Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 5 January 7 >

January 6

[edit]

Category:WikiProject NIOSH templates

[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: no consensus. A re-nomination would be fine if no further contents are forthcoming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The pages in this category (e.g. Talk:Acrodynia) are not template pages. An alternative to deletion might be to rename this category (and give it a parent category). DexDor (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Now that the category contains just a single template an upmerge to Category:WikiProject templates and Category:WikiProject NIOSH may be more appropriate than straight deletion. DexDor (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from Template:WPNIOSH, what pages is this category intended for ? DexDor (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Hi, I'm still busy creating templates - it's taking awhile since I'm working on a million other things - but there will be several templates for the wikiproject included. I think most projects have a template-class category, no? Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Thanks for fixing my template error - clearly I still don't know what I'm doing with templates. Ever. Much appreciated. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 05:01, 7 January 2015 (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:Golf clubs and courses in Karachi

[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; merge contents to Category:Golf clubs and courses in Pakistan and Category:Sports venues in Karachi. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has 2 entries and sits under Category:Golf clubs and courses in Pakistan, of which the category under discussion is the only subcategory. Given the status of golf in Pakistan there is no need for geographical subdivisions for golf courses there. The 2 entries can be tagged with Category:Sports venues in Karachi which should be sufficient. Nigej (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2015 (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:Golf clubs and courses in Klang Valley

[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; merge contents to Category:Golf clubs and courses in Malaysia and Category:Sports venues in Selangor. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has 7 entries and sits under Category:Golf clubs and courses in Malaysia which is empty apart from the category under discussion. Given the status of golf in Malaysia there is no need for geographical subdivisions for golf courses there. The 7 entries can be tagged with Category:Sports venues in Selangor (Klang Valley being part of Selangor) which should be sufficient. Nigej (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2015 (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:Successful Romanian singles

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. DexDor (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2015 (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:National football team kit manufacturers

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a company (e.g. Mizuno) has manufactured kit for a national football team is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. This may (if it can be referenced) be suitable for a list. DexDor (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is hard to see why a Japanese corporation's act of making a sports kit for one nation is defining in the same way as a French company's making of another nation's kit. Almost all major international sports clothing makers will have made a national level kit in football – it being the world's most played sport. In that light, it's not really any more defining than, say, sports manufacturers with manufacturing operations in South Asia. SFB 21:51, 6 January 2015 (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.

Islip (town), New York

[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: no consensus, valid arguments from both sides--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Islip (town), New York is a redirect to Islip, New York. There's no reason this category should also include that disambiguator. The other "Islips" are known as Central Islip, East Islip, and West Islip. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My apologies for misinterpreting your knowledge of how Long Island is set up. Having said this, you should know better. While there's no current category for "People from Islip, New York," such a category would be perfectly suited for the hamlet. The disambiguation is still necessary because of this. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree, because Islip the town is the primary usage of "Islip", while the hamlet is clearly subordinate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that Islip the town has already been determined to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the article titled Islip, New York. Because of that, the category should match the naming of the article. If you believe that disambiguation is necessary for both of them, that should be discussed at the talk page for the town. But in either case, the category name will follow the article name. kennethaw88 • talk 23:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per DanTD. Categories should not be ambiguous. This clearly is, since there are many differently scoped Islips in New York. Categories are not articles, the category name must show scope, because people use HotCat, and will categorize anything Islip into this category whether they are part of town or not. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Category should follow the name of the article. If the article has been determined to be the primary topic, we don't generally disambiguate the corresponding category. Categories do not need to be 100% unambiguous, because such precision is unachievable in many cases. Cf Category:London, Category:Paris, etc. More confusion is caused when the category and article names do not correspond than is created by such ambiguities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Any rename would still be geographically incorrect. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's true in the context of the reasons I set out. It won't be 100% unambiguous, but neither are lots of categories that use a name that exists elsewhere but for which the place in question is the primary usage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2015 (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:Bridges across the River Gipping

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Relatively tiny river, less than 20 miles. Category created 8 years ago but no other notable bridges identified (the one bridge in the category spans the point where the Gipping joins a larger river and the bridge is categorised under that river too). Unnecessary category, per WP:SMALLCAT Sionk (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2015 (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 cities in fiction

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. C2C NeoBatfreak (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2015 (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:Canadian cities in fiction

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. C2C. NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2015 (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/2015_January_6&oldid=1074814853"