Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 26

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

May 26[edit]

Category:New Jersey Rangers players[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:19, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per NJ-LUSO Rangers FC. Same Franchise. – Michael (talk) 21:28, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom - one team which changed its name, no need for seperate categories. GiantSnowman 13:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. These are the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:24, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - no need for two categories for one club. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2013 (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:AEGON Classic[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Correct capitalisation, in line with articles in the category. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:17, 26 May 2013 (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.

Engineering Informatics[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 without prejudice to re-creation if future content justifies doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:18, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. Upmerge single article to both parents per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 18:37, 26 May 2013 (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:Products and Brands[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate, possibly created without realizing a well-established structure exists Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:50, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People called pejorative terms[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) 01:53, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A very odd new category that is very POV, contravenes WP:BLP, potentially libelous and has weirdly been conflated with the subject of narcissism.--Penbat (talk) 08:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not defining to the individual. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 09:01, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Overbroad (has anyone not been called a pejorative term?) and non-defining. --Lquilter (talk) 19:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete what the what? I have no idea that this cat is supposed to contain (all of us, I suppose?), can the admin gods please wipe it from our collective memory? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Verging on WP:POINT, I'd say. I see that it had been added by the creator to Generation Y, as well. It would seem that anytime there's a term that she or he objects to, it gets this tag. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:01, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as above. Neutralitytalk
  • Delete Can we avoid putting any US president ever in this, because I am sure we can find someone who has labeled them with terms that are pejorative at some point. That said, it gets even trickier because what is now considered a pejorative may not have been in the past, and the reverse might also be true. This is just a nightmare, and I see no way it will avoid being inclusive of all people involved in controversies and a lot more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2013 (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:Jurong Bird Park Panorail[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category with little chance of expansion. Tim! (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Overcategorization; there is no need for an eponymous category for a monorail in a park. --Lquilter (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. --Kleinzach 08:04, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The category on Commons has a number of images with a signpost to this category on the en Wiki, so what about changing it to a category redirect to Jurong Bird Park? Snowman (talk) 23:05, 31 May 2013 (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:Haredi sex abuse cases[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) 01:17, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While I'm a strong advocate for keeping the article on this topic, which is currently nominated for deletion, I don't see that this category is necessary. The very small number of articles it contains can adequately be handled in the prose or see-also section of the main article. Unlike with Category:Catholic sex abuse cases, we do not have enough articles to make a category useful to the reader, making this WP:OCAT. (If in future we do - because the WP community finds some individual incidents notable enough to create articles, new things happen, geographical spread, whatever - it could be re-created, but no use now.) –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 04:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 08:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 08:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • i agree with nom, delete -- Y not? 12:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see anything gained by deleting it. We're not running out of space or anything. Some might find it useful. We don't want all of those things in a See Also section for all four articles. Dream Focus 19:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that we lack Category:Jewish sex abuse cases makes me highly suspicious of the motives and reasons behind this overly specificly named category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:48, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the absence of a parent category is a problem; Haredi sex abuse is what there's coverage of, and thus what we have articles on; evidently not Conservative and Reform sex abuse. The problem is that the category is not necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:19, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete small cat with an apparent POV; we don't have Category:Franciscan sex abuse etc., to divvy up the Roman Catholic priests who are members of various orders. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do have to point out that if anything Roman Catholic is more specific than Haredi, since it refers to members of a specific Church, while Haredi speaks of a groups of Jewis without a centralized leadership over all Haredi. I guess it is true that there are way more Roman Catholics than all Jews of any type, but still, Haredi is not at all like Franciscans.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 30 May 2013 (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.

Categories 2004, 2006 2007 in association football 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.
The result of the discussion was: No consensus. GiantSnowman 13:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Nominator's rationale: These are orphan categories created in 2011 but which have not been continued into the present decade. Most countries are already included in the appropriate categories by year/season for Europe, Asia, Africa, or South America. However America, Canada and Mexico are included in the “CONCACAF” category by year eg Category:2004 in CONCACAF football. Australia was in the “OFC” Oceania Football Confederation category by year eg Category: 2004–05 in OFC football but in 2006 joined the Asian Football Confederation for the Asian Cup. Norway (eg Category:2004 in Norwegian football) should be in the category for Europe; which does include some other European countries like Sweden which have “by year” seasons eg Category:2004 in Swedish football. Hence each article should be checked individually, though most (except for the Norwegian categories) are already in the correct continent category eg Category:2004 in Asian football for Hong Kong; similarly for CONCACAF/OFC categories eg for Mexico. Hugo999 (talk) 02:36, 26 May 2013 (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.

Hunting lodges in Wrexham County Borough[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 to Category:Buildings and structures in Wrexham county borough and Category:Hunting lodges in Wales. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. No need to further sub-categorize the small Category:Hunting lodges by country scheme. Tassedethe (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2013 (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/2013_May_26&oldid=1074811571"