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 and then change to a redirect. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:50, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge Sorry, I had not realized there was already a cat. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:43, 15 October 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.
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. This was listed as a speedy rename, but there were two options. If kept, it should be renamed to Category:Apple Inc. evangelists. Bottom line this is subjective inclusion criteria. As evidenced by the articles in the category, it is not clear what objective criteria we have for inclusion here. The proported main article is a redirect to an article about criticisms of Apple. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Apple Inc. people. The fact that the link in the category is actually a redirect ot "Critcism of Apple" should cause us to question the use of this term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Apple Inc. employees. All three of the people listed have been employees. We do not generally allow a current/former split,so that former employees should still be in employees. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:35, 21 October 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:Wikipedia requested photos of geysers and hot springs[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 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:Keep and purge. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:44, 23 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Category improperly mixes fictional characters with actresses who portrayed them. The actresses should not be so categorized per WP:OC#PERF and Category:James Bond characters suffices for the character articles. Suggest salting the category as well since per its history it pops up on occasion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep Is the nominator also suggesting the deletion of Bond girl? Apart from his continued edit warring over categorization (despite rebuttal at ANI) on articles like Piz Gloria. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:46, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator is not suggesting the deletion of the article Bond girl as this would not be a proper forum for it. Nor is it a proper forum to rehash that ridiculous ANI report which could have been avoided in its entirety had you or another interested editor simply approached me on my talk page. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:58, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge so as only to include the characters, not the performers. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:38, 21 October 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.
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. Every article in the category is about "best-selling singles". StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:57, 14 October 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.
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. I've had a look at the various subcategories of Category:Government ministers, and it quickly became clear that there was really no universal or near-universal standard for these types of categories. Some capitalize "Ministers" but others do not. This may be the type of thing that needs to be discussed very broadly if there is ever hope of attaining a standard.Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:09, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this and similar CFDs below. The present capitalisation is correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:41, 21 October 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.
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. I've had a look at the various subcategories of Category:Government ministers, and it quickly became clear that there was really no universal or near-universal standard for these types of categories. Some capitalize "Ministers" but others do not. This may be the type of thing that needs to be discussed very broadly if there is ever hope of attaining a standard.Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:09, 4 November 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:Communications ministers of Sri Lanka[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. I've had a look at the various subcategories of Category:Government ministers, and it quickly became clear that there was really no universal or near-universal standard for these types of categories. Some capitalize "Ministers" but others do not. This may be the type of thing that needs to be discussed very broadly if there is ever hope of attaining a standard.Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:09, 4 November 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.
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. I've had a look at the various subcategories of Category:Government ministers, and it quickly became clear that there was really no universal or near-universal standard for these types of categories. Some capitalize "Ministers" but others do not. This may be the type of thing that needs to be discussed very broadly if there is ever hope of attaining a standard.Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:09, 4 November 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.
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.
I note that Category:Family of Socrates was chosen at CfD last year from Category:Socrates family (link) where the problematicity of this category was brought up as well. While the usual naming structure for a family is indeed Category:Foo family, these cases are different due to the lack of a unifying surname. --BDD (talk) 18:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Family of Muhammad. The Foo family tree presumes Foo as a surname or a first and surname in the conventional modern sense. For those of pre-modern times without commonly known or used family names, "family of XXX" seems the best way to handle them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:38, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
n.b. I've created Category:Family of Jesus. At seven articles it's as big as Socrates's category, so it should be big enough to last. --BDD (talk) 18:06, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Family of Muhammad - the current name implies a family with the surname 'Muhammad' - I actually thought Elijah Muhammad's offspring at first. This new name is much better. GiantSnowman 18:11, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Family of Muhammad. The problem is to ensure that the category is only used for close relatives of the prophet of Islam, not those with that surname or remote descendants, where their status as descendants does not have a WP:RS. This is probably best achieved through a headnote, and if necessary purging.Peterkingiron (talk) 09:47, 21 October 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.
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) 06:03, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what Nass Country refers to. I suspect it's the basin/valley/watershed of the Nass River, this category should probably be renamed accordingly. If the members of this category are simply features in the same general area and we can't name it any better, we may just want to delete. BDD (talk) 18:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
see User_talk:Skookum1#Category:Nass_Country and note that "Nass Valley" is not quite correct as this region includes more than the valley of the Nass in particular and this is not a valley-articletitle but a region-articletitle. "X country" is a standard appellation for regions in British Columbia English (and often capitalized in media and guides, though not in anything I've seen in google as of yet).Skookum1 (talk) 10:54, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You indicated on your talk page that Nass Country is one of BC's historical geographic regions. Would it be appropriate to create a category for these historical regions? At that point it could be especially helpful to have a corresponding article on historical divisions of BC to refer to, though not really necessary. --BDD (talk) 17:56, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- this could be a legitimate category if it has definite boundaries. If it was the valley or a catchment, that would have definite boundaries, so that in/exclusion does not depend on POV. If there are other similar regions, we ought to have a tree for them all. These are principles. I do not know BC and cannot comment further. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:52, 21 October 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.
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. Small category with no likelihood of expansion. Series characters are not independently notable and no new material is likely to be created. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:53, 14 October 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.
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. Most of the contents of this category, including two entire sub-categories, have been deleted. Category not needed to hold just the show article and its episode list. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:21, 14 October 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 from Hollywood, Los Angeles by occupation[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 The issue here is we only have one subcategory of the category involved. There is no reason to form another level of categories for just one subcategory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Is that how we usually handle these situations? I ran across another one yesterday. Maybe the best solution is to just make one or more additional subcats. --BDD (talk) 15:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really, this sub-cat would still not be useful unless we had some other sub-cat schema to sub-divide people from Hollywood. But we don't sub-divide people by ethnicity or religion at the city let alone sub-city level, so what other schema do we have to sub-divide this. Even if we had writer, sportspeople, artists and muscians sub-cats, I still do not think this level would be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 15 October 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.
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: Stub category containing a single article. Also, I don't see any reason why Tamil and Telugu should be together. User<Svick>.Talk(); 14:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category was created by an editor who is unfamiliar with stub sorting and creation procedures. We already have Category:Tamil-language film stubs and Category:Telugu-language film stubs, and they may be broken down by decade, but neither of them needs to be broken down by year, and they definitely don't need to be combined into one category. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"and they may be broken down by decade, but neither of them needs to be broken down by year, and they definitely don't need to be combined into one category." But apart from that, there's nothing wrong with it... LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 17:50, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's more specific by year than traditionally done, which is not a problem itself (though I defer to the stub-sorting folks on whether it's desireable), but it's also less specific or a union of two long-standing distinct genres. Overall I don't see a need for this niche. DMacks (talk) 17:43, 19 October 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.
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: Insufficient number of triathlon coaches to warrant a "Triathlon coaches by country" category and the necessary structure of sub-categories, of which this would be one. NSH002 (talk) 14:12, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed that was understood. In fact there is only one article in the category, which itself is quite likely to be deleted soon. --NSH002 (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't understood, because it's not what you wrote. The nomination says delete; if you intend merger, then propose merger. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:24, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I didn't write it, Twinkle did on my behalf. I didn't see a lot of point faffing around investigating what Twinkle does for a "merge", especially when, in this case, the end result is likely to be exactly the same (only one article in the category, and that article is likely to be deleted). --NSH002 (talk) 07:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per BHG. This is too small a category to split by country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:49, 18 October 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:Mexican expatriate footballers in Europe[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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 13:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These should be diffused into country-specific categories. I can't conceive of a case where we know a Mexican footballer is playing in a European country but we can't name which one. --BDD (talk) 18:23, 14 October 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.
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 In general we split most acting categories by gender. I see no reason not to do so here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as a solution in search of a problem. The sex of the actor is not the relevant characteristic; the dwarfism is. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The gender of the subject will be indicated by other categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose don't need more useless gender cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OPPOSE I'm ok with a nationality+gender+actor split, but no others. category intersection can be used to find all of the male actors with dwarfism.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:55, 17 October 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.
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.
Oppose. Firstly, the nominated category contains only 50 articles, so there is no pressing need to reduce its size. Secondly, we don't actually divide politicians by gender. We do have some categories of women in politics, but those are an addition to the usual set of categories rather than a replacement for them, and we do not have categories for male politicians. Thirdly, dividing this categ would not be simply a gender division of politicians or of actors; it would be a gender division of the topic of "actor–politicians". I am not aware of any material to support an encyclopedic article on the gender of "actor–politicians", which would be required to justify a gender split here. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose—if some chap used to be an actress and is now a member of a state legislature, why is it important what sex they are? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- This is a category about successive stages of a career. A better title would be Category:American actor who became politicians. They generally do not act after being elected. We need to split actors by gender, because men do not generally play female parts and vice versa, but the important thing here is not the part they act, but the politics they later take part in. This is thus an exception to the need to split. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; leaning delete the intersection is notable, but most intersections of Category:pre-political career politicians are notable (clearly, lawyer-politicians, military-politicians, farmer-politicians, diplomat-politicians, revolutionary-politicians, sportsman-politicians, astronaut-politicians, tradeunionist-politicians, academic-politicians, widow-politicians, and aristocrat-politicians, get much press); so in some sense it may be better to listify these before we have all of them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:46, 15 October 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.
