Category:Consortium for North American Higher Education Collaboration
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 -- We have deleted numerous categorisation by association membership among univerities. No objection to listifying them in main article. This is a case of categoriy clutter.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:55, 21 April 2015 (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.
17th century BC
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.
Comment please note that the exact year 1600 should probably be merged to the 16th rather than the 17th century. For the one article in this category, the exact year is uncertain anyway.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:55, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support generally -- The
Shang dynasty was established in c.1600 BC. It is better to treat it for century purposes as 1599 than 1601. There is not enough content at such remote periods to warrant annual and decade categories. The many layers are a hindrance, not a help to navigation.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:00, 21 April 2015 (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:Cricket miscellany
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 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:Religion and mythology
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: delete per
WP:NONDEF. There is nothing in these categories that is specifically about the relationship between religion and mythology. There's just a random selection taken from the mythology tree on the one hand and a random selection taken from the religion tree on the other hand.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
delete all The first only has as direct member a few random Semitic religious notions; the second adds a category of deities to the mix. All the rest just contain the corresponding religion category. I don't see how this is the least bit useful.
Mangoe (
talk)
19:58, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Manually merge/delete -- most have only a mythology child. Africa's maniun article is
African traditional religion, which suggests renaming to that. That leaves "by culture" (with little else). Perhaps, we should keep the ultimate parent, at least for now until we can see the results of sorting the rest out. Some of the mythology children are very well populated, so that the probelm concerns proper parenting of these.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Thanks for your support. Unfortunately, merging back is not obvious; a "delete" decision is normally passed to a bot which simply edits pages that are currently in the category, and removes it. That is why "merge" and "delete" are different outcomes, and care is needed when nominating and !voting. –
FayenaticLondon14:09, 22 April 2015 (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:Cricket by city
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:WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION. The category adds no value and it is a case of creating one for the sake of it. Is the author ever going to apply it to more than two cities only? No use to the cricket project. Jack | talk page14:43, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- Indian cricket is organised by city. English by county. Is this really a useful tree? A "by city in India" category might be useful, but London and Bristol are essentially random cases of county teams based in a city - for London, both Midldesex and Surrey.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:14, 21 April 2015 (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:Women who notably have used a name that references surnames from both sides of their marriage/relationship
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.
Comment The topic identity is a big thing for women when they get married. I would like to hear some more female Wikipedian editor's views as to whether this cat should stay or go.
GregKaye14:44, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Totally absurd category, created only to make a point, and confirming to this female Wikipedian that the debate the category creator is prolonging regarding Hillary Rodham Clinton is not at all based on any concern for the encyclopedia, but motivated by something else. And don't tell me to AGF on this one. Tvoz/
talk23:59, 20 April 2015 (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.
Tarc In retrospect I actually agree with you that this category was written in support a point but would hope that you might agf with regard to the nature of that point. There are many women such as
Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting who have changed their name and presented their personal preference as to the way that they would like that name presented but whose article titles retain the presentation such as
Kaley Cuoco. You would be welcome to join the related discussion. At Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton I have encouraged that we work with policy to actually give justification for situations like this and, as far as I have seen, I am the only editor that has made any effort in this regard. The length of the content was in effort to make it inclusive. Please do not insult to make a point. Ping also
Tvoz,
Cwobeel
Category:6 Metre Sailing
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.
Rename as nominated per Fayenatic ; overly ambiguously named categories tend to collect unrelated junk making their utility questionable --
65.94.43.89 (
talk)
05:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
REname as nom. "8 metre" would be a bad name, as its connotation would be unclear. Why should we hve an article apparently on a random length.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:16, 21 April 2015 (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:Windsurfing disciplines
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 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:Australian Olympians in World War II
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.
There will eventually be 50 Australian Olympians added to this list. This is a work in progress.
User:Aussiesportlibrarian
Delete. "People who did X and at some other point in their lives did Y" is a bad form of categorization. If someone has been an Olympian and also notable for something else (e.g. as a TV presenter) then put them in both categories (and, if necessary in a combined category, but I'd prefer to see category intersection used for things like that). A "List of Australian Olympians who served in World War II" could also be considered. DexDor(talk)20:21, 26 April 2015 (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.
Medalist/Medallist categories
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:Rename. These category moves were previously proposed as speedy (C2C), but there were objections on
WP:ENGVAR grounds. The proposal was deleted as stale after a couple of weeks. From what I can see in
Category:Medalists at multi-sport events, "medalist" is spelled/spelt with a single L in every category but
Category:Commonwealth Games medallists. There is clearly a WP:ENGVAR issue here. Does that mean that all countries are (or have been) part of the Commonwealth should have the double L? What about Britain's participation in the Olympics and Paralympics, and that of other Commonwealth nations? Should they be changed to double L? There's also inconsistent spelling within these categories: Pakistan's bronze category is spelled/spelt with single L, as is India's parent category. We need to bring the categories in line in some way.
HandsomeFella (
talk)
11:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support was meaning to do the same myself. I believe consistency in the Asian Games set is more desirable that consistency in the national set.
SFB18:34, 26 April 2015 (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: Songs about the extermination of indigenous peoples
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 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:Trees of Portugal
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: That a tree species is found in a particular European country is a
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the species. See, for example, the pile-up of categories at
Pinus nigra. The
Acer opalus article says "native to the hills and mountains of southern and western Europe, from Italy to Spain and north to southern Germany" which suggests that it's also in countries such as France and Austria. In short, countries (in Europe) are too fine grained to be DEFINING characteristics of trees. DexDor(talk)06:00, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support first 8 Land organisms should usually be grouped by island or continent (unless there is another defined ecosystem/barrier). Trees don't respect political boundaries
RevelationDirect (
talk)
13:35, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support all including the UK category. The rationale for that one is that it contains articles about specific trees and tree-related organisations.–
FayenaticLondon10:21, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support all (except UK and Wales) -- All the rest are being used for species which occur in the country. We have for sometime been merging categories that are holding species that occur there, which for widespread species are
WP:OC#PERF-type category clutter (occurence being the performance). The UK and Wales categories are different: they are being mainly used for specific named trees. With its low population of articles Wales might be merged to UK.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:25, 21 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose the last 2, although they should be renamed to "Individual trees of location", since that's the true use of these categories; Support the rest as these categories are used for species by location on a single land-mass, and species don't recognize national bounderies.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu09:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Support with an exception (or some other tweak) for the named trees in England & Wales - per Peterkingiron. Apart from named trees, there's no point in having separate categories for every country a tree grows in; if applied consistently this would leave most European tree species articles burdened with a long list of unnavigable categories, and each of those categories would have almost completely duplicated membership.
bobrayner (
talk)
21:49, 3 May 2015 (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:R-type contracts
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 Wildly confusingly-named, this is actually a category of all subway equipment built for the NYC
Independent Subway System (IND) and for the combined system formed in the 1940 merger with the BMT and IRT. If a sub category of NYC subway equipment is needed, this is badly named, and the wrong way to divide things up in any case.
Mangoe (
talk)
19:29, 26 April 2015 (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:Wikipedia Signpost Coverage of women
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 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:Islamic Finance Scholar
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: More appropriate category name. Alternatives - "Promoters of Islamic banking", "Islamic banking experts" etc could be considered. DexDor(talk)05:25, 20 April 2015 (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:Black Fraternal association
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.
Speedy Delete per
WP:C2E Author request. The newish editor took my suggestion, created the alternatively named category, and moved the content over. That isn't the normal sequence here but I favor rolling with that outcome if @
DexDor: is willing to withdraw the nomination.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
15:12, 20 April 2015 (UTC)reply
Afaik there's nothing preventing a category under discussion at CFD being CSDed if eligible; it's happened many times. I certainly would have no objection. DexDor(talk)17:43, 20 April 2015 (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.