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 -- The content is not "by season". Some subcategories may be, but the parent need not be. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 20 November 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:Subscription or libraries using via for subscription[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:Speedy G7. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I created the category but I have changed my mind about the usefulness of the category to support a new template I created (Template:Subscription or libraries), I have edited the template to stop assigning pages to the category, the category has no subcategories, and apparently no one besides me has used the category. Nick Levinson (talk) 20:33, 17 November 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:rename/upmerge as proposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The term "hurricane" is applied to tropical cyclones above a certain intensity and occuring in the North Atlantic and Northeast Pacific; the term "tropical cyclone" is more inclusive and better reflects the intended scope of these categories. In addition, these maintenance categories fall under the scope of WikiProject Tropical cyclones and, therefore, their naming should match related categories such as Category:Tropical cyclone articles by quality. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I favor upmerging Category:Incomplete hurricane templates as, other than the infoboxes, I can think of no other tropical cyclone template in an article that might be incomplete. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:39, 17 November 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:South Pacific Lists of tropical cyclones[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 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. Small category with no possible chance of expansion. Also stretches the definition of "time travel" to the breaking point if not beyond. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three of these, only one remotely qualifies as a time travel story and even that is on the far end of the definition. One episode involves, in one segment, characters trapped in a short time loop. Another features the erasure of a day, not time travel. The third features one character falling through "cracks" in time. None of them feature time travel as anything approaching a theme. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:35, 18 November 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. Single-item category (whose single item's presence is confusing at best) with no likelihood of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:05, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete A poem which appears in a work of fiction is not itself fictional. And while "Ode to a Small Lump of Green Putty I Found in My Armpit One Midsummer Morning" would surely be a member of this category, I do not see writing an article about it (thank goodness). Seyasirt (talk) 16:01, 19 November 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:Burial places of Prime Ministers of 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.
Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains articles about churchyards, country estates, villages, towns etc - for some of which (e.g. Hatfield and Rothesay) being a PM's burial place is clearly not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. It might be argued that for some small churches being a PM's burial place is what they are (currently) best known for, but IMO this isn't really suitable for categorization (e.g. if a more specific article is found to cover the burial place in Hatfield then does that mean that the Hatfield article should no longer be in the category?). For info: there is List of burial places of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom. DexDor (talk) 18:59, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining characteristic of the places. Certainly something to mention in their articles but not suitable for a category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What PMs did is defining, where their remains are much less so. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:24, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify -- This is an interesting subject, but not appropriate for a category. It is too like a performacne category for my liking. It might be appropriate if it was being used for articles on churches and cemeteries, but should not be used for towns or villages. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 20 November 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 by nominator. I misread the category structure; there is no ghettoisation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Whether I like it or not, every LGBT state legislator that I have ever heard of or read an article for is identified and defined by their LGBT status. This is exactly the type of categorization that WP:CATGRS specifically includes. Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Alansohn:. See the section on ghettoisation at WP:CATGRS#Other_considerations: "sexuality subcategory should never be implemented as the final rung in a category tree". These categories are just such a final rung. Please note that the nomination will ensure that people are still categorised as LGBT legislators, so your comment about definingness is misplaced. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:33, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JP (see below) regarding the illogical nature of the "final rung" rationalization, but the ghettoization of state legislators into a single national category is even more illogical in this case. How does Wikipedia and its reader benefit by the inability to navigate across articles for LGBT state legislators on the state level? Being able to see the presence, absence and number of LGBT state legislators within each of the 50 states offers a far greater gain than the merely hypothetical (and grossly misapplied) "final rung" rule could possibly offer here. Alansohn (talk) 19:34, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, yet merge - All of these people should be categorized as members of their respective state legislatures and as LGBT members of those legislatures. Similar to how Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives co-exists in harmony with Category:LGBT members of the United States Congress. I don't agree that these serve to "segregate" these legislators. An end-rung category would be the further breaking down of the LGBT members into the four sub-groups. That "final rung" business doesn't make much sense to me anyway. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply @Jerry Pepsi. You are right. I hadn't spotted that since all the state legislatures except Nebraska are bicameral, the members are all diffused into subcats for the house and/or the senate. Duh :( I should probably withdraw the nomination, since the rationale is based on some sort of brain failure by me. It has been one of those days. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment im not sure this is a last rung. Last rung is when there are no diffusing sibling cats, but in this case i think there are diffusing sibling categories. That said, i'm leaning towards delete anyway, as im not sure we need to split lgbt at all levels.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:24, 17 November 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: As recently discussed here, being a place that has, or is near to, the office for a rural municipality, does not make that place notable, and the term "seat" maybe original research. Highlighting towns and villages that are "municipal seats" has been removed, because these towns and villages aren't any more special than any other one where a company has decided to set up shop. 117Avenue (talk) 08:40, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per both above, and I was involved in that talk page discussion as well. As noted, Alberta does not have county seats and this categorization attempts to shoehorn a foreign concept. Resolute 01:10, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Again, original research, no one calls them that, and if they did it would be centre. 117Avenue (talk) 04:50, 21 November 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:WP:OCAT#SMALL, zero chance of expansion. No other show features a bat prominently, and Batman isn't really "about a bat". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:11, 17 November 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.
Category:Major League Baseball players from Latin America[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/delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination follows up on the 5 November 2013 discussion that resulted in the merging of a parallel category for the National Basketball Association. As in the other instance, this category forms an unnecessary layer of categorization. There is no organizational improvement brought about by splitting Category:Major League Baseball players by cultural or geographic region, in addition to national origin. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:50, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I'm also not a fan of too many different geographic groupings; by nation is usually good enough. Delete per nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:46, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There are hundreds of books and articles on the defining connection between baseball and Latin America, such as Baseball with a Latin Beat: A History of the Latin American Game and Viva Baseball!: Latin Major Leaguers and Their Special Hunger that address the topic at book length, chapters in such encyclopedic works as The Britannica Guide to Baseball, The Cambridge Companion to Baseball and The ESPN Baseball Encyclopedia, and newspaper / magazine articles including Baseball in Latin America; Draft dodgers no more in The Economist and "Opening Day: Over 28 Percent of MLB Players Are Foreign-Born" from Fox Sports Latino which noted that "24.2 percent players on this year's MLB rosters are foreign-born players from Latin American countries. Only 4 percent of the league is Canadian, European or Asian." It's not surprising that the corresponding basketball category was deleted as there is no corresponding connection between Latin America and the NBA that matches the incredibly strong defining connection between Latin America and Major League Baseball. The underlying problem here is the complete and total lack of any effort to try to search for sources that would demonstrate why there might be a defining connection between Major League Baseball and Latin America, as required by Wikipedia policy. Far too often the excuses we get for deletion are of the "not a fan" type, which do nothing to address the potential benefit of the category. I can't think of anything in Wikipedia that is "necessary" and we can use that as a pathetic excuse to delete anything and everything, but if our purpose is to match usage in the real world and to provide readers with an effective navigation tool to view articles and categories sharing a strong defining common characteristic, then this is exactly the type of category that should be retained. Alansohn (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate the thought and detail you have put into your response, and I do not dispute that there exists a significant connection between MLB and Latin America. However, I think that alone does not answer the question of whether we should have a category for MLB players from Latin America. Presently, the category is merely a container for several national-level categories, contains no content pertaining to the "defining connection", and appears to serve merely an organizational function. From that perspective, and in light of the fact that there exists no scheme of "baseball and/in/of Latin America" or "Latin American baseball", I maintain that it adds no value to the navigation available through Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin or, at minimum, is premature.
On the matter of the so-called "underlying problem", it seems to me that your frustration is a long-standing one based on previous experiences ("Far too often..."). I kindly remind you that I have not volunteered to be a receptacle for those frustrations; in the past year, I have made just a handful of nominations for deletion (mostly uncontroversial), and so your reaction is either disproportionate or misplaced. Your final sentence contains a well-formed opinion on "effective navigation", but your treatment of the term "necessary" is rather disingenious—Wikipedia itself is not necessary, in one sense, but that is clearly not the meaning conveyed in my original comment.
Merge per nom. Unnecessary layer of categorization. Sorting by nationality is plenty. Resolute 01:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - while I agree that an article or even a series could be written about baseball in Latin America, that doesn't make this a necessary or correct category grouping. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The target is not over populated. The nationality will appear on the player's article by the use of the national sub-cat. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unnecessary layer, since we have categories for each country already. A merge is also fine. Wizardman 18:13, 23 November 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. One more Iranian province. Rename for consistency. Dawynn (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, not quite sure how these came about, but time to clean them up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:52, 20 November 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. This is for a province of Iran. Rename for consistency with categories for other Iranian provinces. Dawynn (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, not quite sure how these came about, but time to clean them up. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 2. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:04, 2 December 2013 (UTC)