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 per main article name. SFB 18:14, 18 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:People educated at Royal College of Science[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 merge. – FayenaticLondon 16:33, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Recently-created cat with duplicate scope and nonconforming name. Redrose64 (talk) 15:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any reason why it shouldn't be merged. I'm not sure what a nonconforming name is though, I used this to see if the category existed Royal College of ScienceCV9933 (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge identical scope. SFB 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just question whether "educated" means, at some point, the individual attended the college while "alumni" implies that they graduated with a degree. LizRead!Talk! 15:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Redrose64: I might be thinking of categories for Wikipedians where the phrasing is "attended" vs. "alumni". I'm not sure what the norm is in other educational categories. LizRead!Talk! 16:09, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – the standard is to use 'alumni' for tertiary education (such as Royal College of Science) and 'People educated at' for secondary education. Oculi (talk) 21:29, 19 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:The Apprentice (U.S. TV series) contestants[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.
Oppose This is not comparable with the concept of people who have appeared on the Daily Show – who perform on the show due to prior prominence of their work (as an entertainer etc). Those whose public importance is a direct result of their being a TV contestant on a series should be categorised by that series. I don't see any other method that would gather these contestants in a meaningful way but without a reference to the series. SFB 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are celebrities who've been in The Celebrity Apprentice that were just yesterday added. Their notability has nothing to do with this show. Maybe I should've somehow limited this to them. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:16, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but limit scope to contestants and winners to those whose notoriety/notability comes from being on the show. I don't see how being a Celebrity Apprentice contestant is any different than being on Battle of the Network Stars or Hollywood Squares and I would tend to agree that this is overcategorization per WP:OC#PERF as they are performers. Joan Rivers and Gene Simmons are not defined by their appearance on the show, Omarosa is. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support There have been many seasons of this show and there are at least a dozen contestants on each cycle, I think this will lead to overcategorization. It's clear that being a contestant on a reality show is not what the celebrity is notable for and adding this additional category (to American pop singer, American comedian, American basketball player, etc.) is not career defining or important. Usually celebrities' articles are bloated with categories (for every work, every award show, every event, etc.) and being on a reality show is incidental to their career achievements. It's enough to list the contestants on the main Celebrity Apprentice page or a separate contestants page. LizRead!Talk! 15:36, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support While checking a sample of articles, it seems like hardly any contestants' notability comes from being on this show. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most of these seem to have gained notability from other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:38, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a contestant doesn't confer notability and is WP:NONDEFINING. I even doubt whether we should have so many standalone articles on winners. Brandmeistertalk 16:00, 28 April 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.
Nominator's rationale: These are not video games about crowdfunding, they are video games that are being (or have been) crowdfunded. McGeddon (talk) 09:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Like I said on the talk page, it's unclear if the category is intended to include only video games where the development of the game itself was financed via crowdfunding, or if games where the localization was crowdfunded (such as Clannad and the Fruit of Grisaia series) are supposed to be in it as well. If they're supposed to be in the category, that's fine and all, we just need to categorize them. If they're not supposed to, we need to change it to a name that clearly excludes them (and possibly create a category for those articles specifically). IDVtalk 10:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, the criteria for the category could always be described better within the category page itself. I don't think it really matters for the naming whether such games as IDV named should be included. Unless if someone has a better idea? I personally find "crowdfunding video games" somewhat jarring as, as McGeddon made clear, these games are not "about" crowdfunding itself (usually :p). Hmm, how about "crowdfunded video games" and "crowdfunded video game localizations", the criteria of the former making clear that the latter aren't included? ~Mable (chat) 14:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Current naming is non-standard and ambiguous with games about crowdfunding, which is clearly not the topic at hand. If warranted, the localisation issue could be resolved by a rename to Category:Video games financed by crowdfunding. SFB 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, unless there actually are multiple video games about crowdfunding. Trivialist (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support, these games are crowdfunded, not about crowdfunding. Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠ 05:45, 19 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Uncontroversial rename. LizRead!Talk! 15:37, 19 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:Fire departments in Riverside County, California[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 delete as empty – it should not have been removed from parent categories or emptied out of process (i.e. while the discussion was still open), but there is no disagreement here about the outcome required. – FayenaticLondon 16:53, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only 1 page in the category. No need for it. Zackmann08 (talk) 05:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to parents. This is never going to expand beyond a couple of entries and would be much better grouped. Category:Fire departments in California is developing nicely and usefully without further division by county. SFB 18:14, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with @Sillyfolkboy:! They said it so much better than I did.... --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:21, 18 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:speedy rename. – FayenaticLondon 16:36, 21 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.
