Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 24 October 26 >

October 25[edit]

Category:Lists of Pope John Paul II[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename The current name doesn't work since there's only one John Paul II. I think the awkward title was intended to make it a subcategory of Category:Lists of Roman Catholic popes but that doesn't work since, say, List of pastoral visits of Pope John Paul II outside Italy is not a list of popes. (Note that I've fixed the categorization and made the category a subcat of Category:Roman Catholic-related lists.) Pichpich (talk) 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point. I've modified the proposal. Pichpich (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2012 (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:Waterfront Hotels & Casinos[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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:53, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This hotel is part of a very small chain (for which there's no article) and none of the other hotels in the chain currently have articles. Moreover I'm not so sure they're that notable to start with. So this category is not providing any help for navigation and should be deleted. Pichpich (talk) 23:25, 25 October 2012 (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:Helix (band)[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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The category is basically an empty shell containing only the albums category. Pichpich (talk) 23:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – there are now 3 subcats. Oculi (talk) 12:52, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as above said there are 3 subcats which seems reasonable.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 15:33, 26 October 2012 (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:Trujillo Festivals (Peru)[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:54, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to follow the naming conventions. This is my preferred option but upmerging to Category:Festivals in Peru is another decent option since only three entries truly fit the "Festivals in Trujillo" description. Pichpich (talk) 23:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, but I'm agree with any of the two options both are good (rename or merge).--Antodeabout (talk) 17:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is for festivals in Trujillo, Peru, not festivals named Trujillo that occur in Peru.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Johnpacklambert. --Bob247 (talk) 15:21, 27 October 2012 (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:Maccabiah Games rugby union teams[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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:03, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category contains just one article and will not be containing more as all the other teams that participate in this tournament had their articles deleted. Bob247 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2012 (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.

Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games‎ subcategories[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: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories all contain just one article which are also located in the parent category, Category:Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games‎. Also, these categories will unlikely contain more articles as a whole bunch were deleted as they failed WP:GNG here. Bob247 (talk) 20:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per niom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Continual deletions keep on whittling these categories down.--MacRùsgail (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Please list this on the relevant projects.
  • Delete - I would say merge if not assured that they were already in the parent. They can be re-created if there is any prospect of their being adequately populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Serve no special purpose. Parent category is sufficient to list all these eight to nine entries. — Bill william comptonTalk 02:29, 31 October 2012 (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:Wikipedians who are a net negative as an influence on Wikipedia[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: delete per WP:SNOW. This is a blatant attack page, which was correctly deleted per WP:CSD#G10. It was re-created by a non-admin, and per speedy deletion policy it was eligible for further speedy deletion. To prevent its creation again, I have salted it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. First, the background. There exists Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian. Fron what I can piece together from various discussions, the category was created following an insulting comment from one editor to another. Speedy deletion was requested and denied. It was then proposed for deletion and in the couse of that discussion was speedily deleted as an attack category intended to disparage. Discussion then moved to deletion review. In the course of that discussion this category was created. I asked that it be speedy deleted as an attack/disparagement category. It was deleted and the category creator recreated it.

This category should be deleted for several reasons. It is an attack/disparagement category and its name leaves no room for dispute on that point. Saying that an editor has a negative influence on Wikipedia is an insult. That the category creator put himself in it, I assume ironically, does not change that.

The category does not serve the purpose of a Wikipedians category, which is to foster collaboration between Wikipedians. If a Wikipedian's presence on the project is a "net negative" then the likelihood of collaboration between them is low and any such collaboration would likely not benefit or improve the project.

Finally, the category was created in the course of the deletion review, in clear violation of WP:POINT. The project is disrupted by the existence of attack/disparagement categories, it is disrupted when an editor re-creates a category after it's been deleted and it's disrupted when a week-long discussion is forced by the category's creation.

In my opinion the category should again be speedy deleted as an attack and it should be blocked from being recreated (and the creator should be strongly encouraged not to create other similar categories). If it cannot be speedy deleted then it should be deleted per the argument laid out above.

For the record I don't know anything about the underlying dispute and to the best of my knowledge have had no interaction with any of the involved parties outside of what's disclosed in these discussions. Buck Winston (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Let the other discussion run its course. There is no need to start a parallel discussion here. If the other category is deleted, then delete this. If the other stays, keep this. No drama. No redundant discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • First, this is not a "parallel discussion". It is a discussion of this category and is independent of the other. Second, regardless of what happens to the other category, this category still needs to go. Third, you should identify yourself as the creator and re-creator of the nominated category. Buck Winston (talk) 22:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Buck,
    The discussions are contemporaneous, and the arguments there apply here, so don't waste others' time with a duplicate discussion, unless you have an original thought to contribute. What is new in your verbiage? Kiefer.Wolfowitz 23:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, I don't think some of these words mean what you think they do... Buck Winston (talk) 00:50, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please avoid ad hominem disruptions and address the issues raised. Please avoid close paraphrasing and indeed cite your source. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:59, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete, leaving a nameless void This disruptive, WP:POINTy nonsense can stop any time, and now would be that time. Mangoe (talk) 01:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy this crap. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Reply to Mangoe and Carlossuarez46: You two do not like the category. Please explain why (1) why this category is different than the other category being discussed and (2) what policy suggests a deletion. (WP:POINT has been discussed on the other's talk page.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz 07:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorsed deletion of the other category as well, on the same grounds. The policy in question would be "WP:Ignore all wikilawyering and get rid of what is causing a lot of disprution to no positive end." Mangoe (talk) 14:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever happens to the other category is irrelevant. Each category is considered separately. Buck Winston (talk) 00:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an attack category, which is something we do not allow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an unambiguous attack category. NB the other discussion alluded to here is more subtle, this is blatant, with no room for discussion possible.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 07:33, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a divisive and copycat cat of a certain other cat up for deletion. Doc talk 08:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons too numerous to list. Category creator should be ashamed of this disruptive behavior. --Orlady (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2012 (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.

Subnational entities[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:55, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename following super-cat category:Country subdivisions and others in Category:Categories by country subdivision. – Fayenatic London 20:28, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I originally put them at speedy [1] and there was no opposition. So it seems more a technical nomination here. ChemTerm (talk) 00:30, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, but there was an objection, as you forgot to tag the category pages. Your nom is currently still on the speedy page at WP:CFDS#Moved to full discussion. I only noticed your speedy nomination after I had already started this one. – Fayenatic London 16:49, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    To my understanding it was not an objection to the renaming but a notice that I forgot to tag the category pages. And /I/ thought when I saw the templates, that the person did fix that. I now checked and see that you put the templates to the category pages. Thanks! Cheers. ChemTerm (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2012 (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:Folk Heroes of Assam[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:56, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no scheme for Category:Folk heroes by ethnicity and only one entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge there does not seem to be a general trend to subdivide folk heroes from more general forlklore categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Until there are enough articles for theri to be a need to split the people out of the wider concept of folklore stories, we do not need more than one category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2012 (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:Wedding dress designers[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: keep main category, upmerge nationality categories. I've taken the liberty to upmerge the lightly populated Category:American wedding dress designers and Category:British wedding dress designers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Additional nominations by Fayenatic london:
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Seems like a rather unnecessary split from fashion designers based on having designed a single type of garment. Surely most fashion designers will have designed one at some point and it is unlikely to be a defining trait.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree. Some designers either are purely wedding dress designers or are strongly known for it, it is not for every designers who has ever made a wedding dress. Just like Category:Western (genre) film actors is not intended for every actor who ever appeared in a western. I am baffled why you would pick on this obviously constructive category, aren't there more serious problems on wikipedia?♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 19:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep main, upmerge sub-cats. The category purpose is restricted to those who are notable for designing wedding dresses; in practice this may mean royal wedding dresses, e.g. Norman Hartnell, Edouard Vermeulen. – Fayenatic London 19:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have added two small sub-categories into this nomination, to be merged to both parents. The American sub-category currently also has only one member, but I assume that it could easily be expanded. – Fayenatic London 19:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but probably don't need to subdivide by nationality (?). (decided I did have an opinion) No strong opinion, but wanted to add that there is a separate fashion week solely for wedding dress designs, and that most designer wedding dresses worn in the real world (can't speak to celebrities who may wear one-offs by other designers) are made by designers who only (or at least 80-90%) design wedding dresses. For example, Monique Lhuillier, Anne Barge, Vera Wang... Traditionally, a fashion show in the normal fashion week context has one wedding dress as the final look of their ~30-look show, which may give some indication of the percentage of their work devoted to such dresses. (And these days, that traditional wedding dress look is seen less and less.) Calliopejen1 (talk) 20:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever happens to the main category I would agree that the nationality sub cats are not needed . In future if the main one got huge I could see it but not in the present.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 02:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I only meant to upmerge the two small sub-cats that I have nominated, but have no objection to double-upmerge of the British and American sub-cats as well. – Fayenatic London 17:14, 26 October 2012 (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:Slovakian aircraft[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This does not follow the tree naming convention. Renaming to what is anticapted to be the outcome of this discussion. The others can probably be done as speedy nominations. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 25 October 2012 (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:Goldfinger (band)[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: keep. This category was nominated by the same editor at CFD September 30, which was closed on October 7 as "keep", after nobody supported deletion. If the nominator disagreed with that closure, they could have opened a DRV, but it is tendentious to start a new discussion only 18 days later, and this renomination should have been procedurally closed as soon as it was opened.
Since it was not closed, and ran its course, I have assessed it in the usual way for repeat nominations, by considering whether there is a consensus that anything has changed since the previous discussion. In this case, there is no consensus that the previous discussion was flawed or that it overlooked a crucial issue, so the result is keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via {{catseealso}}--why keep this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 25 October 2012 (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:Do-Re-Mi (band)[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: keep, partly for the same reasons that apply to my Closure of above the discussion on Category:Goldfinger (band). In this case renomination only 18 days after the the previous nomination by the same editor has produced a clear consensus to keep the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:13, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via {{catseealso}}--why keep this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – it was indeed recently listed and deletion was unanimously opposed by 4 editors. (There are image files which should be placed in an images subcat, making 3 subcats, generally kept.) Oculi (talk) 19:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
  1. Eponymous are discouraged? I don't see any such directive at Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories.
  2. Your proposed deletion was defeated some three weeks ago, see here, how has the situation changed sufficiently for it to now be deletable?
  3. I'll see if I can add an images subcat.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:48, 25 October 2012 (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:Models (band)[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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:22, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via {{catseealso}}--why have this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose
  1. Eponymous are discouraged? I don't see any such directive at Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories.
  2. Your proposed deletion was defeated some three weeks ago, see here, how has the situation changed sufficiently for it to now be deletable?
  3. I'll see if I can add some images to increase the content.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 20:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Apparently querulous renomination - David Gerard (talk) 23:17, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - now has 4 subcats. Oculi (talk) 12:54, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - as per my previous comments when the nomination was defeated previously. Dan arndt (talk) 07:17, 31 October 2012 (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:Beat Happening[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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:23, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – as this has just been kept (7 Oct 2012) it is too soon to bring it back to cfd. Perhaps consensus against eponymous categories with 2 subcats is shifting. Oculi (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - apparently querulous renomination - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2012 (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:Sri Lankan refugee camps[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: rename to Category:Refugee camps in Sri Lanka. There was no discussion of the nominator's related proposal for restructuring, but since there were no objections I presume that it is uncontroversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to follow the lead article Sri Lankan IDP camps. The article names all include "IDP camps" (for internally displaced person). An alternative would be Category:Refugee camps in Sri Lanka following others in Category:Refugee camps by location. There is at present no hierarchy for IDP camps other than the grandparent Category:Refugee camps; it contains Category:Displaced Persons camps but that was for a specific period following WW2.
Also restructure making the category a sub-cat of Category:Sri Lankan internment camps and removing the articles from that, as they are currently also all in it. That would leave the latter containing the renamed category plus Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya which was used as a rehab camp at a different period. It also currently contains Vanni Mouse, a short film set in an IDP camp, so I would move that into the renamed category.
This could have been a speedy nomination under WP:C2D, but a full discussion seemed appropriate. – Fayenatic London 18:11, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - As the editor who originally created this category I support renaming to Category:Refugee camps in Sri Lanka so that follows other similar categories.--obi2canibetalk contr 16:14, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK then, I am changing my nomination to support that alternative. That could be a speedy close as WP:C2B. – Fayenatic London 16:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename it is generally better to avoid possesive forms for things that it could be confusing whether it is by location or by nationality of the people involved. We want this to be clearly the former.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 30 October 2012 (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:British people by second-level administrative subdivision[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: rename to Category:People by county in the United Kingdom. The commenters don't feel like Scotland's council areas are meaningfully different than counties, so a more specific category name is warranted. Regardless, the category should match the "People by (X) in (Y)" format of the other subcategories of Category:People by second-level administrative country subdivision.--Mike Selinker(talk) 08:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency. I've separately nominated all the ones that have "administrative country subdivision" to be shortened, dropping the unnecessary word "administrative", in line with parent Category:Country subdivisions. This may be different as it's just one country, which has different names for its second-level subdivisions in the various first-level subdivisions, so I have moved it out for separate discussion. Nevertheless "administrative" is not correct, as Category:People by county in England states that it groups people "by current ceremonial county", not by district even when they are unitary coucils (which have former county council responsibilities). – Fayenatic London 20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • OpposeSupport As The situation may be is different in Scotland. For instance, "[Perth and Kinross] was created a single district in 1975, in the Tayside region, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, and then reconstituted as a unitary authority (with a minor boundary adjustment) in 1996, by the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994". So it is obviously an administrative subdivision. Moreover, Category:People by council area in Scotland states This category lists Scottish people by the council area where they were born and/or raised. These sound to me like an adminstrative area and not a ceremonial county or similar. Can anybody correct me on this position? Therefore, although the name is correct for Scotland, it is not for England. --Bob247 (talk) 15:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:British people by county or possibly Category:British people by county, etc.. I do not think that the decision of Scotland to make its unitary authorities "council areas" should impose the the gobblegook mouthful of "second-level administrative area" on the rest of the UK. England is a nation not a "first-level administrative area"; we have four "home nations". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:33, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Peterkingiron's suggestion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 12 November 2012 (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.

More country subdivisions[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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Shorten, dropping the unnecessary word "administrative", in line with parent Category:Country subdivisions. – Fayenatic London 14:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose many countries are divided for administration differently than for culture, history, etc. A few examples: Normandy is divided in the first level of France, for administrative purposes, there is not a cultural or historical division: did William the Conqueror come from Upper Normandy or Lower Normandy - did he care? Similarly, the Province of Khorasan in Iran was in recent times divided into three provinces, without any cultural impact. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Similar to the situation with Scotland above, France is divided by administrative divisions that have little to do with culture or history. For instance, the region of Savoy, although an historic region, was subdivided administratively into departments on 4 March 1790 by the National Constituent Assembly. These divisions were deliberately chosen to break up France's historical regions in an attempt to erase cultural differences and build a more homogeneous nation. Therefore, clearly an administrative rather that cultural division. --Bob247 (talk) 15:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Similar issue arise in England, where there is now an inconsistently-mixed relationship between the ceremonial counties, the traditional counties, and the current administrative structures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally -- I would like to drop "adminstrative" and also the "first-level"/"second-level". I do not think the French case really helps us. We may have trees involving provinces or departments. Most French provinces cover several departments, but a suspect that few straddle a provincial boundary, at least not significantly. We can include both categoriues in the same parent, as they will probably largely be container-only categories. The present names are far too complex and rather obscure. In England, the county is the first tier authority and the district the second tier, where local government is not unitary. The other three home nations have sinlge tier local government. Unlike US States, the four home nations are NOT tiers of lcoal government or arbitrary division of the UK: the clue is in the word "United". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is clear that the term administrative has a sueful meaning in some cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose administrative in the way it is used here is to contrast with statistic, or economic regions etc. E.g. there is First-level NUTS. ChemTerm (talk) 12:43, 13 November 2012 (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:Malaysian albums in 1976[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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This sort of intersection is too specific which is why the present category is the only one of the form Category:Fooian albums in year XXXX. Note that there is no need to upmerge since the lone album in the category is already a child of Category:1976 albums and a grandchild of Category:Albums by Malaysian artists. Pichpich (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2012 (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:Stellar Kart[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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:15, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The category only contains the standard songs and albums categories and a discography article. That's a little too thin for an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 13:46, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should only have eponymous categories when they're justified by multiple subcategories of articles. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 26 October 2012 (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:South American organization stubs[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: keep. Further reorganization may be done at editors' discretion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:37, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Has about the same article count as the perm cat, but still severely undersized. Keep template but upmerge until article count supports stub category (60+). Dawynn (talk) 09:28, 25 October 2012 (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:Listed palaces in Scotland[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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:00, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split this into Category:Listed buildings in Scotland and Category:Palaces in Scotland. Sub-dividing listed buildings into palaces and non-palaces offers no benefit and simply makes navigation more tiresome - especially after the usual over-zealous deletion of transitive categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:20, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category Category:Listed palaces in Scotland is a subcategory of both Category:Listed palaces in the United Kingdom and Category:Listed buildings in Scotland by function which has 26 types (functions) of building including palaces, and Category:Listed buildings in Scotland is effectively a container category. Palaces is one of the smaller categories of listed buildings in Scotland, but is not the smallest. Is it proposed to upmerge other categories of listed building in Scotland and lose the two-way links to Scotland and to the United Kingdom categories? But I would favour including Listed palaces in the main palaces category also; a tag is avaliable saying contents of the subcat are also in the main cat. Hugo999 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As for Category:Listed palaces in Scotland, then just the same for England or the UK.
It's almost impossible to give a good reason against a MediaWiki category, as categories are cheap and don't get in the way. However this isn't MediaWiki, it's Wikipedia, where a dogma against transitive categories is ruthlessly over-enforced. So having "listed palaces" must also essentially devalue the far more useful categories of "listed buildings" and "palaces".
"Listed palaces" is a trivial intersection. It's obviously easy to categorize these, but what value does this add? When would a reader interested in "palaces in Scotland" ever want to see them listed, but excluding the unlisted examples? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of Category:Listed buildings in Scotland by function, which does have some even smaller sub-cats, but they are useful as part of multiple hierarchies. – Fayenatic London 19:27, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- Are there any palaces that are not listed? If not, there is no reason why palaces in Scotland should not appear in the listed buildings category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Answer: Yes. I thought the same, and searched for evidence of listing for the articles which are not in the listed sub-cat, and concluded that not all palaces are listed. At least one was demolished, perhaps before listing came in. – Fayenatic London 09:11, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a minor issue, not a problem.--MacRùsgail (talk) 17:54, 2 November 2012 (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:Ethnic Armenian Olympians who represented other countries[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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think this is WP:OVERCAT, non-defining and a possible BLP issue. I've already posted a comment on the creator's talkpage raising issues with adding this category to articles, when it is not sourced in the body of the text. No other categories exist in this structure (IE ethnic x who represented...). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: No other categories exist in this structure
This is untrue. See Category:Olympic competitors from Iran who represented other countries
That category inspired me to make this one in the first place.
Does this fall under Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation?
It says "only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right."
There is already an entire article called List of Armenian Olympic medalists. It's already a topic of interest that most successful Armenian Olympians have represented other countries. I'm going to mention this page in the category.
Also, I will add a source that proves they are of Armenian descent for all the articles that don't have one if we keep this. --TheShadowCrow (talk) 12:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete olympic competitors by ethnicity is not a standard formulation. Anyway it is not enough to be able to show these people are ethnic Armenians. To be worth categorizing there has to be evidence that there has been actual scholarly exploration of this subject, which I do not see. A mere list is not enough to justify the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable intersection. Benkenobi18 (talk) 19:58, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OCAT, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. I'm also concerned that this tends to imply that the competitors were in some sense also representing Armenia. By the way, Category:Olympic competitors from Iran who represented other countries also needs to go for the same reasons (since the CfD is only 24 hours old, it's probably reasonable to add it to the nomination). Pichpich (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This should be eithger be a very small intersection or a trivial one. A person who is a national of one country but represents one where he is not a national may be unusual enough to merit a singel category of its own, but we cannot go splitting that by either nationality, unless it proves to be very common. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2012 (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:Khazar–Arab Wars[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: rename.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the recently renamed main article, Arab–Khazar Wars. Speedy renaming under criterion C2.D was proposed but challenged due to the recentness of the page move. I am neutral. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 25 October 2012 (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:Railway stations opened in 1829[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: keep, without prejudice to any further nomination relating to Peterkingirons's proposal to rename. That proposal would involve several other categories (Category:Railway stations opened in 1812‎ and Category:Railway stations opened in 1825‎, so it should be pursued through a group nomination to merge them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:00, 1 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty MakecatTalk 02:44, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Now has an article in the category. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:04, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - The handful of stations around pre-1830 are fairly well known. We should include private coal stations as being significant at this date, the world's first passenger stations not opening until the L&MR in 1830. Although obscure, I think Croft Spa may[citation needed] be considered as the successor of the S&DR's 1829 coal branch to Croft-on-Tees. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since it has a componant, and this type of category works with just one article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Railway passenger stations opened before 1830 and merge in any earlier categories. These annual categories are a menace at more remove periods, when there is little scope for populating them. Earlier goods trains did not operate so as to stop at stations. One horse took a waggon (or a small train of waggons) from the pit to a staith or landsale wharf. The concept of a station does not work. There is evidence of pre-S&DR passenger traffic, but not of formal stations. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_25&oldid=1138397289"