Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 19 November 21 >

November 20[edit]

Category:Fictional state lieutenant governors of the United States[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) 22:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overly specific, particularly as there's only one article in the cat. Suggest upmerge pbp 21:02, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that he is catted as a fictional president, VP and senator, does he really need to be in a fourth category? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:23, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No conceptual problem with category but, until it can be populated, it should be deleted. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a case of overcategorization of a fictional article. However these people clearly are not governors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:10, 11 December 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:Afro-Colombian 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: rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the format ("X people of African descent") for all other South American countries (see Category:Latin American people of African descent). Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. All of the other categories go by 'FOOian people of African descent', this is the sole exception to the pattern. Solar-Wind (talk) 16:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We have gone to the more clear names, because this could be Colombian people in Ghana.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 11 December 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:Bishops of Thebes, Greece[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. The head article is Metropolis of Thebes and Livadeia (created just before this nomination was made), so there might be a case for a rename to match that title. However, this discussion did not examine that option; three editors preferred the status quo, and there was no support for the nominator's propsal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:28, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is no need for it to be disambiguated. While it's true that there is a Thebes in Egypt (and the USA), there has never been a see of Thebes outside of Greece AFAIK. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've never seen a category for a titular see. In any case, none of these titular sees has a Wiki page, let alone a category. So no need for disambiguation exists. If it did, the article page is where it would take place. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:00, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, all Catholic titular sees correspond to actual sees that existed under the Roman Empire and, later, the Crusader states. So for Thebes in Egypt we are talking about actual, not titular, bishops from the 1st century until the Muslim conquest in the 640s, and for Phthiotic Thebes until the 8th/9th century. The fact that these articles and categories don't yet exist is irrelevant. The parent article for the Greek city is "Thebes, Greece", and all categories that refer to it and are not unambiguous in some other way should follow it. Constantine ✍ 22:10, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I disputed that "all Catholic titular sees correspond to actual sees"? Plus it is not irrelevant that those articles don't exist. It signifies that they are not notable enough to deserve a page which means that they are not notable enough to deserve a category which means that no conflict can arise which means that there is no need for disambiguation. A note in the category scope page would be sufficient to mention the other Theban bishoprics. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment 2 How could a "keep" solve the supposed issue with Phthiotic Thebes? Both are in Greece. Which gets to keep the name: Phthiotic Thebes or Seven-gated Thebes? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:06, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Plus it is not irrelevant that those articles don't exist. It signifies that they are not notable enough to deserve a page", wow, I never expected to see this argument in Wikipedia. No, most emphatically no, it merely signifies that no-one has gotten around to researching and writing something about them yet, just as there was no article on the Metropolis of Thebes and Livadeia and the attendant category until I wrote it, and just as there are no articles on tens or hundreds of thousands of other notable subjects that still await to be written. The argument "no article yet, ergo not notable" is wrong in so many ways that it beggars belief you would actually use it in apparent seriousness. On your second comment, Phthiotic Thebes was abandoned in the 9th century, while Seven-gated Thebes is still inhabited and either way clearly the more important of the two (which is why it is known plainly as "Thebes", whereas the other town always is known with the adjective "Phthiotic" or "Thessalian" Thebes). That is why the latter is at "Thebes, Greece", so there is really no problem. Constantine ✍ 11:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If/when you get around to writing articles about other Theban bishoprics that spawn a whole series or related articles that would be deserving of a category, then the debate could re-commence as to whether or not disambiguation by geography is needed. Until then, the issue is moot; we are not here to engage in WP:Crystal-ball gazing. We work on what is before us, not what might theoretically happen. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, after seven years on the site, for pointing me to WP:CRYSTAL in case I had forgotten what it says. You, however, do not appear to have read it: it is about hypothetical subjects, not about articles yet to be written about actual, historical and notable subjects. You could equally well begin a campaign to remove redlinks. So, this red herring aside, we are back to basics: "Thebes-in-Boeotia" is under "Thebes, Greece" in Wikipedia, and rightly so per our disambiguation conventions; there were three episcopal sees of cities called Thebes in history; categories are named per their main article; whether the relevant categories exist or not right now is as irrelevant as whether a redlink should be unlinked; ergo, moving the bishops of "Thebes-in-Boeotia" to plain "Thebes", is wrong. Period. Constantine ✍ 19:22, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are agreed that categories are named after their main article. So non-existent main articles result in non-existent categories. With only one category in existence, no problem exists, neither is there a need for disambiguation. It's a solution to a problem that doesn't yet exist. By the way, have you even heard of a Coptic bishopric of Thebes? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. (edit conflict) This is clearly not about the titular sees in pars infidelum given to Catholic suffrigan bishops, but to substantive sees of the Orthodox and Coptic churches. I suspect that the Catholic church only chose these places as titular sees, because at an earlier period, before the schism, there were substantive bishops who were in communion with Rome for these sees. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What Coptic see? Is therea wiki article about a Coptic see of Thebes? Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:57, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose It is not clear that the claims about there not being other bishops of Thebes are true. More to the point, we generally disambiguate things consistently even when not absolutely needed in a specific case. Thebes is ambiguous and so should in all cases be disambiguated.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 11 December 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:Women who have explored both Polar regions[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining intersection category with gender; there is no "people who have explored both polar regions" parent. This is also a violation of the last-rung rule, and would tend to ghettoize these women. Finally, I just don't think we need these sorts of multi-categories - e.g. people who have climbed two mountains, people who have sailed across two big oceans, people who have won two famous awards, etc. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:07, 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.

Medieval Ukraine 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: merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories and there is no pattern of naming for the parent category. I think "Medieval Ukrainian people" is less awkward than "People of medieval Ukraine". Liz Read! Talk! 14:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed an Admin needed to do this...I don't know how the page histories are combined. Liz Read! Talk! 19:26, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "People of" category could be turned into a soft redirect - see WP:CATRED. DexDor (talk) 06:58, 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.

Taíno categories[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 rename C2A, keeping the old as redirects. – Fayenatic London 22:04, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main page uses the spelling Taíno, rather than Taino.
  • Merge. As nominator stated, the correct Spanish spelling is Taíno. Osplace 19:13, 26 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:Tragic villains[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:25, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically an unmanageable category. It was originally filled with lots of characters which do not qualify (Stewie Griffin, Sheldon Cooper) and others which were matters of interpretation (Darth Maul, The Master). It's basically well outside of Wikipedia's remit to be categorising characters in this way - it's not even an established archetype with rules. It has to go.Zythe (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete. No inclusion criteria, and no clear definition. Btw, do people really discuss gay villains as a group? If no you may wanna nom that one too.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:45, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do you mean Category:LGBT supervillains? Supervillains are relatively easy to define, and the specific portrayal or lack thereof of LGBT people in those roles is an interesting topic which a category can loosely deal with better than an article, which could well stray into POV/trivia.Zythe (talk) 15:25, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
offtopic here, but yeah, wondering whether RS truly discuss this as a group.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Off-topic, but AfterElton would tend to complain whenever there was a gay villain character who was out-and-out crazy, or conversely praise one who was layered and deliciously evil. I suspect of the many texts about LGBT characters in comics (mostly superheroes), LGBT supervillains receive some attention, although the focus on "gay people who happen to be evil in fiction" probably encompasses a lot of film/TV examples as well. Perhaps this is an area to look at in LGBT characters in comics or discussed at the WikiProject.Zythe (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per Obi....William 14:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Ill-defined category and possibly subjective. Dimadick (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What makes a tragic villain different from any other villain? Even if we knew, this category is probably overly specific pbp 21:04, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. This has no objective inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:07, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too subjective to ever work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:16, 23 December 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:T-pop[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 delete WP:CSD#C1 as empty. The category's creator has subsequently created Category:Thai popular music, which presumably replaces this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "T-pop" is an obscure term unlikely to be understood by readers. The main article has seen a mess of cut-&-paste moves, but should probably be at Thai pop music. This would also bring the category in line with Category:French pop music and Category:Finnish pop music. Paul_012 (talk) 10:35, 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:Organisations based in Thailand[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 as indicated. COMMONALITY seems a good argument given the standing of the previous discussions (although, being British English myself, I don't really buy that organizations is considered to be the native spelling, even if it might have been deemed, in recent years, technically 'valid'). -Splash - tk 19:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also

Thailand has no specific ties to either variety of English, and individual organis/zations will usually arbitrarily choose either spelling. However, "organizations" (with a z) is acceptable in both American and British English (though less commonly in the latter).[3] Per WP:COMMONALITY, the spelling which is common to both varieties should be preferred. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 9#Category:Organizations based in Bangkok. Paul_012 (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • What right to the Americans have to impose their spelling on to Thailand? Both Burma and Malaysia are next door and are former British colonies, so that they should be expected to use the preferred British spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how I could better rephrase my rationale. What I said was that the z spelling is correct in BOTH British and American English, while the s spelling is not. I'm also not sure how Burma and Malaysia's status should have anything to do with our perception of English language usage in Thailand. --Paul_012 (talk) 22:48, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom to match sub-cats and to match article content Hmains (talk) 05:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. 66.7.249.221 (talk) 06:52, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The subcats of Category:Organizations by country use a mixture of S and Z. Since no particular reason is given for singling out this one, WP:RETAIN applies:
in general, disputes over which English variety to use in an article are strongly discouraged. Such debates waste time and engender controversy, mostly without accomplishing anything positive.
and
With few exceptions (e.g. when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:49, 17 December 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:Northern Songs[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) 15:25, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The current subcategory can stand on its own without this. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:32, 5 December 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:American people of Latin American descent[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 as {{container category}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:33, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories but I have no opinion on which one should be merged into the other. Liz Read! Talk! 04:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not change at all Latin America is not the same as South America. Look at appropriate WP articles and categories with their appropriate references. Hmains (talk) 06:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide a link to an appropriate article that explains the difference? It would really help support your argument that they aren't different names for the same place. Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Latin America includes Mexico and most of the countries of Central and South America that use Romance languages. It doesn't include places like Suriname (Dutch) and the non-French edition of Guyana. South America never includes Mexico, and includes the non-Latin South American countries. So the first is a Social Similarity/Language grouping of countries, the other strictly Geographic. I don't know what the best article is for the listing of countries, but they aren't equivalent and we seem to have the overlap sorted well already as the categories stand. Category:American people of Brazilian descent should be in both; Category:American people of Mexican descent should only be in Latin America, Category:American people of Surinamese descent would only be in South America. It should probably be left as it is because it's describing two distinct and historically significant groupings that on first glance have a lot of overlap. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:54, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your explanation, __ E L A Q U E A T E. I think I will include South America as this grouping is based on geography, not cultural similarity. It's simply about continents, not culture. Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Google is your friend Liz... Latin America includes some central american countries and caribbean countries. Its more or less a superset of south america, but not entirely, as a few countries like Guyana could be left out.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Obi-Wan Kenobi. These are simple categories based on divisions of nationalities by continent. not shared culture. I have the U.N. guidelines for "macro geographical (continental) regions and geographical sub-regions" and I guess I'll use that as a guide. Liz Read! Talk! 19:24, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category editors do not get to find and choose to use sources from anywhere. Sources are found the WP articles underlying the categories. In the case, see Latin America and South America. There is no reason to change anything here. Hmains (talk) 03:51, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a "category editor", just an editor. Since sources like the U.S. census are used on WP for ethnic categorizations, I don't consider the statistics office of the United Nations to just be a "source from anywhere".
I do get to find and choose sources but I base my categorizations on existing WP category structure and article talk page discussions along with WP resources like WP:EGRS. If I have a question on whether a change is appropriate, as in this case, I bring it to WP:CFD or to a related WikiProject where more experienced editors can weigh in. It's through discussions here and elsewhere that we all can learn. Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So, we should delete the hundred or so categories that fall under Category:American people by ethnic or national origin and the thousands of other categories that identify ethnic origin for other countries? Liz Read! Talk! 14:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwscomet; South America is not a race, but tracing descent to some place in South America due to not cultural/ethnic/race connection but just happenstance of birth (take Mitt Romney or John McCain as examples) is trivial. If we exclude the trivial, which we ought always do, esp. in BLPs, we're left with basically a racial/ethnic cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Liz: We ought, these are either racial/ethnic or trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:25, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both as container categories only If your ancestors were from Latin or South America, they were also from one or more of the countries or Native peoples of South America. Put the people in country categories (i.e. Category:American people of Ecuadorian descent) and the categories in these two pages. pbp 21:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your first sentence but I don't follow you here, the part about the "categories in two pages". Liz Read! Talk! 22:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Those two are Category:American people of Latin American descent to Category:American people of South American descent pbp 15:55, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification, pbp . Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • reluctant keep, as container categories only. I'm not totally convinced we need to have overlapping trees for latin america and South/central/Caribbean, as the chance for things being left out just increases as categories evolve, but unless we do a prune of latin american categories at scale we should keep this one.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:41, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I understand it from __ E L A Q U E A T E, South America is the continent (with Panama as the dividing line between North and South) and Latin America is about countries with cultural ties.
So, Mexico and Cuba are both in North America and Latin America. Guyana is in South America but not in Latin America. I was looking for just one category when I was grouping descent categories by continent which is why I suggested a merge. Now that I know the distinction, it's clearer what the decision should be. It's been a helpful discussion and although I now see that I could have found the answer elsewhere on Wikipedia, I'm glad I made the proposal and could be better informed. Liz Read! Talk! 18:24, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment -- I would prefer to use a geographic (rather than ethnic) split into Central and south America and abolish the Latin American parallel tree (or branch). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. Different categories, much different in geographic scope, and we do have separate category trees for Category:Latin America and Category:South America. Dimadick (talk) 08:48, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think we need this level of contained categories. However, we should clearly not merge. Besides Mexico, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, Panama, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala and Nicaragua are all not in South America but in Latin America. The same may or may not be true of Puerto Rico. So, the 4 largest groups of people of Latin American descent in the US (Mexican-Americans, Puerto Rican Americans, El Salvadoran Americans and Cuban Americans) all have origins outside South America. In fact I am pretty sure American people of Dominican Republic descent outnumber those of from any specific South American country, so these categories overlap very little.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 23 December 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:Olympics[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 as indicated. -Splash - tk 19:47, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Olympics is a redirect to Olympic Games, main article of this category. NickSt (talk) 02:29, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2D, and recreate as a {{category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:44, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • what she said ^^^^ --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning to Keep / Not a C2D Candidate The article Olympics redirects to Olympic Games and the description in the category describe that it includes articles related to the Olympic Games. But the categories and articles include a wide-range of Olympic-related articles and categories including the Ancient Olympic Games and a range of various and sundry events and athletic competitions that are not associated with the Olympic Games and that might well be the subject of lawsuits by the International Olympic Committee. Given the actual usage of the category, the term "Olympics" is more accurate than "Olympic Games", even though the former redirects to the latter. Alansohn (talk) 14:34, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Olympics covers a more wide range of articles as talk said. Osplace 19:12, 26 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_November_20&oldid=1138398511"