Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 16 October 18 >

October 17

Category:Former French empires

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) 01:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, the First and Second French Empire have nothing to do with the French colonial empire. Marcocapelle ( talk) 18:57, 17 October 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:Natural history of the United States

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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. ( non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 03:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete because the category contains virtually nothing about history. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Comment. You could say that about any category in Category:Natural_history_by_country. Bod ( talk) 17:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • OK, but straight deletion would also mean that Category:Natural history of the United States by state would not have a natural history parent category. I would prefer categories to clearly indicate whether they are for articles about nature (e.g. articles about species) or for articles about the study of nature (e.g. articles about naturalists) - such a reorganisation might result in this category (and all the other natural history categories) being renamed/deleted/merged, but I don't see any point in deleting just this category. DexDor (talk) 21:52, 17 October 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:Cantabrian athletes

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The distinction of being an athlete is no more relevant to ones being from Cantabria than it is of being a sportsperson. This Spanish region does not have a strong historical position in the sport of athletics and does not merit a sport-specific occupational category. SFB 17:12, 17 October 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:Naturalised athletes of Italy

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:Naturalised citizens of Italy without prejudice against a future delete nomination for the entire tree of Category:Naturalised citizens by nation. Marcocapelle ( talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
Convert Category:Naturalised athletes of Italy to article Italy national athletics team
Nominator's rationale: The topic of track and field athletes who become naturalised citizens of Italy is one of interest, but as a category it is an awkward mix of a person's occupation with a legal process. This should be converted into a list to be placed on the national team page to show non-Italian-born citizens who have represented the nation. SFB 16:03, 17 October 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:Italy at athletics (track and field) competitions

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) 09:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Italy at athletics competitions is synonymous with the national athletics team (or similar enough that little content would otherwise be located at the latter). SFB 15:41, 17 October 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:Indoor athletics (track and field) venues

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) 09:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The only type of athletics practised indoors is track and field (i.e. there are no road running or cross country indoor venues). Thus, we can use track and field directly and not as a disambiguator. SFB 15:35, 17 October 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:Indoor athletics (track and field) venues in Louisiana

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) 05:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT - unlikely to expand beyond a small number of entries. The above parents are sufficiently distinct. SFB 15:28, 17 October 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:Balkan Games competitors

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) 08:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Convert Category:Balkan Games competitors to article Balkan Games
Nominator's rationale: Competing at the Balkan Games (an annual track and field meeting) is not a distinguishing feature of an athlete. Mostly it just indicates they are an international athlete from the Balkans. This is better organised as a list of participants on the main article. SFB 14:40, 17 October 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:Sport in Gaborone by sport

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) 08:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There are only eighteen articles in the whole of the Category:Sport in Gaborone tree yet there are 14 subcategories. This is clearly excessive and not helpful to navigation or grouping similar articles in the same category. Fourteen of the articles relate to football. I propose all but the populated football tree aspects be upmerged to the general sport in Gaborone category. As the capital of a poor and sparsely-populated nation, the vast majority of sports competitions in Botswana take place in Gaborone, so it makes more sense to gather the small amount of material at the country level. SFB 14:17, 17 October 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:Athletics in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown

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 L ondon 22:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Highly specific locational categories for a specific sport. The county does not have any special connection with the sport of athletics and is unlikely to gather many more entries than the sole current child article. SFB 14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Calm down SFB This frenetic activity in all things athletics is symptomatic of drug-fuelled zeal. Take a few minutes to relax and I'm sure you'll see a pretty navigational landscape and not the appalling vista that may be before your eyes due to whatever hallucinogens that you may be taking. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 09:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Laurel Lodged: It's less about me going crazy and more about my doing a yearly review of the Athletics category structure and nominating the outliers and obscurities. You may have noticed a downturn in my recent activity at CFD – it saves us all time to locate and discuss the related group of categories at once, rather than periodically coming back and forth to discussions. Certainly, this day's nominations will make it very easy to find the majority of athletics related category discussions for this year! SFB 13:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep How is the current county of Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown a "Highly specific location" but the proposed target - the abolished county of Dublin - is, presumably, not a "Highly specific location"? Since when does a location have to have a "special connection with the sport of athletics"? Where does this criterion come from? It's enough that it contains notable athletes or facilities for athletes. As for sole, it has lots of potential to grow. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep County Dublin has been divided into a number of smaller administrative entities. It is wholly appropriate to categorise by them, reflecting the current system, not an abolished one. This nom is thus misconceived. Peterkingiron ( talk) 18:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Peterkingiron and Laurel Lodged: Am I reading it right that the County Dublin parent should be considered for deletion, an an administrative container category for a non-existent administrative region? I don't see the relevance of a county council of this size to a specific sport (FYI there are only a handful of "Athletics in..." categories for sub-national places and they are much bigger and more populous places e.g. London, Catalonia, New York state). SFB 18:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
We may need a County Dublin category for events before the county was divided into a number of entities, but it needs to be tagged that new events after a certain date should not be added. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Agree with that idea. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 19:47, 19 October 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:Athletes in Sweden by club

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. MER-C 20:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Membership of the given clubs are not a distinguishing feature. Indeed, there is no article on the athletics sections on either. SFB 12:36, 17 October 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:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's track and field coaches

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) 01:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is no categorisation scheme for specifically men's track and field. In the case of Georgia Tech, both the subjects contained coached both men and women so men's does not distinguish anything further. SFB 12:29, 17 October 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:Florida Gators women's track and field

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) 01:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Needless containers. The topics are more easily navigated without this level. Track and field programs at an institution typically share infrastructure and administration, meaning there are very few elements that can be reduced to gender-divided ones beyond the track athletes themselves. The navigation tree is at Category:College track and field teams in the United States, which has combined gender categories. SFB 12:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Specific oppose - The Florida Gators men's and women's track and field athletes categories contain 48 and 11 articles, respectively, which is more than enough to support separate categories by gender for the convenience of our readers. This structure parallels that of college swimmers in the United States, segmented by men and women, which is the natural progression when any sports categories reach a certain size. When the categories include only a handful of articles, I can certainly understand the convenience of maintaining a single unisex category, but that is not the case for all of these. Personally, I don't segment categories by gender until both genders reach double digits. Segmentation of athletes by gender is inevitable and inexorable; forcing some of the larger categories into a needless unisex uniformity is contrary to our normal principles of categories. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 12:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC) I have struck my "oppose" per SFB's explanation below. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support merge, with caveat per SFB's explanation above. Only gender-based program-level and conference-level categories will be merged. Gender-based athlete-level categories (with sufficient numbers) will be preserved. Rock on, SFB. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 14:05, 18 October 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:Alternative running styles

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) 01:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category mostly contains articles related to barefoot running, only two of which are actually articles about running styles. Barefoot is a common and traditional form of running, rather than an "alternative" one (which is highly subjective). This child category is not part of any larger tree and the information is much better stored in the parent. SFB 11:49, 17 October 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:Indo-European 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 result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. Language family is obviously a characteristic of a people, but I really wonder if we should consider it to be a defining characteristic. If the category is kept, it should at least be renamed to Category:Peoples that speak an Indo-European language because Indo-European peoples - as such - do not exist, the term is just a derivative of the language family. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:49, 17 October 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.

Peoples (topic 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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article of the category. These nominations were opposed at speedy for reasons of ambiguity. While I agree that this is a risk, I don't think that by just removing the "s" the ambiguity is reduced a lot, so if we really want to tackle that problem we may better add "(topic)" in the category name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
speedy discussion
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:Indo-European

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: rename per main article of the category. This nomination was opposed as speedy, I think that the objection mentioned in CFDS should be tackled by purging the category from non-linguistical articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Thus in this vein, it should not be "Indo-European studies" -- 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 03:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
NOTE: Category:African Americans redirects to Category:African American people. Johnbod ( talk) 15:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC) reply
Which should clearly be a biographical category, following our usual style. Note that Category:African Americans redirects to Category:African American people, and is a sub of Category:African-American society. Johnbod ( talk) 15:52, 14 November 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:Mozabite people

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) 01:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains eponymous article. No need to upmerge, article is sufficiently categorized. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:08, 17 October 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:Garamantes

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) 01:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains eponymous article. No need to upmerge, article is sufficiently categorized. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:05, 17 October 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:Watercolours

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 will also put a category redirect on Category:Watercolour paintings. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent categories and sibling categories. Under Category:Paintings the subcategories generally have "paintings" as part of their name. To be consistent with the variant of English of the watercolor category tree, which uses U.S. English, the "u" would be dropped to match Category:Watercolor painting. The attachment of "paintings" also clafifies the scope of the category, to exclude paints and pigments, as this category is only for the paintings themselves. 70.51.44.60 ( talk) 03:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Why is it "more clear" User:Bodhi Peace? AusLondonder ( talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Because it clearly differentiates the artworks from the media. Bod ( talk) 05:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
But what makes it "more clear" User:RevelationDirect? AusLondonder ( talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
The contents are about the paintings created with watercolours/watercolors, not the paints themselves. RevelationDirect ( talk) 20:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC) reply
What do you mean "plain English naming", User:Sillyfolkboy? AusLondonder ( talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC) reply
@ AusLondonder: it differentiates it from the paint, which are also watercolours. To quote the article itself "Watercolor refers to both the medium and the resulting artwork". The change defines the scope as paintings and not the topic in general (which is Category:Watercolor painting). I'm not too fussed about the form of English, though it does seem better to align with the parent category and article. SFB 21:53, 19 October 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:Fruit in Malaysia

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) 01:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION and WP:NARROWCAT
The only article in the category is endemic to the Malay Peninsula (parts of Thailand and Malaysia), not the political boundaries of Malaysia. Additionally, the intersection is too narrow to create a category large enough to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified MKwek as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support Fruit are better categorised by the geographic area rather than polity, as they do not respect the latter. An article would be a better approach to discuss Fruit in Malaysia, but content is insufficient to merit conversion to an article here. SFB 13:32, 18 October 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_17&oldid=1138409306"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE