Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 16 October 18 >

October 17[edit]

Category:Former French empires[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, the First and Second French Empire have nothing to do with the French colonial empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 17 October 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:Natural history of the United States[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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete because the category contains virtually nothing about history. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. You could say that about any category in Category:Natural_history_by_country. Bod (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose straight deletion - e.g. because it would leave Category:Biota of the United States without a United States parent category. There may be opportunities for clarifying the inclusion citeria of these categories and avoiding any unnecessary overlap with categories for zoology, landforms etc. Note: natural history isn't really about history. DexDor (talk) 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, but straight deletion would also mean that Category:Natural history of the United States by state would not have a natural history parent category. I would prefer categories to clearly indicate whether they are for articles about nature (e.g. articles about species) or for articles about the study of nature (e.g. articles about naturalists) - such a reorganisation might result in this category (and all the other natural history categories) being renamed/deleted/merged, but I don't see any point in deleting just this category. DexDor (talk) 21:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep The article Natural history explains what this and all such categories are about and it is a common term of the art. Deletion rationale has no basis in fact. Hmains (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Honestly I found the article utterly vague and I really wonder if it is a good basis for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I've recategorized the category from being under History to being under Environment (per sibling categories). DexDor (talk) 21:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – one of the most bizarre cfd noms I have ever seen. Oculi (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's put it differently, natural history is not a defining characteristic of the content of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as the article explains, Natural History is a broad term and an appropriate umbrella given the current "nature-related" category hierarchies (which is not to say that these hierarchies are right – in my view they need a good prune). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 18 October 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:Cantabrian athletes[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: no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The distinction of being an athlete is no more relevant to ones being from Cantabria than it is of being a sportsperson. This Spanish region does not have a strong historical position in the sport of athletics and does not merit a sport-specific occupational category. SFB 17:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Is this not essentially one of a series? Category:Cantabrian sportspeople is reasonably diffused to subcategories by sport. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose There is no reason to target just this one subcategory of sportspeople. I have not formulated a view on the subcategorization scheme here, but think it needs to be discussed in a nomination covering the whole scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 18 November 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:Naturalised athletes of Italy[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 to Category:Naturalised citizens of Italy without prejudice against a future delete nomination for the entire tree of Category:Naturalised citizens by nation. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Naturalised athletes of Italy to article Italy national athletics team
Nominator's rationale: The topic of track and field athletes who become naturalised citizens of Italy is one of interest, but as a category it is an awkward mix of a person's occupation with a legal process. This should be converted into a list to be placed on the national team page to show non-Italian-born citizens who have represented the nation. SFB 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This for athletes (qualified for but not necessarily in the national team) who were born with other nationalities. That is a significant issue. We had a similar discussion (though not quite the same), which I think ended off (on my suggestion) as athletes "born abroad". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too contrived intersection of "athletes" (in the BrEng sense, NOT "sportspeople"), competing internationally for Italy, who acquired Italian citizenship through naturalisation. There is nothing indicating that this triple intersection is notable or defining for the individuals herein categorized. If it were, they should be removed for the lesser restrictive categories in which they all are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Carlos. Peterkingiron's suggestion (which I don't think is reflective of any recent outcomes) is not good, because it implies (1) that a person cannot be born in Italy and be a non-citizen of Italy, and (2) that anyone born outside of Italy cannot be a citizen of Italy at birth. Neither of which is true, since Italian citizenship at birth is largely an issue of jus sanguinis, not place of birth. I can't see the utility of this as a category; it's trivia more than anything. At most, this should be mentioned in the appropriate bio articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the intersection of a specific sport and naturalization is way to specific. That said, the merger category makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not simply delete, but merge to parent Category:Naturalised citizens of Italy. None of the above participants have given any rationale for removing the member pages from this hierarchy. There is no need to merge to the other parent, Italian athletes, as the pages are in more specific sub-cats of that one (by sport) already. No objection to making a list; there are already comparable lists of naturalised sportspeople, List of naturalised Equatoguinean international football players and List of naturalised Spanish international football players. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally, I think Category:Naturalised citizens of Italy should also be deleted per the same line of reasoning in this discussion. "Delete" in this context at its essence means delete the nominated category; it says nothing about what should happen with the articles in the category. So a closer can merge the contents somewhere if he or she deems it to be appropriate or necessary. But I personally see no benefit to maintaining this particular hierarchy of categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:53, 15 December 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:Italy at athletics (track and field) competitions[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Italy at athletics competitions is synonymous with the national athletics team (or similar enough that little content would otherwise be located at the latter). SFB 15:41, 17 October 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:Indoor athletics (track and field) venues[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only type of athletics practised indoors is track and field (i.e. there are no road running or cross country indoor venues). Thus, we can use track and field directly and not as a disambiguator. SFB 15:35, 17 October 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:Indoor athletics (track and field) venues in Louisiana[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT - unlikely to expand beyond a small number of entries. The above parents are sufficiently distinct. SFB 15:28, 17 October 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:Balkan Games competitors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Balkan Games competitors to article Balkan Games
Nominator's rationale: Competing at the Balkan Games (an annual track and field meeting) is not a distinguishing feature of an athlete. Mostly it just indicates they are an international athlete from the Balkans. This is better organised as a list of participants on the main article. SFB 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. Sports competitors would be expected to compete in various regional sporting events and are not defined by each one. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify This relates to a sub-continental international competition. We have categories for Olympians, but we need to draw a line somewhere as to how far down the hierarchy we allow such performance categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by perfomance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 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:Sport in Gaborone by sport[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are only eighteen articles in the whole of the Category:Sport in Gaborone tree yet there are 14 subcategories. This is clearly excessive and not helpful to navigation or grouping similar articles in the same category. Fourteen of the articles relate to football. I propose all but the populated football tree aspects be upmerged to the general sport in Gaborone category. As the capital of a poor and sparsely-populated nation, the vast majority of sports competitions in Botswana take place in Gaborone, so it makes more sense to gather the small amount of material at the country level. SFB 14:17, 17 October 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:Athletics in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Highly specific locational categories for a specific sport. The county does not have any special connection with the sport of athletics and is unlikely to gather many more entries than the sole current child article. SFB 14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calm down SFB This frenetic activity in all things athletics is symptomatic of drug-fuelled zeal. Take a few minutes to relax and I'm sure you'll see a pretty navigational landscape and not the appalling vista that may be before your eyes due to whatever hallucinogens that you may be taking. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Laurel Lodged: It's less about me going crazy and more about my doing a yearly review of the Athletics category structure and nominating the outliers and obscurities. You may have noticed a downturn in my recent activity at CFD – it saves us all time to locate and discuss the related group of categories at once, rather than periodically coming back and forth to discussions. Certainly, this day's nominations will make it very easy to find the majority of athletics related category discussions for this year! SFB 13:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep How is the current county of Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown a "Highly specific location" but the proposed target - the abolished county of Dublin - is, presumably, not a "Highly specific location"? Since when does a location have to have a "special connection with the sport of athletics"? Where does this criterion come from? It's enough that it contains notable athletes or facilities for athletes. As for sole, it has lots of potential to grow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep County Dublin has been divided into a number of smaller administrative entities. It is wholly appropriate to categorise by them, reflecting the current system, not an abolished one. This nom is thus misconceived. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Peterkingiron and Laurel Lodged: Am I reading it right that the County Dublin parent should be considered for deletion, an an administrative container category for a non-existent administrative region? I don't see the relevance of a county council of this size to a specific sport (FYI there are only a handful of "Athletics in..." categories for sub-national places and they are much bigger and more populous places e.g. London, Catalonia, New York state). SFB 18:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We may need a County Dublin category for events before the county was divided into a number of entities, but it needs to be tagged that new events after a certain date should not be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with that idea. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:47, 19 October 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:Athletes in Sweden by club[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: no consensus. MER-C 20:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Membership of the given clubs are not a distinguishing feature. Indeed, there is no article on the athletics sections on either. SFB 12:36, 17 October 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:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's track and field coaches[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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no categorisation scheme for specifically men's track and field. In the case of Georgia Tech, both the subjects contained coached both men and women so men's does not distinguish anything further. SFB 12:29, 17 October 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:Florida Gators women's track and field[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Needless containers. The topics are more easily navigated without this level. Track and field programs at an institution typically share infrastructure and administration, meaning there are very few elements that can be reduced to gender-divided ones beyond the track athletes themselves. The navigation tree is at Category:College track and field teams in the United States, which has combined gender categories. SFB 12:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Specific oppose - The Florida Gators men's and women's track and field athletes categories contain 48 and 11 articles, respectively, which is more than enough to support separate categories by gender for the convenience of our readers. This structure parallels that of college swimmers in the United States, segmented by men and women, which is the natural progression when any sports categories reach a certain size. When the categories include only a handful of articles, I can certainly understand the convenience of maintaining a single unisex category, but that is not the case for all of these. Personally, I don't segment categories by gender until both genders reach double digits. Segmentation of athletes by gender is inevitable and inexorable; forcing some of the larger categories into a needless unisex uniformity is contrary to our normal principles of categories. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC) I have struck my "oppose" per SFB's explanation below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick review shows that the LSU Tigers track and field athletes categories have sufficient numbers to support segmentation by gender, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I understand what you mean now. The current structure has near container categories for gender. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge, with caveat per SFB's explanation above. Only gender-based program-level and conference-level categories will be merged. Gender-based athlete-level categories (with sufficient numbers) will be preserved. Rock on, SFB. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 18 October 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:Alternative running styles[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category mostly contains articles related to barefoot running, only two of which are actually articles about running styles. Barefoot is a common and traditional form of running, rather than an "alternative" one (which is highly subjective). This child category is not part of any larger tree and the information is much better stored in the parent. SFB 11:49, 17 October 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:Indo-European peoples‎[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. Language family is obviously a characteristic of a people, but I really wonder if we should consider it to be a defining characteristic. If the category is kept, it should at least be renamed to Category:Peoples that speak an Indo-European language because Indo-European peoples - as such - do not exist, the term is just a derivative of the language family. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 17 October 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.

Peoples (topic categories)[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article of the category. These nominations were opposed at speedy for reasons of ambiguity. While I agree that this is a risk, I don't think that by just removing the "s" the ambiguity is reduced a lot, so if we really want to tackle that problem we may better add "(topic)" in the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
speedy discussion
  • Alt rename I don't think "topic" serves as a disambiguator: all categories are topics of some sort. I think a better approach would be to borrow from the German solution and go for Category:Slavic ethnic group, which covers all things Slavic yet avoids the problem of defining that as something that could be more narrowly read as "people" or "culture". Same for Category:Berber ethnic group and Category:Arab ethnic group. SFB 13:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename/merge to1st option. The main article is Slavs for that one, but purge: individual Berbers should be in Category:Berber people. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename/merge to 1st option as a container category for such things as language, etc.; the validity of Category:Fooish people where Foo is an ethnicity not a nationality is for another day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or use "topics". Don't rename to "Arabs" etc, which should be biographical if used. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 14 November 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:Indo-European[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article of the category. This nomination was opposed as speedy, I think that the objection mentioned in CFDS should be tackled by purging the category from non-linguistical articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
speedy discussion
  • Oppose this is not about the academic practices studying Indo-European topics, this is about the Indo-European topics themselves. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The oppose in speedy (which was I think a quite useful oppose) was that the article Indo-European studies shows that Indo-European is really a language topic, while the category actually contains much more than about language. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thus in this vein, it should not be "Indo-European studies" -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Category:African Americans redirects to Category:African American people. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As there is apparently no support for the nomination, I support this alternative rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Which should clearly be a biographical category, following our usual style. Note that Category:African Americans redirects to Category:African American people, and is a sub of Category:African-American society. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 14 November 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:Mozabite people[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains eponymous article. No need to upmerge, article is sufficiently categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to gather sufficient related material in a useful way. SFB 13:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no need to merge as the article is adequately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 18 October 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:Garamantes[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains eponymous article. No need to upmerge, article is sufficiently categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails to gather sufficient related material in a useful way. SFB 13:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I doubt we will get enough content to make a worthwhile category. The one article is well categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 18 October 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:Watercolours[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: rename. I will also put a category redirect on Category:Watercolour paintings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent categories and sibling categories. Under Category:Paintings the subcategories generally have "paintings" as part of their name. To be consistent with the variant of English of the watercolor category tree, which uses U.S. English, the "u" would be dropped to match Category:Watercolor painting. The attachment of "paintings" also clafifies the scope of the category, to exclude paints and pigments, as this category is only for the paintings themselves. 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The new category will be more clear and more consistent. Appreciate the above user for bringing this to the table. Bod (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it "more clear" User:Bodhi Peace? AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Because it clearly differentiates the artworks from the media. Bod (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But what makes it "more clear" User:RevelationDirect? AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The contents are about the paintings created with watercolours/watercolors, not the paints themselves. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Plain English naming that matches reader expectations and prevents any misconstruing of the topic. SFB 13:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean "plain English naming", User:Sillyfolkboy? AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: it differentiates it from the paint, which are also watercolours. To quote the article itself "Watercolor refers to both the medium and the resulting artwork". The change defines the scope as paintings and not the topic in general (which is Category:Watercolor painting). I'm not too fussed about the form of English, though it does seem better to align with the parent category and article. SFB 21:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Seems a change designed to purely to remove all traces of non-US spelling from Wikipedia, despite the fact the majority of English speaking world uses "colour" namely Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Jamaica, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Malta, United Kingdom, Pakistan, Canada, Bermuda and more. AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't feel strongly on the spelling. Do you support adding "paintings"? RevelationDirect (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The category's spelling should follow it's main article and it's parent category. Armbrust The Homunculus 03:57, 20 October 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:Fruit in Malaysia[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION and WP:NARROWCAT
The only article in the category is endemic to the Malay Peninsula (parts of Thailand and Malaysia), not the political boundaries of Malaysia. Additionally, the intersection is too narrow to create a category large enough to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified MKwek as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Fruit are better categorised by the geographic area rather than polity, as they do not respect the latter. An article would be a better approach to discuss Fruit in Malaysia, but content is insufficient to merit conversion to an article here. SFB 13:32, 18 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_17&oldid=1138409306"