Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 27

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 26 April 28 >

April 27[edit]

Category:Death-636[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 merge as obvious duplication/misnaming per WP:NOTBURO. The Bushranger One ping only 00:11, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not normal category name. (Currently) only one article and that doesn't mention "636". DexDor (talk) 20:33, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete. What is this?Hoops gza (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy merge to Category:636 deaths, i.e. in the year 636. (I moved the article while I was looking at it - forgive me for thereby emptying the category out of process.) – Fayenatic London 21:45, 27 April 2014 (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 Holocaust-related lists[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. – Fayenatic London 14:47, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not wise to start the category title with the definite article. I am not aware of another example of this save for Category:The Holocaust. If you look at most other subcats of Category:The Holocaust, the definite article is removed altogether.Hoops gza (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2014 (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.

Halifax Regional Municipality[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) 03:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to match Halifax, Nova Scotia and Category:Halifax, Nova Scotia which have been moved following this Requested Move. There's no reason why the subcategories should not match the main article & category; the question of what "Halifax, Nova Scotia" refers to has been settled on the article's talkpage and CFD should not refight the same arguments to different conclusions but instead present consistency across the tree. This is an opposed speedy. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:51, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Full list snipped]
  • Oppose all. There is a big difference between the HRM and the City of Halifax; some items in those categories are in Dartmouth, Bedford, Sackville etc and not part of the City of Halifax proper. An equivalent might be to "FOO in Los Angeles County" vs "FOO in the City of Los Angeles" or "FOO in Orange County, California" vs "FOO in Orange, California".Skookum1 (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah, but there is also a big difference between Halifax, Nova Scotia and the City of Halifax. The former is the common name for the regional municipality, while the latter would refer to the pre-amalgamation city proper. A similar situation is found with Sudbury. - Floydian τ ¢ 17:10, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consensus at this Requested Move. I too would have thought this was speediable, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:34, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - Skookum certainly has good faith, as his primary working area is BC-related topics. In BC, a municipality is often a vast stretch of wilderness in the interior, covering numerous towns, often including the politically distinct town that the region is named after. In Ontario and eastern Canada, a regional municipality is a reorganized government structure that often lies between the local municipal governments (cities, towns, townships) and the provincial governments and serves to unify a distinct area for the purpose of transportation, planning and emergency services. Generally the region replaces the predated townships with new municipalities, or becomes known as the official government (ie. Metropolitan Toronto) - Floydian τ ¢ 02:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment/reply yes, but the categories listed will contain things in Bedford, Sackville, Dartmouth and quite a few other places that, though they are in the HRM, are not "Halifax". Shearwater, Cole Harbour, the Prestons come to mind, and more. MOSTCOMMON use of "Halifax, Nova Scotia" is for the city proper; otherwise it's like saying that Coquitlam and Surrey are really part of Vancouver because they're component municipalities of of the GVRD, though the HRM is a true civic-regional government unlike the GVRD. If this CfD goes through, and there are e.g. heritage buildings, hospitals and such in Bedford, Sackville, Dartmouth et al. then new categories would be required for those, as "Halifax, Nova Scotia" will not be suitable. Are there any Nova Scotian Wikipedians in attendance? Has this been posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Nova Scotia for local input/advice?Skookum1 (talk) 10:10, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I am in Nova Scotia. And Halifax, Nova Scotia does actually apply to all of those places now. That was the point of the change of naming. It doesn't just apply to what used to be Halifax, Nova Scotia. The regional council wanted to create one single brand and to not be so fragmented like it used to be. It applies to the entire regional municipality now. -DJSasso (talk) 14:12, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support With the official change Halifax, Nova Scotia applies to the entire regional municipality. Which is why there is some outcry about it out here. -DJSasso (talk) 14:15, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, will be glad to see this longstanding odd exception to WP:COMMONNAME finally rectified. Citobun (talk) 16:35, 6 May 2014 (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:People with computer applications degrees[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) 03:10, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Found doing cleanup, so this is a technical nomination. In looking at the category, it has three article in it. The intro says it can be used for user pages. I suspect there is a question of how defining it is to have this degree. No opinion at this time. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete User categories should not be confused for content categories. The articles are not userpages, so the categorization is either in error or the description is in error. Either way, the purpose of the category its name is wrong or its purpose is wrong. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 03:24, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categorizing people by their degrees (or majors) is a really bad idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:04, 1 May 2014 (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:Actors who died during production of a film or television show[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) 01:28, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not WP:DEFINING, mostly just a collection of coincidences. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Some articles are in way too many categories relating to how the person died; the main categorization should be what the person is notable for. DexDor (talk) 19:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify first.Hoops gza (talk) 20:10, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no objection to listification if sourced - dying during a production in which one is participating may be a notable concept (hence a list) but it is not defining for the dead people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 1 May 2014 (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:Art parks[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. – Fayenatic London 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC) (I should have checked the contents first - most articles were already in more specific sub-cats i.e. for United States or Asia.) – Fayenatic london 19:57[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge this newly created offshoot category per WP:SHAREDNAME. Its only function seems to be to group articles already categorized in the target category that happen to have "art park" in their name -- as well as the Teaneck Creek Conservancy, which is already adequately categorized under Category:Environmental art. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:41, 27 April 2014 (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:Service industriesin Vatican City[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: speedily deleted by Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs). -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it was tagged as speedy by Obiwankenobi (talk · contribs), and deleted by Arthur Rubin (talk · contribs). — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Looks like a typo that was left by the creator. A second category was created that split the words industries and in. Mrfrobinson (talk) 20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC) 15:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
i just speedied it since its emoty. Such cats dont need to be brought here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:48, 27 April 2014 (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:Pan American Games Opening ceremony stadiums[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. – Fayenatic London 20:40, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fix capitalisation - opening ceremony is not a proper noun SFB 15:19, 27 April 2014 (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:Romanian communist foods[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) 03:09, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure exactly what makes a food "communist". The sole article in the category is a coffee substitute that existed because of communism but I'm not sure how it is a "communist food". Also note WP:OVERCAT. —  AjaxSmack  14:28, 27 April 2014 (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:English mythology[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: Individually recategorize and then delete. With one exception, contributors agree that the category is not helpful, but there's no clear consensus about how to recategorize the articles. I suggest that knowledgeable editors manually recategorize articles as may be individually appropriate, perhaps after further discussion at the project level, and then ask for speedy deletion once the category is empty.  Sandstein  20:16, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't actually have an article on English mythology - it's a redirect to Anglo-Saxon paganism. I presume that's because it's difficult to identify an English mythology. Tolkien was trying to create one and Michael Wood noted that "There is, after all, no 'English mythology' section in bookshops alongside the Celtic, Hindu, Norse, Native American or South Seas mythologies.". So this category should be deleted with anything appropriate for English folklore not already there merged into it. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Did you look at the search? Those numbers are both very small and meaningless. I find " Advanced English, Mythology, French" - a list of courses. Michael Wood's comment is there at least one, as are comments about Tolkien trying to invent one. A number of entries are 'English/mythology' where English just denotes the language, eg [1] and some Aamazon hits. This one is about a film. If you look at the Encyclopedia Mythica it doesn't have anything on English mythology - go to the link in our article look, I can't add the link here. Dougweller (talk) 12:50, 28 April 2014 (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:Drosera by synonymy[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, but the situation still seems unsettled or fully resolved, so I'm going to make this without prejudice to another nomination to discuss these. Really, the discussion has been open so long it just needs to be closed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:42, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(or upmerge to Category:Drosera etc) DexDor (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It is unclear to me what a "Foo by synonymy" category is for. The category text says "This category contains synonyms of ..." which suggests the creator has confused categories (which list articles about a topic) with a list of wp pages whose titles have a particular characteristic. The current contents of these categories is mostly/all redirects and dab pages(!). For info: These are the only "... by synonymy" categories in enwiki. DexDor (talk) 14:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The creator of these categories is not confused. As a daughter category of Category:Drosera and sibling of Category:Drosera species by common name, this category structure was used to diffuse taxon or vernacular names users might be used to, especially in the case of recent synonyms, out of the main category, which was restricted to currently accepted names. Perhaps you're confused on how important taxonomic and nomenclatural synonyms are to biological classification and why it might be useful to be able to browse and navigate by synonyms. Rkitko (talk) 16:58, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So do you think the rest of enwiki categorization of species is wrong in not having "by synonymy" categories ? (although the "<snake> by taxonomic synonym" categories may be similar). Re Common-name categories - I've made a start at CFDing those as well. WP categorization should be based on characteristics of the topic of an article, not on characteristics of the article title (i.e. which of several synonyms has been chosen). For example, the chemical compounds ethylbenzene and toluene are both alkylbenzenes and the articles about them are categorized as such. It so happens that (currently) one of those articles is titled using the IUPAC name and the other isn't, but that has no bearing on what categories the articles are placed in. Similarly the articles about individual people have titles in a variety of forms (e.g. William the Conqueror and William II of England), but that's not relevant to the categorization of those articles. DexDor (talk) 19:11, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong? No. Incomplete? Yes. The fact that no other categories have been created is not evidence that this categorization scheme is wrong. Absence of evidence is not evidence itself. Both of your examples aren't similar to what we have here. The IUPAC nomenclature is a system for naming chemicals; as I understand it (and I'm a little rusty from my organic chem days), no two chemicals will ever have the same name. That's not true with taxonomic nomenclature. Species binomials, whether determined to be synonyms because the descriptions were based on the same type specimen or because experts deemed the two types applied to different names to conspecific, can be used multiple times by different authors. This is why some of the articles in these categories are set index articles, e.g. Stylidium androsaceum. Because these taxonomic issues are complicated, especially recent decisions to sink names to synonymy, some taxa are better known by a synonym. Being able to browse a category until you find the taxon you're looking for by the more familiar name to you is valuable. Re: common (vernacular) names -- because our article title guidelines often point us toward using the scientific name as the article's title, a separate category where these vernacular names redirect are placed makes navigation by these names easier, even if some of them are hardly ever used in the literature. We previously had been able to separate vernacular names and article's titled at the scientific name with sortkeys, using lowercase sortkeys for the species epithets and uppercase sortkeys for the first word of a vernacular name, but this strategy got tossed when "a" and "A" both sort under "A".
Sorry, but WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a good argument to delete. Rkitko (talk) 21:29, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All that misses the fundamental point that being a synonym is a characteristic of (groups of) words. I.e. these categories are categorizing by a characteristic of a name (the page title), not by its topic. A botanical garden may exhibit cacti, orchids, carnivorous plants etc - but synonyms?! DexDor (talk) 05:44, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge . The common names have a defining characteristic, but these don't – if I understand correctly, some of the articles might have been located at these names, but happen to be at the alternative names. Also, in category names, "by" is usually used for container categories holding only sub-categories, so these names are confusing. I don't think e.g. "Drosera sysonyms" or "Drosera redirects" would be an improvement either – a recent CfD decided to delete "Banksia redirects". – Fayenatic London 06:26, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a note -- the recent CfD to delete Banksia redirects was appropriate while this is not. The Banksia redirects category was created before the WikiProject banner was used for categorizing redirects for a project. As there is no project dedicated to just Drosera, Utricularia, Stylidium, or Nepenthes, there is no opportunity to switch from an article-based category to a WikiProject banner talk page-based category. I'm open to suggestions for clarifying the name of the category, but they can and do contain SIAs, disambig pages, and redirects as needed. Rkitko (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have cancelled my "upmerge" opinion following the views just added (below) on 15 August. – Fayenatic London 10:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose These are scientific names with some standing in the literature. A defining characteristic of these scientific names is that they are currently treated as taxonomic synonyms. Don't get taxonomic synonymy confused with grammatical synonymy. These aren't potential alternative titles, they are potential species; if taxonomic consensus shifts, names currently treated as synonyms could become titles of new articles. Plantdrew (talk) 19:56, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"These are scientific names" - article titles are names, articles are about plants. DexDor (talk) 05:36, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, our articles are also about the names because that's part of the article's topic. In our better articles, we describe when the name was first used for that species, who described it and where, whether or not the name was reassigned... These are all important aspects of nomenclature which is inseparable from the plant itself. Rkitko (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An article may mention the etymology of one or more terms used to refer to its topic, but that an article mentions etymology is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the topic (it would be incorrect to put an article about a plant in Category:Linguistics). Note: The pages currently in these categories are (mostly) redirects (that are all in Category:Redirect-Class carnivorous plant articles), some dab pages (which shouldn't be in a content category at all) and one SIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DexDor (talk • contribs) 07:18, 11 May 2014‎
The genus Drosera only contains species known by their current names. At some time in the past, some taxa were known by other names, either because they were first named under a different genus and then moved to Drosera or because a splitter came along and moved some taxa to new genera, as was the case with Freatulina regia (Drosera regia). See synonym (taxonomy). These are names important to taxonomic works. Rkitko (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, that's an "explanation" about characteristics of names, not about characteristics of plants. Many topics can be referred to using several names (i.e. synonyms) - hence we have redirects. We usually categorise those redirects (where we categorise them at all) in categories specifically for redirects (e.g. there could be a "Redirects from taxonomic synonyms" category). We don't have, for example, categories for "US states by nickname" (e.g. for Buckeye State) or "Aviation incidents by flight number" (e.g. for MH370). DexDor (talk) 05:13, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
One of the most important things about taxonomy are the properties of names. As I described, our articles are as much about the name as the species or other taxon. A species is really just a hypothesis and your acceptance of a species is dependent on which species concept you prefer. Therefore, many of the essential aspects of taxonomy are about the characteristics of names. Names have priority (see correct name (botany)), names can be conserved, names can be sunk to synonymy. Names are the essential part of a species and by no means does the use of the word "synonym" here mean, as you've implied, an acceptable substitute. Synonyms in taxonomy have much more meaning than that and it is indeed a defining characteristic as a species is essentially a name with a given type and certain attributes. A species sometimes does not have well-defined boundaries, so where one botanist sees one species, another will see two. In cases like those, their names are the most stable and defining things about them, including their synonyms. I'd suggest you do some reading on the disciplines of taxonomy and systematics before making assertions about the importance of synonyms in biology. Otherwise your argument here remains WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. In this case, it has a purpose. Rkitko (talk) 06:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: as this has been listed at WP:AN/RFC since 6 July without response, I have left a similar request at WT:PLANTS. – Fayenatic London 15:12, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are two issues here, it seems to me.
    1. Whether the name of the category is right. It contains redirects from synonyms of taxa in the genus Drosera. In a biological context "synonymy" would normally mean "a list of synonyms" or "the property of being synonyms". Thus you could put all the synonyms of Drosera menziesii under the title "Synonymy of Drosera menziesii" or you could write something like "Merging these species brings the names X and Y into synonymy". So to me "by synonymy" doesn't seem the right wording for this or any similar category. However, it's difficult to word with the taxon name first, which is what is really needed: "Category:Synonyms in Drosera" or some such would be more meaningful, but it's better to have the taxon name first.
    2. Whether there should be a category for redirects from synonyms of a taxon. The key question is whether the category is useful to a reader. Personally I can't see why it would be – if you're interested in Drosera it could be useful to scan Category:Drosera to see what articles exist, but why would a reader want to look at a list of redirects, when any number might redirect to the same article? I'm open to persuasion, but in the absence of a good answer to this question, would be inclined to support deletion.
(By the way, according to WP:PLANTS#Redirects and categorization, these redirects should now also be categorized via {{R from alternative scientific name|plant}}, but those I checked don't seem to be.) Peter coxhead (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - While Peter makes a decent argument for renaming these categories, they are useful (which is what categories should be). As it currently stands, there are 125 articles in the main cat (although one of these appears to be a synonym itself) and 74 in the subcat. Upmerging would seriously dilute cat:Drosera with redirects, making it substantially less useful. To make matters worse, for many genera the number of synonyms can exceed the number of accepted species; sometimes there are many times more synonyms than species. Guettarda (talk) 05:07, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I entirely agree that upmerging would be wrong for the reasons given. My question was whether a category of synonym redirects within a particular taxon is useful to the reader. The standard categorization, as noted in the WP:PLANTS page, is just as a redirect to an alternative scientific name, purely as an information/maintenance category. Is anything further really worthwhile? Could those who created "synonymy" categories explain why they did so? If they are useful, then we should be doing this across all plants, not just for a few taxa. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 15 August 2014 (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:Nations at the Athletics Championships[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) 04:22, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standardise name in line with parent Category:Athletics (track and field) competitions. SFB 13:06, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- This is another case of American imperialism: WP is international. All the competitions in subcategories are European Athletics Championships and World Championships in Athletics. Category:Nations at athletics competitions and Category:Italy at athletics competitions might be accpetable. "Track and field" may apply to these (but not necessarily), but it is not in the titles. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; only the North American categories need the disambiguation, as everybody else understands the same topic by the short name. Maybe a category header template explaining this would help, to be added on all Athletics categories. – Fayenatic London 06:37, 28 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is one of those arguments that has gone round in circles with no possibility of reconciliation (as "athletics" means different things to different people and the concepts of "athletics (sport)" and "track and field" are not identical). That said, this nomination is intended to bring two funky categories into line, rather than support the present nomenclature. SFB 19:53, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "American imperialism" has nothing to do with it; this is an ambiguous term, and should be disambiguated. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support such bellicose rhetoric seems to overlook that ambiguity that needs to be addressed which the proposal does and leaving it be does not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:08, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Bushranger. —  dainomite   04:56, 30 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose; quote Fayenatic. --Kasper2006 (talk) 08:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Change to support now that I have looked at the parent category Category:Athletics (track and field) competitions and others within Category:Athletics (sport). Apologies for not looking properly at this nomination. @Kasper2006: I do not know whether this may affect your opinion. – Fayenatic London 09:34, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Oppose, on the basis that the closest to a parent article that I find, IAAF World Championships in Athletics, does not disambiguate with "(track and field)". I always understood "athletics" to basically mean "track and field". I do not understand the references to American Imperialism. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The current name is ambiguous and needs to be made unambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:34, 22 June 2014 (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:Nations at major sports competitions[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 per C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Major" is subjective. The scope of the category will still be contained by the fact that minor events will not merit sub-articles on a nation-by-nation basis. SFB 12:48, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. The parent is "sports competitions". – Fayenatic London 06:32, 28 April 2014 (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:Falklands War locations[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) 03:05, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is largely a duplication of Category:Battles of the Falklands War. The cemetery articles are (now) in another Falklands War category (or could be upmerged). Articles about places (e.g. South Jason Island) should not be categorised by events that took place there (even if mentioned in the article) - that form of categorization would, for example, place London in a "locations in The Blitz" category. There is not a "war locations" category for this to fit under. This sort of category can attract inappropriate articles (e.g. I've removed an article about a house in England from the category). DexDor (talk) 06:26, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we don't categorize location by what wars they may or may not be associated with; notability is not inherited. Were we to categorize everywhere that was affected by WWII in such a category it would be overflowing and add nothing to the user's ease of use. Moreover, imagine how many categories a place like Strasbourg would be in for each war in which it was a "location" - cat clutter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:10, 1 May 2014 (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:Civil Rights Museums[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: Renamed to Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) museums. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 17:14, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The description and parents indicate that this category is intended to house articles about museums dedicated to the African-American civil rights movement, and not to the subject of civil rights in general or to civil rights movements in other countries. Therefore, I propose changing the name to clearly reflect the category's narrower scope. Alternatively, this could be made a category for civil rights museums in general (although I think that there is sufficient content to justify a category for the African-American civil rights movement in particular), renamed to Category:Civil rights museums, and moved into Category:Civil rights and liberties. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement museums (capitals used)? Will this work? Thanks for the alert about the subject. Randy Kryn 12:10 27 April, 2014 (UTC)
I don't know enough South African history to do it, but there seems not to be a category for their anti-apartheid movement museums and related locations (I came across Red Location Museum in a random article run, which made me think of it). Maybe someone can work up that category, or at least start it if you can come up with a good name. Thanks. Randy Kryn 20:04 27 April, 2014 (UTC)
May I go ahead and rename in Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement museums, which would solve the overly-broad category problem? (how are categories renamed, I don't see a move button on it) Thanks for pointing out that the name was too open-ended. Randy Kryn 13:42 29 April 2014 (UTC)
No, categories on this page shouldn't be renamed until they are closed by an uninvolved administrator. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is a good option. However, since the main article is African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68), I suggest Category:African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68) museums. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:36, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Beauty is the core of the apple. Anyway, American Civil Rights Movement museums may fit the best, so someone put all the names in a hat and draw. Randy Kryn 18:41 6 July 2014 (UTC)
This is not the only Civil Rights movement to have been seen in the US.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 12 July 2014 (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:Media by language of India[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 C2C. – Fayenatic London 11:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. as per C2C and C2D.

The main category is Category:Media by language of India. To be in line with all the sibiling categories like Category:Bengali-language media, Category:Malayalam-language media, Category:Telugu-language media, etc. Thaejas (talk) 03:35, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Tamil is a disambiguation page, so that is ambiguous. Assam is a place and this is not about media from that place, so it's ambiguous. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:35, 27 April 2014 (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:Italian statesmen[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. "Statesmen" is not a neutral term. Merge per precedent of previous discussions: South African, Japanese, Greek, and Arab statesmen. Tassedethe (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- which politicians have attained the honour of being statemen is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 27 April 2014 (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/2014_April_27&oldid=1138398972"