Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 20



Category:User as-0

 * 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) 00:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting user as-0


 * Nominator's rationale: 0-level category, which cannot help support collaboration. Violates WP:USERCAT. Extensive history of deleting similar categories. VegaDark (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete, speedily per precedent. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:43, 21 November 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:Anna Jane Vardill

 * 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) 00:12, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting anna jane vardill


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT which exists solely to contain a single image file of a page from a book. Furthermore, the category namer Anna Jane Vardill is not even the primary author of the book in question -- it simply included one of her short stories as a "bonus" feature separate from the book's title-giving content, so she isn't a defining characteristic of the file, when it isn't even categorized for the book's main author. And since all she has otherwise is her main biographical article, there's nothing else to be filed here in order to repurpose it as a useful or navigation-aiding category. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:19, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. Reyk YO! 08:07, 23 November 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:Twin-engined airplanes with fixed landing gear

 * 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) 00:11, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting twin-engined airplanes with fixed landing gear


 * Nominator's rationale: A cat that mixes two different themes is not an aid to navigation or reading, there is no relationship between engine number and the type of landing gear. Bit like picking two random features and creating a category. Engine type already has a family of cats and the landing gear type is not really defining or related.  MilborneOne (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete Also causes an ENGVAR problem with the use of 'airplane' instead of the internationally neutral aircraft. Nimbus (Cumulus nimbus floats by)  17:04, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:43, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 18:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - ZLEA  Talk \ Contribs 18:19, 20 November 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:Biogeochemical cycle

 * 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: Not moved. Timrollpickering 21:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Biogeochemical cycle to Category:Biogeochemical cycles
 * Nominator's rationale: Categorization says "names of set categories should be plural". ChemNerd (talk) 13:37, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - this is a topic category, unless Sallie W. Chisholm is a cycle (and other non-cycles). Create subcat Category:Biogeochemical cycles and move the cycles into it. Oculi (talk) 14:56, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I moved Sallie W. Chisholm to Category:Biogeochemists, which I think is much better categorization for that page. ChemNerd (talk) 20:13, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment, there are some 8 more articles in this category that are not about a particular cycle. Nominator should indicate what should happen to those articles if this category would be renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:23, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Count this comment as an oppose until nominator reacts. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 27 November 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:English supercentenarians

 * 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: up merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:English supercentenarians, Category:Scottish supercentenarians, Category:Welsh supercentenarians and Category:Guernsey supercentenarians into Category:British supercentenarians
 * Nominator's rationale: Out of four sub-categories of, two are empty and one has only one article. They are also unlikely to expand. Best course of action is to keep every article in the British parent category. — JFG talk 12:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom. These used to make sense, because we used to treat reaching the age of 100 as an "inherent" notability claim that entitled a person to keep a Wikipedia article — but that's since been deprecated as not an automatic notability guarantee anymore, with the result that a lot of the articles that used to be subcatted here are now gone. So nominator is correct that we really don't need to hold on to the subcategories; with two categories completely emptied and one more down to just one entry, "British" is the only level we really need here anymore. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * That was "reaching the age of 110", not 100, but indeed things are evolving: as the worldwide count of supercentenarians has probably surpassed a thousand, we keep most people in lists by country. Individual articles only cover people with another reason to be notable beside their advanced age. — JFG talk 04:40, 21 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom and Bearcat. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 03:17, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom and Bearcat. There is nothing more I could add. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. SportingFlyer  talk  11:18, 27 November 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.