The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: It is impossible to determine from sources whether a title is ambiguous. Even if a source states a title is ambiguous, where do we refer to the source? Bduke(Discussion) 22:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To follow up my nomination, the only article in this category is Scouting for Boys. I understand why someone might think this title is ambiguous, but the article does not state that the title is ambiguous. What kind of source could be used to justify adding that to the article? --Bduke(Discussion) 22:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME. We categorize books by what they are, who wrote them, etc., not by how they are named. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Is this based on the title being ambiguous if you just see the book, or it having multiple possible meanings after having read the book? The Same Kind of Different As Me, sounds pretty ambiguous (but the sub-title undermines that), but even the subtitle lacking film, if you watch it, it makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Virtually empty category, undefined scope, and probably no chance for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. ℯxplicit 01:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What's the point of boroughs by metro area? It makes sense to identify people, companies, etc. as originating in metro areas, largely because they often move within the metro area and because they're often identified as coming from the metro area without further details (e.g. a Millbourne native will likely be identified as coming from Philadelphia), but place like municipalities can't move, and their locations can be identified more precisely. Moreover, if you're browsing the category tree for boroughs, it makes far more sense to use the "boroughs by state" tree: if you know that a place is a borough and not some other kind of jurisdiction, you'll definitely know what state it's in, and there's no need to have a category that includes some Pennsylvania boroughs and some Connecticut boroughs, as this one does. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This just seems to be a subcategory of Category:Populated places in the New York metropolitan area, which I do believe is useful to have. Whether it needs to be subdivided into towns, cities, townships, and boroughs is the question, IMO, not Nyttend's question of whether there's a point to categorizing places in the metro area. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Categorising places by metro area is useful, but that's simple — the metro area comprises counties, so "Populated places in the New York metropolitan area" should just include the populated-places-in categories for each county. Doing a second subdivision, by type of municipality, isn't useful. Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let me clarify. Having a category tree for places in the metro area is a good idea: it's a subdivision of the country, and then you keep subdividing it by geographic location until you get down to the county level. Having a somewhat-separate tree for municipalities by type is unhelpful as I noted, and in metro New York, with four very different states included, you're in a particularly problematic location. All four states have boroughs, and while I suspect PA and NJ boroughs are similar, they're very different from the five NY boroughs that should be included here, and all of them are different from the CT boroughs. If we had this setup for all five types of municipalities in the area, it would be even worse, especially with towns; NJ towns are similar to NJ boroughs, while NY towns are comparable to PA and NJ townships (PA doesn't have any towns in this area), and CT towns are more important yet. It's quite unhelpful to have a category for "towns in metro NYC" embracing towns in all three states and a separate tree for "townships in metro NYC" for both states, since they have different meanings, and they're not some systematic method of organizing all towns (or boroughs or whatever) in the country. Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DElete/Merge (to eliminate them) the second and third nom categories which have a single subcat and little or no scope for expansion. I do not know enough beyond this and am not voting on the first. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This ends up categorizing by shared name. Weather something is called a borough, a city, a town or whatever else, is just a fact of the name, expecially since the exact legal implications of these names varry by state, and at least in New Jersey some entities have changed their name intentionally to game the system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: the talk page had no project banners until now. This Cfd may now start appearing in alert pages, assuming that WIkiProjects NY and NJ have them, so let's allow time for more participation. – FayenaticLondon 00:00, 27 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. (I spotted a couple of members that were not in the continent categories, but I think I have fixed all such cases.) – FayenaticLondon 13:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, this is essentially a housekeeping nomination. After these mergers and these mergers the early medieval decades by country categories have become nearly empty. There is no need to merge to general decade categories, because all remaining content is still contained in the tree of Category:Decades by continent. There is also no need to merge to century by country categories because every country's decade is contained in that particular country's century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: if this is passed, {{EstcatCountryDecade}} will need editing to remove these parents for dates in the 1st millennium before 960. – FayenaticLondon 11:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and precedent: keep up the good work. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Far too vague, seeming to encompass how-to books about running a household, feminist fiction and nonfiction about the confinement of women to same, novels set partly in homes(?), and more. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a very clear category. If we had an article on Home Memories of David O. McKay I would categorize it here, but then would be hard pressed as to why that book really belonged any more than My Father, David O. McKay. Since they are both by sons of the late President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (who said "no other success can compensate for failure in the home"). Although to make things more fun, in that quote "the home", means raising your family, so I guess I am doing the work of the home when I spend time running, playing, talking etc with my soon to be grandson on Belle Isle, but is that part of "the domestic sphere". Would "Papa John's Book of his Belle Isle Adventures with Kayden" qualify for this cateogry when I publish it? If no, would people feel differently about "My adventures with Kayden on Belle Isle" being so categorized if it was instead written by Arkasha M. H. Lambert? For that matter is my friend who runs his sports equitment resale business online out of his home "in the domestic sphere" while his wife who works in a job that causes here to leave the house not in the domestic sphere? If you don't think that my friend with his sports equitment retail business is in the "domestic sphere", what about my sister with her sewing business run out of her house? What if she ran her sewing business in a warehouse? What if she did her sewing on Belle Isle while keeping an eye on her two younger children? For that matter, since her husband works for a home improvement retailer, is he in the domestic sphere?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete cat, double-upmerge template - much too small for a stub category. There were a couple of other Rojava politician articles which i've added into the category, but even then it's woefully tiny. Category:Rojava stubs is in itself undersized, though it looks like it might be possible to get it up to 60 stubs. If not, it will probably also need to be looked at. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - relatively new category with much potential for expansion, thus doesn't stand to WP:SMALLCAT criteria. And it is already 4 articles.GreyShark (dibra) 09:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Greyshark's arguments, which reinforce the reason for deleting; we're talking about a stub category here, not a content category. As Grutness notes, the standard size for splitting out a stub category is 60, not 4 or less. Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are also potential problems with the Rojava stub tree as a whole (which GreyShark created without any contact with the Stub-sorting proposal page). Although Rojava is a de facto self-governing territory, the situation in Syria is in such flux that we generally use the standard Syrian governorates as divisions of stubs (e.g., Category:Aleppo geography stubs). I'm not entirely sure that Rojava stub categories sit comfortably within that scheme. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as non-defining and per the creator, above. No objection to a list. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A typical OCAWARD case. No need to listify, as we have a list. I note that most of the winners have red-links, which may indicate that the Award article also needs to go to AFD. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2017 (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 interested in pig latin[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Currently, this category contains a single user sandbox (of a user who has been inactive since 2013) which contains the category code as a sample only. However, even as a real category, this would be overly narrow in scope—any possibility for collaboration is limited to just one article and, therefore, could occur just as easily on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:44, 30 October 2017 (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 are or were United States Peace Corps Volunteers[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. – FayenaticLondon 17:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. – FayenaticLondon 21:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The value of the Wikipedians by language category scheme is that it groups users by ability to access, produce or understand content in specific non-English languages. These userbox-populated categories, on the other hand, merely declare that the user is multilingual but do not specify which languages they understand (or their level of proficiency). While this is fine as a userbox, there is no value in a grouping of users as broadly defined as this one. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice against restoration. Having categories for "en-n Wikipedians who speak French", "en-n Wikipedians who speak Farsi", etc. would be useful for finding competent translators, but this one is useless by itself, and since we don't have Wikipedians by bilingual status, there's no point in retaining this as a container category. Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nom, with prejudice against restoration. I'm not sure how a recreation of these categories would solve this issues Black Falcon mentions in the nom, unless you are envisioning these as some sort of container category for more useful subcategories. If that's the case then the scope of the category will have changed to the point where a speedy deletion as recreation would no longer be appropriate anyway, making a "without prejudice" caveat unnecessary. VegaDark (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was so envisioning them; that's what I meant about Having categories. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and invite the membership to comment on their language skills. Presumable they all self-declare to invite invitation to help with translations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Instead of creating a new page that at least partially overlaps with the more complete, existing structure of Category:Wikipedians by language, would your concern be addressed by either: (1) a message to each user (on their talk page) informing them of the category's deletion and the various options you listed above; or (2) a message on the userbox's talk page that pings all of the users and links to the same resources? -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They both sound like good alternative solutions. Bottom line is to do something to help direct possible misguided actions intended to volunteer to help, unless there is a stated reason not to (like it was all a joke), and to not make hard work of it. In a case like this, I don't think there is a good reason to ping the membership to the discussion, if we make an effort to inform them, basically as per Nyttend's statement. I notice now, that this is a userbox populated category, so it is not really so serious. There remains the userboxes and its WhatLinksHere functionality, but Nyttend's statement remains equally true of their userboxes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom line is to do something to help direct possible misguided actions intended to volunteer to help, unless there is a stated reason not to (like it was all a joke), and to not make hard work of it. — I can definitely support that. I'll post a note on the userbox's talk page to direct interested editors to the appropriate resources. -- Black Falcon(talk) 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Redundant with the specific categories for language fluency. A catch-all that isn't specific isn't a useful category. — SMcCandlish☏¢ >ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ< 18:34, 5 November 2017 (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.
