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. The discussion doesn't reflect a change in consensus from the previous discussion on the broader category tree, and until a different consensus emerges for the category tree, the arguments to keep the individual categories consistent are more compelling. TheCatalyst31Reaction•Creation 02:04, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Various random establishment categories are named in the District of Columbia but the decades category, the century category, the millennium category and the main category are all within Category:Establishments in Washington, D.C. by year which goes back to 1789 which is before it was approved. Suggest renaming for consistency. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Prior to 1871 not all of the District of Columbia was the city of Washington. We have multiple articles in these categories relating to things that were not established in the city of Washington, and so it would be anachronistic to call them established in Washington, D.C.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:54, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For example the 1851 category has the Georgetown University School of Medicine, which was established in Georgetown, which was a distinct place not part of Washington in that year. There are other examples.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per John Pack Lambert indication that the rename introduces an anachronism. Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the District of Columbia is a separate topic with separate topic area from Washington. For instance, at one point, Alexandria, VA was part of DC, prior to 1847. So all categories prior to 1847 do not match the modern DC area at all. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:53, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. We went through this same debate recently, except regarding a proposal in the reverse direction. I don't think it makes much sense for such a small territory to have two category schemes with different names, especially when there was no consensus to rename the other pre-1871 categories to "District of Columbia". It's essentially creating a fork situation. If these are anachronisms, they are definitely ones worth having and of such minimal consequence that any drawback is easily outweighed by the benefits of consistency. This does nothing to improve navigation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Before 1847, the size of DC was larger than the current DC. Things established in the boundaries of DC outside of Modern Washington should not fall into Washington DC. Other US territories are not called by their modern names when dealing with historical uses, and don't cover their modern jurisdiction sizes either. There is no forking unless you call Category:1869 establishments in Utah Territory a fork tree of the Utah state tree, etc. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It would be safe to categorize things established in places that are now outside of DC (but then were in DC) in the categories for the appropriate state. If something was established somewhere and that place is currently in Maryland, users will be looking for it in the Category:History of Maryland tree, not in an obscure subcategory of the Category:History of Washington, D.C. tree. The primary reason things are set up the way they are now vis-a-vis other U.S. territory categories is because there has been one user in particular who has ensured that it is the way he thinks it should be. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:25, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The way the US category tree is set up was created by open discussions of the categorization. These categories are about things established in a particular year, and they often reflect various issues involved. The claim about one user is false and misrepresentative of the actual process involved here. There are many users who agree that we need to stop anachronism, and you consistently try to intimadate all of them and insult them instead of acknowledging the fact that since things move, boundaries move, etc., the only way to have stable categories is to reflect the reality at the time. Or do you think 1995 establishments in Crimea should be in Category:1995 establishments in Russia?John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:30, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. No, I'm not constantly trying to intimidate other users. If you feel intimidated, maybe it's because of the quality of your argument. I don't think I'm doing anything inappropriate that any other user would regard as being "intimidation". Presenting a point of view that disagrees with yours is not intimidation. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:08, 19 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You don't just present a point of view. You do so in a rude manner that also falsely tries to isolate peoples actions and present your view as the majority, when in fact the majority of editors involved in these discussions clearly disagree with you and your extreme attempts to support anachronism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think your interpretation of my comments is unique. I haven't intended any of what you suggest, and no one else has made similar observations, so I think you're reading in details that you want to that just aren't there. Sorry. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least 7 users have created the various territory by year categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Category has only one entry and the entry is a empty category. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:11, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep − I found 3 Archbishops, and there are potentially 100s. (Not sure why it was empty.) Oculi (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated, but keep the archbishops category. I've removed the Db-empty template from the archbishops. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - so according to Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Split-Makarska this is one diocese that has been variously an archdiocese and a diocese simpliciter at various times. So there's plenty of people to populate the Bishops category too.--Jahaza (talk) 18:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oculi and Jahaza. There are three bishops in Category:Bishops of Split, so it is no longer an empty category. Cunard (talk) 06:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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:keep. It seems like there's a proposal here for a manual split but no interest in formally adding it to the workload at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual. That seems more in line with that's suggested than a rename and a re-creation of this template. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As of the "x in fiction" standard this category should be renamed to "Teleportation in fiction". This does not imply that teleportation outside of the realm of fiction exists. However it allows the filtering away of articles which are concerned with the pseudoscientific theory and other theories (e.g. of quantum mechanics which are relevant to it), it matches the category-name people are used to here and most importantly it's clearer. Fixuture (talk) 20:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per Marcocapelle, create the subcategory and transfer the entries over. There are sufficient other articles to make this category worthwhile. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:00, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Marcocapelle, create the suggested subcategory without deleting the parent. Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rebuild per Marcocapelle, the topic of teleportation separated from fiction, should be done. The general topic, mythology and religion; and scientific efforts, shams, etc, should be separated into the base category, with the fiction organized into the subcategory. There's also real science in quantum teleportation -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:58, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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; although the counts are slightly in favor of delete I've considered that the main rationale for deleting was the fact that the category is unnecessary, while there wasn't such a strong argument that the category is undesirable. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category with only four members, a situation which is likely to be the case for a long time. Links within the articles are sufficient connection. AussieLegend (✉) 19:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noting that. I actually nominated it and yet forgot about it. I must have deleted it from memory. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. (With possible renaming.) It's okay if the category has only four members. There's a reasonable chance that the category will get more members, such as articles on specific seasons or episodes. One category I created, Monkeypox, has only three or four members, but no-one has proposed deleting it.--Solomonfromfinland (talk) 21:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While there's no fixed number, 5 articles is generally the rule of thumb. The navbox was deleted in April because there were only four articles and there are still only 4 articles 8 months later so it's not a reasonable assumption that there will be more articles any time soon. If somebody creates another article the category can be recreated, but to keep it around "just in case" is not appropriate. --AussieLegend (✉) 23:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AussieLegend: Five articles is the "rule of thumb"—for who? Do you mean for you? Because I have seen other users cite 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, and 12 as rules of thumb. I don't think there is any consensus on where the cut-off is. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I said "generally" the rule of thumb. This is based on my observations, which apparently are different to yours. As I said, there's no fixed figure. If you talk to the stub-sorting people they'll tell you 60 or more. I suspect the people claiming 2, 3 or 4 are just trying to justify retention of ridiculously small categories. WP:SMALLCAT says Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members. Quantity says that "a few" usually refers to an indefinite, but usually small, number greater than two, while I've always been taught that "a few" is 4, so "more than a few" is 5 or more, which is consistent with what I've seen. That said, we could go on about this all day and never get anywhere. --AussieLegend (✉) 01:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this was actually the first time in my memory that I have ever seen 5 cited as the rule of thumb, so it just surprised me that it would be set out as a generally accepted standard, or even that preferred by a plurality. It's a plausible standard, if nothing else, but I suppose so too are many of the others. It would be interesting to hold a poll on this issue sometime and to see if there has been any sort of agreement on this that has arisen over the years. (I'm not questioning your use of 5 as a standard, I was just curious as to where you drew it from. I was half-hoping you would point me to an informal poll.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory and AussieLegend: Five is my minimum for creating a new category (and I also won't create one if it brings the parent category below 5). I would favor making WP:SMALLCAT more specific. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems reasonable in this case to think that the links between the articles will be sufficient here and that the category is not helping much. If kept, rename as discussed by RevelationDirect.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Everything theoretically has a potential for growth but practically this category doesn't seem to have any at this time. The series is now in its third season and, even after all this time, there are still only 4 articles, as was the case 9 months ago when the navbox was deleted. If, one day in the distant future, more articles are created, the category can easily be recreated. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is a topic category so can't meet the "by their very definition" part of SMALLCAT - the examples at WP:SMALLCAT (e.g. "Wives of ...") are list categories. DexDor(talk) 07:07, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose delete. I don't see a clear/convincing argument as to why deleting this category would improve Wikipedia. It shouldn't be a straight delete anyway as the main article would need to be upmerged to Category:World War III speculative fiction (assuming the current categorization which puts a work set 97 years after WWIII in a WWIII category is correct) and if the parent category is intended to be a topic category (it's not entirely clear, but if it was a list category it should be titled something like "Fictional works about...") then it can contain articles about characters etc and hence all 4 articles (and any more articles created about The 100) would need to be upmerged. DexDor(talk) 19:52, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd argue that inclusion in Category:World War III speculative fiction is not appropriate. The category is for fictional works (books, movies, films) that speculate about a World War III and the only mention of a war (not specifically WWIII mind you) is in the first episode. The series itself deals with events 97 years after a war, not with the war itself. WWIII is certainly not a defining characteristic of the series. --AussieLegend (✉) 06:10, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: merge and delete, too little content in a small medieval kingdom (currently just two articles in the above categories) to justify such a big category tree. Note: the article of 1295 is already in Category:Treaties of the Kingdom of Majorca so no double merge needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:42, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral on the first 3 Categories/Delete All Others I'm not opposed to keeping a few year categories if they actually have a direct article under them (nor am I opposed to deleting them), but all these layers of decades and centuries is surely too much overhead for 2 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete super structure, but keep the actual categories. Spain at this time in history is an anachronism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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:Characters that are apart of the Marvel Cinematic Universe[edit]
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:speedy delete. – FayenaticLondon 20:21, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There's not much more I can say other than "are apart of"? Really? --AussieLegend (✉) 04:08, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
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.
Oppose I am the creator of this category. I do not see how a notable animation producer like Ralph Guggenheim is not eligible for his own category. Dimadick (talk) 06:21, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Because Guggenheim does not have a significant body of work other than Toy Story, nor does he have a signature that sets his productions apart such that critics discuss/analyze it. Directors yes, some producers okay, but not every Tom, Dick and Ralph. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:51, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
He is a key pioneer in computer animation. Dimadick (talk) 13:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Toy Story is a long article in which Guggenheim is mentioned 4 times (none in the 3-paragraph opening summary). It is difficult to see that his role was defining for the film. (There was 1 director (defining), 2 producers, 2 exec producers, 4 people sharing the screenplay credits ... I have doubts about most of the categories on this article.) Oculi (talk) 14:47, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:NONDEF; in addition to the previous comment, the other two articles only mention Ralph Guggenheim in the infobox. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:45, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is generally true for most of our lists on producers. Dimadick (talk) 18:36, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, then most producers won't need a category. A list of their productions can be included in their bio. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm planning to cut a wide swath through more producers and screenwriters if this goes well. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are aware that these bio articles are the sources for categories? Dimadick (talk) 08:40, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
