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. – FayenaticLondon 10:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's a useful category (29 member articles, and comparable categories like Defunct companies based in Cincinnati, Ohio also exist), but a very unusual name. Let's just make this follow the normal pattern. I couldn't quite see this being a CFDS situation, since aside from Cincinnati, the parent category doesn't have any other geography-based subcategories; we really don't have enough categories in this specific situation to say that it's an established style, but it's definitely normal, and I don't see a reason to deviate. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- That is the standard format. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:34, 27 September 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 10:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Fuddle (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuddle: what is your rationale? —烏Γ(kaw), 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the nominator didn't provide a full rationale for the discussion, I'm going to offer one here because I can easily see the problem: there's no substantive distinction between what's in the "channels" category and what's in the "stations" one. Although there is technically a distinction between a television "station" and a television "channel" in industry jargon, in practice that difference is poorly reflected in actual real-world usage — "channel" is routinely used by the general public as a synonym for both "station" and "network", and even things that are most properly called "channels" routinely get called "stations" or "networks" instead. And the actual distinction between a "station" and a "channel" has not been observed or maintained by these categories — everything in both of them is actually the same class of thing, meaning that in effect they're just duplicating each other unnecessarily. Even Category:Television channels is just a redirect to Category:Television stations, rather than serving as a separate category tree. So we simply don't need both of these to simultaneously coexist. Merge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 15:04, 30 September 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:keep. – FayenaticLondon 10:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Fuddle (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuddle: what is your rationale? —烏Γ(kaw), 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Strictly speaking, "programmes" and "series" are not interchangeable terms. "Programmes" would also include one-off specials, telefilms, and other things that aren't regular "series" — which is why virtually all countries have two separate Wikipedia categories for "programs/programmes" and "series". Even in the United Kingdom, the canonical example of a country that uses the term "programme" to mean what North Americans would call a "series", the terms still aren't actually synonymous, because "series" does still exist with a different meaning than "programme" has. Keep, unless there's an actual deletion rationale provided which makes a compelling case for why Kenya should be different from the norm. Bearcat (talk) 14:37, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the remaining series to 'series' and added two stray categories to the tree. I think we're good. Fuddle (talk) 17:14, 5 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.
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: Apparent nonsense category. This is in articlespace as a top-level subcategory of Category:Articles, but its only content is a single internal projectspace "requested articles" list — so I don't even have any conception of what the category name even has to do with its contents. And even if there is a rational explanation for it that's eluding me, I still don't see how it could ever be anything more than a one-item WP:SMALLCAT. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- To categorise an article request is inappropriate. Even if the article were created (and I do not think it should be), I cannot see that this would be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 27 September 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: we rarely organize people by ethnicity and religion and it looks pretty irrelevant here. Fiji is a highly sectarian state with most native Fijians being Christian and most Indo-Fijians being Hindus or Muslims. Such a category doesn't seem necessary at all (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality). Inter&anthro (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also nominating these related Categories for deletion as well
Support per the spirit of WP:SMALLCAT, the breakdown by ethnicity has led to many very tiny categories which does not serve a navigational benefit. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support An unnecessary triple intersection of ethnicity, religion and nationality that is broadly under-populated. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:02, 28 September 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:Filmed deaths to do with law enforcement officers[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.
Comment Before deletion, are we sure that all articles are included in the parent categories? Dimadick (talk) 07:25, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm positive. Category creator renamed parent category in some articles to this one. But they can be reverted. -- Chamith(talk) 08:14, 30 September 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: Delete, or rename to 'Television series distributed by MoonScoop' or change to a list, or ... Fuddle (talk) 12:06, 26 September 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 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: Unencyclopaedic and subjective category. At best, if renamed to "Sportswear designers," it should focus solely on designers who specialise in sportswear. And the other question is - designers of Sportswear (activewear) or of Sportswear (fashion)? Clearly the call as to what makes a designer a sportswear (fashion) designer is very subjective and open to interpretation, particularly as so many American designers would be considered sportswear (fashion) designers due to that being an American design signature. Mabalu (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I write sporty fashion designers to offset the Category:Fashion designers , and also if you see the is wrong , you can ask for change the not deletion --Muhib mansour (talk) 12:57, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above makes very little sense. I am not sure what you are trying to say, but it doesn't seem you have read (or understood) my rationale. "Sporty" is not encyclopaedic. It is unclear what you mean by "sporty" either - do you mean sportswear as in clothing following the American design principle, or sportswear as in clothing made for sport? Or just designers who you think look "sporty" - whatever that is supposed to mean... Mabalu (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or clarify per nom; the category name prompts a large amount of assumption and its purpose as is isn't clear. —烏Γ(kaw), 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Category:Fashion designers. Whether a designer is or is not "sporty" seems to me to be a POV question. We cannot have categories where inclusion depends on any editor's POV. Peterkingiron (talk)
Comment While some of our fashion-related articles do mention sporty fashion or clothing, we currently have no article on the subject. Should we have one? Dimadick (talk) 07:29, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge back per nom; much too subjective, and mostly non-defining - few are notable only for this, arguably only 1 of the current 3 in the category, and he designs shoes only. Fred Perry might be one other, but whether he actually designed much himself is doubtful. If kept, rename. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 30 September 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: Unnecessary overcategorisation by user creating category spam. This category and all subcats are redundant, as most of the thousands of designers on Wikipedia design for both men and women. While there is an argument for a category for designers who focus principally on menswear, this doesn't mean that every designer who's licensed a menswear line should be dumped here. Mabalu (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are thousands of designers only specialists in either male or female , if your reason is abundant category, I will develop this categories , dot worry --Muhib mansour (talk) 12:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose, if there are enough articles. Seems to me that we could benefit from a category for designers who only design menswear, just as we could for womenswear and kidswear. If we have enough articles to warrant it, we could convert this into "Fashion designers only designing for men" or something of the sort. Nyttend (talk) 22:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are really not that many designers who solely design for men. Someone like Tommy Nutter, who certainly focused on menswear, also designed suits for women, which muddies the water. Andrew Fezza and Sal Cesarani both certainly came to mind, but again, both did dabble in womenswear and unisex clothing too. There are certainly enough designers known for their focus on menswear to populate such a category, (the menswear award sections on the Coty Award page would be a good place to find articles for a properly renamed category) but it should only focus on designers with an established reputation for menswear, where it is their primary focus, or given equal (or greater) importance to their womenswear (such as Pierre Cardin or Hardy Amies or Gianni Versace or Paul Smith (fashion designer)). I would suggest that such a category be named Category:Menswear designers. Mabalu (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note my "if" statement. I have no idea whether this idea is practical. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I doubt that the category could be sufficiently repurposed toward a nature of "only". —烏Γ(kaw), 23:50, 26 September 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: At best this should be Category:Children's clothing designers, and reserved solely for designers with an explicit specialisation in children's clothing. There certainly are not enough designers of children's clothing to subcategorise by nationality either, even if most of the names on here already were actually focused on childrenswear which I'm not seeing that they are. Children's clothing is just a tiny part of say, Ralph Lauren's or Robert Cavalli's output and doesn't really make them children's clothing designers even if they actually did kidswear designing themselves which I doubt. Mabalu (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you give different reasons for deletion , you dont have convinced reason to deletion --Muhib mansour (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only category which MIGHT make sense to rename - certainly the name you have given it is unencyclopaedic crap - it should be "Children's clothing designers" and should only be populated by designers who were particularly renowned for designing children's clothing - such as Bobby Hillson, or Helen Lee (designer). I am not sure there are sufficient childrenswear-specific designers on the site (at the moment) to justify such a category at the moment. Mabalu (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up comment - Following a search, I think there are only three four articles which are definitely appropriate for such a category:
I'm not sure that this is quite enough for a category, but it would certainly be a starting point should a rename be agreed on for this category. There are some other potential articles, such as Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece and Myleene Klass (both of whom have designed baby clothing lines) but I think Calabrese, Hillson, Lanvin and Lee are the only three fourobvious candiates for Category:Children's clothing designers - is that enough? Mabalu (talk) 00:11, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose per my suggestion for men's, but use "children" instead of "kids", as people who don't speak English well might think this is designers concentrating on young goats. Having a category for designers who work only with children seems useful. Nyttend (talk) 22:18, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I doubt that the category could be sufficiently repurposed toward a nature of "only". —烏Γ(kaw), 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While this might be a defining trait for at least some designers, currently this category and its subcategories have less than ten articles. Too small? Dimadick (talk) 07:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (failing that, rename). Non-defining for most of the few now in the category - John Galliano seems to contain no mention of his children's designs - the mind boggles! Johnbod (talk) 15:58, 30 September 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: Unnecessary overcategorisation by user creating category spam. This category and all subcats are redundant, as most of the thousands of designers on Wikipedia design for females already. Should be deleted. Mabalu (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
this is just your view , I will make this categories to devise designers by types — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhib mansour (talk • contribs) 12:51, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and repurpose per my suggestion for men's, but use "women" instead of "females"; this and "men" and "children" ought to be mutually exclusive, but someone doing girls' clothing could fit here and "children". Nyttend (talk) 22:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would essentially be almost exactly the same category as the general fashion designer categories, with only a few names different between the two. Womenswear is the primary product of the vast majority of fashion designers on here. I think this is a redundant category, although menswear and childrenswear are arguably distinct enough for specific categories dedicated to designers notably focusing on those particular fields. Mabalu (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primary product, yes, but I'm asking for women's fashion to be the only product. If you do men's and women's, or (men's or women's) and children's, you should be excluded from all three categories. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how would you determine that a designer only produced womenswear without doing original research to confirm? This is particularly thorny given that so many designers, even when catering principally to women, did make clothes for other audiences. For example, Thea Porter is known as a womenswear designer, but produced men's suits too. I think trying to populate or maintain such a category would cause far more trouble than it's worth as it is not something that could easily be checked on in the same way that menswear or childrenswear design would be Mabalu (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; this subject is very far from my area of interest. That's why I said "if" in my men's proposal and refer to it here: I don't know whether this can be done. I have no objection to deletion if we can't sufficiently repurpose it toward a nature of "only", since aside from that possibility, I don't see this (or the other two) as particularly useful. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I doubt that the category could be sufficiently repurposed toward a nature of "only". —烏Γ(kaw), 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge back to Category:Fashion designers. I also doubt whether a womenswear only category would be viable, though I have no doubt that there are many people who mainly do that and little else. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category tree seems relatively well-populated. Should the subcategories also be nominated?Dimadick (talk) 07:36, 30 September 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.
I don't see how producing intestinal gas or potential toxicity in processing are defining for food goods. (If kept, the second category should be heavily purged to remove almonds, onions, etc.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both; quite trivial for the food itself. It also doesn't distinguish between finished and raw products; are we going to put the Chaya plant into the detoxification category, for example? And I would assume that different bodies react differently to the same foods; the same food might consistently produce flatulence in one person and never in another. We need categories to be for consistent attributes, not occasional ones. Nyttend (talk) 22:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per Nyttend. —烏Γ(kaw), 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I doubt that either could be converted into a useful category. Eating too much of almost anything is likely to be harmful. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - but entertaining! Neutralitytalk 00:41, 29 September 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.
This category groups foods "known to produce allergic reactions in some individuals". In many cases, this includes foods with uncommon allergies where the articles contain only a sentence or so on the topic. In other cases, specific food allergy articles like Milk allergy, Peanut allergy, Wheat allergy are grouped in Category:Food allergies while the more general food articles like Milk, Peanuts, and Wheat are also grouped in this category. So, this category is either non-defining or redundant, depending on the food. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Virtually anything can produce an allergy, if I understand rightly. And even if not, whether or not people are allergic to a food is not relevant to the food itself. Nyttend (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nyttend. —烏Γ(kaw), 23:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- There are many food-related allergies. We have articles on specific allergies, but these are something that a minority of people suffer from (for each). I suspect that one can be allergic to almost anything; if so every food might be included. That is not a good basis for a category. Having Category:Food allergies is as much as we need. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per the above. Neutralitytalk 00:41, 29 September 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.
