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 sub-categories of Category:Film directors by continent are inconsistent. There is Category:European film directors, then the 4 above. So far I can see from the conventional format for an occupation-by-continent category is as per nationalities: fooian fooers This nom would standardise the film directors on that format.
I am not very sure of the merits of occupation-by-continent categories, but since there are are about a dozen other occupation-by-continent categories, please can consideration of a purge be left to a wider discussion? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the rename would make things more consistent but at the same time it doesn't sound right, suggesting that "African", "Asian" etc. are (super)nationalities which they aren't. With European this problem is less obvious as Europe is slowly converging to a unity. I wouldn't mind deleting this type of categories for this reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I don't find that very persuasive. I'm pretty sure that most of our readers understand that Africa, Asia, N. America etc are continents rather than countries. And I don't see why different types of entity need different naming conventions ... but if you do do want a distinctive naming format, the solution is to adopt it rather than delete the categories. Whatever the format, there is no point in having two different formats for the same type of category. However, if you prefer to standardise in the other direction, why not add an "option B" to this nomination, changing all the other occupation-by-continent categories to fooers-from-boo? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't make myself completely clear, I wouldn't mind deleting them also because I happen to know that we also have Category:Film directors by nationality where the same nationality subcategories can be found. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind having parent-only categories for continents, but renaming the categories to Fooian film directors would make it sound to me as though they were about Fooian films, not Fooian directors. Counter-propose that, if continental parent categories are kept, Category:European film directors be renamed to Category:Film directors from Europe. Pegship (talk) 00:26, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some of these terms are too often used not for people from the continent to make the targets too ambiguous. Also the targets make it ambiguous if the director or film is being modified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "from" categories are traditionally (and purposefully) vague as to whether they refer to place of birth or residence. The important thing with a film director will be where they operate. An Englishman operating in Hollywood should be in an American category. His ethnic origin can be dealt with by having him in people from England (etc). I guess that the Asian category has a large element of Bollywood and the African one of the Nigerian Nollywood. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you want your result for a British national, they should be Directors of American films, etc. A citizen and national of the UK who makes his films in California is not an American. A citizen and national of Burman who makes his films in Bombay is not Indian. This is not about ethnicity, it is about nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:08, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The meaning of both names is identical, but the new name is more consistent with other categories of this nature. Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 22 February 2016 (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 merge C2C. – FayenaticLondon 21:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More could be added before the nom is closed. Merger ensures that nothing gets lost. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:49, 15 February 2016 (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:Operations of the Inter-Services Intelligence[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 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: CfD typically insists on unambiguous titles for categories, and I don't think "Presidential Scholars" alone gives enough context (as of this writing, Presidential Scholars is red). Right now, it could be mistaken as a category for scholars of the presidency. BDD (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is too like an award category and not defining enough to be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would also support this. --BDD (talk) 21:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listify before deleting -- The main article is Presidential Scholars Program. If I were voting to keep, I would suggest that Presidential Scholars should redirect to that. However this is ultimately an AWARD category, where listifying is the normal outcome. I see no objection to the present name of the category. Rhodes scholars is an equivalent and quite clear. If we were keeping it, it would need a short headnote explaining that it referred to people granted these scholarships. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not opposed to award categories conceptually, but this is a high school award for people that went on to become notable in their adult lives for various other reasons. It's not defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2016 (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: Non-notable category. We don't have list of commentators for any other cricket event, so I see it as unnecessary overcategorisation. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not need to categorize by what league commented for.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disperse to Category:Pakistani cricket commentators and Category:Cricket commentators, for the same reasons as mentioned before, but disperse in order to not entirely lose the articles in the tree of cricket commentators. There are currently only 5 articles of the category, so dispersing is easy enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 24 February 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge There's only one other category in a similar style, but with 30 articles and far stronger rationale than this one. SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:16, 17 February 2016 (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.
(re)creator rationale - I understand confusion at first, and of course Category:Festivals in India is the more prominent category. This category was only recreated in the same vein as Category:Asian-American festivals: to signify a festival held in any location focused on Indian culture. I've been wondering this about the "festivals by culture" cat in general, if perhaps "Category:Festivals of Indian culture" for "Category:Indian culture festivals" might be less confusing. I just didn't want to break the norm and get creative without feedback first. Earflaps (talk) 05:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind going into the Category:Festivals by culture and applying a new naming scheme to all the children (including film fests), if the discussion goes that way. There's not very many right now, so wouldn't be impossible. Unless someone with bot skills could do it more cleanly ;) Earflaps (talk) 14:55, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With Indian still heavily used to refer to Native Americans, this term is inherently confusing. The US census still uses the term "American Indian" in its reports, there is a publication called "Indian Country Today", and I could go on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Americans being ignorant isn't a good reason to delete an accurate page title. :/ Besides, Native Americans find "Indian" offensive in most cases, so no point catering to it. Also, fail to see what's wrong with adding a "See also: Category:Native American festivals," or a "First Nations festivals" if that's ever made. Earflaps (talk) 14:16, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't this apply to every Indian category we have? And if ambiguity is a problem, shouldn't we rather disambiguate instead of delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
SupportRevelationDirect. My first reaction was that I would find things like Diwali here, but this category is about Indian culture. WE already have a capnote for the Native American issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find the capnotes that useful because they don't show up in Hotcat. I definitely want to keep this category, even if the rename doesn't happen though. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:38, 18 February 2016 (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:delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale The places listed here are not defined by having a Taft buried there. In the case of Arlington National Cemetery President and Mrs Taft are 2 of the 1872 people for which we have articles that have been categorized by this. Beyond the general problems of this type of categorization, this one is particularly bizarre because it is the categories for burials that are put under this category. That just creates a messed up category hierarchy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per above and below (PW again). Oculi (talk) 18:35, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorizing large graveyards by individual graves is non-defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is in the nature of a performance category. We have (with some resistance) allowed "burials at foo" categories, but cemeteries containing one of a particular family would create terrible clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2016 (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.
Burial sites of the Martin Luther King family[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale This category only has two contents. In the case of Atlanta categorizing the whole city by a person being buried there is just too much. In the case of the King Center for Nonviolence, that is already in much better categories related to Martin Luther King, so we really do not need this category. I am unconvinced categories like this make sense at all. Maybe if we had a particular family with multiple private family cemeteries that are notable, but this is not the case here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Good catch. This sort of category should be reserved for cases where use as a family burial ground is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the topic being categorised. That would be a stretch for the King Centre, and it is certainly not the case for the big city of Atlanta. However, the rest of Category:Burial sites of political families of the United States is pretty dodgy too. The concept of categorising places as family burial sites made sense in societies where certain notable families had their own private burial plots, used for centuries — my ancestors in Scotland had a private island which was used solely for burials of clan chiefs and notables — but it is a whole different matter where a family with 3 to 5 notable political figures had burials in several different locations, none of which was defined by that family's burials. I think there's is a case for listifying the lot. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Delete – this was created by a user:Pastorwayne sock. (There is a Westfield Center in Ohio where PW was a pastor.) Oculi (talk) 18:32, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The hundreds of similar categories created by this user all need to be deleted. They're not all as bad as the Atlanta example, but pretty close. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is in the nature of a performance category. We have (with some resistance) allowed "burials at foo" categories, but cemeteries containing one of a particular family would create terrible clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2016 (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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 13:24, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale' The two parent categories are both in the category Category:Sports competitions by sport and country but most countries (88) have the "cycle races" category with only eight countries having the "cycling competitions" category also. The extra layer of categories for these eight countries is an unnecessarily layer to navigate, and many of the articles belong in a country subcategory of the "international cycle races by host" category. The major cycle racing countries (20) have a subcategory of Category:International cycle races by host for international cycle races (UCI or ICA or European) eg Category:International cycle races hosted by Belgium. Note that there is also a category Category:Nations at cycling events with 111 subcategories, which is for articles about a nation at cycling events rather than for cycling competitions (national or international) held in that country. Hugo999 (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't all these categories be better at Category:International cycling competitions hosted by Foo? What we are trying to capture here are the events which typically last more than a day and typically have more than one race, making up a championships (world championships etc.) or the cycling aspect of a multi-sport event (Olympics etc.). Severo (talk) 10:56, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merging into "Cycle races", support merging into "Cycling competitions". Not all cycling competitions are races, see Freestyle BMX and Mountain bike trials. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:34, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, on the basis that the contents of all the above categories are races. I see no reason they are named differently at the moment. There is already a Category:Cycling events category tree for events that aren't races. Sionk (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The standard category is Category:Cycle races by country, just as it is “Tournaments” for Badminton, Darts, Golf and Tennis. I did not realise this when creating some of the above “cycling competitions”sub categories, so I want to see only one category tree without a second tree which has only a handful of subcategories. Most cycling events are road and track races, so others eg BMX could be left out. Hugo999 (talk) 03:10, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This tree is being used to host events, consisting of multiple races. I see no objection to regarding a time trial as a race, where the competitors race successively over the same course. However, the races categories seem much better populated. Possibly reverse merge, but I am still not sure. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 18 February 2016 (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.
Done Tassedethe (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
