraft", we do not need to duplicate it with a tautological name. Nor is this a "maintenance category", it is merely a duplicate of a simple content category. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – it is not a duplicate of Category:Aircraft as a quick glance at both will immediately establish, and neither is it pointless. It is completely different from Category:Aircraft as it is a category of categories rather than a category of articles. Oculi (talk) 13:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * So what is it? What are the inclusion criteria for it, and how are they different from "aircraft"?
 * The idea of a category "for categories only" is not a great one. We do have such things, as metacategories (Commons uses more of these): but they are by definition a category set of containers (which can only be containers, as a consequence from their definition, such as "Aircraft by country" having members of "Welsh aircraft" and "Romanian aircraft"). This is different from some arbitrary collection of things from any subject concept (such as "aircraft") but with an arbitrary constraint then applied that they mustn't contain any mainspace pages. For one thing, that goes right against WP:EPONYMOUS, which are precisely the sort of members included here.
 * The only purpose to this category (judging from its current members) would be as a flattened list of all aircraft (flattening the subcategory structure). That has some recognised value as a useful category, but it's not the name that's in use here. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Oculi  is right. The Category contains the types of planes and is not a duplicate of Category:Aircraft.  The garmine   (talk)  13:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Then it might be a duplicate of Category:Aircraft by type instead - but the point is that it's duplicating something we already have. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:25, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If there is a visible category that is missing, by all means, let's rename this and make it visible. The problem is that it's an administrative category with no administrative use. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Not convinced of keeping. All of this is already under Category:Aircraft by manufacturer, isn't it? Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I dont think that a random category of categories named after foo is particular helpful and clearly just duplicates other categories without adding any value. MilborneOne (talk) 11:40, 18 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete I continue to be baffled by the parallel hidden category tree we've built without any clear admin use. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 26 August 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.

Category:The Smurfs (TV series)

 * 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 to Category:The Smurfs. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:The Smurfs (TV series) to Category:The Smurfs
 * Nominator's rationale: Single-entry eponymous category for a television series without the volume of spinoff content to warrant one. Every television series that exists does not automatically get one of these just to contain itself -- but all the spinoff content here is about the general cross-platform Smurfs franchise, and is thus already filed in with no need for this as a subcategory. Bearcat (talk) 00:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 00:17, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per reasons listed above. Trivialist (talk) 02:33, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile the category is better populated. Please indicate whether you want to change or maintain your earlier views. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 24 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Five entries is still a smallcat, All of these can go into if they aren't already there. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 22:03, 24 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I still support merging; it doesn't have the number of articles that, say, Category:Batman (TV series) has. Trivialist (talk) 00:05, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep It has 5 articles which is my completely arbitrary cutoff for WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 26 August 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.