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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Two issues here. (1) The category is for mythological dwarfs, but is liable to be confused with Category:People with dwarfism. As an illustration of this problem, note that the category currently contains a commons category link to Category:People with dwarfism (!). I suggest matching the name to the main article Dwarf (mythology). The nominated category and the undisambiguated Category:Dwarfs should be disambiguation categories. (2) The normal pluralisation of "dwarf" is "dwarfs". "Dwarves" has been used to a lesser extent historically, and Tolkien especially popularised its usage, but the OED still says the primary plural is "dwarfs". Other dictionaries tend to simply list both plurals, but usually "dwarfs" is listed first. We could have a redirect on Category:Dwarves (mythology). Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment According to Dwarf (mythology), "dwarves" is more commonly applied to the mythological creatures, and "dwarfs" for people with dwarfism and various types of celestial bodies, pace Walt Disney, but that sentence is uncited.- choster (talk) 23:30, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would bet that post-Tolkien, that is probably true in general fantasy writing. Nothing in OED about this, perhaps surprisingly. ... If it's become the preferred usage in that context, Category:Dwarves (mythology) is an option that would be OK with me. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Tolkien himself stated that he would have used dwarrows (see dwarrow) as the plural for dwarf, had he remembered the word when The Hobbit was originally published. 64.229.101.183 (talk) 23:48, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
My only comment is that the article is at Mythic humanoids. Here, the article is at Dwarf (mythology). So there doesn't seem to be perfect symmetry between the two article names in these cases. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Emergency medical services 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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge or reverse merge. Can anyone explain the difference between these two, if any? The nominated category has existed for longer. Category:Ambulances was recently created as a subcategory, but it had very little in it, so I dutifully moved a bunch of stuff into the new subcategory, only to find that everything from the nominated category could accurately be moved into the new category. If there is no difference, we need to merge one way or the other. I don't really have a preference as to which is kept, though the main article is at Ambulance. Both categories have been tagged. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:02, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge to Category:Ambulances. From the look of the article, ambulance is a slightly broader term which includes non-emergency patient transit vehicles, so I don't see any problem with keeping that name, which is also recognizable and concise. --Pnm (talk) 03:32, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge (not reverse merge). Ambulances is the common term. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Generally we avoid categorizing by "current" or "former" status. Recently, the similar Category:Military operations currently ongoing was deleted. It's often hard to know (especially when one is "in the moment") of the precise moment when a civil war comes to an end, making the application of this category tricky in some circumstances. I think it's better to just class these as part of the "Modern era" civil wars. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Pnm (talk) 03:34, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:38, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Having categories for foreign players for a certain team is just a step too far - not even worthy of an article, let alone a category. GiantSnowman 18:44, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 18:45, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. An interesting sub-category for the big clubs. Wikipedia would be a useful place to find out about which countries having represented universal football clubs. Lots of categories need deleting before this one. Roslagen (talk) 18:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
How do you determine "big" - surely that violates WP:OR and WP:NPOV? Also saying "lots of categories need deleting before this one" violates WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. GiantSnowman 19:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, well, big clubs are in the English case clubs to have won the domestic league or cup.Roslagen (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Same for all other countries? GiantSnowman 20:09, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – the criterion is 'defining', not 'interesting'. Occuli (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with the nominator that this is "a step too far". Categorize by players on a team—Yes. Categorize by expatriate football players in a particular country—maybe. Categorize by the intersection of the two—no. I would say it is overcategorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Over-categorisation. Struway2 (talk) 23:24, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom—overcategorisation. Barret (talk) 23:27, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Overcatting. No point in having that category up there. – Michael (talk) 20:17, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All the above and then some. - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:55, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Rename - my first thought when seeing the cat name was that it would be about clothing worn in England in the 18th century, so the name needs to be made less confusing -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 23:48, 16 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a small town, contains only main article and high school. WP:OCAT. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with 5 articles: There are now 5 articles in the cat with a half dozen notable buildings that gives the cat room for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:54, 31 January 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 07:08, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Shopping malls in Winston-Salem, North Carolina[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.
Nominator's rationale: Winston-Salem only has two malls, and Greensboro three. Merge these two categories and include the three malls in High Point, and sufficient content exists for a subcat of Category:Shopping malls in North Carolina. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:01, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all 3: I appreciate your effort to try and eliminate all these small categories but I'm not sure grouping malls by metropolitan areas is the right solution. If you look at the states under Category:Shopping malls in the United States, they tend to have no subcats or 1-2 for major cities. In contrast, Category:Shopping malls in North Carolina is much more granular but the state doesn't have the article count to justify that structure. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 07:05, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Shopping malls in Cary, North Carolina[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.
Nominator's rationale: Cary and Durham categories are somewhat small (Cary has only two in it), and Raleigh category larger. As a defined metropolitan area with a widely-used name, all three should be merged into one category. This would also match it with the other "X in Research Triangle, North Carolina" categories that are already established. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 20:06, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge 2, Leave 1: Propose upmerging Cary and Durham to the state-level cat and leaving Charlotte unchanged. I appreciate your effort to try and eliminate all these small categories but I'm not sure grouping malls by metropolitan areas is the right solution. If you look at the states under Category:Shopping malls in the United States, they tend to have no subcats or 1-2 for major cities. In contrast, Category:Shopping malls in North Carolina is much more granular but the state doesn't have the article count to justify that structure. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:49, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:58, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:58, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This appears to be categorizing people who at one time or another supported the idea of a guaranteed minimum income. Per WP:OC#OPINION, we "avoid categorizing people by their personal opinions, even if a reliable source can be found for the opinions. This includes supporters or critics of an issue". An exception is made for activists. I wouldn't call the majority of these people activists for this cause, but if the category is kept it should be renamed to Category:Guaranteed minimum income activists or Category:Activists for a guaranteed minimum income. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:46, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; it is not even as if the issue can be called clear-cut. At the extreme, large numbers of modern countries have some sort of basic income guarantee via welfare systems, so the great majority of politicians who have never advocated abolishing these could in theory be roped in. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Johnbod. This is a very significant topic, but the nuances of position involved are too complex to allow binary on-off categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 February 23. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2011 (UTC)