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: Seemingly redundant categorization layer, only contains one child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support additional category layer that does not add value. SFB 21:40, 6 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.
Nominator's rationale: Seemingly redundant categorization layer, only contains one child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support additional category layer that does not add value. SFB 21:40, 6 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:Geographical areas in Swedish history[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: Seemingly redundant categorization layer, only contains one child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support additional category layer that does not add value. SFB 21:40, 6 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.
Nominator's rationale: The category name seems prescriptive. Who should avoid those words? Why? Redundancy (linguistics), for instance, says that they may be used on purpose in certain contexts. Cambalachero (talk) 17:00, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my old talk page comment there in the same stream. Tezero (talk) 18:22, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective; why not add Fuck to the category? Redundancy on TV doesn't get you fined, the f-word, however... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- inclusion is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, POV. Wikipedia is not a proscriptivist kind of place; we describe what is, and take no position on whether it should be or not. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 9 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.
Nominator's rationale: Category:Museum of Modern Art is a duplicate of Category:Modern art museums — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthistorian1977 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't understand. The Museum of Modern Art is a specific institution, and the items in this category refer to it not to modern art museums in general. - SimonP (talk) 00:54, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per what SimonP said. This relates to the actual place in NY, not general modern art museums. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:51, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the category has not been tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Perfectly valid category for articles on this museum and related subcategories. Now, some may feel that the nominator's confusion over this indicates a need to disambiguate the MoMA articles and categories. I don't. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:24, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I think this probably needs renaming to something like Category:Museum of Modern Art (New York) given potential for misunderstanding without context, not least with the many identically named institutions listed here. SFB 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per SFB and obviously ambiguous per A1977, categories should not be overly ambiguous, and per the nominator putting up the proposal, this is clearly too ambiguous. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:37, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per previous comments. I've tagged the category page. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:39, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Museum of Modern Art (New York). Category names need more disambiguation than article names because you do not have headers linking to disambiguation pages. Also because the very nature of categories has people thinking the names are descriptions and not proper names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:38, 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.
The result of the discussion was:rename to Category:Bangladeshi books for consistency, without prejudicing any future group nomination. – FayenaticLondon 17:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Bangladeshi books to match the others. It's a flawed categorization scheme because WP categorizes books as being of the nationality of their authors (as though books have passports); but, that's what we do (see, e.g., Category:Books by country and its subcats). That should be evaluated before we have categories such as books by former country (we already have Category:East German books, and I would guess only a matter of time until we have Category:Nazi German books, for all works published in Germany from 1933 to 1945), and other such crap. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange categorization scheme indeed. Personally, I would classify books only by the language that they're written in. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As would I, but if we try to discuss it here; no doubt someone will complain that every other category wasn't tagged and procedure wasn't followed, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Carlossuarez46 above, but I do think nation of publication is relevant as books can (and often do) contribute to the national culture. Still, the "Fooian books" structure needs to be refined to something like Category:Books by Fooian authors, like the above. SFB 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I still don't buy it: Nabokov is a good example; he was a citizen of 2 countries (Russia & USA), lived in several others (including Switzerland & Germany), and wrote in 3 languages (Russian, English, and French) - do only certain of his works contribute to certain national culture? And moreover, if we adopt the Fooian authors categorization scheme do we put all of Nabokov's pre-1948 (date of naturalization in the USA) into Russian authors (when he fled Russia in 1917 and lived nearly the entire period after than abroad) or something else. I think that Marcocapelle has it right, they should be categorized by original language - little more can be objectively stated and much of the "choices" we would make would be purely subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I think it is the rest of the by country tree that is wrong. A book can only get its nationality from its author. Possibly Category:Books by Bangladeshis would be even better. I cannot agree the remark about categorizing only by language: about half the contents are obviously in English, not Bengali. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:33, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A book could also get a "nationality" from place of first publication. Often that and the nationality of the author correspond, but not always. But we never use "Bangladeshis" in category names. It's always "Bangladeshi people". Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:40, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to conform to group Personally I think this whole schema of Books by nationality is flawed. However if we categorize to other nationalities, we should to Bangladesh.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Books written and initially published before the formation of Bangladesh should not be in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 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.
Nominator's rationale: To make clear that this is a category for Wikipedia administration pages that list TLAs (often with lots of redlinks) rather than for encyclopedia articles. DexDor (talk) 07:17, 5 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.
Delete Not a prominent or defining grouping for the institutions involved. List already present in article. SFB 21:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is not the usual kind of University Association member category, as it was originally those universities that contributed to the establishment of the Oak Ridge laboratory. However, even if they did contribute something once, I do not think this makes any difference. Categorisation by membership should be rare and limited to the most distinguished cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 8 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.
