Trichome

thcscience_admin
< December 28 December 30 >

December 29[edit]

Maccabiah Games categories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at CFD 2015 Jan 30. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 22:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Further nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: The Maccabiah Games is not a large scale enough games to warrant subdivision by both the nation represented and the sport competed, nor is the year of competing at a specific edition of the games a defining feature of any athlete. Furthermore, the categories themselves do not warrant subdivision on a size basis. Category:Maccabiah Games competitors for the United States (the largest container) will contain only 50 articles upon upmerging of all the by-sport children. On the sport side, Category:Maccabiah Games athletes (track and field) will only contain six articles after a complete tree upmerge of the country and year subcategories (that tree currently has more child categories than articles). The same applies to the other smaller nations and sports.
This is the case of a structure for a minor competition getting far ahead of itself by following the Olympic category model. Such facets of competition at the Maccabiah are not of the same relevance or definingness in comparison to Olympic level events. To give an idea of the level of the competition, the winner of the 2009 men's shot put won with a mark of 14.88m. This is far below even low-level international standards (consider that over 18.50m was needed to rank in the top global 150). It is not only not defining to compete at a specific edition, but we are unlikely to gather multiple notable biographies to warrant categories of this level. SFB 23:42, 29 December 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:Olympic competitors from Ireland who represented other countries[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: listify. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: Now listified. SFB 20:42, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Olympic competitors from Ireland who represented other countries to article List of Olympic competitors from Ireland who represented other countries
Nominator's rationale: This category is a broad mix of people who represented different countries in very different circumstances, from North American emigration, to British people born in Ireland who briefly lived there, to some poor categorisations of athletes from the early Olympic Games - for which national designations were retrospectively given as it pre-dated the modern competition between national teams (athletic clubs dominated early on). This kind of wide ranging material is not suitable for a category and is much better treated in a list article where we can describe the various circumstances and teams represented in prose and tables. SFB 23:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify per nom, but I would guess that an element of upmerging would also be needed, to ensure that a category indicating their Irish heritage remained, for example an Irish emigrant to US should have some Irish descent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • From all articles I've checked, this facet is already present. Many of these are actually in the full Irish tree as well. SFB 20:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as undefining; no objecting to listifying to the extent reliable sources are cited to support each listed individual and "Ireland" is defined sufficiently to note the independent "Ireland" as the United Kingdom, de jure, is not an "other country" to Northern Ireland in the same manner that the "United States" is not an "other country" to Texas. Also note, a few articles I peeked at have no indication that the person was from Ireland. James Clarke (athlete), e.g. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Indian festivals[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: as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:36, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unusual combination of the festival and fair trees for an Indian state. The contents of the Rajasthan category contains festivals+3 fairs (Baneshwat, Dusshera and Pushkar. The Assam category contains three events that fall within the concept of a festival (i.e. a greater emphasis on a yearly cultural gathering, rather than a periodic gathering based on trade or a traveling carnival) so should be merged with the pre-existing Assam festivals category. The West Bengal category merely serves as a container for the festivals category, except for one fair article. I suggest the fair list article be upmerged, the child be renamed to the usual naming of "festivals in" rather than "of" (per Category:Festivals in India), and then the category can be deleted. There is no benefit to mixing the two concepts of fairs and festivals in isolation. SFB 22:34, 29 December 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:Lamps[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: split, and turn category to a disambiguation page. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 06:28, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose converting Category:Lamps to a category disambiguation page. – Added 10:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Split. A rename was proposed at CFD Nov 13, but did not gain consensus. Rather late in that discussion I suggested splitting most members to Category:Types of lamp, as a sub-cat of Category:Categories by type, and at least five pages to Category:Individual lamps within Category:Individual physical objects. These two new categories could both sit within the current parent Category:Lighting. The proposed names are clear enough to exclude other items on the disambiguation page Lamp i.e. acronyms or persons named Lamp. – Fayenatic London 22:12, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per my statements in the previous discussion. SFB 22:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Would the parent category, Category:Lamps, remain? RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could remain in the hierarchy, if there was a consensus that it is required, but IMHO that is unnecessary, and the new split categories could go directly in the parent Category:Lighting. In case anybody added Category:Lamps to a page again, it might be best to convert it to a disambiguation category. I've added this to the nom. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support I would favor keeping the parent category but this proposal is much easier to navigate than what's there now. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:18, 31 December 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:Festivals of Kosala[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) 05:30, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_57#Request_to_remove.2Fdelete_Category:Kosala_and_its_sub-categories., the category does not have any articles related to Kosala, but all to modern Odisha.. --Shiti (talk) 19:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per previous discussion of Kosala as a historical area, not a place for modern day events. SFB 00:45, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Redtigerxyz Talk 04:13, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sniper fiction[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the majority of subcategories of Category:Fiction by topic. McGeddon (talk) 19:03, 29 December 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.

People killed by the Sri Lankan Army[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) 05:28, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:People killed by the Sri Lankan Army
  • Nominatior's rationale We deleted similar categories for people killed by the US military and those killed by the Israeli Defense Forces. I was trying to find the discussions for those, but could not figure out what those categories had been named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Try this and this. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support people killed in different circumstances in different conflicts is not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:11, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. Sounds POV to me, as well. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:44, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably delete, but how about keeping as "Tamils killed in the Sri Lankan Civil War" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
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 Africanism in South Africa[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) 05:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale; per Pan-Africanism, Category:Pan-Africanism, Category:Pan-Africanist organizations, Category:Pan-Africanist political parties, Category:Pan-Africanists, ect. Charles Essie (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as speedy per main article and category. SFB 18:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy non-controversial change to standardize name with article/tree. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:12, 30 December 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:Non Profit Organisation[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 and merge contents to pre-existing Category:Non-profit organizations. If users want to formally propose a rename to Category:Nonprofit organizations or to Category:Non-profit organisations, that may be done by nominating Category:Non-profit organizations. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Non-profit organizations. DexDor (talk) 06:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • REverse merge British English is more widely used than US-English. At worst, merge leaving a cat-redirect to prevent re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename to Nonprofit organization per main article. SFB 18:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and rename to Category:Nonprofit organizations as per main article (pluralization and all that). Mangoe (talk) 19:20, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, neutral on rename Clearly redundant. Not getting into "s" vs. "z". RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The question of whether the target category should be renamed to the British spelling instead of the American one is a moot point in this particular instance, as even if we did want to do that this category still wouldn't be the correct target for multiple reasons (capitalization of "profit" and "organisation", non-pluralization of "organisation", "non" and "profit" as two separate words instead of one) — so any possibility of doing so can't come out of this discussion or land at this spelling. And, in fact, the only article that was actually in this category didn't belong in it anyway, as it was a US-based organization which would have to be at the z spelling anyway, and which in fact was already filed in the appropriate US-specific organizations categories — making this an unhelpful layer of duplicate categorization and a category that's now empty. Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User Student[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) 05:27, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't form part of any existing category structure. DexDor (talk) 05:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No reason to keep - Has no need to be in existence --Nelson Serrao (talk) 19:53, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I suspect the creating editor didn't realize this would be visible outside his pages. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:CAT says "every category apart from [the] top one must be a subcategory of at least one other category". User talk pages are normally left uncategorized or placed (usually by template) in one or more categories for Wikipedians which are intended to assist collaboration between users. DexDor (talk) 06:46, 31 December 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:Companies in Philippines[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete; merge contents to Category:Companies of the Philippines. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplication of Category:Companies of the Philippines. DexDor (talk) 05:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I didn't find the duplicate category while creating this new one. - Rahat (Talk * Contributions) 09:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agreement with Nominator - Unnecessary duplication --Nelson Serrao (talk) 19:54, 29 December 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:Human rights fighter[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) 05:15, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only article currently in this category is also in Category:Human rights activists. DexDor (talk) 05:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "Fighter" is subjective and non-definitive SFB 18:32, 29 December 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:Popular surnames in Nepal[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: redirected to Category:Surnames of Nepalese origin. Even if there is a substantive reason for that not to be the redirect target, categories are never allowed to tag their contents as "popular" vs "unpopular" (an WP:NPOV violation) — and none of the renaming proposals conforms to Wikipedia's structural conventions for surname categories, so the only options on the table were to either redirect it to the existing category or to delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. DexDor (talk) 05:44, 29 December 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:Members of the Forty and Eight veterans organization[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) 01:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The people in this category (e.g. Don Hathaway) are notable as politicians etc - being a member of this organization is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 05:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is an organization with an unusual name and is a select group as well. I see no harm in keeping the category. Billy Hathorn (talk) 05:15, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we categorized by this non-defining characteristic then why not categorize by every other fact in the article (which, e.g. for Frank Voelker, Jr., would place the article in hundreds of categories) ? See also essay WP:DNWAUC. That the organization has an unusual name might be relevant to the article about the organization, but is hardly relevant to how we categorize articles about politicians etc. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. We already have a list. None of the included articles are defined by being a member. They are notable for other activities. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Space Tourism[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) 05:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Space tourism and no redirect is needed. DexDor (talk) 05:26, 29 December 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:Multi-State Routes[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) 00:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a defining characteristic of the categorized highways. Each is a separate highway that happens to share a number with an adjoining highway in a neighboring state without evidence of an overt attempt to create a continuously numbered highway, unlike the United States Numbered Highways or the Interstate Highway System. Imzadi 1979 → 05:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Trivial category. Dough4872 05:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fine - Works for me. Mcmillen76 (talk) 05:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC) Routes that had this category added have had their changes reverted. Mcmillen76 (talk) 05:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is yet another good-sounding category that is being recommended for deletion if for the only reason is that the majority of USRD doesn't like it. I, for one, think it might be good to have a category that contains these kind of routes, but I am only one person. Also, on top of that, I have seen that my opinion usually means squat to the rest of the project. Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 09:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are many issues with a category by this name.
      1. By its name, it's unclear what the inclusion criterion would be. "Multi-state route" is not a term in common usage. In fact, I can only find one webpage that uses it outside of Wikipedia, and it's a roadgeek website at that.
      2. Would this category need to include all interstate highways (lower case), meaning all highways in the Interstate Highway System, United States Numbered Highway System or New England road marking system that cross state lines would need to be included in this category directly, or indirectly through subcategories? (A single-stat example of an Interstate, US or New England highway wouldn't be "multi-state", now would it?)
      3. As noted in my nomination statement, absent evidence of coordination, these aren't fall under WP:NON-DEFINING. We don't have reliable sources calling these "multi-state routes", so we can't categorize the articles that way.
    • @Morriswa: you'll need to refactor your comments to retract personal attacks on USRD and other USRD members. No one has commented on your editing here, so you should not attempt to use perceptions of persecution as justification to enhance your opinion here. Remember, this is a discussion about content (this category), not other editors. There are times and places to discuss the actions of editors, and this is not it. Imzadi 1979 → 11:30, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – If we wanted to get really technical, any major roadway that enters more than one state, regardless of whether or not the routes on each side of the state line share a number, could be considered a multi-state route. That they're numbered the same means next to nothing. This category doesn't need to be here. TCN7JM 12:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I'm not so sure this would be the case with US or Interstate routes. They're supposed to have the same number. A category like this would be appropriate for FL/GA/SC 121, as well as CT/MA/VT 8. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, I know what it's appropriate for, but why does it matter that they have the same number across state lines? How is FL/GA/SC 121 any different from SD 42/Iowa 9/WIS 82 besides the fact that the former shares the same number? They're all separate state routes. TCN7JM 16:25, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, it's simply the fact that they share the same route number from state to state, and SD 42/Iowa 9/WIS 82 doesn't. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 01:16, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If kept the word "routes" should use lowercase as this is not a proper name. SFB 18:40, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What was in this category? It appears empty now. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Evidently, GA/SC/NC 28, IL/IA/NE/WY 92, and FL/GA/SC 121, so far. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 03:38, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks!RevelationDirect (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I rashly reverted all of my edits because it seems to happen every time I do something in Wikipedia. I know it's the way, but I don't contribute much and ends up becoming time consuming just making sure my stuff stays correct. As DanTD stated, those were the only ones. Multi-State was used in those 3 groups because that's what I searched for. The point was because coordination of numbering between adjoining States is practically unheard of. Some represent a historical look at important routes in the U.S. I thought I had placed this ONLY under Category:State_highways_in_the_United_States. Mcmillen76 (talk) 19:53, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep/Rename if Kept There were multliple efforts at interstate coordination prior to the Interstate system and outside the federal highway system, for instance, see Category:New England Interstate Routes. The drawback here is there is not a main article clearly documenting the coordinated efforts of these states. If kept, rename to Category:Multi-State Routes in the United States to be clear that it's not for international road routes. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:21, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This seems actually to be "state highways which connect to a highway in another state having the same number". There aren't articles on the routes formed by such continuation because we would delete them as W:OR, and there are plenty of such through routes where the numbers on either side of the border happen to be different rather than the same. It's essentially trivia. Mangoe (talk) 05:28, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete not defining; per nom. & Mangoe Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Taiwan placenames originating from Japanese rule[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) 01:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is categorizing places (e.g. Huatan) by a characteristic of its name, not a characteristic of the place itself. DexDor (talk) 05:21, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Potentially keep - The one case I checked, specifically explained the source of the name. Where an article does this, a category such as this is wholly legitiamte. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Places in Taiwan with names of Japanese origin to better match scope and intention (this is to be placed on settlement articles, not toponymy articles. Also it is better to group these linguistically, rather than specifically link to a period. SFB 18:44, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would be an improvement on the current name, but I still think it should be deleted. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_November_29#Category:Place_names_of_Hampshire_origin_in_the_United_States for examples of previous discussions about similar categories. DexDor (talk) 23:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: I support the existence of categories for places by origin of their name if it is in a non-native language. Such placenames almost always denote great historical relevance. In the above example, Hampshire falls outside of this scope, but I'm aware that many argue against my position as well. I think the American experience (as a colony) affects this perception. SFB 20:10, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An article about a place should be categorized based on characteristics of the place (e.g. that's it a town in Fooland), not on characteristics of its name. Categorizing based on characteristics of the name could lead to whole plethora of categories (places named after people, places whose name contains an exclamation mark ...). Also, many places have (or have had) multiple names (e.g. Rome/Roma, Falklands/Malvinas). We don't (afaik) categorize other topics (e.g. people) by characteristics of their name. DexDor (talk) 23:08, 30 December 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:Companies with single letter stock symbols[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; will listify first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:38, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: AT&T (for example) is already sufficiently categorized (e.g. in Category:Internet service providers of the United States) so a new categorization scheme based on length of stockmarket symbol is not needed. DexDor (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - extremely non-meaningful trivial characteristic of a company. --Orange Mike | Talk 06:11, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I respect your opinion and the characterization by User:Orangemike of extremely non-meaningful trivial characteristic I suggest you examine the references in this category which include:

CNBC

rare group of publicly traded companies with single-letter ticker symbols

Quotation cited by Genevieve Valentine in Single-Letter Symbol Phenomenon

single-letter symbols have long been the A to Z of marquee-value branding among companies that want to create an image of exclusivity

Therefore, I maintain that the notion of "sufficiently categorized" is not correct and that this category be maintained.--CmdrDan (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, possibly after listifying (if necessary). I agree that this is trivial. If kept, "NISE" should be included in the cat-name, as this is about NYSE, and it is not the only stock exchange in the world. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify a subject of interest when contextualised, but not a defining feature that will group like companies in a category. SFB 18:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify These tend to be very old companies so I think readers may be interested. But it doesn't work as a point of categorization. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - triviality of name despite some logical connection, like Cities named for Stalin. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:51, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User Talk:Melody Concerto Archive[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) 05:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Afaik we don't categorize user talk pages like this. DexDor (talk) 05:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Can it be shown by some policy that this is inappropriate in user space? Is there a specific policy, or are you just nominating it because you don't see the use of it? I'm curious to know anyways why this should be prohibited. Until such a time as it can be proven there is a policy against having it, I'm against the deletion of this category. I don't see "We don't do that" as a valid deletion reason. Melody Concertotalk 06:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category does not serve a collaborational purpose. Per Wikipedia:User categories, the function of categories is to aid users in building the encyclopaedia. I don't see this category being of any use to anyone other than the creator. A list the userpage or talk page is the easiest way to gather such archived talk links. SFB 18:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:USERNOCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@RevelationDirect @Sillyfolkboy I contend that since the page isn't directly a userpage, just a talk page, that WP:NOUSERCAT does not apply. Were I applying the category directly to User:Melody_Concerto this may indeed apply.

Per WP:PROJCATS I contend the category is administrative and has never pretended to be a content category, it is useful for finding my talk archives. While I may not yet have a million of them, there's nothing in current policy that precludes the use of such categories on TALK pages. If other editors wish to move for a rename, that would be acceptable, but current policies being cited don't really seem to cover this specific instance and I feel further discussion and consensus should be required because I still disagree with the original rationale for this CfD being "We don't do that here" in so many words. Melody Concertotalk 00:28, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Although WP:USERNOCAT does not literally mention Talk pages, it is definitely in the spirit of this guideline to delete this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:46, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Were the nominator's rationale more substantial than "We don't do that here" that might fly, but as it stands now I still remain unsatisfied with the nomination or any of the reasons. Melody Concertotalk 03:49, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Buildings that took over a century to complete[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) 05:20, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:ARBITRARYCAT. DexDor (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete arbitrary feature that does not group like buildings. It's also hard to distinguish when a building is complete as it is very common for older buildings to have had a period of construction spanning many centuries. SFB 18:52, 29 December 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 words not following the I before E except after C rule[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) 05:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The defining characteristic of Madeira is that it is an archipelago of the Atlantic Ocean, not that its name contains "ei". DexDor (talk) 05:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Madeira IS an archipelago but it is a NAME and a REIGON OF THE PORTUGUESE STATE hence its full name " Região Autónoma da Madeira " e.g. Madeira Wine, Madeira Cake, Madeira Islands and the "nationality" Madeirense. ALL OF WHICH DO NOT FOLLOW THE RULE! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.20.50.175 (talk • contribs)
  • And all of which are Portuguese words, not English ones, and thus have no such rule that they were ever under any obligation to follow in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I was taught this rule, but it always had exceptions, particularly in words of foreign origin. I understand that it is no longer tauight in British schools, because there are more exceptions that regular words. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Madeira is not an English word, so this is now an empty category. This feature would only be distinguishing of a topic if the subject of the article was the word itself – basic words typically don't have Wikipedia articles (that's what Wiktionary is for) so this idea is basically a non-starter. SFB 18:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—non-defining characteristic, doubly so when applied to names and non-English words. Maralia (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME. I'm usually pretty open to listifying but Madeira isn't even English, it's a loan word. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:42, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Characteristics of how a name is or isn't spelled are not WP:DEFINING qualities of the topic, or appropriate points of categorization. Bearcat (talk) 23:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:South Australian Suffragist wikibomb[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 which is a Delete since everything is in the parent. However that would drop them from the SA tree so this really is an upmerge to Category:People from South Australia. Splitting of Category:Australian suffragists by state if needed can be taken on if someone really belives this is appropriate and it should be done for all states and not just one. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains articles about real life people (e.g. Mary Colton), but is a "wikibomb" category. It may have been intended as a talk page category, but I'm not keen on cluttering up talk page categorization with wiki-event categories (that inevitably aren't removed after the event). DexDor (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to an appropriate venue such as Wikipedia:South Australian Suffragist wikibomb. Not useful to use Wiki events as mainspace categories. SFB 18:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Name change to relevant category by removing "wikibomb". South Australia is a state within Australia so it is relevant to have a separate category from 'Australian suffragists'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halfrida (talk • contribs) 23:01, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Australian suffragists. I was open to Haflrida's idea but I don't think there are enough articles to justify breaking down the Australia category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:44, 30 December 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:Hometown of cricketer Pradhyumna Thakare[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) 05:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not an appropriate use of categorization. DexDor (talk) 04:58, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename -- This is a misuse of the category system. The appropriate course is for the cricketer to be categorised as from there. Potentially it should become Category:People from Arni, Maharashtra and have Pradhyumna Thakare in it, but I see no indication of its size. However that both are redlinks makes me wonder whether we shoudl have any of it. Or is all this a HOAX?Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 29 December 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_29

Leave a Reply