Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 25



Category:Gorizia and Gradisca

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting gorizia and gradisca


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT and add article Princely County of Gorizia and Gradisca as the main article in the header of subCategory:Gorizia and Gradisca people. Note that the Princely County of Gorizia and Gradisca was a tiny subdivision of the Habsburg Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2019 (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:Earthsea locations

 * 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 Category:Earthsea locations to Category:Earthsea. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting category


 * Nominator's rationale: This category only includes one single article and is unlikely to include any more. J I P  &#124; Talk 22:17, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support - No need to have a category for a single article. If and when other articles are written it can be re-created. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Earthsea. why would you remove it from that hierarchy? – please note that "delete" removes an article from all parent hierarchies, and "merge" is often more desirable. (In this case, there is no need to merge it also to the other (grand)parent Category:Fictional locations, as the member page is already within Category:Fictional forests.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dang. You are quite right. Sorry about that. I didn't mean to get your knickers in a twist. ;) Apparently my poor old brain doesn't always perceive the need to explicitly call for a "Merge" when there's only one article in the category. Somehow it just doesn't register, whereas the presence of multiple articles or subcategories apparently crosses some kind of neurological threshold! :-) Anomalous+0 (talk) 07:25, 28 March 2019 (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:Pages to import images to Wikidata

 * 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: relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 April 7. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting pages to import images to wikidata


 * Nominator's rationale: Category contains many, many non-free images which may not be imported to Wikidata (P18 only allows images from Commons), but which can not be cleared from this category either. Basically, the vast majority of pages in this category don't need (are not allowed to have) the "maintenance" it is intended for. (Of course, Wikidata maintenance categories belong on Wikidata, not here, but that is a different discussion.) Fram (talk) 12:41, 25 March 2019 (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.

Age of Discovery

 * 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 all. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:23, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming
 * Category:Dutch Republic in the Age of Discovery‎ to Category:Dutch exploration in the Age of Discovery‎
 * Category:France in the Age of Discovery to Category:French exploration in the Age of Discovery‎
 * Category:Portugal in the Age of Discovery to Category:Portuguese exploration in the Age of Discovery‎
 * Category:Russia in the Age of Discovery‎ to Category:Russian exploration in the Age of Discovery‎
 * Category:Spain in the Age of Discovery to Category:Spanish exploration in the Age of Discovery‎
 * Nominator's rationale: rename, more accurate description of what is in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Support Clearer scope. Dimadick (talk) 14:39, 26 March 2019 (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:Astrology Wikipedian userboxes

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Astrology Wikipedian userboxes to Category:Astrological user templates
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories, and per the Foo user templates convention within Category:Userboxes. I considered nominating the 12 subcats for upmerging (it would bring the total number of pages in this category to ~100, which is not nearly enough to justify a dozen splits) but was not sure if others felt it was a useful way of organizing the category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:12, 25 March 2019 (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:Upcoming films by language

 * 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. The precise intent is unclear, because the only category listed is a container category, but the rationale refers to (but does not quote) a previous CFD which involved a container category and its subcats.  A query was also raised about whether the numerical effect claimed last time still stands. So this discussion cannot be considered a consensus to do anything.  Please feel free to make a fresh nomination which a) lists and tags all the categories which are proposed for merger, and b) sets out clearly what the rationale is, rather than just pointing towards a previous discussion. Pinging the participants: @Erik, Lugnuts, Inter&anthro, DannyS712, Marcocapelle,  and Liz -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:25, 6 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Upcoming films by language to Category:Upcoming films
 * Nominator's rationale: Propose merging per the same rationale as the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 13. Category:Upcoming films is a temporary category and should be treated as such, per Bearcat's argument in that discussion. Erik (talk &#124; contrib) (ping me) 16:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: category was not tagged - I assume this is meant to apply to all subcategories too, so ✅
 * Merge per nom and previous CfD.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 17:29, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge per past consensus on the topic. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 00:41, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, it seems that the rationale of the previous discussion ("Even if all of these were merged, it would be less than 200 articles.") no longer holds, because there are currently more than 900 articles in the parent category. The nomination would add again several hundreds of articles. It is very doubtful whether this is going to be properly maintained. So basically this comment is questioning whether the parent Category:Upcoming films should remain in place. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * @Marcocapelle, I just used AWB to do a count. Category:Upcoming films plus all subcats = 1419 articles. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Could you list all of the categories that would be affected? I ran a category about a specific language for upcoming films that is not listed here. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 5 April 2019 (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:Charles Goodyear Medal recipients

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Charles Goodyear Medal recipients
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * The Charles Goodyear Medal is awarded each year to a scientist for improving rubber technology. The biography articles in this category do tend to mention the award but in passing with other honors. so it doesn't seem defining. Those articles are already well categorized in Category:Tire industry people and/or Category:Polymer scientists and engineers. The recipients are already listified   here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Background We deleted a similar and partially overlapping Rubber Science Hall of Fame category, here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Listify and then delete as usual with such awards. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Bondegezou (talk) 10:24, 28 March 2019 (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:Museum of Polo and Hall of Fame inductees

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 1 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Museum of Polo and Hall of Fame inductees
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * The Museum of Polo and Hall of Fame started giving out this award in 1990 and also gives out two other awards every year. Many of the recipients were active in polo decades earlier as they catch up and the articles are already in the Category:Polo players by nationality tree. The biography articles in this category do tend to mention the award but in passing so it doesn't seem defining. The recipients are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:20, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment/Question - I don't know anything about the world of Polo playing, so I am wondering if there are other awards that are similar in stature -- and whether we should perhaps factor that in. If this is the only "world-class" award -- which appears to be the case from a quick look at what's listed in Category:Polo -- it might possibly be a valuable category in terms of highlighting who the best polo players have been, for people like me who otherwise wouldn't have a clue. Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:12, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * With a lot of nominations, I see one award clearly be more prominent in the biography articles but that is not the case here. Maybe that's because polo was only briefly at the Olympics due to cost and that's usually the defining one for less common sports. From my perspective, I don't think Wikipedia should pick a winner though if no awards is apparently defining in a field/sport. If this passes, the articles will still reference the list in the main article; we're just removing the category and, who knows, if some of these awards later become defining over time, we can re-evaluate. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 25 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Just Delete since there is already a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 27 March 2019 (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.