Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 17 April 19 >

April 18[edit]

Category:Azerbaijani people[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. I just read through this two times. There is some support for renaming, some for splitting. There also appears to be concerns about what the contents are here based on the main article. Bottom line is that I think there may be consensus to do something. However the discussion here does not provide consensus for a specific action. I suggest that someone more familiar with the topic review this discussion and see if a simpler nomination could be made that would have consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is ambiguation in Azerbaijani people. This category is about people from Azerbaijan country but its name means Azerbaijani which is an ethnic group who live in Azerbaijan, Iran, etc. There used to be a better category Category:People from Azerbaijan Taranet (talk) 21:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. My understanding is that Category:Azerbaijani people is a nationality tree and that there is a related ethnicity tree at Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people. Similar set-ups exist for Armenian people and other nationalities/ethnicities. I don't think we should change this one in isolation of the many others. There are tremendous benefits to consistency and predictability across the broader category scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:37, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We need two categories, one for the ethnic group and one for people from that country. The content of this category is about people from Azerbaijan (country) not the word Azerbaijani. First I thought just like you and tried to change only the definition of the category, but then I noticed that mostly all of its content is about Azerbaijan (country). Of course we need two categories.--Taranet (talk) 17:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I support Category:Azerbaijani people being the one for the nationality (people from the country). Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just added 2 more suggestions at the top (Category:Republic of Azerbaijan people and Category:People from Azerbaijan) and suggested splitting.--Taranet (talk) 20:54, 19 April 2013 (UTC)Taranet (talk) 06:38, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose for consistency per Good Ol'factory. It's a shame certain users always hijack these noms to push their POV about the word British. Tim! (talk) 07:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Yes, it is correct reasons Taranet '''SAMƏK''' (talk) 22:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we already have a seperate tree for the ethnic group. This works. The use of "from" will invite unreasonable attempts to retroactively apply the category to those who were resident in Baku during the late 19th-century when it was part of the Russian Empire and Azerbaijan did not exist in any way, shape, means or form. The current name prevents such ahistorical use of the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No there isn't a separate category for the ethnic group. / Well, If the country didn't exist in the past at all, the the people were from Soviet. What's your problem with it? We can still put them in the ethnicity category (that we are going to create). Do you put Julius Caesar in Category:Italian people?! Please look carefully, the country's name is 'Republic of Azerbaijan', but Azerbaijani article is for the ethnicity, so the name of the articles and categories don't match, and are in a MESS.--Taranet (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying things does not make it so. If Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people is not a seperate category for the ethnic group, than what is?John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I thought that the ethnicity was called Azeri. As with Armenians and Armenia, I presume that there are Azeris, who have never had any connection with the present Azerbaijan. There may also be expatriates in other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In some sources they are called 'Azeris' but in en.wikipedia Azerbaijani people is the word for the ethnic group. Click on Azerbaijani people! --Taranet (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ; Rename to Category:Azerbaijani people (Republic) and Category:Ethnic Azerbaijani people --Alborz Fallah (talk) 19:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No opinion on the above, except to Support "People from..." as a standard, and that all so-called "ethnicity categories" should be Deleted. - jc37 20:21, 15 June 2013 (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:People from Joy, Illinois[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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Towns with only 1 or 2 entries ...William 19:56, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. The categories are a valid classification and it is reasonable to expect that they could grow. --Orlady (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. If and when Wikipedia actually has enough articles about people from these places to warrant a category, then they can be recreated at that time — but as long as we only have one or two possible entries we should indeed stick to categorizing people by county rather than individual town until more articles actually show up. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2013 (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:Films directed by Angelina Jolie[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one article in the category; this is overcategorization. Dusty|💬|You can help! 19:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – part of the substantial scheme Category:Films by director. I think the director is a defining characteristic of a film (but not the producer). Oculi (talk) 19:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We never delete these, even if there is just one film. WP:OCAT expressly does not apply in cases like this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:FILMCAT - "A category for a director's films should be created even if they have only directed one film (irrespective of whether they are likely to direct more in the future), providing that the director already has an article." Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Category:Films by director is meant to be a comprehensive tree that includes all films (even though it's not fully populated yet), not just the subset of films whose directors happen to have directed multiple films. Bearcat (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2013 (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:United States Department of Defense standards[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 to delete. I'll reverse the "parent/child" categorisation, per the discussion. - jc37 20:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a duplicate of "Military of the United States standards". Utuado (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Questions. Since these are approved by the DoD are they not DoD standards meaning that a reverse merge is in order? The main article for the proposed target is United States Military Standard, which would suggest that both be renamed to Category:United States Military Standards. Do these apply to the Coast Guard which normally operates under the DHS but can be transferred to the Navy as needed to operated as part of the DoD, lets ignore Presidential direction for now? It should also be noted that Category:United States Department of Defense is the parent of Category:Military of the United States standards and a child of Category:Military of the United States. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support reverse merge to Cat:United States Department of Defense standards. There is actually no such thing as the 'Military of the United States'. DoD however exists - let's substitute a real reference for a reference to a non-existent organization. Any Coast Guard specific standards can be reallocated elsewhere, but I doubt there are any. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment It's not that clear that there is one single name for these things as a whole. The appropriate website refers to them as "military standards and military specifications", for it's worth. USCG doesn't issue specifications or standards, at least not that we would have articles on them, from what I can tell. Mangoe (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not all components of the United States Department of Defense are part of the military (examples listed in the article about the department include the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency and the Defense Logistics Agency), and there are some standards that are explicitly DOD standards and not MIL standards. If anything, the Military specifications category should be subcat of this one. --Orlady (talk) 14:28, 21 April 2013 (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:Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation television programmes[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation television programmes is a very long name. The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation itself has been renamed NRK. Iselilja (talk) 13:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and Category:Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation should be renamed to Category:NRK to match the article NRK. No, I don't think that would be too ambiguous a name because someone might think that it refers to an Amtrack station in Newark or something. It's time we put on our big-boy (or -girl) pants and realize that if an undisambiguated name is OK for an article, it is probably also OK for the corresponding category despite the theoretical yet miniscule chance of "confusion". Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:44, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support for follow-up proposal. Iselilja (talk) 18:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this category but do not rename the parent, as the expansion will only be obvious to people in htat part of the world. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both proposals. Category-names should match the names of the parent articles. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:07, 26 April 2013 (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:People from Clear Spring, Maryland[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 both. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:29, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small towns with 1 or 2 entries. ...William 13:18, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. The categories are a valid classification and it is reasonable to expect that they could grow. The county category includes a number of people who cannot be categorized by specific place; it wouldn't be particularly helpful to dump these categorizable people into that jumble. --Orlady (talk) 14:37, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator. If and when Wikipedia actually has enough articles about people from these places to warrant a category, then they can be recreated at that time — but as long as we only have one or two possible entries we should indeed stick to categorizing people by county rather than individual town until more articles actually show up. Bearcat (talk) 19:41, 21 April 2013 (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.

Gaelic footballers[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) 09:49, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale; Category:Gaelic footballers had been created in 2004, and was stable at that title until speedily renamed in Nov 2012 to make it "consistent with categories for other team sports, such as Category:Association football players, Category:Baseball players, Category:Basketball players, Category:Ice hockey players". That speedy was then (dodgily) used as the rationale for speedy renaming the other categories a few daysa later.
This should all be reverted, because the WP:COMMONNAME usage within the sport is "gaelic footballer":
Site "Gaelic footballer" "Gaelic football player"
gaa.ie 134 hits 6 hits
hoganstand.com 485 10 hits
The speedy renamings imposed somebody's idea of a wiki-orthodoxy, contrary to the WP:COMMONNAME policy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Gaelic games has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The cross-topic consistency would be, well, nice, at least in terms of predictability, but it's not really universal right now even, with many "footballers" subcategories within the Category:Association football players tree. It's a nice thought by the IP speedy nominator, but probably not practical across all sports. I don't know much about Gaelic football so don't know what's usual, but the google search stats are convincing here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I like consistency, but this is too big a departure from common usage. However the "Gaelic football players" categs should be re-created as {{category redirect}}s, to assist editors in populating the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, and categories like Category:Donegal Gaelic footballers. Snappy (talk) 15:49, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Where there is an acceptable occupational name we should use it. We do not talk about basketballers. American and Australian footballers would be unacceptable, since these are ethnic denonyms, but Gaelic is not. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2013 (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.

Kerry Gaelic footballers by club[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
41 "Foo footballers" to "Foo Gaelic footballers"
Nominator's rationale: the convention of both Category:Gaelic football players by county and Category: Gaelic football players by club is that the subcats are called "Foo Gaelic footballers". For some reason, most of the sub-cats of Category:Kerry Gaelic footballers by club have been created as "Foo footballers". This nomination corrects that, and also fixes typographic errors in two categories.
Note that the naming of some parent categories as "Gaelic football players" is the result of a speedy renaming proposed by an IP in Nov 2012. I will make a separate nomination to reverse that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support GAA cannot have a monopoly on the term "footballer", not even in Kerry. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- to make it clear which sport they play. "Football" is ambiguous in Ireland, as soccer is also played. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, avoids confusion. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2013 (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:UCC footballers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories are clear duplicates. The convention is "Foo Gaelic footballers", because in Ireland "footballers" is ambiguous BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:24, 18 April 2013 (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:Translators to Inuit[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no such thing as Inuit as a language. Inuit is the word for people. There is Inuit languages but using that would mean another category for Aleut language and Yupik languages. I note to that none of the categories use "language". Eskimo-Aleut is name used for the group of languages so would work as the category. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 05:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected that. All the other others in Category:Translators by destination language don't have the word language. As to the Category:Inuit language I just never really thought about it. CambridgeBayWeather (talk) 06:40, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but if wehave to change Prefer Category:Translators to Eskimo–Aleut languages. Acccording to Eskimo–Aleut languages, which might be the main artilce, there are 3 language groups, Inuit, (98000 speakers) Yupik (10000), and Aleut (500). It is unfortunate that the group is called after its smallest component. Since Inuit is the largest group, I think that we might well stick with that, and purge any non-Inuit items into a separate category, making Category:Translators to Eskimo–Aleut languages a parent for both. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article Inuit languages starts of by speaking about "the Inuit Language". This category works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:45, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Translators to Inuit languages per above. This should be considered a fair exception, per Inuit languages: "The traditional language of the Inuit is a system of closely interrelated dialects that are not readily comprehensible from one end of the Inuit world to the other, and some people do not think of it as a single language but rather as a group of languages. However, there are no clear criteria for breaking the Inuit language into specific member languages, since it forms a continuum of close dialects." - jc37 20:48, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the category contains two articles, one about Egede a missionary and the founder of Greenland's capital and a stub about another missionary. Egede did translate the loads prayer to an Inuit language(the source does not confirm this) but this does not really make him a translator. The second article does not mention any translation work. So we have no sources to establish the entries in the category.--Salix (talk): 07:44, 19 June 2013 (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:Michigan Motor Sports Hall of Fame inductees[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. Wizardman 16:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. For info: There is a list at Michigan Motor Sports Hall of Fame. DexDor (talk) 05:09, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral - as the category's creator, I'd of course prefer this be kept, but I can see how state-based HoF categories aren't preferred. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator and per WP:OC#AWARD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a clear violation of the rules on award categories. I really do not think we should have any award cats at the level of US states, for anything at all anywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:08, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 15:17, 22 April 2013 (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:Connecticut Huskies of Honor[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) 17:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. For info: There is a list at Huskies of Honor. DexDor (talk) 05:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:CLN says that categories and overlapping lists can coexist. A cited advantage of categories is "Good for exploratory browsing of Wikipedia." There is a vast existing parent category in Category:Sports hall of fame inductees. It makes sense that readers should be able to browse and explore inductees of this hall of fame also, which is a notable honor and has it's own standalone list which is a featured list.—Bagumba (talk) 18:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Problem is, we have to draw the line somewhere with WP:OC#AWARD. A school recognition program for notable members of the Connecticut Huskies does not, for me, meet the level of a prominent national honour. The size of Category:Sports hall of fame inductees is not a license for us to inflate it even further, quite the contrary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:47, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I suppose "national" or "international" prominence is an attempt at limiting by WP:DEFINING, but that portion of the guideline is itself under discussion. WP:POLCON suggests that "conflicting pages accurately reflect the community's actual practices and best advice." Too often we use guidelines to attempt to enforce a perceived best practice instead of reflecting the actual practices the community is using. WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY seems appropriate. WP:CLN seems to be followed more than OC#AWARD.—Bagumba (talk) 19:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sorry, you can link to all the acronyms you can find, but it's a snowy delete. You can't honestly tell me you read WP:OC#AWARD and its examples of Nobel laureates and Academy Award winners and think: the U Conn Huskies roll of honour. Come on. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • No reason to question another's "honesty" simply because you don't agree. What I'm saying is that common sense for me is to question OC#AWARD as setting the bar subjectively too high, when plenty of existing categories for lesser awards that are notable (e.g have their own articles) also have overlapping categories. One can look at OC talkpage and see ongoing discussion on this too.—Bagumba (talk) 16:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, all I see is Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#About_Award_recipients_as_a_criterion_of_overcategorization and I see nothing to suggest that there's any consensus to change the clear guideline that award winner categories are to be created only as exceptions to WP:OCAT in exceptional cases. Likely every college in America has some kind of athletic honour programme. It's completely unworkable to extend award winner categories to this micro-level and I must say that I'm puzzled to have to explain this to an admin, to whom I generally defer in these cases. Anyway, we'll see what consensus is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think Bagumba's referring to this discussion. DexDor (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I see, well, I'm certainly opposed to deleting all award winner categories as that one user had stated. But again, I think this particular discussion is rather a waste of time, as this is a rather SNOWy deletion imo anyway. best, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A navbox exists for this as well as a featured list article. Category is unnecessary. Jrcla2 (talk) 20:08, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An award from a particular university, even if it is one of the top 10 US college sports programs is not at the level we should have a category for. Saying that, UConn just might be top ten for basketball, but not for football, and I know placing it in the top ten overall sports programs in US colleges would not be uncontroversial. University award cats are never worth having.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify if necessary andthen delete WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2013 (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:Conscientiology[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) 17:34, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nonsensical category; associated with AfD'ed article Conscientiology. Per that discussion that describes it as OR/Neologism/pseudoscience JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 01:39, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I generally don't have strong opinions about categories, since they are basically search tools that readers don't notice, but I can't see that this one adds value to any articles except Waldo Vieira, the person who coined the term. Looie496 (talk) 05:21, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per deletion of main article. Mangoe (talk) 13:34, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We don't delete categories because they use terms derived from pseudoscience. In fact we have Category:Pseudoscience and a reasonably large number of its subcategories. Should the articles included in "Category:Conscientiology" be transferred to one or more of these subcategories? Dimadick (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; as for the comment above, I wouldn't want consciousness to be in some pseudoscience category just because some pseudoscience makes reference to it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment actually Consciousness shouldn't be on this category, since its definition is slightly diferent of the one used on conscientiology.-AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maintain: I did study conscientiology, but wouldn't re-write the main article now, just to save the catagory. As the catagory creator I see a deletion only as a last case type of thing. Conscientiology is meanwhile not neologism anymore. --AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Apparently there is a project to lecture Conscientiology and the special field Projectiology since 2000 gonig on in the Florida University: [1], [2]. So it wouldn't be that worse to have a category (and maybe a main article) for Conscientiology.--AlchemistOfJoy (talk) 16:04, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per deletion of main article. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:00, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a neologism without widespread acceptance and a clear, verified by reliable sources use of the term. It is definately not well defined enough for us to use it to group articles together.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Uncommon term without clear dividing lines for categorisation. --Andrewaskew (talk) 03:22, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If there is no plausible head article for a subject category, then it is an inappropriate category. --Lquilter (talk) 15:21, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non notable fringe category. I also suggest someone leaves AlchemistOfJoy a message, he has been on many articles making a mess by adding in the conscientiology category. Fodor Fan (talk) 18:28, 25 April 2013 (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:Gold Coast Giants/Seagulls/Chargers[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:37, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Do we really need all the former branding names of the team in these category names? Since the article is at Gold Coast Chargers, why don't we just have corresponding categories of the same name? This would be the same approach as that taken with categories relating to alumni and faculty of universities that change their names. (The situation may be treated differently when a sports team moves to a different city, but when only the branding name of the team changes, I don't see the point of trying to be all-inclusive in category names. It leads to rather clunky names.) We could have redirects on categories that use the old team names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we only use one name, in this case it makes sense to match the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename-- A change of name can be adequately reflected using a headnote. This applies the principle used for alumni of merged or renamed colleges. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 22 April 2013 (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/2013_April_18&oldid=1080453442"