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. While this nomination may have been the result of my suggestion at the end of one of the failed discussions below, I did not take sides. In the discussion here, I think there is a clear consensus for this result, especially when considering the comments in the previous discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The common name of the place was Upper Volta. There was only one Upper Volta at the time, there is no need to disambiguate. We generally use the simple name of the place, unless either a more complex name is always in all cases used, or it is needed to disambiguate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename Came via Wikiproject Africa notice and I'm not usually involved in category naming discussions and trends. However, Upper Volta would certainly be a much simpler way to write it without losing any disambiguation. In addition, the "Upper Volta" sans "Republic" is actually better for capturing the weird period of 1958-1960. I know we like clear breaks in time, but historical ambiguity is a fact of French West Africa for the era of independence and as much as we can make categories that don't flatten that ambiguity but are inclusive of it, the better. Upper Volta is better for reasons of 1. simplicity without loss of precision and 2. accuracy. AbstractIllusions (talk) 14:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. There are various parent categories which could have been added to this nomination, but perhaps the previous nomination CFD June 4 failed to gain consensus by trying to do too much at once. This is a nice simple start. – FayenaticLondon22:44, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - after reading through the other two recent discussion linked by Fayenatic London, it seems reasonable to rename this to the common name as there is no need to disambiguate. Mentoz86 (talk) 16:53, 20 August 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.
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. The discussion raises bigger questions about the related categories. So maybe a border nomination to address border issues would be the best way forward. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then we should delete the other ones as well: with the exception of Germany and England these categories are too small, and was created in 2012 and 2013 by Hugo999 and another user - being accepted by two editors doesn't make it accepted by the community, and I can't remember seeing a CfD which was closed with a consensus to keep any of these small cats. I would say the accepted parent category for this would be Category:Association football leagues by country and that this category should be upmerged to Category:Football leagues in Norway in addition to my original proposal. Mentoz86 (talk) 06:50, 16 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
These subcategories are subcategories of Category:Women's association football leagues in Europe which predates 2010; and as I said “Smallcat” allows for some small subcategories in an overall categorisation scheme. This avoids the arbitrary division you make in saying Scotland (2 subcats and 3 articles) is small while Germany (2 subcats and 5 articles) is not. Hugo999 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It could be argued that all of these should be deleted, as they contain too few articles, and if it is a matter of all or nothing I'd say we delete them all: There are currently categories like this for 10 different countries, and there are 54 nations that are members of UEFA - if this category is kept it would make a precedent that we can create 44 categories with 1 article in each, instead of categorizing those articles in "Football leagues in Foo", "Women's football competitions in Foo" and Women's association football leagues in Europe. And what about the 155 other Fifa members? Are all of those "Women's football leagues in Foo" really needed, when most of them will contain only 1-2 articles? Mentoz86 (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If you wish to proceed further, I suggest you resubmit the proposal covering all the categories that you propose to upmerge or delete, so that creators of other sub categories apart from the ones I invited can join the discussion. Hugo999 (talk) 00:39, 21 August 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.
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.
rename. Given that the rename attempt failed for the article, I can't see that there's any good reason to not have the category name match the article name at this stage. Good Ol’factory(talk)12:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I still think the current article title and proposed category names are too long, and that an RM this time to match the current category title – as suggested at the last one – would be preferable. However, I have no great objection to a move for now, provided that the current categories should be redirected rather than deleted. – FayenaticLondon22:35, 15 August 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I've checked several articles in this category (e.g. Banana and Cabbage) and they don't even mention Puerto Rico so it isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic (in these cases at least). For info: The category does not explain what it's inclusion criteria are (e.g. is it intended for foodstuffs used as ingrediants in Puerto Rico?) and is not part of a wider category tree for ingrediants. DexDor (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for two reasons. 1-being used in Puerto Rico, or Belgium, or anywhere else is not a defining characteristic of cabbage. 2-how exactly do we decide when something belongs to a given ethno/national category. How many taco stands do we need in the US to put tacos in "American ingredients".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:03, 14 August 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:Nominated for NASA Exceptional Technology Achievement Medal
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize people by what awards they have received (see WP:OC#AWARD) so we shouldn't categorize by awards that people have been nominated for - it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do not normally allow categories for winners, so that we cannot allow one that includes runners up. Perhaps Listify in award article, if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 14 August 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.
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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Comment -- In principle, I support this, but the groups are made up of parties from different countries. These change periodically, so that it may possibly be useful to have a category for obsolete party groups. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 14 August 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: For most (probably all except the eponymous article) of the articles currently in this category (e.g. Alcatraz Island) the scenic drive is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Alcatraz may be important to the scenic drive, but the reverse probably does not apply (the article about the island does not mention the drive). For info: A similar category (possibly created by the same editor) was deleted by a previous CFD. DexDor (talk) 04:33, 14 August 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Only 9 of 26 entries are actually periods, of which some are defined or named after a style, like "Gothic", and some by monarchs etc, like "Elizabethan". The rest are styles that overlapped within their period with other styles, mostly from the 19th & 20th centuries. I see no point in splitting the two types of category; better to rename it correctly. On a quick look most other national subcats of Category:Architecture by period are the same, but in none is the problem so acute. This might be viewed as a test-case for the lot, which I would support changing. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On the whole this proposal seems to make pretty good sense. I'm just wondering whether it's entirely necessary to include the word "period" in the name of the category, since in this context it is construed as equivalent to "style" in any event. Which is to say, it might suffice to simply rename to Category:British architecture by style. Just throwin' that out for consideration. :) Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment style and period ought be separate. One could construct a tudor-style house today, or a victorian-style house, and a slew of "revival" categories doesn't seem apropos. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:22, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is in fact impractical and undesirable. 7/26 of these categories are already "neo-" or "revival" ones, rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 21 August 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.
