The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: These only have a WP:SHAREDNAME and therefore this is over-categorization. No merge is needed as the pages are all categorised as universities in specific states of Mexico. – FayenaticLondon 21:37, 16 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:rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it did. That was ridiculous. The Indian category has already been renamed via a separate discussion. Some of the users at the first discussion demonstrated an extraordinary lack of competence. AusLondonder (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We should use the ENGVAR spelling of the country in question. As with India, I would expect Pakistan as a country emerging from the British Empire to use British spelling. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I tried to get this done in the previous nomination. Was surprised that it was even an issue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:46, 25 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:Theatres in the Palestinian National Authority[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 to Category:Theatres in the State of Palestine. (Given the change in terminology which is developing internationally, it might be a good idea to rename a lot of the categories that use "Palestinian National Authority" or "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine".)Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're right about ambiguity, I struck my support there. But the alternative State of Palestine isn't ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: That's true, but all three articles say these are in the Palestinian territories (two in the West Bank) and not the State of Palestine. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 15:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the article State of Palestine, a recent RM has been rejected. I'm assuming (not sure though) that this would normally overrule the incidental mentioning of it in other articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:55, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian territories" is a UN acronym for "Palestinian National Authority territories". More importantly however is that in 2013 UN changed "Palestinian Territories" to "State of Palestine" in definition.GreyShark (dibra) 22:32, 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; the contents are already appropriately categorized in other subcategories of Category:Star Wars.Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In-universe and unnecessary; its three articles would be fine within Category:Star Wars (though they are undersourced and potentially in-universe themselves). — TAnthonyTalk 17:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete only 3 articles, some of them are already in a categories level above, no point keeping it IMHO. SkywalkerPL (talk) 16:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete small category that relies too much on the fictional publication. We have this problem a lot with star wars related things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "merge" I assume you mean move the three articles to Category:Star Wars and delete this category?— TAnthonyTalk 16:24, 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.
Organizations designated as terrorist by designator[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.
Rename category names should be short, if possible. I doubt that any of these countries has rival bodies designating them. I am a little wary of these categories proliferating. There are about 180 sovereign states: I would be reluctant to see Boko Haram having 180 of these categories! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 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.
Category:Railway stations located underground[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; no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rationalle: Not clear that this is defining; and some railway stations are underground only in part (such as Porter (MBTA station), where the Red Line is underground but the Fitchburg Line isn't; Clark/Lake (CTA station), where the Blue Line is and the other L lines aren't; as well as some planned stations on the Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion, where underground stations are planned at some current on-ground station locations); and the list is extremely partial - I'm quite sure that there are many railway stations located underground outside of Scandinavia, other than in Boston and the Merseyrail system. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate, seems very defining. Note that there are quite a number of underground stations that should rather be moved (or copied?) from Category:Railway tunnels by country to here, I've started with a few of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, to solve that I'd suggest renaming the categories to Category:Railway stations with underground tracks or Category:Railway stations with underground platforms, those new names wouldn't require all tracks and platforms to be underground. It's also more precise because most underground stations will at least have a ground floor access. Btw in Berlin you must be a little confused, because there are two other stations in the situation of a crossing overground and underground railway line (Hauptbahnhof and Friedrichstrasse), while Zoologischer Garten is fully overground. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know this personally, but the bottom of the article has the list of train lines at the station; one of them is U9, which (based on the U9 article) is completely underground. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:38, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, but the U9 is an underground line, not a railway in the usual sense of the word. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as non-defining. Arbitrary, trivial, and many stations are both above and below ground, making any attempt at comprehensive categorization fruitless. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 18:27, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining. Especially since in some cases beyond mentioned above it is not just that there are above and below ground facilities, but some stations while the entrance to the train is underground one exits the station at ground level, so the station as a whole is not underground. We do not need to categorize by every possible aspect of everything. What next Category:Buildings with multiple basements for places like the Harold B. Lee Library?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: It's common to have part of the building underground. This doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PerhapsCategory:Railway stations in tunnels. Unless the article is wholly on the underground part of a station for interchange with surface railways, I would suggest that they should be excluded. Thus an article on Euston Underground station (of London Transport) would belong in the tree, but one on Euston Station generally would not. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
comment There seems to be some ambiguity as to what constitutes "railway" in the category, as there are a number of light rail stations listed, but not all that many. Potentially every subway station that is actually underground could be a member. Mangoe (talk) 23:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The header of the category should specify that it excludes rapid transit stations. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the Boston category, 10 out of the 22 entries are explicitly subway stations (as opposed to 10 stations of the Green Line amd 2 of the BERy). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 20:51, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense, subway stations are too often underground to separately categorize them as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, as long as the categories in the tree don't say otherwise, you can certainly expect this to happen. Until Marcocapelle said they shouldn't be in this tree, it seemed obvious to me that they should as long as it exists. (FYI, the Boston subway isn't underground the entire root - each line has a section which isn't.) עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies if that wasn't clear from the beginning, it seemed just too obvious for me. There are two guidelines relevant here. 1) Although subway stations may be a type of railway station, their immediate defining characteristic is subway station, not railway station. 2) As mentioned before, WP:OVERLAPCAT would apply, even if not all subway stations are underground, there would still be a very big overlap between underground stations and subway stations. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I assumed subway stations would be included. I'm still concerned about the the train stations that have an above ground lobby/ticket agents and underground track/concourses which is a common configuration in the US. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While this may be true for large U.S. metropolitan central stations, it's clearly not a common configuration for suburban or rural stations in the U.S., and in most other countries of the world it is a generally quite uncommon configuration, so clearly a defining characteristic. --PanchoS (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious to me that the station is primarily the location where passengers get on or off the train (platorm); while the word "station" includes the entire structure around it (including the ticket booths, information, entrance area, etc), a sttion which is underground means that the platform is underground. How stations where some platforms are above ground and others are below ground is a different question. And it also seems obvious to me that this should be inclusive of anything which would be called a railway, including subways. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the former, that's why I proposed to rename. Question about the latter, would a subway station ever be called a railway station? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm willing to go along with the possibility that entire subway station categories being parented into this tree. But I don't think that subway station articles should be directly placed in a railway station category. By the way, this part of the discussion doesn't really influence the keep or delete decision for the closer of the discussion, does it? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thing I'm seeing is that it would then be natural to put the light/heavy rail stations as a subcategory of an overall "underground platforms" category, but for many transit systems most of the stations would fall in this "unusual" category. Also, the natural further subdivision would not be geographic, but by system (e.g. underground stations in the MBTA subway system, and not in Boston; whereas for intercity rail there probably aren't enough stations in the US to justify a split. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BTW I would tend to prefer the "underground platforms" as opposed to a "totally underground" version. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Seems like a perfectly reasonable category and a defining characteristic. Yes, some stations are partly underground, but not that many, and these should be categorised here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Necrothesp sums this up well—reasonable and defining. Needles awkward category naming is not needed to allow for the inclusion of "mixed" stations. The "partially" labeling is not an issue for many of the categories, such as Sweden/Norway/Oslo Metro/Denmark. Arsenikk(talk) 20:01, 7 March 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:keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While farmers' markets are a distinct type of Food retailing, I wonder how "food markets" are to be differentiated from one or the other. In most cases, this seems to be synonymous of a farmers' market, while less concise. PanchoS (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Farmers' markets are a fairly recent invention, whereas many cities in England have had food markets for a century or more. London is littered with open-air food markets on its streets, while in the north of England there are many ancient covered markets. None of those long-standing markets is a farmers market. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:39, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per BHG. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose food markets is a more inclusive term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- possibly reverse merge - farmers to food (or place as subcats). Markets have existed at least since medieval times with a focus on food. In recetn times traditional markets have often had stalls dealing in other goods. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 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.
Category:Indian films certified as "A" by CBFC[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: This list may extend to absurdly infinite status. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale ambiguous What is "absurdly infinite status" ? Will it exceed the "absurdly infinite status" of "Category:Indian Films" ?? Or you mean to say that an infinite number of Indian films are certified as "A" ??Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is "non-defining". The title clearly defines and explains the category. You can get a clear concept Indian film certification process by looking to the relevant page - Central Board of Film Certification. 'A' stands for 'Adults only'. Regards Sarvagyana guru (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a long standing consensus not to categorise a film by it's certification. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's already common practice to omit rating information in articles unless there's something out of the ordinary to discuss; I see no reason why category space should run counter to this. GRAPPLEX 08:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Grapple. Film ratings are extremely localised, so categorising in this way doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Betty Logan (talk) 10:10, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per policies and guidelines already mentioned. Not only are ratings localised their criteria changes over time. In the US what got an R in the 60s and 70s can get a PG today. MarnetteD|Talk 19:52, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We avoid classifying films by rating or certification. This might be worth having an article on, but not a category. As far as I can tell we lack "A" certification by CBFC.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so we do have an article on the Central Board of Film Certification. From that article it appears this is somewhat vaguely similar to R-rated films in American theatre. We killed categories like that, so we should kill this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 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.
The result of the discussion was:Keep all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not aware of any significant contingent that refers to Tolkien's Silm, Lord of the Rings, and Hobbit as his "Middle-earth series." Where these are already subcategorized under "X based on works by J.R.R. Tolkien", they should be upmerged - otherwise, renamed. I'm not aware of any productive disambiguation from Sir Gawain, Farmer Giles, etc. achieved by the current weird naming convention. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:52, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find there's also Category:Books about Middle-earth, which likewise definitely needs renaming but I'm not sure if "Books based on works by..." is appropriate - and Category:Middle-earth poetry, which is a subcategory of Tolkien's poetry that appeared in the Silm, Lord of the Rings, and The Hobbit. I didn't add these because what to rename them to seemed less clear-cut and I wanted to avoid a TRAINWRECK. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main topic here is the article on Middle-earth and its related mythology, not every work that Tolkien has written. Dimadick (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Dimadick. These categories are centered on works based directly on Tolkien's canonic Middle-earth (although one could perhaps argue that the Silmarillion takes place west of Middle-earth proper) while there are other works like parodies and the like that better fit into the wider "based on works by JRRT" frame. De728631 (talk) 21:11, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- JRR Tolkien produced a series of works on Middle Earth, some edited by his son. However, he was also notable as a scholar of Anglo-Saxon. His scholarly work should not be mixed up with his fiction and its spin-offs. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:23, 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.
