Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 25 July 27 >

July 26[edit]

Category:Spiritual organizations[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. – Fayenatic London 21:44, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Meaningless phrase, as can be seen by the collection of subcategories and articles. Editor2020 23:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
  • Delete inherently subjective, and not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:13, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: A category is needed to contain those organizations. --Opus88888 (talk) 17:34, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Any article in particular that you feel will be homeless without this Category? Editor2020 00:19, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Comment -- This is a mishmash of New Age, spiritualist, occult, and other fringe religion organisations, with some Hindu ones as well. If we delete this,we are liable to find categories orphaned. I do not like the present structure, but we need to split it or define it better and purge it, rather than delete it out of hand. POssibly it should be emptied anually into other categories and then deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. At first glance it seems a bit meaningless, but if you examine the Category:Spirituality tree I think the intended purpose becomes clearer. These are organizations that are involved in matters of spirituality, as opposed to religion. It's a bit tricky figuring out what belongs and what doesn't, but I think it's not an impossible task. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:42, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Clearly a bad idea, they all come under the theme spirituality. Got it? --Ekabhishektalk 04:18, 21 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:Political television series[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 to Category:Political drama television series. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to a discussion that I initiated at the category talk page earlier this year, and am revisiting now. The issue here is that as constituted, the category was intended for scripted drama or comedy series that present fictional portrayals of politics — think Veep, The West Wing, Borgen, House of Cards, that kind of thing — but instead, due to its ambiguity, it has been frequently misused for things like Washington Week, Power & Politics and The Rachel Maddow Show (news or documentary shows about real-world politics). There most likely should be a category for shows of that latter type, in reality, but mixing them willy-nilly with scripted fiction in a subcategory of Category:Political drama isn't the answer to that.
Accordingly, this category should be renamed to make its fictional scope clearer — but I'm not sure what the best new name would be: Category:Political fiction television series? Category:Political drama television series? Some other proposal? (And then, once that's done, we can create a new Category:Political non-fiction television series or Category:Political news television series category for the news shows, and keep the current name as a container for the other two — but first we need to decide what the subcategories' names should be.) Bearcat (talk) 23:01, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This category isn't causing that problem. Television series are routinely categorized by genre, and "political drama" is reliably sourceable as a recognized genre of television in its own right. Bearcat (talk) 17:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Category:Political drama television series -- The present title would cover TV programmes dealing with politics (such as news programmes), but that is not what this is about. Some are serious dramatic works, others comedy, but all are drama. A followup nom will be needed for the subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 2 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:Alumni of the Birmingham School of Music[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. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the main article, Birmingham Conservatoire. The institution changed its name in 1989 from Birmingham School of Music to Birmingham Conservatoire. (This is a contested speedy renaming nomination.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- by convention alumni of a predecessor are deemed by WP to be aliumni of the successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 2 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:Universities in London[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) 05:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the convention of Category:Universities and colleges in England, and also so that this can be a proper parent of Category:Defunct universities and colleges in London‎ and Category:People by university or college in London‎. (Note: This is a contested speedy renaming nomination.) -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:52, 26 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:Mid-engined vehicles[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:31, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:NON-DEFINING. Per the main article, every single mid-engine vehicle really has either a front-engine or a rear engine that is moved a bit toward the center of the vehicle; it's not a distinct configuration. So every single member of this category would also have to go into either Category:Front-engined vehicles or Category:Rear-engined vehicles. (If kept, it would be better to split into sub-cats for front and rear.) 21:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. – RevelationDirect (talk) 22:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note The front-engined category was nominated separately, below, for different reasons. I think the rear-engined category is useful and I intend to populate it. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A defining characteristic for such vehicles, with a clear parent article at mid-engine design. Alansohn (talk) 05:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's no overlap. Mid-engined = engine between the axles; Rear-engined = engine behind the rear axle; that involves making an entirely different automobile and warrants two separate wiki articles. The mid engine layout is defining of an automobile; proof is it's mentioned in the introductory lines of every mid-engine car's article. Cloverleaf II (talk) 07:27, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is important classification of cars, mid engined cars are not front or rear engined -->Typ932 T·C 07:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Cloverleaf II, Typ932, and Alansohn: The Mid-engine design is defined as between the axles but further distinguishes between "Front mid-engine position" and "Rear mid-engine position", depending on which axle they are next to. And the Front-engine design indicates that Front mid-engines traditionally were considered front engines. Are those articles accurate about the classification? RevelationDirect (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems correct to me. As far as I know the distinction between front mid- and front-engined layout is relatively modern, simply because the conventional layout of pre-war cars was de facto front mid-engined. Not by design (to reduce the moment of inertia) like on modern cars, but out of technical necessity (to make space for the front leaf sprung solid axle). Cloverleaf II (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So should we use this category for those older cars as well or should it be limit the scope to the more modern ones? Obviously this nomination is not going away but I'm wondering if it's defining for older cars or just the newer ones that were designed intentionally as mid-engine vehicles.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:05, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say we should categorize only "modern" front mid engined cars. In two subcategories of Category:Mid-engined vehicles Category:Automobile layouts: Category:Front mid-engine, rear-wheel-drive vehicles and Category:Front mid-engine, four-wheel-drive vehicles. Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum: thinking twice about it, giving a properly defined scope to these two categories could really be problematic.. But throwing together modern FMR sportscars and dozens of pre-war car models seems really pointless to me. Cloverleaf II (talk) 14:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is as others point out an attribute of a car that's one of the first things stated about its design! The complete antithesis of a "non-defining category". Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:12, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: fairly unorthodox layout, yet notable in its own right. As others have clarified, mid-engined refers to the engine's placement between the axles (even though from a casual glance they still look front-engined as the engine is up the front (or at the rear in even rarer cases). OSX (talk • contributions) 14:42, 1 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:Front-engined vehicles[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) 04:03, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:NON-DEFINING. This category groups any vehicle that has the engine in front. So it would include the vast majority of cars that are currently in the world or that have ever been in the world and could include thousands upon thousands of automotive articles with very little in common. It's like having Category:Gasoline cars to go with Category:Electric cars. (Please note that this does complete a set with the more unusual Category:Rear-engined vehicles and Category:Mid-engined vehicles.) RevelationDirect (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. – RevelationDirect (talk) 21:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Note The mid-engined category was nominated separately, above, for different reasons. I think the rear-engined category is useful and I intend to populate it. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed that since the vast majority of vehicles are front-engined, it isn't really helpful or maintainable as a point of categorization. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: akin to Category:Automobiles with four wheels I guess (there are a few six-wheelers around). OSX (talk • contributions) 14:39, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- This is too ubiquitous to be defining. IN contrast, being rear-engined (like VW Beetle) is certainly defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 2 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:Female war correspondents[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. – Fayenatic London 22:14, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale In general these people will be adults, and we tend to use women in categories where most of those involved are adults. Beyond this, it's parent Category:Women journalists, uses women, as do its 25 sister sub-categories below that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 26 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:Autonomous land vehicles[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 without prejudice to re-creating with this or another name when there is more than one page to put in it. (For the record, its current parents are Category:Unmanned ground vehicles, Category:Automotive technologies, Category:Experimental vehicles and Category:Applications of computer vision.) – Fayenatic London 22:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OVERLAPCAT. There is some legitimate disagreement about the best adjective for these vehicles (e.g. is a Google car "unmanned" if there are passengers?) but the main article is Unmanned ground vehicle and there's no navigation purpose for 2 identical categories. The only article is already in a subcat of the target category.RevelationDirect (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Automobiles. – RevelationDirect (talk) 20:49, 26 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]
  • Oppose at this point. We have Category:Autonomous cars which is very well populated and is clearly well named and not for unmanned vehicles. Logically it should be in Category:Autonomous land vehicles or the simpler Category:Autonomous vehicles. Placing cars, and other vehicles in unmanned is confusing at best and wrong at worst. Also not all unmanned vehicles are autonomous. Clearly some cleanup here is needed, I'm just not sure what. I strongly feel that any version of Category:Unmanned vehicles can not be the top level category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I agree that some cleanup is needed to clarify the closely overlapping Venn diagram of driverless/unmanned/autonomous vehicles but I look to the article space to initiate that. Autonomous car and Unmanned ground vehicle are the current names for the main articles and I think the categories should match (until the articles change). Thank you for feedback on the nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm going to support from the comments and based on the only content which in my option is an unneeded category for the GROVER article. This would be the start of some needed cleanup in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:14, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment autonomous implies it isn't remotely operated, so they are not identical in scope. Whether we need multiple different categories for robotic ground vehicles is a different question. "automonous vehicles" suggestion will collect AUVs, etc. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Unfortunately I am on a hiatus at the moment after moving house. There are a few other autonomous vehicle categories which I envisaged would fall from "Unmanned vehicles" (Top Cat) down through "Unmanned land vehicles", "Unmanned (water) vehicles" and UAVs. These would then be split down through the semi-autnonmous and autonomous subdivisions ending in any specialist sub-divs of those, or continuing where necessary. There are several other vehicles out there that need adding to this category, from the ones which follow white lines and form trains, through to the "challenge" vehicles that successfully completed the DARPA challenge. All of the current Mars rovers would also fall into this category (I believe). While many of these are cars, some are not. Some are semi- and fully-autonomous, depending on how they are used. I will add as many as I can tomorrow, if you like, or it can be kept for now and I will try and get on for a couple of hours over the next week to add some (preferred as am still unpacking and sorting through things). I suppose it would not matter if it was renamed to "Autonomous ground vehicles", but I was unsure of whether ice etc. was ground per se. Chaosdruid (talk) 23:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed to such a thoughtful restructuring. I would favor having you recreate this category later though since, in it's current form, it's all of one article. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:08, 24 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:American Anglican church stubs[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 re "Episcopal", so just rename to "United States" to match parent stub cat. – Fayenatic London 22:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the relevant permcat, Category:Episcopal churches in the United States - it apprears to be an ENGVAR issue. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Within the Anglican Communion, "Anglican" vs. "Episcopal" has been essentially an ENGVAR issue, but now there are Anglican groups in the United States that have split off from the Episcopal Church, so this category likely includes some churches that are Anglican but not Episcopal. --Orlady (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Orlady:, does this mean you would have supported renaming Category:Episcopal churches in the United States to Category:Anglican churches in the United States? עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 03:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. Rather, I believe that we need to create a new set of container categories for Anglicanism in the United States, to include the Episcopal Church and the U.S. elements of the Anglican realignment and other non-Episcopal Anglican groups. The category Category:Episcopal churches in the United States is defined as containing churches affiliated with the Anglican denomination Episcopal Church (United States), and it is linked to other categories specific to that denomination. That denominational category structure is entirely valid. The problem is that there are Anglican churches and denominational organizations that aren't Episcopal, such as Reformed Anglican Church, Convocation of Anglicans in North America, and Anglican Diocese of Pittsburgh. Non-Episcopal Anglican churches can be expected to show up as "Anglican stubs," but they should not be treated as "Episcopal stubs." --Orlady (talk) 15:37, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I can't see that there's any good reason not to match the naming of a stub category to its non-stub parent, even when we are dealing with ENGVAR issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:25, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. This is the name of the denomination. Episcopalian might be an alternative, but one would have to start by renaming the articles (many of them). However, they are part of the Anglican Communion (at least at present) and parents should not be renmed to match. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:58, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keeping Orlady's contribution in mind, would splitting into Episcopal and Anglican be an option? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A few days ago I took a stab at doing that by creating Category:Anglicanism in the United States, which I believe was a needed addition to the category hierarchy -- to match the global categories and because not all American Anglicans are Episcopalians. Your note here reminded me that I needed to continue populating that category -- and I also created Category:Anglican churches in the United States -- and I placed this stub category into that new parent category (I also left in the Episcopal churches category). Since I have never been either an Anglican or a scholar of religion, I don't know nearly enough about the subject to do an authoritative job of organizing the Anglicanism category into subcategories. Other participants in this discussion should take a look at what I've done and see how it affects your opinion on the category name. (Also, if you think I made mistakes in category structure or categorization of specific items, PLEASE fix my errors!) --Orlady (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Deserves further consideration after a new "Anglican" parent was added
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 17:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative rename to Category:United States Anglican church stubs. Some members are not Episcopalian, e.g. All Saints Anglican Church (Raleigh, North Carolina). Others in Category:United States church stubs have "United States" rather than "American". – Fayenatic London 17:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Not all Anglicalans in the US have been Episcoapalians since at least the 1970s, and it has become much more the case in the last decade. The target is not the same as the present one. We need both for some purposes. Whether we need the more specific name for stubs, I don't know, but renaming is not the way to go here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment First, while in theory there are non-Episcopal Anglican churches in the US, in practice there are (by my count) only two such churches in this category. More to the point, however, is that this isn't really an Anglicanism stub category: it's almost entirely a historic buildings category. Parishes, as a rule, are not notable, and I would question the notability of those I find in the category which are not in historic buildings. That leaves one other stub which isn't a church building at all (Daughters of the King, a lay society). I thus have to question the utility of this category as it stands, however it is named: The people who are going to expand articles in it are the NRHP people, not the Anglicanism/Episcopal people; I suppose it might have some temporary utility as a gathering place for finding parish articles which ought to be deleted, but that's about it. Mangoe (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • With the way law suits are building against Jefferts-Schori and friends, it is quite possible that some parishes will become notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 10 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:Paganism in Oceania[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) 05:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match contents. Not eligible for speedy because I only just renamed the page which matches the target name. – Fayenatic London 16:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all the contents relate to neopaganism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Subcategorize to the proposed name. I think that the virtually empty Oceania-level category should remain as part of the tree, and that by-continent categories should exist whether they have a single entry or multiple ones. -- 65.94.169.222 (talk) 09:29, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently there are only continent categories for Europe and North America, so a continent category for Oceania is not necessary for consistency. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename_ Neopaganism in Oceania. --Iekrt (talk) 06:49, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per nom. If we get articles on this in NZ or Fiji, we can re-create this. Trees that do not brnach are a hindrance, not an aid to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 2 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:United States 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) 05:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The definition of athletics needs to be made clear for American readers, given the national character of the category. However, the term athletics should remain as the category scope includes cross country and marathon events (which are non-track). Fixing capitalisation is also required. SFB 14:25, 26 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:Stawell Gift winners[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The winning of this competition is not a defining characteristic for an athlete. The handicap format means people of a wide variety of abilities may win the contest. In its 130+ year history, only three Olympic class runners have won the event. This information is better portrayed in the list format at Stawell Gift. SFB 14:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- another unnecessary award winner's category. We have a list at Stawell Gift, where most of the winners have no article. Lists are much better than categories for awards. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - it's a professional race. Olympics until recently was amateur only, so that argument is completely and utterly invalid (and incorrect, as it is only 3 Australian winners - may be others from other countries - like the winner from Madagascar). It's a very important race in Australia. I'm not sure why most winners don't have articles - have any been created and deleted due to a lack of notability? Or has no Australian running fan been active enough here, or too busy with Olympic articles? I would say that it is a notable and defining characteristic for most of the winners. The-Pope (talk) 16:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a big event, certainly, but the handicapping means that the winners often aren't of a notable standard. This year's winner Luke Versace isn't a notable athlete in any form. He has had no running performances at national level, let alone international.
With his handicap he ran 110 metres in 12.33 seconds. Even with a generous calculation that his last 10 metres was the same speed as the rest of his race as a whole (it will have been faster), this would put him at 11.2 seconds for the 100 metres. That would rank him 473rd in this year's British men's 100m rankings or just outside of the top 50 of this year's British children's category. Just because it's a big sporting event doesn't necessarily mean the winner is of notable quality. SFB 19:10, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
2nd paragraph "The race is run on grass over 120 metres up a slight gradient" I doubt Usain Bolt would break 11 secs.The-Pope (talk) 14:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The-Pope. Definitely "a defining characteristic for an athlete", for many that win it is the pinnacle of their athletic career. The example of Luke Versace is actually a good one – he might not meet one of the SNGs for his running career, but he definitely meets the GNG even though no one has written a Wikipedia article on him yet. And the main reason he meets the GNG is because of his win in the Stawell Gift as well as some other high finishes in that event. Jenks24 (talk) 11:43, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - better to categorize articles as Fooish sprinters etc and use the list (and possibly WikiData in future) to record "<person> won <race/prize> in <year> (<reference>)" information. DexDor (talk) 19:58, 31 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:Pulheimer SC athletes[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. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is for members of a non-notable German track and field club SFB 13:54, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a WP search suggests that there may be 4-5 candidates for this cateogry, but there is no article on the club, merely a weblink to a German webside in Pulheim. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, may be populated. The club is in fact notable when the athletes are notable. Geschichte (talk) 18:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete anyway, club is notable but not enough athletes there to populate the category. Geschichte (talk) 18:50, 26 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:Norwegian octathletes[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. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The octathlon is a track and field event primarily used for athletes under the age of 17. All athletes achieving notability in combined events will have competed in the heptathlon or decathlon in adulthood. The sole child article (Karsten Warholm) is now a decathlete. Categorising by event as competed when a child is not very useful tool for athletes. SFB 13:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • DElete -- I question whehter we should have generally articles in junior atheletes, even one as successful in youth sports as Karsten Warholm. Better to put the article directly in parents. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an optimum category for description. --Jonlut (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, he competed in one - 1 - octathlon and is now a decathlete. Geschichte (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one entry can be adequately categorized with other categorizes. this category is not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 26 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:Lists of honors and awards earned by Presidents 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: rename. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More encyclopedic wording used by the articles in the category. —Designate (talk) 13:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support We should not have to question whether the subject has done enough to "earn" these awards. Receipt is sufficient and much less subjective. SFB 13:39, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Many will be "earned" merely by being President and are awarded by foreign countries for diplomatic reasons. As such they may be awarded, but are hardly earned. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:47, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to blindly follow the article names which both use "received". No opinion on whether earned or received would be better for the articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:55, 2 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:Kurdish guerrillas[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent target is simply a container for this category. The content is better defined as rebels, as not all members of the Kurdistan Workers' Party are guerrilla fighters, but they are certainly rebels by definition. SFB 10:03, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, as there are/were guerrillas in all the globe. Deww4 (talk) 23:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current content are guerrillas. As long as we have any guerrilla cateogories, these would seem to belong.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 14 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:Other economic systems[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. – Fayenatic London 22:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy by labeling these systems as "other"; thus giving the encyclopedia a bias toward capitalism and socialism. All pages here should be moved to Category:Economic systems (and that category needs to be drastically reorganized as many categories there do not belong at all or should be in it's subcategories) ElkoGraf (talk) 09:44, 26 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:Central African 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. The sub-cats can be renamed using the Speedy page. – Fayenatic London 07:44, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name is ambiguous as it may refer to people from Central Africa, not just the Central African Republic. Categorisations by region already exist (e.g. Category:Caribbean people) so this may be a source of confusion. In English, using "Central African" to specifically refer to the country is not widely used enough to justify unexplained use of the term (unlike South Africa, for instance). SFB 09:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will be better if there is a follow up nom for the sub-cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Isn't this sort of like the "American people" vs. "United States people" issue? In theory, "American people" can mean anyone from North or South America, but in practice, it almost always means someone from the United States. Similarly, "Central African people" can technically mean anyone from Central Africa, but in practice isn't it almost always used to refer to someone from CAR? Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or is this more like Dominican people verses Dominican Republic people, where the former is far more common, but also too ambiguous to use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 28 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:Northern Mariana Islander sprinters[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, though a speedy rename to Category:Northern Mariana Islands sprinters seems appropriate here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category has only one person, just like the parent Category:Northern Mariana Islands track and field athletes. Division by the sport is more than enough by itself, without going down to the discipline level. At the very least it should be renamed to Islands, following the parent Category:Northern Mariana Islands sportspeople. SFB 09:02, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge -- The whole Category:Northern Mariana Islands sportspeople contains 13 articles - 12 soccer players and 1 sprinter. Each appears twice in the tree. I would suggest merging it all inot that category, and the one sprinter directly into the Category:Sprinters. I expect that is a container cateogry, but there is not enough content to split this polity by sport. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It's a small nation, which, surprise-surprise, doesn't have many individual athlete articles. There's a long standard of creating individual categories for nations even if there is only one entry within it. If you could point me to the policy this violates, then I'd be most welcome. Thanks. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 16:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this violates no policy, but categorisation is mostly a cultural thing stemming from community opinion. Generally, there has been a culture of maintaining very small categories when they form part of a wider tree (in this case "Fooian sprinters"). I disagree with that stance.
I think categories should be individually judged on their navigational benefit, not just whether similar categories are useful. I don't think we should abdicate thought on this category just because the corresponding Category:American sprinters is useful and needed (at almost 700 times the population of the nominated category). SFB 19:18, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, your logic is flawed. What about Category:Bolivian sprinters? Or Category:Belizean sprinters? Or Category:Albanian sprinters, etc? These are all part of the bigger scheme. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per John Pack Lambert's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:02, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • ATTENTION Sillyfolkboy, Peterkingiron, Johnpacklambert, RevelationDirect. Category entries have increased. Nothing short of a miracle. Let me know if that isn't good enough and I'll create article for all the Northern Mariana Islanders listed here. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak Keep My cutoff for a category is normally 5 articles but I'll cut a small territory a little slack based on the 3 articles Lugnuts just created. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Heh, heh. That's a good way to prove a point! I would hold off on the Micronesian Games athletes though as they are mostly non-notable - Beouch Ngirchongor's 400m winning time would barely have scraped him into the 1000 British rankings of 400m last year. We shouldn't be covering that level of athlete. Still, none of the subjects of the created or existing articles has ever achieved a valid qualifying time to attend the World Championships. They were allowed to compete on the basis of nationality alone as part of the IAAF outreach programme. I will raise this issue at WikiProject Athletics. SFB 17:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep The fact that all four articles are only two lines long is reflective of the over-abundance of weak articles we tend to have in sport categories, but for now this category clearly meets the inclusion guidelines for categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:17, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep -- With four articles, there is now enough to keep, but the tree of which it is part need still pruning. With a small polity like this, there should be a modest tree. I would suggest that sportspeople parent should have two sub-cats - one per sport, with no other splits. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 2 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:Nicholls State Colonels cross 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: upmerge to Category:College cross country teams in the United States and Category:Nicholls State Colonels. – Fayenatic London 07:48, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category solely contains the eponymous article. This category has little scope for including substantial related material. SFB 08:51, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I added the one article to the general category for the university. This is an example of excessive creation of small categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both parents, unless populated with furhter articles before closure. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 2 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_26&oldid=1138399505"