Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 22



Category:Vitamin companies

 * 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. Timrollpickering 09:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Vitamin companies to Category:Nutritional supplement companies
 * Nominator's rationale: Vitamins are a kind of nutritional supplement. Most of the companies described produce various supplements. They are generally not described as vitamin companies, and most are in both categories. Rathfelder (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support. The articles shouldn't be durectly in both categories (per subcat). Most of the articles say something likeThe Vitamin Shoppe ... is an American ...retailer of nutritional supplements. There are better ways to subcategorize Category:Nutritional supplement companies (e.g. by country). Note: It might be worth putting a link from Category:Vitamins to the NSC category. DexDor(talk) 05:35, 24 July 2018 (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:2018–19 in European Fourth tier association football leagues

 * 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. Timrollpickering 09:32, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 2018–19 in european fourth tier association football leagues


 * Nominator's rationale: No point for this kind of redirect page. Pelmeen10 (talk) 18:50, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:28, 22 July 2018 (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:People from Rennert, North Carolina

 * 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. Timrollpickering 09:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Rennert, North Carolina to Category:People from Robeson County, North Carolina
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just 1 entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge with no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:05, 29 July 2018 (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:Anti-liquor activists

 * 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 consensus. Timrollpickering 19:57, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Anti-liquor activists to Category:Temperance activists‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Temperance category is well established. Rathfelder (talk) 13:25, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * I'm tempted to Keep Category:Anti-liquor activists and make Category:Temperance activists‎ a subcategory. The Temperance movement is something quite specific - you also have Prohibition in other parts of the world, for example. Temperance is a self-restraint from something, not necessarily just alcohol. Sionk (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * In this context, the use of the term temperance is very much a euphemism, not really a mention of a "self-restraint for something". Category:Temperance activists‎ has c. 40 subcategories and c. 730 articles relative to all parts of the world (12 by-nationality categories) but all are relative to anti-alcohol activism, which seems to be the defining feature. Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * These articles are about activists in the temperance movement. The only difference between them and Sasi Perumal is that they were active earlier. Rathfelder (talk) 19:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge in any case, and eventually later rename the temperance hierarchy into something else, maybe using anti-liquor or anti-alcoholism. Place Clichy (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment folks can be anti-liquor activists for any number of reasons, or by implication: temperance may be a subset, several religions have prohibitions on liquor so being a missionary of those religions can be construed as anti-liquor activism. Then there is the anti-drunk driving activists, which somehow WP puts in the temperance group. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge; in the context of activism, "temperance" is opposition to beverage alcohol (i.e. liquour) and its use, not support for moderation in general. Nyttend (talk) 01:52, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate, the Temperance movement is a largely American/British social movement in a certain period, while anti-alcohol activism is broader. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 1 August 2018 (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:Peninsulas of Swansea

 * 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 all parent categories – not delete., please enjoy a nice WP:TROUT and learn from the advice that was given below. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:46, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting peninsulas of swansea


 * Propose deleting Category:Peninsulas of Gwynedd


 * Propose deleting Category:Peninsulas of Pembrokeshire


 * Propose deleting Category:Peninsulas of Snowdonia


 * Propose deleting Category:Peninsulas of the Vale of Glamorgan


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category because the Gower Peninsula comprises most of the City and County of Swansea and there are no other notable peninsulas in the county. The Gower Peninsula article (and contents of other nominated categories) should be upmerged to the parent categories. Also nominating the other subcategories of Category:Peninsulas of Wales for deletion and upmerging of their contents. Generally there is only one major peninsula, if any, in each county (and Shell Island and Barry Island aren't peninsulas). Categories were created by a serial over-categoriser. Sionk (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - each should be upmerged to all its parent cats. Oculi (talk) 11:54, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge all to Category:Peninsulas of Wales. Please nominate for merge, not deletion, when that is what you mean.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * News to me, isn't that the same difference? Especially considering the contents should be upmerged to all the parent categories. Sionk (talk) 22:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 * "Delete" is usually understood as "delete and don't upmerge". When a merge is intended, the nomination usually also specifies the target categories so that there is not any confusion about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Interpret "Delete categories and upmerge contents to the parent categories" however you want, but it seems quite clear to me. Sionk (talk) 19:32, 1 August 2018 (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:Gobioidei

 * 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. Timrollpickering 08:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Gobioidei to Category:Gobiiformes
 * Nominator's rationale: Nelson's 5th edition of Fishes of the World raises the suborder Gobioidei to the order Gobiformes. Quetzal1964 (talk)  07:17, 22 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename per Gobioidei being a redirect to Gobiiformes. Oculi (talk) 09:59, 22 July 2018 (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:Religious comparison

 * 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. Timrollpickering 08:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Religious comparison to Category:Religion
 * Nominator's rationale: one-way upmerge, this extra layer is redundant and the content is much broader than comparisons (note on the side: I have created Category:Comparative religion for the study of religious comparison). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 22 July 2018 (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:Weekendavisen

 * 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 consensus. Timrollpickering 19:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting weekendavisen


 * Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a newspaper without the volume of spinoff content needed to warrant one. All that's here is the eponym itself and one journalist associated with it, which makes this an unnecessary WP:SMALLCAT. Bearcat (talk) 23:04, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: The category definitely needs to be populated but there is plenty of potential content. Many editors-in-chief, critics, journalists etc need English articles and one of the largest Danish literary prizes is for example also awarded by the newspaper.Ramblersen (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * We don't keep categories like this based on how many potential future articles might be theoretically possible to create — every single newspaper that exists at all could always claim that an eponymous category was theoretically expandable if that were a valid exemption from OCEPON in and of itself, so every newspaper would have to have an eponymous category. We keep or delete categories based on how many articles already exist, and then permit recreation in the future if that number changes. Bearcat (talk) 16:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Danish category Kategori:Journalister ved Weekendavisen ("Category: Weekendavisen journalists) contains 62 articles. I have added the ones with English articles to the category Category:Weekendavisen people and it now contains nine articles.Ramblersen (talk) 16:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment, note that Category:Weekendavisen has been nominated (with 2 articles), not Category:Weekendavisen people (with 9 articles). The former category can be deleted while keeping the latter category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I have created CategoryWeekendavisen people after the nomination took place. Isn't it more normal to keep the more general category and then create more specific ones once the need is there? And is it really normal to delete categories that comply with general rules for creation of categories (that are similar to other existing categories) and contain two articles and a subcategory with nine articles (that is 11 articles had the subcategory had not been created)? If so, I can see a lot of categories (both newspaper ones and others) that should also be nominated for deletion, I know that is not in itself an argument for keeping the category but I am just trying to understand why this specific category should be deleted since it is neither particularly empty (anymore) or unlikely to grow in content in the future.Ramblersen (talk) 14:05, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Nobody's questioned the validity of the "people" subcategory at all. But even with in place, every "[Newspaper] people" category does not automatically need an eponymous "[Newspaper]" category to parent it even if only one or two things can actually be filed directly in that parent category — eponymous categories for things are only created when there's a lot of spinoff content that needs eponym-related categorization beyond the standard schemes. By the same token, every musical group does not automatically get an eponymous category just because they have "[Band] albums" and "[Band] songs" categories — they get an eponym if they're like the Beatles or the Rolling Stones, where there's a lot of additional content that falls outside the standard albums+songs scheme, but not if all they have is their main article and the standard subcategories. The test for an eponymous category is whether it's aiding navigation, not just whether the thing it's eponymizing exists. Bearcat (talk) 16:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 00:15, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Support deletion. Though we do not delete categories with potential for expansion, equally we do not create categories to contain things with vague connections (such as the examples of eponymous band/musician categories already given by Bearcat). If indeed the newspaper (or the literary award) is extremely important, there's no proof yet. Neither are there any other eponymous categories for weekly news publications (that I can find). There's no reason to single out Weekendavisen as any more special. Sionk (talk) 12:22, 22 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep It sounds like the categories have changed a lot during the nomination and I'm looking at them now. My arbitrary cutoff for a category is 5 articles and this has 4 after you remove Tamil Case (Denmark), which is too loosely associated. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:10, 29 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, keeping a category for two comic strips which later on appeared in many other newspapers as well seems insufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 1 August 2018 (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.