Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 22

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 21 August 23 >

August 22[edit]

Category:Thessalonian Jews[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 to Category:Jews from Thessaloniki. There is no support for keeping the categories separate and this direction has the most support. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:43, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Thessalonian Jews to Category:Jews from Thessaloniki
Nominator's rationale: This suggestion was made on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Category:Jews_from_Thessaloniki and seems logical enough. There is a catch though. The category at present contains 14 articles, of which 2 are about people whose fathers lived in Thessaloniki. They could be called Thessalonian after the place of origin of their families, but are not themselves from Thessaloniki, and would therefore have to be removed from the category after a merge. Nevertheless, I think the merge makes sense. Debresser (talk) 22:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The merge should be switched to match the majority of other such cats. Therefore Merge to: Category:Thessalonian Jews. Chesdovi (talk) 11:16, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, since "Jews from Thessaloniki" is the lesser statement. By which I mean that it describes the fact, rather than make a statement about the person. In other words, whether a person considers himself to be Thessalonian is a questionable. He might feel himself Greek or Jewish rather than Thessalonian. While the fact that he is from Thessaloniki, is not prone to personal sentiments.
You could say the same thing about Jews from Thessaloniki, because I could say that I'm from Sweden, even if I was born there and I'm only Swedish by ancestry. pluma Ø 23:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please explain. I am not sure I understand you. Debresser (talk) 10:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There are at least another five "Jews from" category, and recent discussion leads to believe that such a formula is preferred by many editors to the "Fooian Jews" formula, for precisely the reason I have mentioned.
I would like to make it clear though, that I'd prefer the reverse merge to no merge at all. Debresser (talk) 22:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Jews from Thessalonika. Also remove all those from the category who never lived in that city. There are lots of misaplications of nationality and location categories in wikipedia and someone probably needs to systematically remove people who have been put in them when it was their parents or ancestors who actually were there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2011 (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:Former Muslims by nationality and subcats[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2011 (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:Cemeteries by nationality[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cemeteries by nationality to Category:Cemeteries by culture
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is already a Category:Cemeteries by country, but this collection of categories for Armenian, Chinese and Jewish cemeteries is not selected/grouped by country but by culture, e.g. the Armenian Cemetery (Moscow). In effect, it is "cemeteries by diaspora", but that is not an appropriate name. Fayenatic (talk) 19:16, 22 August 2011 (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:Ghana towns with Senior High Schools[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ghana towns with Senior High Schools (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete While it's probably true that senior high schools are less common in Ghana than, say, in England, this still doesn't constitute a defining characteristic of a city or town. In any case, List of senior secondary schools in Ghana carries that same information and then some. Pichpich (talk) 16:36, 22 August 2011 (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:Poptropica[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Poptropica (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Too small to be useful and unlikely to grow. (Note that the list article is up for deletion though I expect that it will be kept) The two articles already point to one another so there's not much benefit for browsing. Pichpich (talk) 13:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree It only has two articles and the articles have links to each other in multiple places. I think it should be deleted now, but if in the future, if a large enough number of pages on Poptropica are written, then the category could be recreated. pluma Ø 23:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Delete One of the pages in the category has been changed into a redirect page to the other. So this category is now little more than a really slow redirect page. pluma Ø 16:15, 27 August 2011 (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:Smoking by country[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 merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:05, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Category:Tobacco is the main category, with subcategories like Tobacco companies etc, so all the country categories should be Tobacco in Fooland etc, not Smoking in Fooland. However Category:Smoking by country should be retained for the articles on smoking in particular countries (though I put a merge notice on it so that people would be aware of this proposal). Most articles in Category:Tobacco are on smoking/consumption of tobacco (there are very few articles on cultivation of tobacco), so even for the United States with c66 articles in total there is no advantage in retaining the separate Category:Smoking in the United States; many articles already in Category:Tobacco in the United States are on smoking. Of other countries, only Canada (c5) and the UK (c8) have more than one or two articles on tobacco and smoking in particular countries. At present there are 7 Smoking by country categories and 17 Tobacco by country categories. Hugo999 (talk) 13:32, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not change This change means that these articles will collectively lose their connection to the categories named 'drugs in foocountry', to which smoking--not tobacco--certainly belongs. Hmains (talk) 02:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The two subject are closely linked, but remain separate. Pages like Smoke-Free Air Act are about "smoke", not tobacco. They can chew tobacco in public places. Remember the fact that while it may form the main ingredient of a cigarette, tobacco is not the only composite which makes opposition to "smoking" so strong. Chesdovi (talk) 11:24, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:Smoking in Australia etc would be a subcategory of both “Economy of Australia” and “Drugs in Australia” (and Drugs etc is a subcat of “Health in Australia”). Tobacco is a drug as stated, and the category “Tobacco” covers all aspects of consumption ie cigarette smoking, pipe smoking, chewing etc. “Smoking” is less inclusive, which is why “Tobacco” should be used for the countrty categories. Category:Tobacco control includes many articles on smoking. Hugo999 (talk) 13:56, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Articles about smoking should be under a smoking category, tobbaco under tobacco. Chesdovi (talk) 12:39, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Tobacco categories include smoking articles eg in Tobacco advertising or Cigarette taxes in the United States (in Category:Tobacco taxation) so there is no need to go from Category:Tobacco control to a subcategory say Category:Smoking control to check on some aspect of the subject (with many articles having to go in both categories). The “by country” categories should be the same, rather than trying to define an obscure dividing line between tobacco consumption and smoking. Hugo999 (talk) 12:23, 27 August 2011 (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:Songs produced by LMFAO[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:03, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs produced by LMFAO (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Irrespective of number of entries in this category (one), the reason for this nomination is that this category at the moment only contains self-produced songs, therefore is not a defining characteristic. An analogy would be I cooked my dinner last night, but that doesn’t make me a chef! Unless producing for other artists there would be no entries in the cat which are not in Category: LMFAO songs. Richhoncho (talk) 13:25, 22 August 2011 (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:Video game industry advocacy groups[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:57, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Video game industry advocacy groups to Category:Video game trade associations
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Not a single organization in this category is an advocacy organization; they are all trade associations, so the category is misnamed (and miscategorized as a subcat of Category:Advocacy groups). The parent also needs cleanup, as it contains redundant entries that are already in this subcat. PS: Adding "industry" would be redundant (the video game trade = the video game industry). — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:44, 22 August 2011 (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.

People by village in Ireland[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:58, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:People by village or town in Ireland to Category:People by city or town in Ireland
Category:People from Delgany to Category:People from County Wicklow
Category:People from Kilcoole to Category:People from County Wicklow
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Numbers of notable people from villages do not justify separate categories, WP:SMALLCAT; they should be listed in the articles on each villages. Fayenatic (talk) 08:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that by village is too fine Mayumashu (talk) 01:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: This one can still go ahead despite my withdrawing the larger nomination re "People by city" below. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:44, 26 August 2011 (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.

People by city or town[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:00, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People by city to Category:People by city or town
Category:People by country and city to Category:People by country and city or town
Category:People by occupation and city to Category:People by occupation and city or town
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match an increasing number of the sub-categories, e.g. see CFD Aug 5 re South Africa. Fayenatic (talk) 08:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People by country and place or Category:People by country and populated place. Otherwise where do we put people by village? Hamlet? Localities? Township? CDP? Better to go with the broader topic here then to break these out by type especially if we are going to start grouping types in arbitrary subsets of the possible terms. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:46, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: "By place" is too vague, as there are already Category:People by first-level administrative country subdivision and Category:People by second-level administrative country subdivision. As for "populated place": Smaller places than towns generally produce too few notable people to be needed for categorising biographies, see WP:SMALLCAT, so people from villages should generally be (i) listed in the village article and (ii) categorised by country subdivision rather than populated place. In the United States, "village" has a specific meaning as a form of local government, and can be quite big, e.g. Category:People by village in New Jersey, so I am no longer minded to delete the eight US state categories for people by village (listed in the S Africa CFD linked above). However, for the rest of the world, "town" is the smallest populated place that deserves a "people by" category. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem with this proposal is that it suggests, that even for the US, we should be using these combined name categories. If we leave villages in the US, where is the parent category, Category:People by city or town? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • "for the rest of the world, "town" is the smallest populated place that deserves a "people by" category.". Why?? Are you saying that US villages have more notable people than villages elsewhere in the world? I hope I've misunderstood your claim. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:12, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did not mean that American village people are "more notable"! Some places in the US are called villages, but are quite large, and produce a large enough quantity of individuals who achieve sufficient notability to have their own biography articles here, so that they can justifiably categorised be by their place of origin without offending WP:SMALLCAT. However, in (e.g.) the UK and Ireland, "village" means a small populated place. I can't speak for the rest of the world. Ridgewood, New Jersey has 25,000 people; in the UK, we would not call that a village. Looking again at Category:People by village in Illinois, that does have a lot of small categories so some of those should probably be upmerged. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • How places are named varies. So either we use a simple name and not worry about what types of places are included or we make really long category names that can't have any parent categories per WP:SUBCAT. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • You are right about WP:SUBCAT. I think it is desirable to keep a "People from" category as a sub-cat in the well-established Category:Cities tree, which means undoing some of my recent work. Options include:
        1. Ignore that rule in WP:SUBCAT (which is only a guideline) and categorise "People by city or town" (or "People by populated place") within Category:Cities anyway. Disadvantage: in cases like category:People by city or town in England, where the city sub-cats are far outweighed by towns, it's blatantly and massively against the guideline.
        2. Keep, and reinstate where necessary, national "People by city" categories and make them sub-cats of "People by city or town" (or "People by populated place"). Disadvantage: removes cities from an alphabetical place within the more general category.
        3. Keep, and reinstate where necessary, national "People by city" categories and make them sibling cats alongside "People by populated place". Disadvantage: requires "people from X-city" category to be placed in two head categories. E.g. Category:People from London would be in both Category:People by city in England and Category:People by populated place in England. Further disadvantage: Boroughs in cities and City districts are also places that are populated, but I would not intend those to be categorised here -- although I suppose it would do no harm.
I am now inclined towards option 3, which means leaving the three nominated categories as they are, and renaming all "People by city or town" as "People by populated place". - Fayenatic (talk) 18:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would support that position. If you wish, you can withdraw this proposal and close this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about including city districts at the main level of populated places (as well as keeping their specific category)? After all, most of them historically started as villages. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what we mean by districts. Here they tend to be neighborhoods. But to answer your question. If all depends on the notability of the people from there. I would lean against and include them in the more formal city category. Having said that I expect that a large number of these would be justified to have a category. This may be especially true as we go back in time if people are best described as being from the old place and it would be incorrect to say that they are from the new larger place, if I understand the question. I think in the end this needs to be a case by case decision. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdrawn by nominator. However, I'm not closing the discussion immediately in case anybody else has wisdom to add. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:42, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ick I really hate hairsplitting and minutiae futzing... Williamb (talk)
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:People by town[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:01, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People by town (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Categories by town (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. "People by town" is not needed after merging Towns with Cities for South Africa category, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 5. Fayenatic (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Given the lack of contents, this can go ahead despite the above ("People by city") being withdrawn. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:43, 26 August 2011 (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:Century farms[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:02, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Century farms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As I read the main article, basically a farm that has been in existence for 100 years. So basically an arbitrary number of years for inclusion. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 07:37, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment To be a century farm the farm needs to have been officially recognized as such by a government body. The number of years is chosen by the government bodies, not by wikipedia. Inclusion for a number of years is only arbitrary if the number is chosen internally by wikipedia. If we create a category to reflect outside decisions on something being notable for having been operated for a certain amount of time than it is not a case of arbitary inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the Junior Farmers' Association of Ontario a government body? Or the New York State Agricultural Society? In any case, this appears to be just another awards category that is not defining for the farms. Add to that the criteria is different by group and country and even with size restrictions and this is not best covered in a category. If the information is important, it should be in a list within the main article at this point. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:38, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to clarify the nom, a Century Farm is not just a farm that has existed for 100 years, but one that has been in the same family for 100 years. And the Oregon Department of Agriculture, in one state that awards the designation, is a government body. But if we're going by the Wikipedia guidelines stated here, it appears that being a century farm is not a defining characteristic. Also, I think most of the American century farms I know about that would be notable enough for Wikipedia are notable for being listed on the NRHP. As as subset of those, it seems like the Century Farm category would have limited potential for growth. Valfontis (talk) 02:00, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And according to the article, Oregon is based on Sesquicentennial Farms which is I think 150 years. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, I guess the article is unclear, I'll see if I can rewrite it. Oregon has both century and sesquicentennial designations. The century award has been around since just before Oregon's centennial in 1959 and they added the sesqui one in 2008, 50 years later. Which is really nifty, but still doesn't necessitate a Wikipedia cat, I reckon. Valfontis (talk) 06:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've clarified the article, and expanded it by adding the content of Centennial farm, which is the same thing by a different name. Which still doesn't mean there should be a category for these. As noted above, a list within the article might be a good idea. Valfontis (talk) 22:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; arbitrary choice of category inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:58, 26 August 2011 (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:Christopher Hitchins[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:27, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Christopher Hitchins to Category:Christopher Hitchens
Nominator's rationale: There should be no misspelled category. ♆ CUSH ♆ 06:36, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the misspelling was an error. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I thought a category was justified because Christopher Hitchens keeps on doing stuff and more articles about him are likely to be written. Proxima Centauri (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2011 (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:The Apprentice (U.S. TV series) contestants[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: withdrawn. Nominator has opened a discussion on the intended category here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Apprentice (U.S. TV series) contestants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent cat: we don't need to categorize by TV series and season. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:00, 22 August 2011 (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:O Broadcasting System[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 07:12, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:O Broadcasting System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Currently contains only O Broadcasting System. I suggest deletion unless some other appropriate articles can be added. The article is currently quite short. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 22 August 2011 (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:Claudius[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: Upmerge to Category:Staurotypinae. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Claudius to Category:Claudius (genus)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't know if this category is needed, but if kept it needs to be renamed since the genus is not the principal meaning of Claudius: see also Claudius (disambiguation). The main article is Narrow-bridged musk turtle, and Claudius (genus) redirects there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge to parent. Per the article on the turtle, "It is the only species in the genus Claudius." I.e., the category has no growth potential, absent the genus expanding or some huge news about this species causing so much material to appear that the article has to be split into a bunch of subarticles. Neither are likely. If kept, rename per nominator. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 08:47, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've updated the sentence with a reference to say "As of 2010 it is the only extant species in the genus Claudius recognised"; so it may more easily be understand that turtles often are recategorised and it shows the possibilities of extinct species. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Staurotypinae per SMcCandlish. - Fayenatic (talk) 08:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm neutral on the existence of the category (since it seems to fit the WP:SMALLCAT exemption for recognized categorization schemes, but I don't work a lot in bio articles here so I don't know what standard practice is) but if kept, it definitely needs to be renamed - the genus is something like my fourth or fifth thought when I hear "Claudius." Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:49, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to allow for principal meaning per nom. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 19:20, 23 August 2011 (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/2011_August_22&oldid=1138394805"