Misplaced Pages

:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 16 - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Feminist (talk | contribs) at 10:07, 25 January 2017 (→Category:Eastern Orthodox societies and orders by type: Closing debate; result was merge). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 10:07, 25 January 2017 by Feminist (talk | contribs) (→Category:Eastern Orthodox societies and orders by type: Closing debate; result was merge)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
< January 15 January 17 >

January 16

Category:Eastern Orthodox societies and orders by type

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. (non-admin closure) feminist 10:07, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, no need to split by type as long as there is only one type. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 16 January 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:More United

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) 06:56, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: The only articles in this category other than More United are Aftermath of the United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016 and United Kingdom European Union membership referendum, 2016. More United should be categories based on those articles and not the other way around. Tim! (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure, when I wrote the article I anticipated more coverage to follow. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Delete -- This strikes me as a political organisation (akin to, but not, a political party) that is barely notable; Such cross-party initiatives rarely produce much. This one was probably a campaign started specifically for the Richmond by-election It is certainly not notable enough to need its own category, at least not until this can there is something to populate it with. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 22 January 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:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa participants

Nominator's rationale: WP:PERFCAT. See Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 27#Category:Strictly Come Dancing participants and other reality TV show discussions for precedent. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:53, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Visual novels by year

Nominator's rationale: Per the June 2016 CfD for role-playing video games by period and the WikiProject Video games discussion, the current consensus is that video games by genre by year is overcategorization. Additionally, not all of these are of the visual novel genre only: Ace Attorney Investigations 2 can for instance no longer be found in Category:2011 video games despite being a VN-adventure game hybrid, not only a VN.--IDV 11:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – The issue is, as described, the overlap between visual novels and other genres of video games. Definitions of visual novel may vary from person to person, and if some doubt may exist, then the subject should be in a "xxxx video games" category. ~Mable (chat) 11:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support per the WTVG discussion and nom's sound rationale. Isn't this just reverting a single user? I'd revert their edits and delete the empty categories. I'm only thinking of it now, but that might have been better (BRD) than CfD in the first place, especially since the editor hasn't justified their edits after request czar 19:31, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Support – this shouldn't even be in question, per past precedent. ~ Dissident93 00:35, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians on Mars

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Violates WP:USERCAT in that this category does not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in this category & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke category, prime example of an inappropriate type of user category. Finally, This has been brought to CfD before, but my nomination was closed per G7, which does not set precedent for G4 speedy deletion precedent so I thought it necessary to bring here, although if anyone disagrees I won't complain. VegaDark (talk) 06:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Series of joke user categories on User:Spiderpig662

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. Violates WP:USERCAT in that these categories do not help foster encyclopedic collaboration. In other words, there is no reason to group users in these categories & to seek out such users for any reason that can be reasonably expected to improve the encyclopedia. Joke categories, prime examples of inappropriate types of user category. Possible speedy delete candidates - I'll leave that judgment in the hands of another administrator. VegaDark (talk) 06:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Bhadohi district


Nominator's rationale: Category in a foreign language that belongs in the main or draft namespaces. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928 00:25, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Populated waterside places

Propose renaming either:
  • OPTION A: adjective populated places
217 sub-categories
Nominator's rationale: This a procedural nomination, as a followup to CFD 2016 December 8.
That discussion listed only the 5 parent categories named in Option B (the subcats were nether listed nor tagged). It closed with a decision to rename them to their current titles.
At the closer's suggestion, the 217 subcats were listed at WP:CFD/S, where I opposed the renaming on procedural grounds. After somemuch discussion in various places, it was agreed that I should do a fresh procedural nominations, giving two choices:
  • OPTION A completes the previous nomination, renaming all the sub-categories to the "adjective populated" format agreed on Dec 8 for the 5 parents
  • OPTION B reverses the previous nomination, renaming the 5 parent categories to the "populated adjective" format in use before the Dec 8 CFD.
Either option will ensure consistency. My role is purely procedural, and I have no personal preference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Original nominator's rationale: (from Dec 8, in support of OPTION A) This proposal includes all child categories with "Populated ADJECTIVE places" as the core part of the name, e.g. "populated coastal places", "populated riverside places", and "populated lakeshore places". I've tagged these three child categories, as well as Category:Populated waterside places by country, but there are so many child categories that it would take an inordinate amount of time to tag all of them.
Why this odd wording? I'd never use this construction, and it isn't normal English — it's similar to Tolkien's "green great dragon" (link, if you don't know what I'm talking about). "Populated place" is the core of the term, so the adjective should come first. Nyttend (talk) 23:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Note most of the discussion on the speedy nomination was procedural, but there were two substantive comments there which may be relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)


Discussion: Populated adjective places Add your comments/!votes here