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. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 22:25, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in this case SMALLCAT does not apply as they are subdivisions of the county. We would have to merge all cats. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 12:20, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge The general principal is that if there are only 3 articles for a specific location we upmerge. Just because the county has more sub-divisions does not negate this principal, unless we subdivided everyone in the county, which we haven't.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- The parent (target) has 13 sub-cats, of which all but Burlington have 2-9 articles. The parent only has 13 articles itself, which does not make it big enough to need splitting. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 24 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.
Delete No need for eponymous cat which only adds a needless layer to and a needless parent for Category:Works by David S. Goyer. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:22, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merging would be inappropriate. Goyer himself obviously does not belong in a "works by Goyer" category, and WP:OC#PERF forbids having a person being categorized by something they worked on. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Difficultly north (or reverse merge). The bio-article will fit well as the main article for the "works by" category. The point is that we do not need the eponymous category. This is a different situation from the normal performance category rule, which is about not categorising actors and TV people by what they work on. Most works do not have a host of authors. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - needless category layer. Merger is not needed and Goyer's article shouldn't be placed in the Works category since he is not a Work by David S. Goyer. He is linked as a headnote in the Works category, which is appropriate. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:42, 25 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 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) 01:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Finland has two types of elections; presidential and parliamentary. For some reason the latter have been put in a category called "General elections" despite all being named "Finnish parliamentary election, XXXX". The category should be renamed "Parliamentary elections in Finland" to match all the articles in it. Number57 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The current name fits the convention of Category:General elections by country. "General elections" is a more inclusive term which includes all types of national legislature, whether they are called "parliament", "congress", "national assembly", etc. Navigation is easier if categories follow a consistent naming structure, and while the convention could be changed through a group nomination, I see no reason to remove consistency.
2. "General election" is not specific enough, and means different things in different countries - in some it refers only to parliamentary elections, whilst in others it refers to holding multiple elections (president/parliament/local/regional) on the same day. The inclusion of Filipio and American general elections in the aforementioned category is thus a mistake as their general elections refer to mixed elections
3. The main point is that it completely overlooks the fact that none of the articles in the Finnish category are called "general" elections.
21 out of 29 subcats are called "general elections". That's not uniformity, but there is a clear convention.
If general election is not specific enough for Finland, then it is not specific enough for many other countries. The solution would be a group rename for the lot, rather than piecemeal changes
As above, the elections may be called various things in various countries. Using a consistent, generic term aids categorisation by editors and navigation by readers. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re point three, I think you've missed the point. You're categorising different types of elections in the same tree "General election" can't be a generic term is it means different things in different places - "Parliamentary election" would probably be the best generic term as it's specific to parliamentary elections and couldn't accidentally include presidential elections. Number57 11:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have also nominated the general elections by country category (and some subcats) for renaming. Number57 20:11, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
RenameCategory:Parliamentary general elections in Finland would be more precise. "general election" is essentially a UK term (as opposed to local election or by-election). BHG's rationale is correct in principle, but we need to be more precise in naming subcategories. Even where the US is conducting elections for the all representatives, 1/3 of senate, and president on one day, it is in British terms a general election. I am not familiar with all the procedures related to filling casual vacanies there. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Parliamentary general elections" is not precise - general has no meaning in this context. It's like calling a category "Parliamentary legislative elections". Number57 12:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are two types of elections to parliaments:
"Parliamentary general elections", where there are vacancies either all all seats or in a tranche (as with the US Senate)
"Parliamentary by-elections", which are elections for casual vacancies.
I think that the two should both be subcats of a broader category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:32, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But as pointed out already, "general election" is a vague term because it doesn't necessarily mean a parliamentary election. Number57 19:51, 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: Works categorized by actor. I don't think that's how this works. Not all of these were primary roles fo her. I don't see any other actors with all their works in a category, and this gives undue weight to her involvement in each. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument is faulty. WP:OC#PERF pretty much means this category is doomed. The others categories named after actors contain articles related to them, not what they appeared in. Oh, yeah, my vote is delete in case you couldn't guess. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 20:29, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - categorizing works by performers who are in them is untenable. Dozens if not hundreds of people will appear in a television series and dozens appear in pretty much every film. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Jerry Pepsi. We have cat clutter enough as is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 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.
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.
Response Most artists do not have eponymous categories and this guideline applies just as much to recording artists as it does politicians or history professors. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:21, 25 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 The producer is the defining characteristic of the album, and therefore it's irrelevant whether the producer has an article or not. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 03:00, 27 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. There is a consensus that this usage of a venue is WP:DEFINING in some cases but not in others, but no consensus on whether that justifies keeping this category. As the nominator noted in the course of the discussion, similar issues to many other sub-categories of Category:Olympic venues. I suggest that editors may want to consider an RFC on the general principle of categorising olympic venues for sports which rely on pre-existing facilities. Lakes and rivers are not purpose-built, so similar considerations will apply to sailing, rowing, etc. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Water polo is an Olympic sport. There were venues that hosted the sport during those Games. It is part of the history of the Olympics to keep the category as is. Chris (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is a matter of categorization; do you really think that the Olympics and water polo are WP:DEFINING characteristics of (for example) the River Seine ? DexDor (talk) 20:49, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
River Seine was where water polo took place at the 1900 Summer Olympics. Sports-reference.com in their Olympics section for the event at the 1900 Summer Olympics has River Seine listed as the venue. Remember that the Olympics then were not as organized as they are now. Chris (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not doubting that (part of) the Seine was (for a short period) used for OWP. I'm arguing that it's not a suitable characteristic to categorize an article that's about the whole river (please see WP:DEFINING). DexDor (talk) 07:09, 29 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It might be legitimate to have a category for water sports (swimming and water polo together). It might be appropriate to have a category for swimming pools built specifically for the Olympics, but this is going too far. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:39, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The venues are for specific Olympic sports. Water polo is an Olympic sport. 23:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)
Weak keep - Not all facts lend themselves to categorization, and I think that is revealed here in the case of the Seine. We should consider, however, that this is only one of approximately 30 similar categories at Category:Summer Olympic venues. -- Black Falcon(talk) 01:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that Seine is in this category shows it is being over used. The fact that part of the river was used for this sport is not defining to the river.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 8 December 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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 2 entries. ...William 01:02, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - in this case SMALLCAT does not apply as they are subdivisions of the county. We would have to merge all cats. Difficultly north (talk) - Simply south alt. 15:03, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Having a large Parkersberg category does not give a pass for dinky other categories in the county.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 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.
Relisted at 2013 NOV 4 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)
