Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 1

< February 28	March 2 >

March 1

Category:Alumni of University of Limerick

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 (talk) 11:25, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumni of University of Limerick to Category:Alumni of the University of Limerick

Nominator's rationale: Rename to correct grammar. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:38, 1 March 2011 (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:Locomotives of Taiwan

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. There might be consensus here to do something with the RoC category, but that's not tagged or nominated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Locomotives of Taiwan to Category:Locomotives of the Republic of China

Nominator's rationale: Finishing incomplete nomination by Icairns (talk · contribs). — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 23:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge Category:Republic of China notwithstanding, the current form matches the parent Category:Rail transport in Taiwan as well as analogous categories such as Category:Aircraft manufactured by Taiwan, and note that the overwhelming preponderance of csubategories under Category:Taiwan use "in Taiwan" rather than "on Taiwan," suggesting they refer to the political entity and not the island.- choster (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Taiwan is a political entity, it is a province of ROC and of PRC. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose seems to be one locomotive that was ROC which is now not Taiwan, but PRC. Instead reparent into ROC category tree. 65.95.15.144 (talk) 21:46, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category:Taiwan is the parent, the usual country or political entity category, and the diesel locos were used on Taiwan Hugo999 (talk) 22:56, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Locomotives of the Republic of China -- The sole contents of Category:Locomotives of Taiwan is two classes of diesel locos, some of which were used in Taiwan. In view of the separate government of Taiwan, the Taiwanese category should be removed from the target. ROC can refer to the mainland before 1948, and is confusing to those who do not realise that the mainland is now PRC. The remaining content of the target is a redirect to a pre-1948 Russian class of locos, some presumably used on the mainland. Since the sole content is a redirect, the target is probably not worth having. Alternatively, it should be renamed to Category:Chinese locomotives, with a headnote that it is for those from mainland China. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the topic is locomotives on the island, not locomotives on the island and the pre-1949 mainland. Delete Category:Locomotives of the Republic of China per Peterkingiron. --Bejnar (talk) 20:54, 10 March 2011 (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:Athletics (track and field)

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 (talk) 00:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Athletics (track and field) to Category:Track and field

Propose renaming Category:Athletes (track and field) to Category:Track and field athletes

Nominator's rationale: This category is now focusing on simply track and field, an unambiguous term, and should be renamed to the most simple name. Similarly, Category:Athletes (track and field) (which seems to be trying to focus on track and field athletes) should be moved to Category:Track and field athletes.

I also propose that, given this move to a more refined specification, two new categories should be created for the other sports in athletics (sport) – Category:Cross country runners and Category:Road runners (Category:Racewalkers already exists). If people wish to avoid the plain use of Category:Athletes then I propose that the category be altered to Category:Competitors in athletics (a purely descriptional category that theoretically should not hold any articles, but merely the sub-categories of the four athlete types above. Category:Olympic athletes (track and field) should also be moved to Category:Olympic competitors in athletics – a logical description for those competing in the Athletics at the Summer Olympics.

The primary concern here is that while "athlete" is ambiguous, track and field is not analogous to the sport of athletics. Consider Ernest Glover (athlete), an athlete who would theoretically fall under the current "Olympic athletes (track and field)" banner. He never competed in track and field, but actually won a medal in the Olympic cross country. Simply adding the (track and field) disambiguator subtly shifts the meaning. Equating athletics to track and field is the same as suggesting that aquatics is synonymous with swimming.

Some categories, such as Category:National records in athletics (track and field), do not need the appended track and field. Firstly, they are not just track and field records, but records from all the sports of athletics. Secondly, there is no corresponding idea of "National records in athletics" where athletics might mean "sport". Such a concept does not really exist thus there is no need to have a disambiguator (an inaccurate one at that) when no there is no alternative concept to disambiguate from. SFB 22:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support main nomination. This is one of the most confusing elements of the category system. Just yesterday I removed a bunch of weightlifters, soccer players, and motorcycle riders (including Evel Knievel!) from the now-deleted Category:World record holders in athletics (now Category:World record holders in athletics (track and field)). While I understand that many countries use "athletics" exclusively, it would be far clearer for users if "athletics" and especially "athletes" were wiped out of the category system entirely. I'm okay with cross country running and racewalking being pushed to the outside of the track and field system into their own categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support main nomination as track and field events are a subset of athletics, in the same manner that long distance running and race-walking are subsets. Responding to Mike Selinker's point: Athletics itself is a subset of sports, and quite a common and widely used term as understood globally - I don't see the immediate value of removing the term completely from the category system. What would be more useful would be to put an explanation in each athletics related category explaining what the category is to be used for. However, if the categorising were further refined along the lines suggested by Sillyfolkboy then it may be possible to contain all athletics events within Category:Individual sports rather than Category:Athletics. I think there is further work to be done in this area. I'm not sure about the Road runners and cross-country cats as we already have Category:Long-distance runners SilkTork *^YES! 11:51, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True. I may be overreacting to "athletics" because of "athletes," which is an unmitigated failure in the category system, at least when us Americans get our hands on the keyboards. By the way, there's also Category:Male athletes and Category:Female athletes (track and field), which should be standardized to whatever this nomination produces. (Or deleted, since I personally don't see any need to segregate these categories by gender.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - You suggest it would be better if this sense of athletics was wiped from the category system completely, yet you haven't offered an alternative wording which we could use in its place. If we remove the term athletics, what would be the parent category of its four sports (track and field, racewalking, cross country, road running)? It would seem perverse to completely disassociate them solely on the basis of an American linguistic gap, especially when they are all (inter)nationally governed by athletics bodies, have all featured on the Olympic Athletics program, and this meaning of athletics is a concept understood by significant portion (albeit not all) of the readership. SFB 20:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Also: I agree with the idea of refining these athlete categories into the three subsections of: "track and field athletes", "long-distance runners" and "racewalkers". I still advocate a "competitors in athletics" category (with an explanatory hatnote) as the parent to these, however. SFB 20:45, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I favor completely abandoning the connection between cross-country running and discus, say. I think there are basically three types here: running sports (under which I would include racewalking, since it's just running with a restriction), jumping sports, and throwing sports. That's what I would classify them under. YMMV.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - Those events/sports should indeed be categorised under Category:Running as well, and perhaps we should create general jumping sport and throwing sport categories too. But why abandon the connection between discus and cross country when one exists in the real world? It may not be immediately apparent to some, but discus throwers and cross country runners are frequently part of the same teams right from club to international level, in Europe and elsewhere. Even in the US, USA Track & Field is responsible for organising the national cross country championships as well as the national discus event. The process of international selection for both sports is also done by the very same body. This is the umbrella of athletics which connects the sports. I do not see any logic in avoiding (removing) this important and highly relevant layer of meaning based on purely AmEng/BrEng differences. SFB 18:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Because in the U.S., our editors keep putting things that belong to the more general definition of "athletics" (things that are physically demanding) than the more specialized definition (things that are in the category of running, jumping, and throwing). I'm not thrilled to be arguing from a "because editors don't know any better" position, but we're constantly removing articles from categories that they don't belong in because of this ambiguous term.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Athletics is the name used in international events such as the Olympics and so should be used in naming categories. The use of "Athletics (track and field)" seems adequate to avoid any ambiguity. Cjc13 (talk) 13:35, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Category:Athletics is currently the main category for athletics (sport), while its subcategory Category:Athletics (track and field) (the subject of this nomination) is the current main category for track and field. SFB 00:08, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Track and field seems to be a subarticle of Athletics (sport), so the main article could still be said to be Athletics (sport). Personally I think the article Track and field is badly named as there are other tracks (see Track) and their are Field sports which have nothing to do with athletics. I have suggested a name change on the discussion page of Track and field. Cjc13 (talk) 13:33, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom, but now isn't Category:Athletics ambiguously named per the disambiguation page Athletics? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If you rename those in nomination, then all related athletics categories should be renamed. Recenty there mas a major renaming for all cats in Category:Olympic athletes (track and field) by year. So should they all be "Olymipic track and field athletes"? Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support nom on the main nomination as well as his other suggestions: 1) the creation of Category:Cross country runners and Category:Road runners, 2) Category:Olympic athletes (track and field) should also be moved to Category:Olympic competitors in athletics. Location (talk) 16:29, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Track and field seems ambiguous as it is being used in 2 senses. Here it is being used to exclude events such as cross-country and walking but in America track and field is used as the name of the sport of Athletics which includes events such as cross-country and walking, see USA Track and Field. Hence it does not seem sensible to simply call a category Track and field. Cjc13 (talk) 15:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- At the USATF level, cross-country falls under the jurisdiction of "track and field"; however, the cross-country season and the track and field season typically do not overlap in high school and college (i.e. they are separate programs). Despite their name, even USATF distinguishes between them: "USA Track & Field (USATF) is the National Governing Body for track and field, long-distance running and race walking in the United States."[1] Location (talk) 15:55, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree with Location here. I think CJC13's interpretation of what Americans deem "track and field" is incorrect, in my experience anyway. Galen Rupp, for example, is known in the US for competing in both cross country and track and field. The two are treated distinctly – track and field does not encapsulate the idea of cross country. SFB 22:23, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - The fact that he competes in both suggests they are not that distinct. Also it seems to suggest he takes part in field events. A better description would be that he is a cross country and track athlete (or runner). Also is Category:Long-distance runners and its subcategories to be split into track and other runners? Cjc13 (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - By "distinct" I meant that there is no overlap in meaning, not that these sports are unrelated. When Michael Johnson was recognised as the Track & Field Athlete of the Year, it wasn't because he competed in both track and field events, it was because he was the best athlete in track and field. Thus the common parlance of "track and field athlete" for sportspeople who compete in any combination of the events featured at track and field meetings. SFB 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As regards the secondary proposal, Category:Cross country runners and Category:Road runners are already adequately covered by Category:Long-distance runners. Many long-distance runners, such as Paula Radcliffe, run track races, cross country and road races, so there would be much repetition. Even for the example quoted, Ernest Glover (athlete), a stub article, there is nothing to suggest he did not also compete on track events. Hence the proposed new categories seem unnecessary. Similarly for the distinction between track running, cross-country and road racing, which are all governed by the same bodies, USA Track and Field in America for instance and the International Association of Athletics Federations for international events. Cjc13 (talk) 20:03, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, Category:Long-distance runners is a useful category but too broad to be helpful in certain circumstances. For example, if I wanted to isolate runners known for participating in cross-county, there is no way to do it. Category:Cross country runners would solve that problem. Like Category:Marathon runners, I would make it a sub-category of Category:Long-distance runners. You are correct that Ernest Glover (athlete) competed in cross country as well as track and field, however, I'm not sure how that alters the issue for those recommending "support". I believe that most cross-country runners participated in track and field, but also believe that many, if not most, track and field competitors (such as those who competed in sprints and various field events) did NOT compete in cross country. Location (talk) 04:22, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Looking at the article for Cross country running, there is a list of notable athletes in cross country, all of whom have competed in track races at the Olympics or World Championship and many have competed in Marathons. I think that most long distance runners compete in a variety of races, such as cross country, track and marathons, in order to get maximise their opportunities, so a separate category for cross country runners seems unnecessary. Cjc13 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, all cross country runners are long-distance runners, but not all long-distance runners are cross country runners. By the same token, most cross country runners are also track and field competitors, but not all track and field competitors are cross country runners. As I alluded to earlier, there is no way for someone interested in just cross country runners to isolate that group. Location (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - While there are plenty of athletes who compete in more than just one type of long-distance running, there are plenty who specialise or don't compete in all of them (e.g. Kenenisa Bekele is not a road runner, while Patrick Makau runs only on roads). These aren't exceptions, but very high-profile demonstrations of the boundaries that exist between the road/track/XC types. SFB 18:44, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Patrick Makau has "run only the occasional track race"[2], so he has run some track races. As the interviewer says, "Many leading marathon runners came to road running from track races." It would seem to be similar for cross country runners. Cjc13 (talk) 15:59, 10 March 2011 (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.

Light and Heavy Rail car builders

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 (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Light and Heavy Rail car builders

Nominator's rationale: Delete All the three (only) members are already adequately categorised in Category:Rail vehicle manufacturers, and this category appears to be only for manufacturers of both Light and Heavy cars. Hugo999 (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicative and besides, what's left when you make light and heavy cars? Mangoe (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2011 (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:Jesus:Divine Mercy

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Technically, the category is empty but it was created as a list so the creator's intention is still clear. That being said, the topics listed either have a tenuous point in common (the title explicitly contains the term "divine mercy") or are included on what appears to be subjective judgment (how much person X was affected by divine mercy). Pichpich (talk) 22:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Well, he did ask about it.- choster (talk) 22:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I commented there, but the next nominator seems to have deleted the section [3]. Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If it actually contained the articles that are listed in the text of the category, it would just be grouping things that have the phrase "Divine Mercy" in the name or, as nom states, people of things that were affected by divine mercy, which can only be a variable/subjective assessment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:17, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify or rather articlise -- Not sure what the title should be, possibly List of propagators of Divine Mercy, probably with an added heading of "Christian" or "Catholic", lest the doctrines of other religions be added inappropriately. We recently had another nom about Catholic orders sharing a name, which I thought ought to become a dab-category. Not usre of outcome of that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify Hey nice to see that there is a group of nominally Catholic Wiki's out there. :-D Jesus has to be the root category for the sub-group Divine Mercy because it is a Catholic devotion and his instructions are it's foundation. That being said, the pages with Divine Mercy in their titles are not in order of importance but they do all have to do with the devotion.:-D The odd man out is John Paul II, but he is really not an odd man out :-/ because he cannonized Saint Faustina and propagated the Divine Mercy message to the world. I am asking for a deletion of "Jesus:Divine Mercy" to the creation of a list with root "Jesus" and subcategory "The Divine Mercy" (Matt.mawson (talk) 08:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Oppose listify Whether it's a category or a list, the fact remains that the criteria for inclusion of articles on the category/list must be clear, objective and supported by authoritative sources. List of propagators of Divine Mercy sounds very subjective and open to interpretation. Pichpich (talk) 16:04, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my commented at the abortive section earlier (see above). Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete content could go directly into Divine Mercy but I'm not sure this adds up to a category. Mangoe (talk) 23:38, 6 March 2011 (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.

Libya subdivisions

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/merge as follows:

Category:Municipalities of Libya to Category:Populated places in Libya
Category:Municipality of Al Jabal al Akhdar to Category:Al Jabal al Akhdar District
Category:Municipality of Ajdabiya to Category:Al Wahat District
Category:Municipality of Al Jufrah to Category:Al Jufrah District

Timrollpickering (talk) 11:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Municipalities of Libya to Category:Populated places in Libya

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Libya has districts (shabiyah) which are subdivided into Basic People's Congresses. As such Libya does not have municipalities. Three of the subcategories under Category:Municipalities of Libya are districts, and are apparently attempts to list the settlements of specific districts: Category:Municipality of Al Jabal al Akhdar, Category:Municipality of Ajdabiya and Category:Municipality of Al Jufrah. The other two Category:Benghazi and Category:Tripoli are the two largest cities in Libya. The story of why baladiyat (no longer used) was originally mistranslated into English as municipality need not concern us, except to explain the confusion. --Bejnar (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Under this proposal:

Category:Municipality of Al Jabal al Akhdar would rename as Category:Populated places in Al Jabal al Akhdar

Category:Municipality of Ajdabiya would rename as Category:Populated places in Ajdabiya, and

Category:Municipality of Al Jufrah would rename as Category:Populated places in Al Jufrah.

--Bejnar (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Municipalities of Libya to Category:Populated places in Libya, per nom. And, unless we plan to create Category:Populated places in Libya by district, alt. rename the district categories to change them from set categories for populated places to topic categories for the districts:
- Category:Municipality of Al Jabal al Akhdar to Category:Al Jabal al Akhdar District
- Category:Municipality of Ajdabiya to Category:Al Wahat District -- Ajdabiya District was merged into Al Wahat District in 2007
- Category:Municipality of Al Jufrah to Category:Al Jufrah District
- -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Making them generic topic categories by district is fine with me. I support Black Falcon's suggestion, in lieu of mine. --Bejnar (talk) 22:49, 1 March 2011 (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:POSIX web browsers

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 (talk) 14:32, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorization. I can't even fathom what a POSIX-compliant browser is. Pnm (talk) 01:03, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's an important category, although missing a description para (I don't think an article is warranted). There are few "POSIX web browsers" in an ordinal sense (i.e. a browser that is for POSIX alone), but it's an important attribute of multi-platform web browsers (and other programs) as to whether they can run under a POSIX operating system (e.g. Linux) or not. As to the naming (it was renamed from Linux web browsers and Unix / UNIX gets a look-in there too), then you'd have to ask someone with the right sort of beard and sandals. They have religious wars over this stuff. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have references which support any of that? POSIX is not an operating system, so what is a browser that is for POSIX alone? I oppose repurposing this category as Category:Web browsers for POSIX-compliant operating systems on grounds of overcategorization, as we don't even attempt to categorize operating systems themselves by POSIX compliance. --Pnm (talk) 00:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename/split to UNIX / Linux browser and / or give ~~a correct~~ any explanation. mabdul 02:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This doesn't make sense to me either. Many things are POSIX-compliant.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is a lack of two categories: Unix and Linux based web browser are missing... mabdul 20:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have requested input from WikiProject Computer science and WikiProject Computing. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:01, 1 March 2011 (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:Heterosexual singers

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 (early close per WP:SNOW and also the category creator is almost surely a sockpuppet of User:Floeticsoulchild, who is currently under an indefinite block). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Good Olfactory (talk • contribs) 21:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Trivial Intersection, Fails WP:EGRS#Sexuality as the sexuality does not have a specific relationship to the topic. ~~Is currently being added to many high-vis singer pages.~~ Has been emptied. The Interior (Talk) 18:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not at all fabulous. Also, pointless category. Gamaliel (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable intersection of sexual orientation and profession. Heterosexual singers do not form a "distinct and unique cultural topic in their own right". ---Sluzzelin talk 18:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Pointless category for reasons stated. —Tom Morris (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Uninformative intersection with too many members, a potential nightmare of referencing. Binksternet (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – see also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 6#Category:Straight actors. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sluzzelin. 28bytes (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Sluzzelin. However, I would like to see the guideline about when an intersection of two categories legitimately creates a notable one. I seem to see a fair number of these, although less obvious than this one before us, which seems to have been created merely to prove a point. --Bejnar (talk) 21:11, 1 March 2011 (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.

Historians

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 (talk) 11:31, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fascist era scholars and writers --> Category:Historians of fascism
Category:Nazi era scholars and writers --> Category:Historians of Nazism
Rename to match other subcategories of "Historians by field of study". Also current category names could imply these scholars could actually be from fascist or Nazi eras. - Darwinek (talk) 18:13, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename It's only reasonable. Personally, I would also suggest a merge into "Historians of Fascism and Nazism", to avoid unnecessary debates of the "what is what to whom". Get them all in one place, is what I say. Dahn (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It needs renaming, but as it exists it uses a temporal exclusion (era), rather than a "field of study" one. It is much broader than just historians. The renaming proposed excludes the non-historians, notably those ethicists whose essays are not about history. Despite its temporal exclusion, do the categories actually mean "writers on fascism" and "writers on the Nazis'? In a renaming should it be a topical exclusion? --Bejnar (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as proposed. The current titles not only go against convention, they're also slightly ambiguous. Pichpich (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2011 (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: Muses of famous writers

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 cat as empty. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:35, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

- category emptied. Herostratus (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory nomination. I just created this category and want to know if it's kosher before populating it. The rationale for the category, there are bunch of people who main notability is that they inspired writers and appeared in their works (albeit usually fictionalized). Barbara Bakhmetev, Virginia Eliza Clemm Poe, Alice Liddel, and what have you. Alice B. Toklas. Etc. I noted that the Russians have this category, and it has 54 members (granted, mostly Russians). Since this is the main thing about several folks we have articles on, it makes sense to me, but I'm not a category guy, so input welcome. Herostratus (talk) 18:00, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Without going into the need for the cat, "famous" is POV and superfluous. Incidentally, is Veronica Micle's lover "famous" enough for her to make the cut? But, anyway, the category as a whole may not be, to quote, kosher: too many issues, in my opinion. Dahn (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Muses of notable writers? Notable = has a Wikipedia article. Herostratus (talk) 06:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think any adjective is superfluous. Most categories are named in this way, e.g. Category:Paintings by artist not Category:Notable paintings by notable artist, because it is already implied. Regarding this category's existence: if there are enough articles to populate such category, why not? jonkerz ♠ 06:33, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am not convinced Muses of writers will work. I am not convinced this is a well established case of linkages. I am also not convinced there will be many cases where it is easy to state that a given person was the muse of a given writer. Also, why start with Muses of writers and not Muses of artists, and have writers, painters and what not be sub-cats?John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:15, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Definitively the "famous" is not needed. I'm also not convinced that "Muses of writers" is a good idea for a category. To categorize someone as an "inspiration" for a writer is definitely not a cut-and-dried in-or-out proposition in all cases. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:08, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't see a lot of enthusiasm for this category, and the various points against it are well taken. Not completely convinced that it could not be a useful category, but at any rate needs to be though out some more. I have emptied the category and I think a robot will then destroy it. (I would close this discussion but I don't know if that's kosher, so I just marked it as resolved.) Herostratus (talk) 17:13, 6 March 2011 (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:The KLF redirects

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 (talk) 18:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is part of an inactive WikiProject. The topic seems too minor to warrant its own category for related redirects anyway. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This does not appear to be a useful way of organizing redirects. For project tracking purposes, Category:Redirect-Class KLF articles (subcategory of Category:The KLF articles by quality) would be more appropriate. All of the redirects currently are in Category:NA-Class KLF articles, and some modifications to {{WikiProject The KLF}} (which can be made if/when the project becomes active again) so that it would recognize "class=Redirect" would resolve the matter. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:12, 2 March 2011 (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.

General Canada transportation categories

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 as nominated, noting the outcome of the Requested Move discussion at Talk:Transport in Canada. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Canada transportation-related lists to Category:Canada transport-related lists

Propose renaming Category:Canadian transportation law to Category:Canadian transport law

Propose renaming Category:Defunct transportation companies of Canada to Category:Defunct transport companies of Canada

Propose renaming Category:Intermodal transportation authorities in Canada to Category:Intermodal transport authorities in Canada

Propose renaming Category:Proposed public transportation in Canada to Category:Proposed public transport in Canada

Propose renaming Category:Proposed transportation infrastructure in Canada to Category:Proposed transport infrastructure in Canada

Propose renaming Category:Public transportation in Canada to Category:Public transport in Canada

Propose renaming Category:Transportation companies of Canada to Category:Transport companies of Canada

Propose renaming Category:Transportation infrastructure in Canada to Category:Transport infrastructure in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Following this nomination which renamed Category:Transportation in Canada to Category:Transport in Canada, here are some general categories which should be renamed along the same path. City and province categories will be nominated separately.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:46, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and previous CFR. - Darwinek (talk) 19:04, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and previous CFR. - Plasma east (talk) 03:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per previous CFD. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per previos CFR. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:35, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
ATTENTION - I have moved the main article for this page back to Transportation in Canada, see my reasoning on that page. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Your reasoning is invalid, and has been reverted, please discuss controversial moves, rather than performing them. Thanks, 117Avenue (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how my reasoning is "invalid". Yes, discussion is needed, but why when wasn't there any discussion before the initial change. I agree this category should match the page, but the page was moved without discussion, which I object too. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 09:18, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and previous CFR, except Defunct transportation companies of Canada, it isn't related to the federal government. 117Avenue (talk) 07:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: A requested move discussion has been initiated at the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:36, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Leave as is, see reasons at the requested move listed by Black Falcon, Transport in Canada's talk page. --Bejnar (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I have just closed the Requested Move discussion as "no consensus", defaulting to keeping the article at Transport in Canada. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 24 March 2011 (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:Breast fetishism

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 (talk) 18:32, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category isn't about breast fetishism. It's about women with large breasts. Without the articles on women with large breasts there are about three articles, two of which don't say anything about breast fetishism at all. Put the lead article in the main fetishism category and get rid of this. Lafe Smith (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the articles in this category - probably all except the main article - should be removed anyways. jonkerz ♠ 01:54, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not to assume bad faith towards anyone, but this category is essentially acting as a way around the fact that a number of variants of Category:Women with large breasts have been deleted in the past. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:35, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Good Olfactory. Herostratus (talk) 01:33, 9 March 2011 (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:Architecture in Turkey

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:30, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Architecture in Turkey to Category:Turkish architecture

Nominator's rationale: Merge This is the standard form within Category:Architecture by country. Pichpich (talk) 13:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Creator's opinion: Oppose These two categories are not synonym. Turkish architecture refers to the architecture created by Turks in Turkey or elsewhere. Arcitecture in Turkey refers to architecture created in Turkey by Turks or former people of Turkey: For example Bezeklik Thousand Buddha Caves (in China) and Gonbad (in India) have been categorized in Turkish Architecture . But Alahan Monastery (built by Byzantines) can be categorized in Architecture in Turkey. How are we going to place a those quite unrelated buildings in the same category ? Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Nedim Ardoğa. It appears that the standard form of Category:Architecture by country may not be the best, and we might need to reconsider that form because of its inherent ambiguity, not just here, but with respect to French architecture which is not synonymous with "Architecture in France". Would Category:Byzantine architecture be a subcategory of Category:Turkish architecture? --Bejnar (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In fact Turkish architecture at times is not done by Turks at all. It is done in the style of Turkish architecture by non-Turks. Are we also going to argue that Category:Greek architecture and Category:Architecture in Greece and the same? If that is thought to be the case, I will argue against such a view.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Architecture in Turkey, as this just consists of buildings in Turkey which is already covered by Category:Buildings and structures in Turkey. These buildings are already in subcategories of Category:Buildings and structures in Turkey. Cjc13 (talk) 12:54, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per opposers, & the buildings & structures category is not an adequate substitute. Johnbod (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2011 (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:Railways lines closed in 1993

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 Category:Railway lines closed in 1993. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:29, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete or merge into category with correct spelling ie Category:Railway lines closed in 1993. Hugo999 (talk) 11:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy merge C2A, at least the way I read it.- choster (talk) 23:24, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Four other categories contain a similar error (see Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Railways lines), and the article Chemin de Fer de la Baie de Somme is the only member of each of the five categories. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:39, 2 March 2011 (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:Fictional mutates

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 (talk) 14:36, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I am nominating this category for deletion as part of my attempt to deal with the problems of its parent, Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability. There are serious issues with many of these categories, which I twice raised for discussion at the Village Pump (1, 2). Over a period of weeks, and after announcing it on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics, there has been no discussion whatever on fixing these problems. Comments raised in previous deletion discussions, which closed without consensus, were:

"too broad", "ill defined", "pointless trivia", "useless", "far, far too broad", "It's chuff and too broad", "no precise real-world definition for a jargon sf term", "Definition for inclusion seems murky"

All of these apply to this category, in addition to the fact that "mutate" is being erroneously used as a noun. While it may be so used in some particular franchise, it is not appropriate for a general category. I would suggest merging with Category:Fictional mutants, but that category was itself nominated for deletion with no consensus, and this category plainly states that the terms are not synonymous. Feezo (Talk) 06:03, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until someone produces a relevant article on mutates. Or upmerge to Category:Fictional mutants (as a 'mutate' achieves mutant status, presumably). Occuli (talk) 09:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I have no opinion on the merits of the category, but I can explain why "mutates" isn't viewed as a legitimate synonym for "mutants." In the comic book world, "mutants" are those born with genetic superpowers (e.g., the X-Men) and "mutates" are those who gain superpowers by being exposed to a mutagen (e.g., Spider-Man or the Hulk). This is WP:JARGON, and may not be appropriate for this encyclopedia. So deletion may make sense. But merging the two is definitely wrong.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The line is a little finer than that - As far as I can tell "mutate" was a term coined by, and used almost exclusively by, Marvel Comics for the characters that are "mutated humans". And frankly, it is jargon and it is being applied with more than a little OR and fan enthusiasm. with that in mind, deleting the category would be a step in the right direction. As for the content... most of the DC Comics character articles should be in Category:DC Comics metahumans with the remaining articles not needing to go anywhere else. With the sub cats... DC Comics metahumans and Category:Marvel Comics mutates an migrate up to Category:Fictional characters by superhuman feature or ability and Category:Wild Cards characters can drop from this particular categorization schema. And as an aside or two... "Marvel Comics mutates" could, and likely should, be changed to "Marvel Comics characters identified as mutates", but either is more geared towards a Marvel-centric wiki. And "metahuman" has become DC's generic term for "It looks human, but has powers.", and also feels more geared towards a DC-centric wiki. - J Greb (talk) 22:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Exactly so. I decided not to go into the finer points of it, but that's exactly right. I don't feel we need to distinguish superheroes by spongy concepts created to sort characters inside their own universes. I'd likely delete all these categories in favor of just "(X comics company) characters."--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:15, 2 March 2011 (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:St. Bernard's Seminary alumni

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 (talk) 11:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:St. Bernard's Seminary (Rochester) alumni to Category:St. Bernard's School of Theology and Ministry alumni
Nominator's rational the article for the school these people are alumni of is located at St. Bernard's School of Theology and Ministry. At some level I wish we could logically propose a more to Category:Saint Bernard's School of Theology and Ministry alumni but that would require a proposal to end every non-spelling out of St. There is a large number of category names and an even larger number of article names that contain St., so for now I am contenting myself to make proposals that involve regularising category names to article names. Anyway in this case both the pre- and post-rename names involve "St." so that is not an issue at all, I just brought this up so people do not say this rename is inconsistent with my last one. I am not sure there is any rhyme or reason in the choice of "St." verses "Saint" in article names, I am just seeking conformty of category and article names at this point.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2011 (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:St. Joseph's College (Indiana) alumni

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: Reame. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:St. Joseph's College (Indiana) alumni to Category:Saint Joseph's College (Indiana) alumni

Nominator's rational - This will case the category name to agree with the name for the article on the institution these people are alumni of Saint Joseph's College (Indiana).John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedily rename per criterion C2C. McLerristarr | Mclay1 16:50, 1 March 2011 (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:Co-Freemason Wikipedians

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 (talk) 18:26, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This userbox-populated category does not appear to facilitate encylopedic collaboration. Membership in a Co-Masonic Lodge does not automatically imply an above-average interest in contributing to articles related to the topic of Co-Freemasonry; the fact that User:Fuzzypeg is the only editor of the four in the category who has significantly edited Co-Freemasonry-related articles supports this notion. Also, given the requirement that article content be supported by reliable sources and not first-hand knowledge, membership does not automatically imply an above-average ability to contribute to Co-Freemasonry-related articles.
A category for editors interested in the topic of Co-Freemasonry (Category:Wikipedians interested in Co-Freemasonry) would be useful, but it should not be created via renaming—i.e., it should not be populated by the same userbox that populates Category:Co-Freemason Wikipedians. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have invited User:Fuzzypeg to comment in this discussion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:59, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Doesn't facilitate collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 07:58, 2 March 2011 (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:Universal Music Latino albums

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 Category:Universal Music Latin albums. A further move to Category:Universal Music Latin Entertainment albums might make sense, but the category will need to be nominated separately.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:30, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete A similar category already exists. See Category:Universal Music Latin albums Magiciandude (talk) 02:10, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - 'Universal Music Latino albums' is a category for the record label, Universal Music Latino. This other 'Universal Music Latin albums' category is probably a general category for representing various Latino albums released by various labels under the Universal Music Group, and is therefore ambiguous. Ideally, the 'Universal Music Latin albums' category should be dismantled and each album classified under its respective record label category. Imperatore (talk) 05:05, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – we have generally deleted these when there is no separate article for the recording company: Universal Music Latino and Universal Music Latin both redirect to Universal Music Latin Entertainment. In any case Category:Universal Music Latino albums only has one article, of dubious notability. Occuli (talk) 09:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It only has one album because when I created the category I only bothered to insert that one album I happened to have looked up and edited. However, I'm sure if one sifts through the 'Universal Music Latin albums' category, there's surely several others albums that rightfully belong under the appropriate label category, Universal Music Latino albums. Also with regards to the redirects of Universal Music Latino and Universal Music Latin to Universal Music Latin Entertainment, Latino is a label of the Latin Entertainment umbrella without its own article, but with its own subsection in the latin entertainment page. And of course 'universal music latin' would naturally redirect to 'universal music latin entertainment' as it's the full title. Imperatore (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about this? We rename the category "Universal Music Latin" to "Universal Music Latin Entertainment" and put the "Universa Music Latino album" as a subcategory? Magiciandude (talk) 21:32, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what I had in mind when I set out to clean up the Universal Music Group album categories. Imperatore (talk) 22:02, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge nominated category and Category:Universal Music Latin albums into a new Category:Universal Music Latin Entertainment albums. If a specific label doesn't have an independent article, I don't think we should have a category for it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:33, 10 March 2011 (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:National councils

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 (talk) 18:23, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is an example of categorizing of unrelated subjects by shared naming feature: see WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Some of these are national parliaments, some are national security councils, and some are national councils of churches. The only thing they really have in common is that (1) in their names is the word "Council" and (2) they are national bodies and/or have the word "National" in their names. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:08, 3 March 2011 (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:Fiji rugby work group

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 to Category:Fiji rugby work group articles, revisit if necessary. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:42, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fiji rugby work group to Category:WikiProject Rugby union/Fiji

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Needs to be spelt out that this is a WikiProject group - at the moment it feeds directly into the Fijian rugby category which makes it look like the name of a FRFU organisation. Suggested new name is what WP:RU calls its key subpage for the work group. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alt. rename to Category:Rugby union (Fiji) articles (similar to Category:Biography (arts and entertainment) articles by quality) or Category:Fiji rugby work group articles (similar to Category:Arts and entertainment work group articles). Since this is a category for talk pages, I have removed it from Category:Rugby union in Fiji. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 03:04, 1 March 2011 (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.

Defunct railway stations in the United States

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 merged. More and wider discussion is needed to clarify the scope of the various categories and the distinction between them. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Former railway stations in the United States to Category:Defunct railway stations in the United States

Propose merging Category:Demolished railway stations in the United States to Category:Defunct railway stations in the United States

Nominator's rationale:

The Former and Defunct categories cover very similar material, but the contents of the categories have not been defined. Demolished can probably also be merged with these two. There have been many previous discussions on related categories, but none specific to these. There hasn't really been consensus about which adjective to use in describing rail stations that are no longer in service. Various terms include abandoned, closed, defunct, demolished, disused, and former. I want to mention all of the previous discussions. If I left any out, it is because I did not find them.

Previous discussions:

Current categories beginning with prefix:

"Abandoned railway stations" - 1 (a redirect to defunct in US)
"Closed railway stations" - 8 (all in Australia)
"Defunct railway stations" - 26 (various countries, 1 US city, & 1 US state)
"Demolished railway stations" - 1 (US)
"Disused railway stations" - 207 (mostly Commonwealth countries)
"Former railway stations" - 3 (US, Graubünden, & Mumbai)

The reason I chose my proposal to merge Category:Former railway stations in the United States to Category:Defunct railway stations in the United States is because the parent category for all these types of categories is Category:Defunct railway stations (which was previously merged with Category:Former railway stations). I wouldn't mind having a different outcome, but these categories need to be discussed. I'm open to discussing using Category:Disused railway stations in the United States instead (and renaming the subcategories), or to have distinct categories with clear definition of the terms (such as on commons - commons:Category:Abandoned train stations ("not in use any more AND are not being used for other purposes"), commons:Category:Disused train stations ("disused train stations are no longer in use, but may have other uses...NOT used for any purpose anymore, locate in [abandoned]"), and commons:Category:Former train stations ("once served as train stations, but now have another function...do not sort ruined or defunct (unused) train stations...Those belong in [disused or abandoned]"), but I'm not sure where demolished stations go). However, I think we'd run into overcategorization if all of the existing categories were split into these 3 distinct category trees. Therefore, I'd like to use an all-encompassing term - as much as possible, that is. That's why I'd also like to merge Category:Demolished railway stations in the United States in to Category:Defunct railway stations in the United States. Having two different trees of subcategorization of demolished and defunct/former/disused seems overkill.

Of the 8 subcategories in Category:Former railway stations in the United States, 4 are "Defunct," 1 is "Demolished," and 3 are "Former." However, the "Former" categories are probably miscategorized. Most of their articles are about currently used stations that are no longer serviced by the specified line/company, thus they are not "former railway stations." Of the 75 articles in Category:Former railway stations in the United States, most stations seem to be still standing, but no longer having any rail service (although there are some demolished stations here, too).

The problem is finding a term that includes both demolished and still-standing structures. To me, both defunct and former are similarly-inclusive terms, including demolished, abandoned, and re-purposed stations; though former gives a stronger connotation that the station is still standing. Disused would only include structures still standing - abandoned and re-purposed. That's why I'm for "defunct," but I'm open to hearing more opinions. Scott Alter (talk) 00:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Category:Demolished railway stations in the United States has as a parent Category:Demolished buildings and structures in the United States. So a single upmerge is not acceptable. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:45, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do not merge 'demolished' is a proper subset of 'former', the latter which can include stations which are abandoned or re-purposed as indicated above, regardless of what else happens. Merging confuses things and does not allow the demolished ones to be placed into its valid parent Category:Demolished buildings and structures in the United States Hmains (talk) 03:35, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Could you further clarify your point of view in this three-category merge? How about just merging former with defunct and leaving demolished as-is? (I originally was just going to propose that and have a simple Cfm, but I wanted to get opinions on all the related categories.) I'd not like this to end up as an all or nothing vote. --Scott Alter (talk) 04:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion has been brought up before, and I opposed it on the grounds of former stations having other services, such as Amtrak stations as former AT&SF stations or PRR stations, or NYC, stations, or SCL stations, IRT Rockaway Line stations being former LIRR stations, Chicago "L" stations being former CA&E stations, or CNS&M stations, etc. I haven't changed my mind on this issue. I still Oppose the change. ----DanTD (talk) 05:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Can you point me to previous discussions (if I haven't mentioned them already)? I thought I addressed the point that "former railway stations" that still see active service, though via a different service, are not really "former railway stations" without an additional modifier. I think those are currently miscategorized, and should be in a separate hierarchy than truly former/defunct stations. They would do better somewhere within Category:Rail stations by company in the United States. I would like to actually discuss what these categories are for, in addition to deciding their fate. There has been no prior consensus as to what belongs where. Rather than keep the status quo, I'd like to improve these categories. Do you really think the current categorization is optimal? If not, how can we improve? --Scott Alter (talk) 11:44, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Right here, and I was beginning to think it was deleted. ----DanTD (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was one of the Cfds I posted at the top. I read it over again and find no discussion of the US categories. That Cfd was about renaming the 1 existing UK category from disused to defunct, which was not supported. For the US categories, we currently have 2 almost identical categories: defunct and former. This Cfd is not about renaming, but merging them together. No one has yet stated the difference between defunct and former stations. Is there a difference? Which types of articles belong in which category? Maybe call them "disused" like the UK categories. To me, the name of the category is secondary, but I'd rather have just one. I understand your argument (both then and now) that "not every former station is defunct, disused, or closed." However, I still believe that a "former station" no longer sees trains, but a "former modifier (e.g. Amtrak) station" may still see trains and probably shouldn't belong in "former stations." Despite this, I'd like this to be a discussion about merging the two categories. I'd also be willing to reverse merge, but I see no reason to keep both defunct and former categories. Do you? And if so, why? That is the discussion and differentiation I am trying to elicit. --Scott Alter (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. I believe I made comments like this once before. No action should be taken on this series of names until we have a real discussion to identify exactly what these terms mean and what, if any, regional differences in use exist. Clearly demolished has a very specific meaning that does not, in my opinion, match any of the other names. The fact that all of the Australia categories use closed makes me think that there may be some local meaning there. Without all of these answers, we can not make an informed choice. I'd suggest that we open a discussion on the above terms, and any others, as used in categories to understand how they are used on the cfd talk page. Invite the appropriate projects including rail and buildings to participate in the discussion. Then make sure that all of the categories have introductions explaining what they include including regional differences. Once we understand the whole picture then we can decide what if any changes are needed. Note that I am not opposed to changes in this area. I just need to know if they are justified. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that Wikipedia:Categories for discussion is a good place to openly discuss categories, which is why I initiated the discussion here. The previous Cfds have basically found there to be regional differences. The UK categories are titled "disused." The Australian categories are titled "closed." There is no consensus about the US, but both "former" and "defunct" are currently in use. The previous UK discussions came to the consensus that the UK categories should use "disused." I'd at least like to figure out what the US consensus is. Then, there can be a larger, more informed discussion regarding possibly renaming Category:Defunct railway stations]. I'm not familiar with the buildings WikiProject(s), but I notified Trains and Stations of this discussion. Maybe more people will participate so a consensus regarding terminology can be obtained. What is your preference? --Scott Alter (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Like I said, I'd like to understand the reasons behind these differences. Making a decision on the US categories without considering this in total would, in my opinion, be unwise. I guess we can see if there is sufficient input here to sort this out. Oh, looks like Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture may be the closest for the building side. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:37, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Too complicated There are actually multiple issues lurking in this, but all of them have to do with the fact that some of the distinctions revolve around station buildings and others revolve around station stops. If one starts looking at the articles under Category:Demolished railway stations in the United States, there is a fairly confusing mixture of genuinely notable buildings which have been torn down, and discontinued station stops where the building has been torn down, but which building may or may not have been considered notable. As a rule the category hasn't been applied to active station stops where the building has been demolished (e.g., St. Denis (MARC station)). The "defunct" category has similar issues. A lot of these categories seem to be related to someone's project to put in articles on all "SEPTA" stations but to further complicate matters there are some cases where "defunct" stations have been demolished and "demolished" stations never were part of the SEPTA system in the first place. And surely there are cases out there where there wasn't any building in the first place, and I'm not sure that the difference between "abandoned" and "defunct" and "former" or whatever else is even worth making. I've always doubted the worth of having articles on station stops because very little of the information is in my opinion encyclopedic independent of the line or service on which the station serves, but in any case we get cases such as the former B&O station in Rockville, Maryland, which still exists but IIRC has been moved, and the trains still stop in Rockville, but at a different location. I believe the station in Silver Spring, Maryland has of late undergone roughly the same change. What we really seem to have here is one categorization of station stops, and another of station buildings, and it's not clear to me how to reconcile them. Mangoe (talk) 19:59, 8 March 2011 (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.