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:Delete. An eponymous category for one article (besides the main category) doesn't seem to cut it per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:51, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Up till now, only one of her works has received an article of its own. While there is scope for expansion, the category in its present status is nearly empty. Dimadick (talk) 22:08, 11 May 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 shouldn't it be category:Heating, ventilation, or air conditioning companies ? The intersection set specified by "and" would exclude companies that don't do all three, it should be the "or" set instead; and I don't see why you'd use "ventilating" instead of "ventilation" -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:04, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard of a ventilating company? Or do you hear it as a ventilation company? It sounds like a company of assassins that go about ventilating people. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose unless the main article is renamed from HVAC. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:18, 29 May 2013 (UTC) (note moved by closer from another discussion)[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:Delete. Following the previous discussions summed up at Cuisine of Lancaster, if you remove stores, companies and brands this is what remains. I guess the restaurant category can be removed from these since consensus seems to be that they are not cuisine. The basis for this tree seems to be the intersection of food and culture which has been pointed out is not cuisine. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:59, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm not sure what was in there before, but for now as a cat this doesn't seem to hold up - only one authentic thing, which is the pizza article. A cat for a single article goes too far. Just make sure the restaurants is appropriately parented. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:47, 13 May 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:withdrawn; hills manually split out by nom per discussion below. The BushrangerOne ping only 14:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename In West Bengal there are few mountains, but have numerous hills. In order to avoid over-categorisation or miscategorisation, I propose that this category be renamed. AmartyabagTALK2ME 15:20, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Instead just split out the hills into Category:Hills of West Bengal which would fit into Category:Hills of India. There is no reason to simply combine the two different landforms. If the nominator agrees, the nomination can simply be withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 9 May 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:Rename. Excluding its use as an adjective (in "Foo placename etymologies"), all but these five categories use "place names". Grutness...wha? 09:52, 9 May 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:Airport Fire and Rescue Services in the United Kingdom[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 Exeter fire service article has now been deleted. LibStar (talk) 03:57, 19 May 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: A category that includes articles on subjects as diverse as Napoleon and Red Horn (Siouan deity) isn't categorizing by a defining characteristic of the subject. I've checked a sample of the bio articles in this category and all those I checked are in other (more defining) categories - often in many other cats (e.g. see Saint Sava). The list article and the eponymous article should be upmerged. For information: There is a list article. DexDor (talk) 05:00, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
then go and post an AfD for List of culture heroes. As long as this list is uncontested, if follows that the category is uncontested. We certainly don't need a list article for each category, but there can certainly be a category for every concept deemed suitable for a full list article. Just because people miscategorize articles doesn't mean that the categories themselves are to blame. This is a matter for cleanup, not deletion. Obviously only subjects for which it has been established based on decent evidence that they "have beend described in terms of being a 'culture hero'" need to be considered. If somebody wants to argue Napoleon is a "culture hero", let them produce decent evidence first. In the case of Napoleon perhaps in a sub-article on "legacy of Napoleon" or something. As it stands, the string "culture hero" simply doesn't occur on Napoleon's article, so you are free to just remove the page from the "culture hero" category without further discussion. I find it difficult to understand how somebody could conclude that such an obvious content issue should lead to a category deletion debate. --dab(𒁳) 07:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The definition in the Culture hero article is "a mythological hero specific to some group ...". That it's specific to some group indicates that it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic ("reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define"). The list article contains lists of those considered to be cultural heroes in specific mythologies - that's OK. DexDor (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but brutally purge, and while we're at it a bit of WP:TNT applied to List of culture heroes wouldn't hurt either. Culture hero has a clearly defined meaning, but it's obvious that the people making these lists and categorizations don't understand it or don't know it and just take it as a synonym for hero, which it is not. Mangoe (talk) 16:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a definable trait, and not really categorizable by either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
About the definition Let's roll that definition again: "A culture hero is a mythologicalhero [...] who changes the world through invention or discovery." It's as opposed to someone who does mighty deeds of battle or who is a prophetic figure, as the rest of the first graf goes on to explain. The problem is obvious: hardly anyone, and this appears to include most people responding here, has read that second half of the first sentence. I'm pretty sure that if one read the literature in the field, it would actually talk about certain figures being culture heroes. Mangoe (talk) 01:33, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is way, way too vague and overbroad. There can be a gajillion "concepts" about people: "Heroes to youth", "Invention heroes", and so forth. People are defined by their own accomplishments & biography, not by arbitrary concepts applied to them after the fact. An article on culture hero with appropriate examples is the way to go here. --Lquilter (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete hopelessly subjective. Someone's hero is someone else's scumbag. Napoleon is a good example: some of the Nostradamus interpreters find him to be one of the Antichrists alluded to by Nostradamus - hardly hero material. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that a sure sign of the hopelessness of this category is that people keep bringing up Napoleon when he plainly does not fit the definition! Mangoe (talk) 18:26, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But he was put in there, which shows people who actually apply the category do not understand what it really "means", which suggests in common use it does not mean what our article claims it means.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:58, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the commonly used phrase is "cultural hero"; I certainly had not come across this term before this nomination. I suppose it says something futile about the project when we have to delete a category because the average reader is incompetent to populate it. Mangoe (talk) 11:16, 16 May 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:Delete. Empty category, not enough articles to populate it. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point. Since the category was not being added by the template, we really don't know how many articles would be in there. While the 2000s and 2010s categories were deleted, I did not see a discussion for this one after a quick look. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename to Category:1990s Western (genre) film stubs, per Category:Western (genre) films. Same should be done with the rest of the stub tree. This category currently has about 20 members, and there seems to be quite some undersorting in its stub parents, so it may reach a reasonable level without much fuss. There's something fishy with this parent category though (someone has made a hell of a mess, by the looks of it). It has about 150 articles, but only 36 of them have one of the stub templates within the category transcluded to them. I note too that several of the articles in the category are marked with {{1920s-Western-film-stub}}, and are in there as well as in the decade-specific category. According to the template, that 1920s category has 11 articles - yet there are 112 listed in the category. This may require some investigation before anything is done as far as deleting or keeping is concerned. Grutness...wha? 13:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. The large number of stubs in the parent was the reason I suspected there was undersorting - if that's not the case, the category certainly falls below the necessary threshold. Still doesn't explain why there are so many in the parent cat though. Server-lag strikes again, perhaps? Grutness...wha? 00:29, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Had. I see it's down to a more sensible 67 now. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if keptrename to include "(genre)" since this isn't western civilization films -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:07, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if there was no cause for confusion, the rest of the categories wouldn't have been like that, and the top-level would never have been called Category:Western (genre) films. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because you live in the West, but the English Wikipedia isn't the Western Wikipedia. Hell, there are even University courses that study western film not meaning cowboys, but meaning Western Civilization. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update I performed null edits on all the articles in Category:Western (genre) film stubs, so that they would populate into the proper categories, and there are still only 23 articles in Category:1990s Western film stubs. I agree that the stub categories should probably be renamed, but there's no need to rename this category, if the category is unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 07:31, 12 May 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:Delete. Empty category, not enough articles to populate it. Fortdj33 (talk) 02:04, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose at this point. Since the category was not being added by the template, we really don't know how many articles would be in there. While the 2000s and 2010s categories were deleted, I did not see a discussion for this one with a quick look. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update I performed null edits on all the articles in Category:Western (genre) film stubs, so that they would populate into the proper categories, and there are still only 17 articles in Category:1980s Western film stubs. I agree that the stub categories should probably be renamed, but there's no need to rename this category, if the category is unnecessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 07:29, 12 May 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.
