Category:International Panel on Climate Change lead authors[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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The panel itself is not called the "International Panel on Climate Change," but rather the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," so the category should reflect this. Jinkinsontalk to me 22:31, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, because the current name is erroneous, as indicated by the nominator. IMO, this should have been speedy-renamed when it was nominated last year. --Orlady (talk) 00:59, 19 February 2014 (UTC) [edited because last year's nom was for a different rename][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:Audio engineering schools in the United Kingdom[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: This appears to be an attempt to create a list of colleges in the UK at which one can study audio engineering. That's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a college (most of which, e.g. Brunel University, teach many subjects). Incidentally, at least one of the articles in this category isn't in the UK - possibly someone's populated this category from a list without even looking at the content of the articles. DexDor (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2014 (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: This category seems to be for articles on individual County Wildlife Sites which is a good idea, but the current singular name implies that is merely about the designation itself (of which there is only one article). Hence I recommend it should be renamed to County Wildlife Sites. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:59, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom (something like "Sites designated a County Wildlife Site" might be more correct, but is ugly) or Listify to County Wildlife Site (having checked that these articles are in an appropriate county-based category e.g. "Nature reserves of Fooshire"). Designations like this aren't generally a good fit to categorization for a number of reasons (some sites may have many such designations and others none, designation may not be permanent etc) and there is a risk that articles get placed in categories like this _instead_ of the county-based categories which do provide a comprehensive category scheme. DexDor (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2014 (UTC)Delete per BHG's analysis below (I had no idea there were so many). DexDor (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@DexDor: per my reply below, I wonder if there will be enough third-party reliable sources to support lists of these sites. There are 1,400 CWSs in Devon alone, which suggests over 50,000 in England as a whole, so a list based on the 10 pages in this category would be misleadingly small. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The head article County Wildlife Site is referenced only to primary sources, in form of the publications of bodies involved in the designation and protection of these sites, or or involved bodies such as wildlife trusts. A very quick quick bit of searching threw up no third-party sources; they may exist, but are evidently neither prominent nor not plentiful. Devon County Council's list of widlife designations sets out the extraordinary complexity and range of designations available, and notes that some places such as the Exe Estuary are subject to 7 different designations. That has potential to cause massive category clutter These designations fall into 3 groups: international, national, and local. County Wildlife Sites fall into the "local designation" group. Given the difficulties of sourcing and the apparent lack of notability, I suggest that categories in this field should be restricted to national and international designations, and omit local designations such as this one. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Distribute contents within subcats of Category:Local Nature Reserves in England. One is in Cambridgeshire and the article does not say it is a County Wildlife Site. I strongly suspect that this CWS designation is peculiar to Suffolk, where all (or almost all) of the rest are. Accordingly, this could be implemented by merging to Category:Local Nature Reserves in Suffolk and then purging of non-Suffolk items. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 26 February 2014 (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: Another triple intersection that violates the last rung rule of WP:EGRS. The parent category is small, and there is no need to separate out women business people from California - putting them in the larger Category:American women in business is better, I don't think we need to divide by state. There aren't any other subdivisions of Category:Businesspeople from California that would support a top-level female non-diffusing split as well. We did away with the "Women writer by state" categories a while ago, and this one is in need of similar pruning. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge This is the type of last-rung category discouraged by Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2014 (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: Another triple intersection, that violates the last rung rule. There are no other categories that American women academics or businesspeople can be placed into, so this needlessly divides that category and risks to ghettoize them. Rather than the triple intersection of gender + ethnicity + job, we should upmerge to all parents which contain the binary intersections. To avoid ghettoization, every single member of this category should be in all 3 parents IN ANY CASE (which, it turns out, they're not - thus proving that these cats aid in ghettoization), thus the deletion of this category will ultimately serve to just remove a redundant category that doesn't need to exist in the first place. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. This is the type of triple intersection that we should avoid in almost all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 20 February 2014 (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. There is no consensus on whether or not to delete, but if kept, the arguments to rename are strong. This is without prejudice to a deletion nomination for the new category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I don't want to create a separate category for surnames which are patronyms. This would be an unnecessry and difficult to prove hair-splitting for some cultures, e.g., Russian language. Not to say that "patronymic surname" is a valid linguistical term. - Altenmann >t 16:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very akin to "Eponymous cities" we deleted long ago; derivation of a name is not a defining characteristic on which to categorize. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, derivation of a surname is a very defining and very researched characteristic. Unlike "eponymous cities" (which is indeed a random trait). - Altenmann >t 04:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. It seems this is a proposal for a change in scope, which I think makes sense, and grouping together surnames which are also patronymics meets the defining test. I think the older category was problematic, because it excluded current patronyms. I think blending them together is better, since as noted in some cultures these still serve as patronyms while in others they don't.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:05, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The point of categories is to clearly divide topics so users can quickly find information. "Blending them together" doesn't seem like an improvement, it just muddies the waters. It's sort of like categorizing people as Category:Americans and Category:American people of Russian descent - sure you could blend them altogether into Category:Americans, they're all Americans after all, but you've lost the value of having both categories. I don't see any real obstacle in creating Category:Patronymic surnames as parent cat.--Brianann MacAmhlaidh (talk) 12:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We blend when we can't make a clear distinction. In some countries, a given name may act as a patronymic, while the same name in a different family may not. Additionally, this has changed over time, so a name that was once a patronymic is now mostly used as just a surname. As such, since we don't usually have categories of things like "Names that were once patronyms but since the early 19th century are simply surnames", blending them together makes more sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a dictionary, we do not define articles by etymology. Having looked at a few of these articles, such as Adamson (surname) I note that many lack any sources at all. Why do we even have these unsourced articles?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Then we have articles like Clarkson (surname), which is an odd inclusion, even if to modern readers Clark is a given name. I would argue that nationality is a much more defining characteristic of surnames than what form they take.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but we do have articles about words and phrases. And yes we classify some types of articles by etymology: category:German words and phrases is etymology, not race or gender. And it is reasonable to classify words by the reasonable defining linguistic categories. There is a well-recognized scientific classification of surnames by derivation. We do not invent an artificial classification here. - Altenmann >t 04:35, 26 February 2014 (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: To clarify that the scope of the category relates only to the United States. I am not sure whether the category is worth keeping (it has only 4 articles, and I dunno if it could expanded), but if kept it should be renamed. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe: Good point. A rename along those lines would indeed be clearer, and I'd be happy to support it. Your proposed title feels a little verbose, but I can't think of anything more concise, so let's go with that unless someone can think of an alternative. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:34, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That said, IIRC only two of the four articles actually indicate they should be so classified. Mangoe (talk) 14:37, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not opposed deletion. On reflection, it occurs to me that the refusal of all federal funds is something which could change at any time, and transient characteristics make for poor categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Delete as de facto "current" category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete as a "current" category. Also, this notion of "independent" from federal aid is a bit suspicious. Do they really reject tax breaks the federal government gives to Universities? [1]. I don't think this is defining, it's really just a sort of philosophical opposition to federal student loans, but I bet they wouldn't prevent those same students from taking a federal tax credit for their educational expenses.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. From a look at the articles currently in the category being "independent" does not appear to be a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 20:15, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a political statement, not a meaningful category. I've been puzzled by this category for a long time, since privately owned colleges in the United States often are called "independent colleges", but this category's scope was clearly much narrower than that. Now I recognize that this category is intended to identify schools with a fiercely libertarian (anti-government) philosophy. That philosophy may actually be a defining characteristic for some of these schools, but it's not a particularly meaningful basis for a category. --Orlady (talk) 00:54, 19 February 2014 (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:Recipients of the Médaille Militaire[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.
@Johnpacklambert: would you like to review your !vote in light of the explanation below? If ou have not chaned your mind, please can you explain why you think that this a non-defining award. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Order is the highest decoration in France and is divided into five degrees: Chevalier (Knight), Officier (Officer), Commandeur (Commander), Grand Officier (Grand Officer) and Grand Croix (Grand Cross)."
"An interesting feature of the médaille is that it is also the supreme award for leadership, being awarded to generals and admirals who had been commanders-in-chief. This particular médaille is considered superior even to the grand cross of the Légion d'honneur."
...therefore it's clear that this is, in fact, an extremely defining award. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still This award is given to people who are notable as military leaders. That is what they are notable for, not for getting this award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I've looked at a sample of the articles in this category (picking names I didn't recognise rather than famous generals etc) and found none that mentioned it in the lead, many mentioned it just in a list of decorations and one didn't mention it at all. On that basis it does not appear to be a good characteristic for categorization (although may be suitable for a list). If not deleted then rename per nom. DexDor (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I fail how to see getting a medal for being a commander in chief at a certain rank is defining. Obtaining that rank and being the commander in chief are probably the defining characteristics for the person. Add in the comments by DexDor and I think our choice here is clear. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2014 (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 and more the real estate to Category:Trade. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see much connection between auctions and trading. For example, current category entry Real estate trading has nothing to do with auctions. All the others are strictly auction topics.Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes! It's amazing that there isn't already a trading category, only Category:Trade. I can see lots of subcategories to add to it. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't realize Trade already existed. I don't think we need to differentiate, Trade is sufficient. Changed my !vote.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Downmerge per nom. the only article that does not relate to auctions is real estate trading, which presumably covers both auction and private treaty sales. As the target is a subcategory of the subject, the parents of the subject need to be added to the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ArmbrustTheHomunculus 12:24, 18 February 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Useless single-entry category. Its purpose can be achieved by putting a {{main article}} on top of Wikipedians who use Zotero. By doing so, we avoid the confusion caused by unnecessarily mingling userboxes with articles. Codename Lisa (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Keep the category, either is ok with me. Djembayz (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough content to justify a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 20 February 2014 (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.
