Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 17

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

July 17[edit]

Category:Viceroys of the Russian monarch[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. It may be worth discussing the child categories of Category:Russian colonial governors and administrators for the same reasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: adds nothing much to "Category:Russian colonial governors and administrators‎" which is its only member Rathfelder (talk) 22:38, 17 July 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:Ottoman people of Austro-Hungarian descent[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. -- Tavix (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Adds nothing to the only entry in it - "Austro-Hungarian emigrants to the Ottoman Empire" Rathfelder (talk) 22:03, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Virtually all "FOOian emigrants to BAR" categories are parented by a "BARian people of FOOian descent" category—it is a standard categorization scheme. Perpetuating the scheme may not be needed when both FOO and BAR are defunct, though. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is in standard format. It is the emigrants category that is out on a limb (if anything). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete meaningless "descent" category. Trivial, and what if someone were only of Austrian descent (i.e., that their family was in Austria before hyphenation in the 19th century), does their genome change? what changed? Does every Austrian who was in Ostmark Province, Germany in 1938-1945, become an Austrian of German descent? or of Nazi German descent (to distinguish the timeframe?) Useless Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. The problem with "it's a standard categorization scheme" is that we use those for things that actually need to be categorized (consistently), not to pursue "fleshing out the scheme", against WP:COMMONSENSE, to create unnecessary categories just out of some obsessive-compulsive desire to see them be as "complete" as they theoretically could be.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:50, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an acceptable parent category that there is no good reason to remove.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, while I have trouble with most descent categories (like Carlossuarez), in addition people who emigrated shouldn't be in a descent category. They weren't descendants, but they actually were (in this case) Austro-Hungarians. So the category is actually empty from this perspective. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:06, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: people who emigrated shouldn't be in a descent category. They always are, by an informal convention that was adopted some time ago as a result of a bit of a wide-ranging fight. It's more of a grouping for purposes of convenience than anything else. But anyway, people who are something also technically qualify as being of that descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mostly as per Carlossuarez46. WP:NONDEF applies here. ~ Rob13Talk 21:55, 25 July 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:Elections in Stockholm[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. ~ Rob13Talk 21:56, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To better describe the content, which is solely municipal elections. The parent category is Category:Local and municipal elections in Sweden. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- We would not want Parliamentary elections here. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 18 July 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 from North Shore, Auckland[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:People from North Shore, New Zealand. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:10, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A tricky one - the parent cat and key article are at Category:North Shore City, so the obvious rename would be to Category:People from North Shore City. On the other hand, North Shore City no longer exists - it is part of the Auckland "supercity". The better alternative would be to go with standard New Zealand naming conventions and move it to Category:People from North Shore, New Zealand, since there is no other North Shore in the country. Grutness...wha? 06:41, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: See this relevant CfD which was recently closed. This may impact which result is favorable here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 19:35, 17 July 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:16th century in El Salvador[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:Audencia of Guatemala. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:19, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: El Salvador clearly didn't exist in the 16th century. For consistency, it should either (1) be deleted and the pages upmerged to Category:16th century in Central America or even Category:16th century in North America; or (2) it can renamed to Category:Colonial El Salvador to follow Category:Colonial Guatemala and Category:Colonial Panama like at Category:Colonial Central America. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Colonial El Salvador, which did exist since 1525 and was included within the Kingdom of Guatemala in 1609.GreyShark (dibra) 20:13, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname but to Category:Audencia of Guatemala. That in 1609 was promoted to be the Captaincy General of Guatemala. Strictly the inclusion of events of 1525-1540 would be an anachronism. Nevertheless, since the Audencia did not exist for as long as 100 years, we do not need a split by centuries. El Salvador categories for the period from 1609 should be in those the Category:Captaincy General of Guatemala, which might merit a split by centuries. At present the article on the Captaincy General or "kingdom" seems to be structured as if it were a new country (or colony), when it was only restructured with a new title in 1609. I am reluctant to encourage the use of the translation to "kingdom", which implies full sovereignty for a person who was actually no more than a viceroy. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Lots of rename suggestions here. We need further discussion on which is best.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 18:49, 17 July 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:2008 Dublin Horse Show[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge 2 articles to parents per WP:SMALLCAT. No prospect of growth, no need to split Category:Dublin Horse Show by year. Tassedethe (talk) 18:25, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support since 2008 was 8 years ago and nobody can go back in time to compete then. White Arabian Filly Neigh 21:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: As Category:Dublin Horse Show (and the others) is not over-full and only two articles in the cat. Suitable for an upmerge
  • Upmerge per nom; there is no possibility for growth, it would seem.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:45, 22 July 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.

Renewable energy companies of[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 all. ~ Rob13Talk 21:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category Category:Energy companies by country uses of. The subcategories such as Category:Solar energy companies by country and Category:Wind power companies by country use of. This category should follow the convention and use of. Tassedethe (talk) 17:52, 17 July 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:2006 monster movies[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge single by year category to parent. No standard to split the category by year. Tassedethe (talk) 17:41, 17 July 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:Computer architecture folklore[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Computer architecture statements. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created[1] by User:Ushkin N for the sole purpose of categorizing Amdahl's law[2], Gustafson's law[3], and Moore's law[4] as "computer architecture folklore". There is no subject called "computer architecture folklore"—this is apparently a neologism invented by the category's creator. What is worse however, is the categorization of the three articles in the category as folklore. The articles in this category do not describe folklore, Amdahl's and Gustafson's laws are founded on research, and Moore's law is an observation of industry trends. Their categorization is wrong (contradicting all reliable sources about them) and original research (it is in Ushkin N's opinion that they are folklore, which is contrary to Wikipedia not being a soapbox for opinions that are not prominent and published in reliable sources). L9G45AT0 (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There also Category:Adages, Category:Sayings and Category:Phrases - sort these categories first so we can use "Software engineering phrases" or alternative.

      • Comment Computer architecture and to which field the laws belong in is not the issue—that would be the claim that there is such a thing as computer architecture folklore. There isn't, and the above comment proves that there isn't—it was coined because it was deemed by an editor to be best to describe what these laws were perceived to be; i.e., a neologism. And it needs to be said that folklore does not be "[an] informal and common sense observations in [a] field". If WP:TRUTHMATTERS, then the existence and importance of 'computer architecture folklore and the laws being folklore needs to be attributable to reliable sources. Given the above comment, it is clear they are not. L9G45AT0 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moore's law (/mɔərz.ˈlɔː/) is the observation that the number of transistors in a dense integrated circuit doubles approximately every two years. - this statement definitely relevant to Category:Integrated circuits and thus Category:Electronic engineering too. If Moore himself is not an authoritative source, I don't know what else is.
Moore statement relevant to Computer_architecture#Implementation because it mentions "law" of always increasing number of transistors. "Implementation" section is well described at Wikipedia.
This category should be renamed ("... phrases" or similar), not simply removed. Ushkin N (talk) 17:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
None of this is relevant to the discussion. No reliable sources describe these topics as being folklore or as computer architecture folklore. If these topics were folklore, then reliable sources would have been presented as evidence to prove the existence of such a thing as computer architecture folklore, and to counter the claim that this category and the categorization of these articles is original research. Instead, all that there is an attempt to portray the issues raised by the nomination as the denial of the existence of Amdahl's, Gustafson's, and Moore's law. It's not. L9G45AT0 (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Computer architecture statements.
So how Moore law is irrelevant to the Computer architecture?
So how Moore law is not a statement about Computer architecture? Ushkin N (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to be blunt. You are deliberately misconstruing what I am saying. The issue with "Category:Computer architecture folklore" concerns your terribly mistaken categorization of Amdahl's law, Gustafson's law, and Moore's law as folklore. The issue is not whether Amdahl's law, Gustafson's law, and Moore's law exists or not, meritorious or not, or whatever issue that will in vogue tomorrow. The issue is whether there is such a thing as "computer architecture folklore" or not. There is no such thing as computer architecture folklore. That there is no such thing as computer architecture folklore does not mean that there is no such thing as Amdahl's law, Gustafson's law, or Moore's law. The non-existence of computer architecture folklore is separate to the existence of Amdahl's law, Gustafson's law, and Moore's law. Just because there's some topics in computing that have the word "law" in their name, does not mean that some neologism may be invented in order to categorize them in a category that does not exist in reliable sources. Nobody in computer science and engineering calls these laws "folklore", thus their categorization as such is wrong. Given that the category does not exist in the real world, then neither should the corresponding category on Wikipedia since it would obviously serve no purpose as it would include no articles. How this very straightforward, procedural deletion nomination ever became this convoluted mess is beyond my comprehension. L9G45AT0 (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
> and Moore's law as folklore
I never claimed that it should be "Category:Computer architecture folklore"
I stated that it should be renamed to "Computer architecture statements" (or "Statements about computer architecture" etc)
But you are repeating very same argument as me "not understanding" "folklore". You can stop it seriously. Ushkin N (talk) 07:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no such thing as "computer architecture statements" either. In computer architecture, ideas are not referred to as statements! Calling them statements is original research. Further more, such a category would be redundant—every article about a computer architecture topic would be the inclusion criteria—there's already a category for that; its called: "Category:Computer architecture". And I have a solid understanding of what computer architecture and folklore are, given that I never thought it was a good idea to consider anything in computer architecture as any type of folklore in the first place. L9G45AT0 (talk) 08:18, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, without prejudice against a rename. It is not necessary that every category have a main article, and one could in fact be written about this topic anyway. Category has legit members and serves a legit purpose, even if the present wording is poor.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:36, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:SMALLCAT and sketchy categorization in general. Grouping Moore's law with the other two is dubious, since Moore's law is an observation/projection and the other two are actual derived facts from what I understand. I think those two are appropriately categorized under Category:Analysis of parallel algorithms, so they don't need a category of their own. Moore's law is all that's left as an observation, and it doesn't justify a category all on its own. Its place in Category:History of computing hardware is appropriate. ~ Rob13Talk 23:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Problem with Category:Analysis of parallel algorithms is that it contains more articles that cannot be strictly categorized as Computer architecture (sub)categories. For example, Data dependency affects both software and hardware implementers.
Other problem with Category:Analysis of parallel algorithms is that is limited to "analysis of ... algorithms" and not about general statements in some field/branch of science. Mine categories were created to link statements (sometime very informal and unsourced) with industries and fields of science. All of mine edits were based on Wikipedia text and common sense about this field.
Amdahl's law starts with "In computer architecture ..." Gustafson's law starts with "In computer architecture ..." - because of this, I see no harm in placing them under any "Computer architecture ..." category. Yes, better naming convention could be established.
On the other hard, placing Amdahl's law and [Gustafson's law]] directly in Category:Computer architecture (a category with 82 pages already) will only increase WP:OVERCAT
I hope you now see why this WP:SMALL category was created, so that it could be used in multiple parent categories ("general statements", "field A", "field B").
It is true that not every field would have regular sized categories and some fields would have only a few informal statements/observations/projections. Ushkin N (talk) 19:43, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of Wikipedia:Categorization#Naming conventions states: "When naming a category, one should be particularly careful and choose its name accurately."
The last point in the same section sates: "Particularly for technical subjects, use words and phrases which exist in reliable sources, so that those sources may be used to support inclusion of articles."
That this category was created, in your words, "...based on Wikipedia text and common sense about this field" proves that there is solid basis for this category. Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia should not be based on Wikipedia. From Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#User-generated content: "Content from websites whose content is largely user-generated is also generally unacceptable. Sites with user-generated content include... ...most wikis including Wikipedia, and other collaboratively created websites." L9G45AT0 (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IGNORE.
How Amdahl's law is not about Computer architecture? What category name you suggest for this page?
How Gustafson's law is not about Computer architecture? What category name you suggest for this page? Ushkin N (talk) 07:35, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, for goodness sakes! Why is it impossible for you to understand that the issue is not about whether Amdahl's and Gustafson's laws are computer architecture topics or not? The issue is whether such a thing as computer architecture folklore exists or not. And for reference, it does not. The merits of my arguments are not diminished because I did not provide an alternative category. I don't need to. These articles were already correctly categorized as parallel algorithm analysis topics before you introduced a nonsensical and insulting categorization for them (calling laws in a formal science "folklore" is akin to calling the Theory of General Relativity mythology). L9G45AT0 (talk) 08:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@L9G45AT0: Stop it, please. I think everybody understands that you object to the term "folklore", which is okay. For some reason you're however suggesting everybody else would be in favor of the "folklore" category. However, IMO nobody particularly likes the current title, it's just that many of us feel there should be some category to specifically group these articles, though we've not yet found a better name for it. Sure you don't have to be the one who comes up with the genius proposal, but then again, if you don't, then please stop your repetitive, noisy, and overly aggressive utterances. Thanks. --PanchoS (talk) 10:50, 29 July 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:WikiProject Hong Kong Roads articles to be merged[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. All merge tags have indeed been removed (and have been since 2014, as far as I can tell). ~ Rob13Talk 23:40, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No consensus of merging since 2014 Wishva de Silva | Talk 13:48, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Depends: Delete if all the merge tags have been removed. If any remain, retain the category as a legit cleanup category.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:34, 22 July 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:Standard gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom[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: relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 23:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland does not have a "standard gauge". GB uses the very common 4'8 1/2" standard gauge, but Ireland, both North and South, uses the Irish broad gauge instead. Like most railway categories, this is better structured around "GB" as the geographic term, not "UK". See the existing and long-established Category:Locomotives of Great Britain et al. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:29, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Sure, I missed the other discussion, and the reasoning is sensible. I would support a speedy rename in this case. Slambo (Speak) 15:07, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just came across an exception to the rule for Ireland: Hibernia (locomotive). As noted on the railway company's page, the D&KR was built to standard gauge in the 1830s and then regauged to Irish gauge in the 1850s, which would lead me to believe that there were other locomotives and rolling stock classes that were also built to standard gauge for Ireland. So I retract the speedy support, and I'm starting to question if the name change is really appropriate. Slambo (Speak) 13:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- This is clearly a case where GB is the appropriate country name. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:32, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with correction: It should be Category:Standard-gauge locomotives of the United Kingdom; hyphenate compound modifiers. Adding this hyphen is a routine speedy CfR rationale, so just get it right the first time.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:30, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    The phrase "standard gauge" is not normally presented with a hyphen and is in widespread use in the industry without a hyphen (examples include: [5], [6] [7], [8], [9] and [10]), so I would oppose using a hyphen in the renamed category. Slambo (Speak) 13:11, 23 July 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:Gostaresh Foolad F.C. players[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. ~ Rob13Talk 01:31, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It was pointed out to me that the corresponding article, Gostaresh Foulad F.C., spells the club name differently. If this spelling is correct, then we should rename the category. Note that the article has been moved multiple times. The name "Gostaresh Foulad Tabriz" is used on the logo in the article's infobox. Stefan2 (talk) 22:22, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I guess the logo contains a spelling mistake, compare article names Foolad F.C. and a lot more of them. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob13Talk 07:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article. The problem here concerns the transliteration of Arabic script into Roman. This is not a process that provides definitive results. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match main article and logo. There is no fully standardized way to transliterate Arabic, so spellings vary by entity, and it's not WP's job to try to "correct" them on something subjective.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:33, 22 July 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 murdered in Reichskommissariat Ukraine[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. The delete rationale is no longer relevant and there is no consensus to merge. ~ Rob13Talk 22:03, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty Rathfelder (talk) 06:51, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not empty any longer Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I suspect that there ought to be subcategories for the mass murder of Ukrainian Jews. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:People murdered in Ukraine. We don't need small categories for people murdered in every different political entity that existed in a place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it existed, it controlled people, people were murdered under its government. To merge to Ukraine, would be ahistoric, de jure, the territory was the Soviet Union - as Ukraine was nearly universally recognized as part of that country. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:58, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The fact is that this was a de facto region, but does not work with mergers to its parents.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:21, 25 July 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:Wikipedians who have a guestbook[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) 05:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think this may already be covered by the larger Category:Wikipedian autograph pages. -- numbermaniac (talk) 05:58, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant, and since no one uses them anyway (i.e., it does not serve any collaborating-on-the-project purpose).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:27, 22 July 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:Wikipedians by skin[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: When I initially saw this category in a category tree, I thought "by skin" was a fairly racist way of putting "by race". I was obviously mistaken, and this category name would be clearer to prevent confusion. ~ Rob13Talk 04:11, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I had a very similar thought to BU Rob. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:59, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Don't know much about these technical MediaWiki terms but l strongly agree with the nominator, I have a similar thought as well. Wishva de Silva | Talk 15:45, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I too saw that and thought of a double meaning. Montanabw(talk) 04:38, 19 July 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:Lenin Military Political Academy[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) 03:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category containing a single subcat. There is no article on Lenin Military Political Academy so we don't need a category, per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 00:33, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment People with articles who were educated there will go in the subcat Category:Lenin Military Political Academy alumni which is not up for deletion. There is still no need to keep this category. Tassedethe (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (including the respose aboev tp Peterkingiron). The fact that an encyclopedic article could conceivably be written doesn't mean we need an empty category for it now.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:28, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per the response to Peterkingiron. We don't need an extra layer of categorization to contain only the subcategory when there's no existing articles to go here. ~ Rob13Talk 22:02, 25 July 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:Netmarble games[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: don't rename. ~ Rob13Talk 21:59, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The company is Netmarble Games, so rename to follow Category:Video games by company. Tassedethe (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't rename - A cursory look at their website clearly shows they are branding themselves as Netmarble not Netmarble Games; plus, the proposed new names introduces some potential for confusion due to the repeated word some may perceive as an error. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:04, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The website shows "Netmarble" at the top, but "Netmarble Games" and "Netmarble Games Corp." at the bottom. However the article is at Netmarble Games and it is standard for the category to match the article. The repeated "Games games" is quite common, e.g. Category:Acclaim Games games, Category:Argonaut Games games, Category:Big Fish Games games, etc. Tassedethe (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "games games" is a waste of space. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is: We should only use the redundant and awkward "Foo Games games" construction when the "Foo games" version is even more confusing due to ambiguity, namely the implication that it means "games about or featuring foo", which is apt to happen when foo is an everyday English word or phrase. This does not happen with a made-up foo. I.e., there's no such thing as a "netmarble", but there are such things as acclaim, an argonaut, and a big fish.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:24, 22 July 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_July_17&oldid=1089914400"