Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 23 June 25 >

June 24[edit]

Category:Role-playing video games by period[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/merge as proposed. There is consensus that video games by genre shouldn't also be categorized by year. The majority successfully argued why this is overcategorization. -- Tavix (talk) 19:52, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Per project discussion: WT:VG#Genre by year categories and previous CfD: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 13#Category:Role-playing video games by year. --The1337gamer (talk) 22:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep all, possibly except for the handful of earlier years that may have been emptied out of process. I can't find a single argument why these categories should be merged, neither in the (missing) rationale nor at Wikipedia talk:VG#Genre by year categories, nor at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 13#Category:Role-playing video games by year which was closed without action. IMO these are valid intersections, avoiding a behemoth category containing 1000+ articles. Alternative categorization schemes per specific type, platform etc. exist (see Category:Role-playing video games), so there are various ways to find the video game someone is looking for. In the fast-paced video games business, categorization by year of introductionis adequate, as most of these games are soon forgotten anyway. --PanchoS (talk) 23:55, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge as nom'ed. Years for video games are not as precise a split of information as compared to platform or country of release - even for avid gamers, the year that a specific game came out is unlikely to be something easily remembered compared to the platform or release country. There's little different whether the game came out in 1995 or 1996 (for example) compared to the difference between a SNES and an N64 title. External tools for category intersection to overlap the broad release years and the genres are sufficient to handle anyone that needs to find this out. --MASEM (t) 00:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Platform might be more relevant, but is quite unspecific, even more so with multi-platform games. Subgenre might be more relevant, but clearly is less precise, rather than more precise. Even if a particular reader doesn't exactly remember whether a game came out in 1995 or in 1996, the previous or next year would be just a single click away. External tools are something for Wikipedia nerds, not for regular users.
    All in all, I still fail to see a single valid reason to purge these categories. Personally, I'm no gamer, and am not interested in video games at all. But I can't help, this again seems like an WP:OWNERSHIP issue with some portal people, which constitutes quite a big problem for our community. So no, not convinced. Give me a single valid argument, preferably policy-backed. --PanchoS (talk) 01:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Necessary or not is not the point here – better or not is. Having these games categorized per year is not necessary, but it is better. Also note that "redundancy of lists and categories is beneficial because the two formats work together," per WP:LISTPURP#Lists and categories, and that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided." per WP:NOTDUPE. --PanchoS (talk) 11:42, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note also that many of the categories were populated by the same editor czar 16:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All empty categories in the tree (those for 1975 to 1986) were originally created by me and subsequently populated by me. Many of the additions for those categories are found in this subset of my contributions. The editor to which you refer simply added more articles to other categories in the tree, then deleted them when he received a warning from other users. (Why a warning was issued about adding articles to an extant category is a different matter.) Mindmatrix 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per nom. The original concern was that these were triple intersections between the genre and the year. Aside from the imprecision of "introduced in" mentioned above, my folk understanding is that these categories likely came out of a corruption of Category:Video game franchises by year‎. Otherwise none of the other video game genres break down by year. In other media, there is precedence with Category:Action films by decade‎, for instance, but not by year. But genres and national origins work differently in film and tend to be much more definitive (many games have role-playing elements, but that does not make them put them in the role-playing genre or into a definitive "2000s role-playing video game". Mind also that the scopes are totally different—the number of Category:Role-playing video games together with its subcats is near the amount of "2000s action films"... off by orders of magnitude. Until there is consensus for a major shift in doing year/genre subclassification in video game genres, the RPGs in specific have no reason for breaking out. czar 16:48, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • You can make your argument without stating that a category will only have X articles in it, or will have fewer articles than some other category. Many of these categories (other than those that were prematurely emptied) include over 30 articles already, which is generally sufficient to keep (ie - WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply). Mindmatrix 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and merge per nom. There is no reason to have categories overlapping each other (the one for role-playing game and the one for year). I also fail to see why RPG is the only genre that has this type of category. AdrianGamer (talk) 09:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • They only exist for RPGs because I split "video game RPGs by year" from "RPGs by year". (I was subcatting from the gaming side, not the video game side.) I have no interest in video games and didn't want to undertake the effort to do this for other video game genres. Note that WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is not a valid argument for deletion. Mindmatrix 21:47, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and restore original categories in articles) for same reason as before as arbitrary subcategorization not done for any other defining characteristic. We already have by year and by genre categorization. This doesn't serve to diffuse neither the main genre nor time period categories. "video game" and "year" are already part of cross-categorization, and triple cross-categorization is technical overkill of no interest to general reader (otherwise, we could argue any major video game cross categorization is valid - year + by platform, by developer, by engine, etc.). —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 17:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • In a week it'll be two months since the start of this discussion. No deadline, but since we're dealing with such a huge list of categories, perhaps we can work on this. So for, there are four votes for keep, five votes for delete. One solution would be merging into role-playing games per decade, how does everybody feel about that? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 09:06, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The closer will look for consensus and not "votes". Unless we're looking at setting a new precedent for how we deal with triple-intersection categories, I still think deletion is better than decade cats. If this closes with no consensus, decades could be a solution. czar 20:59, 26 August 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 categories by parameter[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) 05:29, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Technically not all of them are parameters. For instance, "behavior‎", "ethnicity‎" and "gender‎" used in subcats are rather criteria than parameters, so this seems to be a wording issue. Brandmeistertalk 21:39, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:People. Category names (except possibly for some maintenance categories) shouldn't use the word "categories" - a category is a set of pages (that may or may not be grouped into subcategories). If not upmerged then I'm neutral on "parameter"/"criterion". User:DexDor 20:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge unnecessary layer and seems redundant to Category:People categories by type‎ which should also probably be upmerged. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Agreed. I do seem to recall a few years back having a bunch of Cfds about Foo by parameter, which were all upmerged, for the simple reason that that's why use sortkeys. There's no reason to add this extra layer; people by this or that should indeed be listed and sorted in the top-level category -- where I daresay readers will most expect to find them. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:29, 28 June 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:Star Wars Transformers characters[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 07:54, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That these various Star Wars characters appeared as part of a minor toy line in the early '90s is not at all significant, and is (rightly) not mentioned in the various articles about the characters (or, the ones I checked). Seems to a clear example of overcategorisation on the basis of a non-defining characteristic. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:28, 24 June 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:Things named after people[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) 01:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SHAREDNAME and appears to be well-covered by Category:Lists of things named after people. Brandmeistertalk 21:16, 24 June 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:Appleseed (manga)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:10, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category also lists subsequent non-manga continuations, mostly animated films, so could be more inclusive. Brandmeistertalk 20:55, 24 June 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:Electric power transmission companies[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/rename. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category duplicates the category category:Electric power transmission system operators which is more precise. If the company is responsible for power transmission, it operates the transmission system and these companies are known as transmission system operators (TSOs). Beagel (talk) 19:06, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Do you have to operate an electric power transmission system to be an electric power transmission company? What about the manufacturers, etc.? ~ RobTalk 19:57, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean manufacturer of the transmission equipment like cables, transformers etc? I have never heard that anybody has called that kind of manufacturers such as ABB or Alstom to electric power transmission company. Beagel (talk) 22:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: I never though it was bad-faithed edit and my apologies if there is something in my comment which may created that impression. I think you have made a good work to systematize that area of categories. Beagel (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Beagel: Easy… :) You didn't say anything wrong. I was actually embarrassed by my own misjudgement. Apart from that, everything's fine! Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support "Operators" is more comprehensive and removes that the objection where an emanation of a state is the operator, not a company. The issue of whether they are TSOs may depend on local usage, which may vary from place to place, but manufacturers and construction contractors are clearly not operators. purge if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:44, 26 June 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:Aspects of individual lives[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:Categories by individual. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:35, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The third and last Category:Aspects of..., this one is a real dog's breakfast, grouping everything from Body parts of individual people‎, to Children by person, to Military careers‎, etc. etc. I invite people to have a look: it's really something. As to what would be an "aspect" of a life that merits inclusion, that would seem to me to be entirely WP:ARBITRARYCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems like a good idea, unless someone comes up with the ultimate renaming proposal that would implicitly suggest a clearer inclusion criterion. Notified the creator. --PanchoS (talk) 10:16, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge -- Most of these are about specific people, without being biographies. This gives a certain unity to the present category, but it is something of a dog's breakfast. The target is an ill-populated container. Nevertheless, after merger, we may need to purge. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support upmerge as category creator. This is essentially a renaming of the category started 8 years ago, and more concise names are fine by me. I had not realized "Aspects" was a profanity at CfD lately, go figure - but I do stand by the usefulness of this type of categorization in tracking/rationalizing these types of sub-biographical articles.--Pharos (talk) 11:06, 29 June 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:Disney Channel Original Movie films[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) 07:04, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Disney Channel Original Movie films" sounds awkward and redundant as it already has "Movie" in its name. nyuszika7h (talk) 16:05, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • if you have a look, we commonly have Fooian Films films for categories like this, which is even more redundant. So I'm afraid this one has zero chance of passing, based on long-standing precedent that we do use the full name of a production studio, no matter how odd it may sound, followed by a lowercase "films." Oppose Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Per List of Disney Channel original films, the brand name "Disney Channel Original Movies" is used by the Disney Channel for its television films since 1997. "Movies" here is part of the name, it does not define the topic of the category. The category covers films and should mention films. We generally do not use the term "movie" in articles or categories, instead using the term film. Dimadick (talk) 23:33, 24 June 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:Aspects of music[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Despite what's claimed on the category page, Elements of music is the main article. A rename would be the least disruptive way to address this particular "aspects of..." category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:26, 24 June 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:Characters of European 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There isn't even consistency in how Stefanomione created these folklore character cats because having created the "folkloristics characters" one below, he also created Characters of European folklore. However, in this one he was influenced -- for the better -- by two preexisting subcats that I also may as well nominate. Here the problem simply seems to be that Fooian characters seems to be the preferred structure in Category:Fictional characters by medium, the parent to all this. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:50, 24 June 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:Folkloristic characters[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:48, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another ham-fisted misuse of "folkloristic" -- field of study of folklore -- by Stefanomione that just makes no sense. If kept as a sibling in Category:Fictional characters by medium, this would seem to be the model. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:45, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Folkloristic is the wrong adjective for in folklore. --Mark viking (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Folklore is the topic here, not folkloristics. Dimadick (talk) 23:56, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Renameistic supportistic to restore plain English. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:49, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. However the mere fact that we're talking about a rename rather than deletion qualifies Stefanomione's effort as valuable, in spite of his tendency to academicize concepts that are better expressed in Common sense terms. --PanchoS (talk) 10:27, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @PanchoS: the problem with Stefanomione was not that all of his category creations lacked value. It was that he seemed unable to learn which of his creations were fine, which were dross, and which needed amendment. This is one of the many variants of third set ... in this case a good idea in poor terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:33, 25 June 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:Sheriffs of Chenango County, New York[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:50, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Category has just two entries and is unlikely to increase. Local Sheriffs are usually not notable. The two people in this category are notable for other things.

Also merge into Category:People from Chenango County, New York ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep I think three entries is a good start. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom -- Three people is not really enough to warrant a category. Sheriffs (like other local politicians) are inherently NN, unless notable for other reasons. If Cherango could boast 6-8 notable sheriffs, I might have supported retention, but will it? Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom and to people from this county cat. We do not need a category for three articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom and also nominate all other child categories of Category:New York sheriffs. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 2 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:Translatewiki.net[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 to all parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is only one page in the category. The category will probably not expand. Gulumeemee (talk) 08:18, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to all parents, as the member article is only in one other category. – Fayenatic London 15:43, 24 June 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:Economic problem stubs[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:Economics and finance stubs, for now. If a more specific stub categorization is agreed upon, it can be changed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, for stub categories we usually have a minimum size of 60. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quite a few articles in here are definitely not about theory. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:27, 25 June 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:Organizational constructs[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:43, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, not clear what kind of articles should be included here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Ill-defined. Rathfelder (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. vague and hard to think of this as a defining property. --Mark viking (talk) 22:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dubious, undefined, small, upmerge unnecessary => Delete --PanchoS (talk) 02:19, 25 June 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:Aspects of organizations[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) 01:30, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OCMISC. Besides, the main article of this category is Organizations which is obviously also the main article of its parent Category:Organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Rathfelder (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Good lord, what a terrible notion for a category branch. I see a couple of other categories with "aspects of... " that may be cleaned up, too. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Too vague to be useful. --Mark viking (talk) 22:52, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. No idea what the category initially contained, but based on the current content, I can't see a practical value in having this category. --PanchoS (talk) 08:58, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom -- This is a minute category. Even if the aspirations of the headnote could be met, it will still do no harm for the articles to sit within the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:26, 27 June 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:Sia Partners[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:42, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. Created by SPA User:Sia1999 who also created Sia Partners. Only other category member Anne-Marie Idrac is notable as a politician, not as advisor at this relatively small company. PrimeHunter (talk) 01:55, 24 June 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:Expatriate primaries[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 to delete, but it will be renamed as proposed since there isn't any appetite for keeping the category as is. -- Tavix (talk) 19:20, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The country needs to be specified here, since "primaries" exist in other countries, as does expatriate voting. I suggest matching this to Category:United States presidential primaries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you're right. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:11, 2 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:Honorary United States Marines[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. (non-admin closure) SSTflyer 16:40, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC, WP:PERFCAT, WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:V
Bugs Bunny played a Marine in the movies, Jim Nabors played one on TV, Felix de Weldon was a sculptor who designed a Marine memorial, and Cody Green was a child dying of leukaemia who wanted to grow up to be a Marine. (I'm fine with the rabbit, the sculptor and the kid but why the Marines would ever celebrate the idiotic Gomer Pyle character is beyond me.) None of the Honorary Marines in this category ever enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps, they just have some vague association.
Per the article, there is not one agreed upon list of who should be considered an Honorary Marine. The term often seems like more of an informal term of endearment than a formal status: Bob Hope is in this category because he was half jokingly declared an honorary brigadier general while he was being introduced for a USO show for the troops. If we decide to delete this category, there is no need to listify because the winners are already listed here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Orville Eastland as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Military history. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no common thread for the designees.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:19, 24 June 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_June_24&oldid=1138409995"