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: category is poorly populated, covers a very small org., for which the category Black Hebrew Israelites is adequate. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2012 (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 Ministry of of Foreign Affairs and Trade (Ireland)[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy close and move to WP:CFDS, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:17, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationaile: I created this myself today but failed to see the typo in the name. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:10, 8 September 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationaile: Third in an ongoing series to standardise the "Works based on Foo" tree on "Foo based on Bar" (X of Y) format, following the pattern established by the tree Works based on Foo > Video games based on Foo. As mentioned in the previous discussions here and here that passed for renaming their espective trees, the X of Y format is clearer, less ambiguous, and follows the standard. Note that this is an ongoing project, that due to its size is being conducted one tree at a time, and will result in all the "Works based on Foo" tree being in the "Foo based on Bar" format when complete, establishing a clear and preferred standardisation. - The BushrangerOne ping only 18:00, 8 September 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete There's no article about this record label and no articles for the artists on its roster with the exception of Greg MacPherson who actually owns the label. As such, a category about Disintegration Records artists is really putting the cart before the horse. Pichpich (talk) 16:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems to be a vanity label with no chance of expanding the category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:12, 8 September 2012 (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:change location of category as nominated. The delete arguments here didn't really make any sense. — ξxplicit 01:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think these categories, cleanup, requests for more specific information, work best as hidden categories on the article, where they are opt-in to see them. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete while all people were born, not all have middle names, and not even all have what could be called a "first name", so the logic to even have this category fails.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The category is named "Missing middle or first names"; I don't expect it applies to people without middle or first names. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:25, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is for people whose names we have as "J. B. Doe" or "William F. Smith", and where we don't yet have the expansion of their initials. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:23, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning Delete. Just because you have a person's initial, does not mean that there is a name to go with it. If the inclusion criteria is that an article uses initials, then this should go. Now if we know the there is a name behind the initial, then maybe this is useful. But if you don't know the name, how do we know it exists? Given this, the category is really not needed in its current form. I think the goal is reasonable, bBut the current inclusion logic is flawed and probably subjective. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 02:50, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We generally know that such a name exists by the presence of an initial. Do you have an example of a person who provably has an initial which does not stand for a name? Even if there are such people, they're likely to form a statistically insignificant part of the population Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:07, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hide per nom. Maintenance categories like this can be found easily without adding to category clutter. - Eureka Lott 00:24, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. This has been a hidden category since 2010, so all that needs to be done is move the category from talk pages to article pages. That would be consistent with most of the other maintenance categories in Category:Wikipedia articles with missing information - Eureka Lott 03:42, 15 September 2012 (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.
Support. The current name is confusing. It needs at least a qucik summary on the category page, and preferably a link to a parent article or section. The proposed name sounds less confusing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:31, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I created the category, but I am unfamiliar with category naming policy. I guess a renaming is fine, just be aware that many of the political regions (like Flanders) are also very much cultural regions. Oreo Priesttalk 15:47, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The problem is that there are three "regions" in Belgium - The Flemish Region, Walloon Region and Capital Region. This means that we cannot use "region" there for vaguely (or even precisely) defined regionas at other levels. I woulkd therefore suggest Category:Areas of Belgium. This could be parented to a category which for other countries would have "regions". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding both Oreo Priest's and Peterkingiron's comments, I think the long awkward name strongly suggests that the regions in that category are not administrative units. Of course this could be clarified in the hatnote of the category but I don't think we should be overly worried about this type of confusion. And if we really want to avoid any problem, I'd rather do this by renaming Category:Regions of Belgium to Category:Administrative regions of Belgium. Pichpich (talk) 16:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. We categorize things by what they are, not by what they are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If this is to be moved, I think BrownHairedGirl's suggestion is the best so far. Oreo Priesttalk 18:04, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
New Votes I would support BHG's non, it is a better target name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 17 October 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have 3 or less entries ...William 13:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all – I agree that small places shouldn't have 'People from' categories. Oculi (talk) 14:03, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support I think. I am not a fan of categorising living people according to where they were born, became famous at, are known as from, or currently reside, unless maybe the place is very unusual. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT, which deprecates "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Categorisation by very small place is not an accepted scheme. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:47, 13 September 2012 (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.
Merge all per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT, which deprecates "categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". Categorisation by very small place is not an accepted scheme. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:48, 13 September 2012 (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:Roman Catholic Church sex abuse scandal by country[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. As someone has decided to add the continents as an additional layer, which is fine, and consequently moving all country-specific categories out of this one, the nominated category needs to be renamed to reflect what its current content are. (Perhaps should we even keep the by country category in order to have all the country-specific categories go directly into that. Still, it can be re-created as needed at a later time.) __meco (talk) 11:56, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Sounds like reasonable routine refinement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Changed my mind. The subject is well tied to countries, and poorly tied by continents. There is no need for the extra level. All countries would fit well into a single category. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename This is premature. There are only two by-continent sub-categories here: Europe and Oceania. "Latin America' is not a continent, but a cultural area. No subcats for Asia, Africa, South America. Hmains (talk) 02:07, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to peruse Category:Categories by continent for what usually goes into by continent categories. Also, do you see any countries, at all, in this category? __meco (talk) 12:30, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the last I was aware the United States and Canada were countries, so yes, I see two countries in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you are right. I kinda missed those. Nevertheless the current order where continents and sovereign countries are placed side by side as "countries" still is untenable. __meco (talk) 09:06, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment actually Martinique and French Polynesia being overseas departments are porbably better complicating cases. Since one issue that comes up is local law on things like age of consent, it does make sense to break these articles down by country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and eliminate any existing 'by continent' categories. This is not a proper topic to be organized by continent. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 02:53, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that was my initial reaction also. However, I decided to follow up the change that had already been done. I should have approached it differently. __meco (talk) 11:52, 15 September 2012 (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 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.
No instead Rename to Category:Eastern Front (World War II), following the parent article, which is redirected as noted above. If there is a reason to not use the name of the parent article, please explain. "Eastern European theatre" seems to be a broader grouping than "Eastern Front"? Should "Front" be capitalised? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:42, 8 September 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Completely redundant. What's the inherent difference between the presidencies of Theodore Roosevelt and James K. Polk? Nevertheless, Presidency of Theodore Roosevelt is in Presidencies of the United States, while Category:Presidency of James K. Polk is in United States presidential administrations. Presidencies is currently the parent for administrations, so normally I'd propose upmerging administrations into presidencies, but the "administrations" name is better ("presidencies", plural, is something more appropriate for things like the Bombay Presidency), so a downmerge seems more appropriate here. Nevertheless, I'm open to upmerging: the important thing is that this redundancy be removed. Nyttend (talk) 03:36, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The target name matches the titles of the members worse. The pages contained generally do not include the word "administration". Category titles should follow article titles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:45, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge one way or the other I'm not wedded to either naming system, but there's no reason to have two. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 11 September 2012 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Kawakawa has less than 1500 people and Russell less than 1000 so these categories will stay small. It makes more sense to upmerge to the wider scope. Pichpich (talk) 00:34, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both – small places shouldn't have 'People from' categories. Oculi (talk) 14:06, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Kawakawa, as it will always be a small category. I'm uncertain about Russell, though. A small place, yes, but steeped in New Zealand's history (it was our first capital, after all). Having looked at a handful of Northland bios, many don't belong to any of the 'people from' categories, so there may well be quite a few people from Russell that just haven't been put into a category. Schwede66 18:38, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral / Keep Both of these are presently small, but this area was the cradle of New Zealand's nationhood and I have no doubt that there are more historical figures with biographies yet to be written in these categories. Currently that both stand at three members. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:55, 8 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 21#Category:Presidencies of the United States. — ξxplicit 01:33, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
