Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 3 May 5 >

May 4[edit]

Category:Motorsport competitors from Yorkshire[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:Racing drivers from Yorkshire. (All the current members are racing drivers, including motorcyclists, so no purging is needed.) – Fayenatic London 23:06, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: By convention, Category:Motorsport competitors is not directly subcategorised by location. (The subcategories of Category:Motorsport competitors are subcategorised by location, e.g. we have Category:Australian racing drivers, Category:Belgian motorboat racers‎, etc). DH85868993 (talk) 23:49, 4 May 2018 (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.

U.S. military installations[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, see here. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:51, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Back in 2010, the military bases and military facilities categories were merged into military installations (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_12#Military_bases_and_facilities). However, the rename was only patchily implemented across the hundreds of subcategories. I have tried to finish this process via speedy, but a single user always removes them, saying the 2010 discussion is not enough, and the whole process must be gone through. This is a small start. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:05, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The whole category tree is horribly inconsistent, and unless there has been a more recent discussion which overturned it, installations seems the best place to consolidate. --Qetuth (talk) 13:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even though, from looking at these categories' parent, it seems installations is a minority in US state articles, when looking across the global category tree it appears installation has been standardised everywhere except the US and Afghanistan (where "bases" is the standard).--Qetuth (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose, this nomination merely causes an increase of the inconsistency in the tree of the US. All US military facilities categories should be renamed in one batch. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Marcocapelle, if I have erred in this respect and need to add in additional categories to this nomination, I can do that. Buckshot06 (talk) 23:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Buckshot06: Could you please list all US categories to be renamed (and tag them as well), then I'll withdraw my opposition and relist the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:07, 15 May 2018 (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:Solar System planet disambiguation pages[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are no other planets in any of these "planet disambiguation pages", and no real purpose served by grouping these pages together, any more than there would be to collect the 50 American states into one. Also delete Category:Astronomy disambiguation pages, which only contains this category at present, unless there are other more pertinent entries. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:34, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dab pages should only be categorized by the dab template. DexDor (talk) 18:32, 7 May 2018 (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:Jerusalem Championship[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article was recently renamed via WP:RM/TR at the request of Hashim-afc stating: The name of the tournament was changed back to Arab Club Champions Cup: https://twitter.com/UAFAAC/status/988821925500739585. This is also the name that it has been referred to most common in the past e.g. on RSSSF: http://www.rsssf.com/tablesa/arabchamp.html. Speedy renaming of the category was declined on the technical grounds that there had not been an actual discussion on the page move. – Fayenatic London 21:14, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 09:07, 5 May 2018 (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:English actors by location of origin[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. I note that this harmonises the British categories, but leaves them out of step with the rest of the world that uses "location" (Category:People by nationality and location, except Sri Lanka and Albania); however, that can be considered another day. – Fayenatic London 07:12, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A number of categories in the locality tree use the name "location of origin". The use of "locality" is deliberately vague to allow inclusion of anyone strongly associated with a locality (regardless of origin), which prevents edit warring. Was going to speedy rename this with parent Category:English people by locality, but given number of categories thought it was worth opening discussion. Note that there is also the alternative to use Category:Actors by locality in England too, which would follow Category:Categories by locality in England. SFB 20:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename most -- Most of these seem to be Category:English actors by county of origin, but one or two are containers for county, city, etc.: for these "locality" needs to be kept. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. "Location of origin" seems a clumsy and troublesome wording. "_ by locality in England" provides too much scope for anyone temporarily working in England to get added. Even though most are indeed split by county, I agree with Sillyfolkboy that the more vague wording is sure to solve problems with some odd cases. --Qetuth (talk) 13:20, 7 May 2018 (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:Broadway theatre 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: keep. – Fayenatic London 10:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear what exactly qualifies people for this category. A lot of people on here have only done a single Broadway show, and this is clearly not defining for those people. We have plenty of other more appropriate categories for people who work in theater. JDDJS (talk) 17:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I think the scope is clear: people who have worked in Broadway theatre. The specificity could be improved with subcategories like Category:Broadway actors, Category:Broadway producers etc. Broadway is one of the commercial pinnacles of stage acting in the world and denotes a significant career achievement for an actor. I would put this in the same conceptual bracket as things like Category:Olympic competitors. SFB 20:31, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, purge and possibly rename, we have numerous categories of people by company that they have worked for, so the category is alright for owners and employees of Broadway, but should not be used for people who performed at Broadway. Suggestion for renaming: Category:Broadway owners and employees. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since the scope is clear, but more sub-categories would be helpful. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2018 (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 British medical doctors[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. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Anachronism. "British" as a nationality began with the Acts of Union 1707 which united Scotland & England, so Category:British people by century begins with Category:18th-century British people.
Note that this is a de facto container cat, so no need to merge. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is in effect a container category for the British Isles, as a subdivision of Europe. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so. It is currently being used as a container category for the island of Great Britain. However, @Peterkingiron wants to extend the scope of to include the whole of the so-called "British Isles".
This is a radical change of scope which would be hotly contested in Ireland. See British Isles naming dispute.
The consistent practice so far has been to apply the label "British" only to the Kingdom of Great Britain and its successor states the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland/United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Peterkingiron's desire to extend the geographical and political scope of the contested term "British" is deeply POV so I will notify WP:IRELAND and WP:IECOLL. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Deletion leaves no orphans because all subcats are already adequately parented. Look e.g. at the parent cats of Category:16th-century English medical doctors:
  2. renaming to Category:16th-century medical doctors in the British Isles will create an anomalous orphan. There is no:
What we have here is an existing anomalous and un-needed semi-orphan category. It is disappointing that instead of supporting its removal, @Peterkingiron and Johnbod want to create a pile of new anomalies. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:46, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, who seems clearly the most sensible in this conversation. Daask (talk) 21:32, 15 May 2018 (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:17th-century British painters[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. Although some editors opposed deletion, I find that their rationales have been successfully refuted. It does not make sense to keep occupational categories where the parent nationality category for the relevant century was deleted by a stronger consensus. As for the stubs, their templates have already been edited to add the stub pages to Category:17th-century birth stubs, Category:Scottish painter stubs etc. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Anachronism. "British" as a nationality began with the Acts of Union 1707 which united Scotland & England, so Category:British people by century begins with Category:18th-century British people.
Note that Category:17th-century British painters and Category:17th-century British medical doctors are de facto container cats, so no need to merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:56, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, if I were to jump either way. The concept of Britishness began earlier than 1707, for example with the Union of the Crowns in 1603. And Britian has existed long before Great Britain. I'd hesitate to go further back than the 17th century though, for these categories. Sionk (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They're based on identity, as is "English", "Scottish", "Welsh" etc. This isn't necessarily based on sovereign states. Sionk (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As you note, @Fayenatic london's comment was Navigation to the century sub-cats for English, Welsh & Scots will still be easy via Category:British people by century. You claim that this is no longer so. However if you look at Category:British people by century you will see that we have subcats:
  1. Category:18th-century British people to Category:21st-century British people. So "x-century British people" for the era when Britain actually existed as a nation
  2. Category:Scottish people by century Category:Scottish people by century etc
So we do indeed have what was promised: navigation to the century sub-cats for English, Welsh & Scots will still be easy via Category:British people by century. It is a pity that an experienced editor chooses to resort to various forms of ABF whilst asserting a falsehood. I'm getting a bit sick of this; knock it off please. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:46, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
???? Category:17th-century British people! Johnbod (talk) 12:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: please stop being silly, and please read what I wrote. It is not complicated.
Go to Category:British people by century. There you will see Category:English people by century, Category:Scottish people by century ... as promised in the previous discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Scotland and England had not yet merged and it does not make sense to invent parent categories suggesting that they had 'sort of' merged after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Johnbod to Category:17th-century painters in the British Isles. This is a recognisable subset of Europe. The alternative would be to merge to a Europe category, but that would lose clarity. Splitting a stub category is to be avoided. Stub types need many more articles than ordinary categories before they are allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no Europe category, the parent category is Category:17th-century painters, and it is perfectly fine to have an English and Scottish subcategory in here since their siblings are also by plain nationality. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec)Oh dear. A lot of misunderstandings there.
  1. there is no need for merger to a Europe category. Deletion leaves no orphans, because all subcats are already adequately parented. Look e.g. at the parent cats of Category:17th-century English medical doctors:
  2. renaming to Category:17th-century medical doctors in the British Isles will create an anomalous orphan. There is no:
What we have here is an existing anomalous and un-needed semi-orphan category. It is disappointing that instead of supporting its removal, both @Peterkingiron and Johnbod seem oblivious to the easily-checked existing structure, and want to create a pile of new anomalies.
As to the stub category Category:British painter, 17th-century birth stubs it contains only 21 articles so it is already too small and should be upmerged.
All of these issues could be easily resolved if we didn't have some editors trying to use this discussion to make an end-run around a clear existing consensus which is that: a) we don't categorise topics as "British" before Britain was created as a nation in 1707; b) that Category:British Isles is container for nations, not a parent nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:40, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:British painter, 17th-century birth stubs is populated solely by {{Scotland-painter-17thC-stub}} and {{England-painter-17thC-stub}}. I have amended both those templates so that
  1. {{England-painter-17thC-stub}} now populates both Category:English painter stubs and Category:British painter, 17th-century birth stubs
  2. {{Scotland-painter-17thC-stub}} now populates both Category:Scottish painter stubs and Category:Scottish painter, 17th-century birth stubs
So the anomalous Category:British painter, 17th-century birth stubs can simply be deleted. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:38, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far As I'm concerned the point is that in the 17th century a particular style of painting emerged in the British Isles which was essentially shared by all the constituent nations of the 18th-century UK. Also artists moved a lot between these nations. This deserves a distinct grouping. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I am surprised by that belated change of tack. Do you have any sources to support your assertion that there was a British Isles style of painting in that era? Do we have an existing head article about it?
You also need to make up your mind about scope. You say this style of painting emerged in the British Isles but then you go on to describe the scope as the constituent nations of the 18th-century UK. However there was no 18th-century UK; the 18th-century Kingdom of Great Britain did not include Ireland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever - are you asserting there was an Irish or Scottish (let alone Welsh) style of painting in the 17th century? There certainly wasn't. Your touching faith that we would have an article on any style that existed shows you've never looked at English_art#16th_and_17th_centuries, Irish_art#Towards_an_Irish_art (not mentioning a single 17th-century painter who was clearly Irish), though Portrait painting in Scotland is much better. In general our coverage of this sort of thing is pathetic. Waterhouse, Ellis, Painting in Britain, 1530–1790, 4th Edn, 1978, Penguin Books (now Yale History of Art series), ISBN 0300053193 would be the book (it also covers Ireland, when there is anything to say about it). Cfd isn't the place for this sort of discussion though, with a long history of being at best indifferent to art-historical considerations, and often actively hostile to them. Johnbod (talk) 00:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: drop the game-playing. As you well know, this discussion is about categories by nationality; the style thing is your belated change of tack. You decided to make assertions about style, so you need to prove your case. Don't try shifting the burden onto me.
The book you cite doesn't help much. A title "Painting in Foo" does not assert a common "Fooian", style and in this case the "Foo" is "Britain" rather than the "British Isles" which you want. Your description of the book's coverage of Ireland does little to support your assertion of a British Isles style.
As you say, CfD isn't the place for this sort of discussion. Which brings us back to my point that "British" was not a nationality until the 18th century and the contentiously-named "British Isles" has never been a nationality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:41, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your usual tactic, BrownHairedGirl, of rubbishing anyone who disagrees with you. It's your assertion that these categories are about nationality and not identity. Where exactly were these documents that proved someone's nationality? There weren't any. If you were born elsewhere but lived and worked most of your life in Scotland, for example, do you become Scottish? Things are not as cut-and-dried as you like to make out. Sionk (talk) 08:32, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're very much proving my point on Cfd & art here, Bhg! Where appropri[[Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_28#Category:17th-century_British_people|ate we have various BI/Northern Archipelago categories, and we should have more. But we know why we don't. Maybe when we're all in a Special Super-dooper Customs Special Semi-Union Thingie we can use that. Johnbod (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do calm down, @Sionk. I didn't "rubbish" anyone; I rebutted an argument and rejected an attempt by an editor to make me prove a case I had never made and don't support.
You say It's your assertion that these categories are about nationality and not identity.
Once again you are demonstrably wrong: it is not just my assertion. We have no "Category:Painters by identity", but we do have Category:Painters by nationality → Category:British painters. As I pointed out above, in en.wp categories we don't take a legalistic view of nationality; we just follow what the reliable sources say about nationality. So your denial that this is about nationality is plain nonsense. (If you want to claim that Category:Painters by nationality does not actually carry its plain English meaning of "painters by nationality", then go ahead.)
Your argument that nationality isn't always cut-and-dried is obviously true. People move between jurisdictions and may have have close ties in several nations. So as with any other attribute, we make editorial judgements about which nationality or nationalities to categorise by. We do that whether the person moved between France/Germany, Sweden/Norway, Portugal/Spain or wherever. What we do not do is to invent anachronistic nationalities to resolve ambiguities. So we have no Category:17th-century Czechoslovak people and no Category:17th-century Iberian people and no Category:17th-century South African people ... and we already have an explicit consensus not to have a Category:17th-century British people. That consensus predates Sionk's creation of Category:17th-century British painters by 18 months, which makes Sionk's actions look decidely WP:POINTy.
And the great irony of all this is that you yourself have most clearly demonstrated that this works well. In November 2013 you created[3] Category:17th-century British painters and added to it Category:17th-century Scottish painters[4] and Category:17th-century English painters[5]. Nearly five years later there are 91 painters in those 2 Scottish/English categories, and zero in the British category. So you set up a test which has run for nearly five years, and in that time nobody has found a single 17th-century painter whose nationality defaulted to British because they have been unable to distinguish them Scottish or English.
So all you have done is to create a container category which is both anachronistic and un-needed. After a five-year test which has shown that the problem you describe doesn't exist, I am unable to see any plausible rationale for your position.
Note too that the 3 editors who oppose deletion of these anachronisms have contradictory reasons for wanting to keep them. @Sionk argues that "nationality" does not actually mean nationality and really means identity; @Johnbod claims it's actually about a style of painting; and @Peterkingiron says it's about creating a subset of Europe, without explaining why painters need it, but every other occupation is categorised without such a subset. Bizarre.
And Johnbod ... yes we do indeed have categories for the archipelago where appropriate. And we do indeed know why that doesn't extend to people: we categorise people by nationality, and an archipelago is not a nationality. The rulers of one country in the archipelago have spent over 800 years trying to make the archipelago a nation, and while they came close for 121 years, they never even got as far as even establishing a commonly-accepted demonym. Ninety-five years after the end of that era, it is disappointing to see some editors of a NPOV encyclopedia trying to extend that notion of an archipelagic nationality outside of its actual period of historical existence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:21, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "change of tack" - my first comment said "Keep both under some name certainly - eg Category:17th-century painters in the British Isles probably. Also better as many were continentals. But these are certainly valid groupings ..." and I have subsequently expanded on that. Has it ever occurred to you that strict "nationality" may not be the only or even best way to group visual artists, especially for a period when they mostly inconveniently refused to stay in one country? And that we have plenty of other cross-national categories of artists? Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: this is not complicated, but you are making very heavy going of something very simple. So I'll spell it out:
  1. per WP:COP#By_nationality_and_occupation, "people are usually categorized by their nationality and occupation".
  2. Category:17th-century Scottish painters and Category:17th-century English painters are categories by the intersection of nationality, occupation, and century.
  3. there was no "17th-century British"; it's an anachronism
  4. the British Isles is not a nationality, and never has been
  5. Yes, of course there may be ways other than nationality to group people by occupation. This isn't unique to visual artists: similar issues arise with clergy, writers, sportspeople and many others. Some groupings exist by location, by genre, by style etc
  6. But where such other groupings exist, they need to be implemented in ways which mesh consistently with wider category trees. So for example, renaming Category:17th-century British painters to Category:17th-century painters in the British Isles would change it from a nationality category to a location category. So it shoudn't contain the by-nationality subcats, and removing them woud leave it empty.
  7. the category system relies on consistency. So if you want a Category:Painters in area, it makes no sense to implement it only for one area in one century. But there is no Category:Painters by location and no Category:Artists by location. Maybe there should be such a scheme, like Category:Association football players by nationality/Category:Association football players by country. But even that uses the same geographical division in each case; it doesn't create a new set of geographical divisions. Such a scheme would need some planning and some structure, but I see no sign of either in this case.
  8. As @Daask has pointed out below, the by-nationality categories could simply be linked by hatnotes. So why not just adopt that simple solution, instead of making a mess of the category tree? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Hatnotes are a great way to link countries with similar artistic styles in a given era, not making a mess of the category tree. Daask (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2018 (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:Big Sky football team navigational boxes[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was originally nominated on 2018 April 3, which resulted in a No Consensus close. Further episodes of the soap opera can be found at CfD on April 24th, at DRV on April 26, and at ANI. This re-nomination is an administrative action only; I am neutral. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems like a simple administrative move to me and matches the naming convention and process of other similar programs that are maintained by the team at college football project.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:28, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Paulmcdonald: Huh? What are you talking about? Nobody's suggesting renaming it. They're suggesting deleting it. And this isn't a program, it's a conference. Smartyllama (talk) 15:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant that most other programs at the current level do not have this level of granularity, that's all. Not proposing a rename at all.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:00, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete while I believe Paul misworded his comment, he is correct that this is a simple administrative move in accord with standard practice. Lepricavark (talk) 15:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in accordance with other categories. Still not sure how this qualifies as "administrative" though. Smartyllama (talk) 15:20, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A non-standard, out-of-process, one-off administrative category, created in error. Totally non-controversial action to delete, here. I cry when I think of the sheer volume of man hours that have been wasted on this one non-controversial action. To see what this simple request devolved into is truly unbelievable, and flies in the face of WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that, in the unlikely event that this category is retained, it is currently misnamed, Category:Big Sky Conference football team navigational boxes would be the correct name, to match the parent category. Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:04, 5 May 2018 (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:Writing systems Defuncted[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:Obsolete writing systems, & delete the redirects that are ungrammatical. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A860629a (talk · contribs) seems to have just recently made up this very awkwardly named cat. "Obsolete" is etymologically a better choice than "Defunct writing systems" or "Archaic writing systems". —DIYeditor (talk) 05:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the proposed name is far less awkward. Lepricavark (talk) 15:27, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update A860629a, ignoring the notice at the top of the category page, has moved this to Category:Scripts defuncted, still not English. Problematic new user. —DIYeditor (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It is a useful category to have. "Obsolete" is easier to understand than "Defunct"; "Archaic" is not a good choice as the definition of "archaic" is open to dispute, and some obsolete writing systems may be quite recent. Therefore support Category:Obsolete writing systems. BabelStone (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreeing that the proposed category name is better. And the category itself is probably useful, though establishing membership in individual cases might be tricky. – Uanfala (talk) 23:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. A860629a has now created Category:Defunct writing systems, so whatever is done here, that will need to be harmonized. That page has been tagged to alert others to this discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They have also created Category:Scripts defuncted. Very annoying. When a discussion is opened, editors should await the outcome. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 5 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: User:A860629a has now been blocked. I have updated the nomination to reflect the actions now required. – Fayenatic London 17:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Shouldn't we go by what these writing systems are called by notable sources or by experts in the field? By google results "dead writing systems" seems the most widely used phrase, although google scholar gives a slight advantage to "obsolete". --Qetuth (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Additional possibility: Category:Extinct writing systems. We have an article Extinct language and associated tree which gave me the idea, and it appears to have the most relevant hits in both google scholar and google, for whatever that is worth. --Qetuth (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Extinct implies that they are not used at all, but some historic writing systems still have limited modern usage, and so are not extinct. Therefore I think "obsolete" is better. BabelStone (talk) 14:15, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, hence support obsolete. --Qetuth (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2018 (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.

Graphs by vertex and edge count[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. Timrollpickering 21:34, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Vertices
Edges
Nominator's rationale: The current titles of these categories are grammatically incorrect. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 02:07, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As far as deleting: while I personally might prefer to use the sortable list, I have to say that these are among the more useful examples of a much larger categorisation scheme found in the children of Category:Graph families which perhaps should be discussed as a whole first. There are a lot of individual graph articles to leave them completely unsubcategorised and number of vertices is probably the most common and obvious split (i.e. I think the nominated may the main ones we should keep, out of a whole mess of graph cats). I no longer have a copy sadly, but from memory I believe vertices then edges was the primary categorisation method in the book "An Atlas of Graphs" which could be considered something of an authority for its time on categorising graphs. --Qetuth (talk) 14:39, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the two trees have way too many categories that contain only one or two articles. I agree that a list may work much better. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Pldx1 has already made a much more useful list. – Fayenatic London 11:12, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To the closing admin. After some reflexion, it could be better to (1) rename --as proposed-- the vertices-categories to "graphs with xxx vertices"; (2) retaylor these categories in order to have say 10 members at least ; (3) delete the edges/girth/etc. categories. Since the proposition (3) was not announced from the begining, better relist this (3)-discussion before proceeding. Pldx1 (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Left a request for closure at the admin noticeboard. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin note: the sub-categories have not been tagged, and the creator Hyacinth (talk · contribs) has not been notified until now. As it appears that the sub-categories were fully populated solely by that one user, it may be that (unusually) this nomination can be accepted as valid without having to tag them, but we should wait a week to give the category creator a chance to comment. – Fayenatic London 15:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I posted a notice at the math wikiproject page, just in case. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:32, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd propose the same decision be made about Category:Graphs by automorphisms. Its subcats have the same grammatical issue (Category:Graphs of automorphisms 6, etc.) and the same dubiousness re WP:OVERCAT. There might be further ones like this, and my gut says these should probably be deleted, but I don't really have a good enough sense of what "defining characteristic" really means –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:54, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pldx1, as a fully sortable list is much more useful than a host of tiny categories. But I could be missing something relevant in Qetuth's desire for subcategorisation; if so, what purpose would it serve? Surely the most likely categories to need branching out would be ones based on logical or typological (dare I say, categorical?) criteria, rather than on perceived similarities arising by coincidence in dependent statistics? yoyo (talk) 17:31, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of these, girth and radius (as well as the above-mentioned diameter and chromatic index) have the virtue of being grammatically sensible. --2601:142:3:F83A:7CB5:5BF:7962:D897 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or listify. Too many of the notable individual graphs have no other notable graphs with the same counts to make this a useful way to categorize things, but that wouldn't be a problem if this were arranged as a list rather than as a category hierarchy. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2018 (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.

Czech ice hockey clubs[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 both Havířov categories; merge Category:Mountfield HK players to Category:Stadion Hradec Králové players, Category:HC Znojemští Orli players to Category:Orli Znojmo players, and rename Category:PSG Zlín players to Category:HC Zlín players. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Both categories contain the players of the same clubs. Proposing to merge to the category with the club's current name. Darwinek (talk) 14:01, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The club changes their titular sponsor very often. Proposing to rename to neutral name to avoid CFR nominations each year.--Darwinek (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am split on the first 3 because its fairly standard that we have categories for each name a team has gone through for player categories as it is inaccurate to state a player played for a team with a different name than the one they actually played on. In sports the teams actual name matters. I do however agree with the last one. -DJSasso (talk) 11:42, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is tricky. Czech Extraliga teams very often change their official name according to their main sponsor. This way you have easily many players who, technically speaking, were playing for a team with, say, 4 different names, although it is still the same club. - Darwinek (talk) 22:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah that is why I am a bit split on the situation. Some teams still have non-sponsor generic names that could be used I like the one you propose. Not sure if that is the case for the others. -DJSasso (talk) 18:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted from CFD 2018 April 8 to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:48, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this may not be about sponsor names at all. From the website of the first nominated club [6] I read that HC Harirov went bankrupt after which AZ Havirov was established as a new club with a historical name. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Havířov merge on basis that the clubs are separate entities. Reverse merge to Stadion Hradec Králové, which is the long-term name of the club (Mountfield is a sponsor which is typically a short term thing). Support merge to Orli Znojmo per main article Orli Znojmo. Support merge to HC Zlín to avoid the sponsor renaming issue. SFB 16:35, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly the same as what SFB has so I don't have to type them all back out lol. -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2018 (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:Global trade and professional 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 08:01, 7 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, the scope of the two categories is too closely related to keep the categories separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:53, 4 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Cannot see a profound difference in content here. I would consider the difference that global is all world whereas international is simply between multiple nations. Very very few organisations can lay proper claim to the former title (I'm thinking UN etc). I'm nomming Category:Global business organization for a rename on that point. SFB 16:39, 4 May 2018 (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/2018_May_4&oldid=1138411938"