The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. No reason to break these out by region within the by state category. I see no advantage to grouping this by region, especially when many regions are ill defined. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:23, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge although I do have to admit that New England is the one region that has a near universally accepted definition. This will lead to "The South", which has no universally accepted definition, since no one knows if Delaware, Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, Missouri or Oklahoma should be included, and arguments can be brought against including either Texas or Virginia as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:09, 9 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Newly created. We have several categories for chefs and TV personalities. I don't think we need a new one for "food experts". Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:36, 3 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.
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 Yes, but what years would “British Malaya” cover? At present there are “Years in Malaya” from 1922 to 1962 (plus 1889, 1893?) with 1963 on as years in Malaysia. The Federation of Malaya was 1948 to 1963, with independence in 1957 (previously briefly the Malayan Union of 1946-48). And possibly events in the Straits Settlements and 19c Singapore could be included in Malaya? Why not just “years in Malaya” to 1962, like “Years in India” which go back to the 15th century with Category:1452 in India. Otherwise if there was a separate “Years in British India” series ending in 1946, would it start from 1858 (post-Indian Mutiny/Rebellion) or so or extend back to the British East India Co period? And “British India” would not include events in the French and Portuguese enclaves, or the Mughal Empire, or the Indian Princely States (like Hyderabad) which existed seperately from British India to 1947. Malaya also had protectorates which were examples of Indirect rule through local rulers; eg Brunei. Hugo999 (talk) 11:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well we do have Category:Establishments in French India by year. I am not sure we have included any establishments in the Portuguese domains in the Establishments in India category. Personally I am not convinced we have enough stuff being established in any given year before 1800 to justify splitting by country. If I was, then I would actually advocate for the creation of an Category:Establishments in the Mughal Empire by year tree, especially since at times the Mughal Empire stretched into Afghanistan, so applying the India cover is problematic. There are also some years when parts of what is now Pakistan should really fall under the Category:Establishments in Afghanistan by year. The big question is, is Malaya really an accepted understood place in the early 19th century? Is there any sense that there is some place so designated that exists at all. I have for example put some establishments in Singapore prior to 1900 into the applicable subcats of Category:Establishments in the British Empire by year (I think I did that for something in 1885, along with a newspaper established that year in Gibraltar). I figure that way we get the stuff into the establishments by year by place tree, and if people feel that the British Empire category is geting too big, than they can split it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I guess since the Afghanistan category at present only goes back to 1933, so we do not have to figure out if we should claim Afghanistan=the Durrani Empire. Still the article on Ayub Shah Durrani says he ruled "Afghanistan" and then mentions "the loss of Kashmir during his reign". In the article on the History of Peshawar we learn "The Sikhs invaded and conquered Peshawar in 1834 after wresting it from Afghanistan." That is about all we learn about it having been part of Afghanistan. We also learn "Peshawar would emerge as a centre of Pakhtun intellectuals and culture. Some Pakhtuns still adhere to Pakhtunistan movement that sought either to merge western Pakistan with Afghanistan or to form a greater Pakhtun state to be known as Pukhtoonkwa", so the only way to exclude Peshawar from Afghanistan is to pay attention to political, as opposed to ethnic or cultural, boundaries. The Durand Line is not imposed until 1894, and Afghanistan does not accept it as the final say on the matter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The British Malaya name will allow us to make this a sub-cat of Category:1889 establishments in the British Empire, which is an underdeveloped category that I think has potential for organizing a lot of things. It will also make it clear we should exclude from this categories things established in the areas of Malaya that were under the control of Thailand at the time the establishments occured.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to British Malaya, per Fayenatic and JPL. At the moment, division by state seems like an unhelpful extra step to the reader. CMD (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1889 establishments and Category:Establishments in Malaya, and Category:Establishments in British Malaya would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC08:05, 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.
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.
Support I guess this makes sense since it predates the formation of the Federated Maylay States. I am still wondering if there is not a better way to categorize these things, because it seems unlikely we will find any other establishments in 1893 in Selangor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:1890s establishments in Malaysia. It seems more useful to me to have a category readers will be able to identify with; establishments in what is now Malaysia. I agree with JPL that we're unlikely to find more establishments in 1893 Selangor. In fact, looking through the category tree, it's all redlinks except for this article. A more thorough approach is needed, and for the moment renaming this category won't help. CMD (talk) 17:40, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to British Malaya. If this was an 1873 establishments in Selangor, predating the British resident, than a category for the specific state would make sense, but with it under British protection from 1874 on, the British Malaya heading works. If we had enough articles on things established in Selangor in this time period to get all years and in the 1880s and 1890s and above 1 in some years, having the category so named might work, but with our current contents that does not seem necessary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to British Malaysia per Fayenatic. It's preferable to Selangor. The header category should be deleted as well. CMD (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1893 establishments and Category:Establishments in Malaya, and Category:Establishments in British Malaya would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC08:05, 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.
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: Dubious category with no definition; the only thing that the films in it seem to have in common is that someone uses the word "slacker" in the film; the film Slacker is not even a comedy. This category is a catch-all with no clear definition, thus not useful as a way of organizing information. The Old JacobiteThe '4514:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is there such a thing as slacker comedy? Is it one what we laugh at slackers or one that appeals to slackers? just subjectivity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:30, 5 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.
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.
Merge to Category:Restaurant staff we don't need a gendered division here. I would say this should be merged to Category:Restaurant staff to capture wait-staff and maitre-d's, and other restaurant personnel besides chefs and bartenders (which are covered enough to merit their own cat). Also lets purge this of anyone who just once worked as a waiter. It has to have been a significant part of their career and be defining. Finally, per WP:EGRS, a gendered-sub-category should not be created if it is the last-rung, which is the case here. This will always be a small category, so I don't see the need to create Category:Waiters and Category:Waitresses. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:38, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I removed a number of people from this category for whom "waitress" is clearly not defining (Calista Flockheart?), and added a few others where it seemed a bit more defining, as well as a few articles about waitress occupations. But if we started listing every actor who ever worked as a waitress before they hit it big, it would get a bit ridiculous. For an example of defining, see Edsel Ford Fung - he is famous for being a waiter. Also, for a trip down a rabbit hole, as yourself this: Why is Category:Fictional waiting staff so much bigger than Category:Restaurant staff? Perhaps because many fiction authors create waiter/waitress characters, and then there are many stories written about those characters, even if people don't write as many stories about *real* waiters/waitresses? Just a reflection on the nature of fame and notability here...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:54, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is well know that many actors have worked in restaurants to earn money before they got a break to succeed in their primary career. So while waiting tables may be notable in this regard as an occupation, I'm not aware of any cases where this was notable for the individuals. I say that knowing that most of these actors never forget the hard times doing this type of job to be able to live and do talk about it later in life. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge if there are actually any people who were notable as restaurant staff, which doesn't seem to be the case. Kaldari (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purge -- WE have two articles on cognate occupations; one article on a waitress, who made a claim about passive smoking -probably only notable for a single incident = NN (?): these might belong. For the rest, we have TV competitors; models; and a skater. A lot of people will work as waiters, when under-employed in theri main occupation, probably including a lot of medels, but that is not a notable characteristic. Then preferably merge somewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are still attempts to apply it to people who are not in fact known for actually being waitresses. I am not convinced there are any cases where this is really a notable occupation for a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 9 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.
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. The sole article was already in a period category. As was pointed out in the discussion, there do not appear to be sufficient articles on this type of vehicle to populate a tree like this. Creation can be considered if we have more articles. I would suggest discussing with the military history project to assess the need for this type of tree as well as the strength of any support before recreation. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with these categories, but they contain only a single article (which is in plenty of other categories). I.e. editors (myself included) have preferred to categorize amphibious vehicles by other characteristics (e.g. whether they are tracked/wheeled). A by-country category for amphib vehicles was recently deleted for similar reasons. DexDor (talk) 05:18, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge the first at least -- Amphibious vehicles are too few in number to require splitting by period. I am far from convinced that we need to have splits by period. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 8 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.
