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/rename most. While the discussion did not make this clear, I think the only one here not approved is Category:Sailing by class since that is the only one discussed, so that is a keep.Vegaswikian (talk) 19:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge/rename following names of main articles, see in Category:Olympic sailboat classes. The parent is unnecessary and can be merged to the latter. This is a follow up nomination after a discussion at WP:CFDS, but the last entry here is not eligible for speedy merging. – FayenaticLondon 23:33, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support most per CFDS. And "Star" is a horrible use of the category name how was that missed for so long? ; Category:Sailing by class should be kept separate, there are many classes of sailing that are not Olympic classes (like Volvo 60s, or IACCs, etc) But that category needs populating, as it is missing non-Olympic classes. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: an alternative could be Category:470-class sailing, Category:49er-class sailing, Category:Dragon-class sailing, etc. Agree with IP's comment on Category:Sailing by class versus Category:Olympic sailboat classes. The latter seems to be a subcat of the former. The former could instead be renamed to Category:Competitive sailing sailboat classes, or something similar. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Using a hyphen in connection with a compound modifier is correct. We've even got special templates for this, see for instance {{sclass}} and {{sclass-}}. So those categories are speedy candidates too. But let's wait for the outcome of this discussion.HandsomeFella (talk) 06:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support most, though the parentheses are entirely unnecessary. Star sailboat and Laser dinghy are perfectly natural noun phrases in their own right. Also, keep Sailing by class as there are dozens of non-Olympic classes. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename to X-class sailing per HandsomeFella. This is more in line with the current and intended scope of the category (cf. note how we use Category:Track cycling, not Category:Track cycles, to cover that sport). SFB 18:00, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support most per 70.51.200.101. Smartskaft (talk) 17:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment How should this be interpreted? Smartskaft (talk) 09:48, 1 March 2015 (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:Potential members of editor retention programme[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. – FayenaticLondon 11:02, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing Wikipedians for something they may potentially do is (IMO) taking user categorization too far. If kept, this should be renamed to something more meaningful such as "Wikipedians who have expressed an interest in ..." or "Wikipedians who have been invited to join ..." (although I'm not sure that the latter is the sort of category that should be encouraged). DexDor (talk) 22:28, 10 February 2015 (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:Video Processing and Encoding Solution Companies[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: Overly specific category that appears to have been created for a specific article. DexDor (talk) 22:11, 10 February 2015 (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:Winners of the Los Angeles Times Women of the Year[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:listify, then delete. MER-C 12:00, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be better to create a list article instead? There may be recipients who are not notable enough to have their own articles in any case. For example Sister Frederica Horvath of the Sisters_of_Social_Service. To me, the existence of the award is important, if largely forgotten. This was one woman's effort to highlight the efforts of women who were taking part in the affairs of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellen22 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a WP:RS that can be used to create a list then please go ahead. The articles I looked at made no mention of this award in the text (let alone a prominent mention with cite) so it would not be appropriate to use the category contents as the basis for creating a list. DexDor (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This seems like a reasonable enough thing to have as a list. I think the judgement of whether enough citations are present for the material is a question for the content space, not this category discussion. SFB 18:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A decision to delete a category does not indicate that a list can't exist. DexDor (talk) 22:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete -- yet another unnecessary awards category. This is the normal outcome. I would go further than DexDor, and say that we do not allow a category, because a list does the job much better, because it can be in chronological order and give brief details of the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify - as above. Neutralitytalk 01:47, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete. Winning this award will generally be one of many awards the people have won.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:50, 7 March 2015 (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:Ancient Roman forts in Hunedoara County[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. – FayenaticLondon 11:11, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: because of WP:SMALLCAT and because no other county categories exist within the parent Romanian category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Not aiding navigation in its current form. Happy for this to be recreated if a well-populated county-based set of children can be built. SFB 18:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - classic smallcat, hinders rather than aids navigation. Neutralitytalk 01:48, 16 February 2015 (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. – FayenaticLondon 11:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: because of WP:SMALLCAT and because every Roman fort may be expected to provide a camp to Roman legions. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 10 February 2015 (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, I don't think this category is likely to become populated any better. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:40, 10 February 2015 (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 to Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin. As this would empty the parent category Category:Tahitian art, I am going to put the five current members into that category as well; however, this is not part of the consensus, so feel free to remove this category if it is considered inappropriate. – FayenaticLondon 09:34, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Tahitian paintings may imply those made by native Tahitian artists, while currently the category contains solely Gauguin's paintings. The proposed name is somewhat provisional, may be there's an established name for Gauguin's Tahitian period, but I didn't find it during quick search. Brandmeistertalk 10:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support this makes better sense and also groups his Tahitian paintings together in Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin (which I have just added as a parent category - if this category is kept, the paintings should only be in the sub-category not also in the parent category). The weakness of my support is because the categories within Category:Paintings by artist are usually only sub-divided for portraits or in cases of prolific painters (Van Gogh) and I'm not entirely convinced that we need a subcat for four paintings. The alternative is double upmerge to Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin and Category:Tahitian art. (But is it part of "Tahitian art" or should it be part of "Art in Tahiti"? If a Frenchman paints a picture of Rome, is that part of "Category:Italian art" or "Category:Art in Italy", or neither? How is this usually tackled?) BencherliteTalk 10:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just checked the numbers, Paul-gauguin.net website lists 58 Gauguin's Tahiti-themed paintings (for the query "Tahiti"), so a subcat for Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin may be warranted. Brandmeistertalk 18:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another deficiency of our cat scheme. Books, paintings, etc. are not easily categorized by nationality. They don't have passports. Are the Elgin Marbles English, because that's where they are? Are they Greek? or Athenian - as the state in which they were created? Is the Bible an Israeli book? a Roman book? Frankenstein English (author) or Swiss (where written) or French (first published with attribution)? Since we cannot OBJECTIVELY define nationality for works of authorship, we ought not. Paintings by Gauguin in Tahiti as an objective period of an artist is fine, Tahitian or French paintings isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed. This group of works is broadly understood as the Tahitian paintings. Classifiying the works by the period he was in Tahiti may not work well as he also did non-Tahiti influenced works during that period (see paintings list). SFB 18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin. The category only contains about half the "Tahitian" Gaugins we have articles on, and the articles generally don't say where the paintings were actually painted. Gauguin spent several years (and died) on the Marquesas Islands; should works painted there be excluded? We typically don't categorize on where paintings were made, or that level of detail in subject matter and style, and I don't think we should. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin. As above. The idea that the Tahitian paintings are authentically "Tahitian" is fairly dubious anyway. There's a strong overlap with his "primitive" Bretton paintings and I think the idea that they are authentically "Bretton" is also suspect now. What about organising Paintings by Paul Gauguin by decade? That would at least provide some sort of context, assuming we think that his art developed in some sort of chronological way. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin. We should avoid too fine categorization of paintings. Keep to standard divisions in most cases. Thematic sub-divisions of an artists works can be done in the articles or if that gets unruly in lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 7 March 2015 (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 as a synonym that is the title of the main article. @Charles Essie: However, some thought needs to go into how this is differentiated from Category:Pan-Slavism. I also strongly disagree with the placement of Category:Chetniks of World War II in this category, as Chetniks actually fought Pan-Slavic movements and seemed to be focused on Pan-Serb concepts, which is different. SFB 18:41, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your concerns. I'll remove Category:Chetniks of World War II. As for the differences between Yugoslavism and Pan-Slavism, the former promotes the unification of only the South Slavs, while the latter promotes the unification of all Slavs. Charles Essie (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2015 (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.
