Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2 February 4 >

February 3[edit]

Category:Trudeau 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: rename to Category:Trudeau political family. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just want to be sure about this. Created by me several years ago, this has to date been a category for the Canadian political family -- which now includes two prime ministers, Pierre and Justin, along with siblings, spouses and grandparents. I've just had to remove unrelated bio articles for Zénon Trudeau and Edward Livingston Trudeau (great grand-father of the Doonesbury creator). I think some of disambiguation is in order to avoid this problem cropping up again, and I've used a sibling category Category:Cannon family of Canada as a guide. This look right to people, or do editors feel that a qualifier is not required, just a category description (which I've just added). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Use "political" as standard naming for these things in Wikipedia -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename – of course the present name has to be changed. Category:Trudeau political family would be my preference. An alternative would be to argue that one is not defined by one's relatives and delete the lot of them. Oculi (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Usage notes are rarely sufficient, in and of themselves, to solve an ambiguity issue — lots of people just add the categories that they think are applicable, and then walk away without ever actually checking the category page to verify whether the category was actually meant for that purpose or not. (For example, even with a usage note on Category:Biography clarifying that it's for articles about the subject of biography and not for biographical articles about people, I still have to clean it up at least twice a month for the inclusion of three, four or five new biographical articles about people.) That said, there are sources out there which claim that Garry and Edward are distantly related to the Pierre-and-Justin clan (it's claimed, frex, on Garry's IMDb page) — but (a) we would need much better sourcing than that before we could assert it here, (b) I can't find any similar confirmation on Zénon, and (c) even if it is true for any of them, the relationship is far too distant and contextually irrelevant to justify adding them to a category that's meant specifically for the Canadian political family. So a rename is in order — I'm inclined more toward Category:Trudeau political family, and would also support renaming the Cannons that way as well. Bearcat (talk) 20:19, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- Prefer Category:Trudeau political family. We cannot have the present name as it is likely to pick up anyone with the surname. They may well be related, but 10th or 15th cousin is a NN link. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – unless there is a competing category (another Trudeau family with a category), renaming is unnecessary and premature. There are plenty of categories for political or business families that are just "surname family", e.g. Category:Kennedy family, Category:Obama family, Category:Vanderbilt family, Category:Gates family, Category:Trump family. There isn't a good reason to rename all the categories and even if they are renamed someone is bound to find an unrelated individual with the surname who is also a [whatever descriptor used, e.g. politician, Canadian]. 15zulu (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The name is clear. Just because some people do not think before categorizing does not mean we should make needlessly long names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:09, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem being that bad categorization ends up having to be cleaned up by somebody after the fact — and by definition, even that can only happen if somebody notices the bad categorization, meaning articles can be left sitting in inappropriate categories for months. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 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.

Oil by country[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: procedural close. No categories were tagged, no clear rationale was offered, and there is no sign of any consensus emerging from discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased:

  • Question Why isn't petroleum sufficient in the category name? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Delete why? Per which guideline? (check WP:OCAT for valid reasons to have a category deleted) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, since the nominated categories haven't been tagged, the discussion may be closed on procedural grounds. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It might be appropriate to merge, possibly leaving a redirect. Category:Petroleum by country would be a satisfactory target. A potential reason for having both is that the reserves articles are probably about oil production, whereas those in the target may be more related to consumption. I suspect the nom is not familiar with the CFD process. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 7 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:Ukrainian writers by nationality[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) 02:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly constituted category tree of uncertain value. Firstly, and most importantly, this was created as a direct subcategory of Category:Ukrainian writers — but that category is for writers who are personally from Ukraine, and not for writers from other countries who had ancestors from Ukraine. So this doesn't belong there. Secondly, "X writers of Y descent" are permitted for broad groupings like Asian Americans or Jews or African Americans — but every individual country where a person might have ethnic roots does not constitute a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that writer in and of itself, especially as an intersection with the country they're actually from. And thirdly, most of the subcategories are WP:SMALLCATs. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom, and as useless distinction - these folks aren't writing in the Ukrainian language, which might be a distinction worthy of note, but just happen to have distant ancestry allegedly traced to territory now constituting (what's left of?) Ukraine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The first might possibly be kept as "Writers of Ukrainian descent", but in most cases they will be writing in the language of their present country, so that their Ukrainian background is probably NN. However, merge back to Category:American people of Ukrainian descent etc, to avoid loss of data. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, I checked a number of articles and descent is generally non-defining for these writers, however there are a few exceptions of writers who were born in Ukraine and thus may belong in Category:Ukrainian writers, these articles should be moved manually. Please note that are more of these categories, see Category:American writers of European descent and its parent Category:American people of European descent by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete parent, merge to general descent categories for child cats. Additionally endorse any removal from the tree of articles where Ukrainian ancestry is non-defining. Although to be fair it will often be defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • For example the one person in the Mexican cat is the daughter of parents who met in Odessa.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:12, 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.

Category:Yale University alumni, 1971-1980[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. (The category creator also asked for the category to be deleted via a message left on the category page, declaring that it was just an "experiment"). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not yet populated, I don't see us using by-decade groupings for alumni other major universities, nor is that how categories for people per organization really tend to work, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete empty and unneeded. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete textbook example of WP:ARBITRARYCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:13, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – some large categories should just be left large. Oculi (talk) 11:08, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Alumni categories for the most important universities are likely to become very large, so that I see some merit in splitting by decade of graduation. A category with a population in the high hundreds or thousands is too large to be easy to use. This will group together people of a similar age group. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:56, 7 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:People associated with adoption[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. MER-C 07:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC. I see no reason why we shoul;d group Category:Adoptees‎ and Category:Adoption workers‎ in a single category like this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:48, 3 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:Video games on Steam[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant category. This is simply going to be added to all PC & Mac games sold on the Steam (software) platform. Since almost every PC game released is released on Steam this category is a little like adding 'Books sold by Amazon' to most book related articles. Since technically Steam, in this instance, is referring to it as a store, it's the equivalent of putting categories for every store chain that sells video games and adding them to the games. E.g. Video games sold by EB Games, Video games sold by Gamestop, Video games sold by Best Buy etc. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Also, if this article by Forbes is to be believed, there are some 300 million played games on Steam. Categories such as "steam-only" games might be suitable, but the current naming suggests that's not how this category is being used. Jolly Ω Janner 12:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- ChamithN (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous Category:Steam games nomination. This is a list of storefront's products and not a defining feature. I think the intention here was to list it as game platform, but it is a distribution platform. We can have categories for games that have something special in relation to Steam, such as the Category:Steam Workshop games one. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:TRIVIALCAT and nominator. Just having been sold on Steam isn't that interesting. However I think an category for games that require Steam on PC would be fine. — Strongjam (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not even sure that games that require Steam is that interesting anymore. A large percentage of games now require Steam as the main running and distribution platform. Even many games sold in physical format are basically just codes and access to Steam to install there. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. TheDeviantPro (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: There have been attempts at making this category several times already and each has been deleted precisely for the reasons of the nominator's rationale. That being said, I love the analogy you made in your nomination, Canterbury Tail. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 03:03, 7 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:Tavistock, Devon[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. MER-C 07:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: Article was recently moved as uncontroversial per rationale of ":Tavistock, Devon is the primary topic. Tavistock, Ontario is a village merged into East Zorra-Tavistock and Tavistock, New Jersey has a population of five people." Ineligible at speedy requests, since it was recently moved. Jolly Ω Janner 12:08, 3 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:Plymouth, Devon[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, kept by default. - Beland 15:09, 16 April 2016‎

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: This was originally requested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy based on C2D "Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article", however speedy cannot over rule the previous discussion on 2 December 2008. The previous discussion did not seem to acknowledge policy guidelines and was a collection of opinions on what is ambiguous, which ended in essentially a straw-poll-based consensus. I believe after reviewing our own policies, this should not have been moved back in 2008. Per Wikipedia:Categorization "Standard article naming conventions apply;" which suggests it should follow the naming of the article it is based on. Plymouth has retained its title since its creation in 2001 and there have been discussions about it, so this would suggest long-lasting stability. Unless Plymouth is moved or there is policy which suggests categories need the bar raised for what is a "primary topic", I see no policy-based grounds for this to differ from the article's title. Jolly Ω Janner 12:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should the same be applied to Category:Bristol, Category:York and Category:London? These are of course just examples and shouldn't make the decision. But I'm wondering why you propose the presence of categories sharing the same name should be treated differently to articles sharing the same name. Jolly Ω Janner 22:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because categories will collect incorrect articles if given ambiguous names. Someone finding the wrong article will merely search again. Oculi (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rarely happens in practice when a category is named in the same way as its article to reflect a primary meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, as you tell, I am not that experienced with category naming! I have amended this at the top. Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 00:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose overly ambiguous for categories. Per Oculi -- 70.51.200.135 (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The existing page Category:Plymouth is a category disambiguation page with no fewer than six "Plymouth" categories, which to my mind makes it stark staring obvious that it should be kept as it is. Articles can handle disambiguation more easily than categories; the latter need to be unambiguous unless there is an extremely strong primary topic. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Apart from the defunct automobile brand, the only real contenders are the two substantially smaller towns Plymouth, Massachusetts and Plymouth, Connecticut. Now, the city in England is substantially larger and constitutes the "original" Plymouth the Pilgrim Fathers departed from to establish what today is Plymouth, Massachusetts. The two U.S. towns are both located in New England and not all too far from each other, so disambiguating between them is common practice, see for example the two towns' websites http://www.plymouth-ma.gov/ and http://www.plymouthct.us/. Thus, the risk for miscategorization is very low. --PanchoS (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Much as I like the idea, there is a significant risk of it picking up articles on other subjects. The classic case of this is Birmingham, whose categories are at "Birmingham, West Midlands" to keep those on Birmingham, AL out of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, since the article is at Plymouth and has been determined to be the primary meaning. Categories can also have disambiguation headers, just like articles, and the other meanings can easily be dealt with in this way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Category:Plymouth shows that it's extremely ambiguous, and therefore could attract non-relevant articles. Armbrust The Homunculus 13:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Plymouth doesn't show it's particularly ambiguous. Category DABs are simply a very inconsistently applied concept. We could possibly have ten thousands of them, one for each ambiguos term without a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In this concrete case however Plymouth is primary topic. Look who created the Category DAB: it was comrade Good Olfactory, who in light of the current debate decided the category should be brought into line with the primary topic. --PanchoS (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can remember, the good comrade has always thought that Plymouth should correspond with Category:Plymouth. But I can walk and chew gum at the same time and have found it possible to work within systems that I think are messed up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have read some of the opposing arguments and one that is consistent is the potential for Category:Plymouth to pick up articles and categories that are related to Plymouth, MA or the car maker. While it is unlikely (especially since the article titles are disambiguated), I guess it is certainly possible for an inexperienced user to make this mistake. On the other hand, what is the likelihood of someone incorrectly categorising an article related to Plymouth, Devon into the Plymouth category (don't forget that the article holds the Plymouth title)? Are there measures in place to ensure articles and categories do not end up in disambiguation categories? If, not the incorrect categorisation argument may be null, since it could occur at either title. Jolly Ω Janner 20:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good point. I believe that it's far more likely for an article to be miscategorized by placing it in the DAB category than it would be for things to end up in Category:Plymouth if that category were about the place in England. Users who seem to worry so much about theoretical miscategorizations never seem to acknowledge that having an article name different than the corresponding category name is likely to cause far more problems than having them consistent. And in my experience, this is true in practice. Miscategorization as described by the worriers is quite rare. Something like Category:Wikipedia non-empty soft redirected categories could be created to deal with populated DAB categories, but I don't think it exists yet. (The unnecessary-and-overzealous-category-disambiguation example that always cracks me up the most is Category:Rio de Janeiro (city).) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not a good point. It doesn't matter if something sits temporarily in limbo as Category:Plymouth makes no factual claims. If a building say is placed in the wrong Plymouth category then that is making an incorrect statement. I look at Category:People from Birmingham from time to time and put them carefully into the correct Birmingham. This would be impossible if such people were mixed up in a non-DAB Category:People from Birmingham. Oculi (talk) 01:14, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Or one can look through Category:Disambiguation categories which takes about 30 secs and reveals 3 out of over 1000 that are not empty; one is Category:Rio de Janeiro, showing that Good Olfactory has supernatural powers. Oculi (talk) 01:25, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • But Category:People connected with Plymouth follows the primary topic in this sense (note it doesn't use , Devon). This is probably because there are ~1,200 people in the category compared to just 63 at Category:People from Plymouth, Massachusetts. I don't know how the numbers compare for Birmingham, but for Plymouth the chance of miscategorisation must surely be considered negligible. Jolly Ω Janner 03:09, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Birmingham is f'd up too. The main article is Birmingham. It would be much easier if category names just matched the article name. For one, it would avoid having the name issue discussed in two different locations, for the article and then again for the category. I know—categories are different—yada, yada, yada—I just don't see much evidence that the problems everyone is afraid of ever amount to much. It's going to be fun to see Wikipedia embarrassed over the Rio issue once the Olympics are upon us. I also find it interesting that no one ever pushes this issue to its logical conclusion—@Oculi: why no movement to rename Category:London or Category:Paris due to their ambiguity? I know these cases are more extreme, but this is the logical consequence. So where and how do users draw the line? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
            • Category:Bristol is the closest parallel for this situation (that I've come across so far). It currently goes by the article name, but I'm interested as to how severe the level of miscategorisation is. There are at least three different places with categories of "People from Bristol". Again, I'm not suggesting we change Plymouth, because of Bristol's naming location, but it would be interesting to see how well it has functioned. Jolly Ω Janner 04:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We draw the line where it makes sense, where the competing cities have some claim to notability on equal status with the parent city. That is 100% true in the case of Birmingham, Alabama. It is also true in the case of Plymouth, Massachusetts especially in light of the Plymouth Colony. No Paris or London comes close to the standing of to cities in France and England.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. While I'd favor to add disambiguators in city names more often than we currently have (like in this case), in the end I have to admit that it has to start with the article name and it's no use to have different criteria for disambiguators in category names than in article names. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:57, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Editors that use article titles to choose category assignments would use Category:Plymouth rather than further DAB'ing it. Zangar (talk) 09:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose other Plymouths (such as Plymouth, Massachusetts) are too prominent for this to be able to be unambiguous for a place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are other Plymouth's that do not at present have a category such as Plymouth, Michigan, but are big enough to have their own minor-league sports teams among other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Plymouth, Massachusetts category has over 250 articles in it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of the number of articles in the category? Jolly Ω Janner 18:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're going down that line, which seems highly unproductive IMO, the Plymouth, Devon category as a little over 2,000 articles in it. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This rename would create no benefit to readers or editors. However, it would create ambiguity, increasing the risk of miscategorisations which are hard to detect, and highly disruptive to readers.
    I am aware that the article name has been selected as a primarytopic, but I see no logical reason why categories should not adopt a higher threshold for primacy ... and in cases such as this, very good reasons to set a higher threshold. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename For every Category:Birmingham, West Midlands (a seriously awful title reflecting a usage only found with badly programmed online address forms) there are many such cases as Category:Worcester or Category:Cambridge. This "higher category bar" seems to be defined only as cases where some users added a disambiguation tag and managed to resist matching the article title. Not matching the article title creates problems for both readers and editors, not having random excessive disambiguation is of only benefit to some editors who would still have the problem with the complete lack of a standard. Additionally different standards mean CFD risks duplicating some of the longer and more intense RMs for no benefit. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:17, 23 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.

Category:People associated with Tiananmen Square protests of 1989[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:Tiananmen Square protesters of 1989 and purege. – Fayenatic London 15:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename and purge - Mere association with a particular set of protests isn't a good grouping - see WP:OCASSOC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 3 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:Charlie Puth[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) 20:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A bit premature for an eponymous category. Precedent and WP:OCEPON have determined that an individual requires more than just articles and categories about their works, which are already categorized by a specific topic under the individual's name. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:55, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the stingent requirements for eponymous categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 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.

Category:Fictional United States Army Military Police Corps personnel[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: upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT
There is only one article in the category and the narrow scope seems unlikely to grow quickly. (No objection to recreating though if we can get up to 5 or so articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Omanyd as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Fictional characters. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 3 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:American Chemical Society academic journals[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The publishing arm of the American Chemical Society is called ACS Publications. The category should be renamed accordingly, similar to how we have Category:IOP Publishing academic journals for journals published by IOP Publishing, the publishing arm of the Institute of Physics. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That we don't have a dedicated article on ACS Publications is no argument for using the incorrect name of the publisher. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incorrect, they are academic journals from the ACS, although it is a little less specific that what you propose. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 4 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_February_3&oldid=1138409734"