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:Waterfront Hotels & Casinos
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 This hotel is part of a very small chain (for which there's no article) and none of the other hotels in the chain currently have articles. Moreover I'm not so sure they're that notable to start with. So this category is not providing any help for navigation and should be deleted.
Pichpich (
talk)
23:25, 25 October 2012 (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:Helix (band)
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:Trujillo Festivals (Peru)
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 to follow the naming conventions. This is my preferred option but upmerging to
Category:Festivals in Peru is another decent option since only three entries truly fit the "Festivals in Trujillo" description.
Pichpich (
talk)
23:10, 25 October 2012 (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:Maccabiah Games rugby union teams
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.
Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games subcategories
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 list this on the relevant projects.
Delete - I would say merge if not assured that they were already in the parent. They can be re-created if there is any prospect of their being adequately populated.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who are a net negative as an influence on Wikipedia
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 per
WP:SNOW. This is a blatant attack page, which was correctly deleted per
WP:CSD#G10. It was re-created by a non-admin, and per speedy deletion policy it was eligible for further speedy deletion. To prevent its creation again, I have salted it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. First, the background. There exists
Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian. Fron what I can piece together from various discussions, the category was created following an insulting comment from one editor to another. Speedy deletion was requested and denied. It was then
proposed for deletion and in the couse of that discussion was speedily deleted as an attack category intended to disparage. Discussion then
moved to deletion review. In the course of that discussion this category was created. I asked that it be speedy deleted as an attack/disparagement category. It was deleted and the category creator recreated it.
This category should be deleted for several reasons. It is an attack/disparagement category and its name leaves no room for dispute on that point. Saying that an editor has a negative influence on Wikipedia is an insult. That the category creator put himself in it, I assume ironically, does not change that.
The category does not serve the purpose of a Wikipedians category, which is to foster collaboration between Wikipedians. If a Wikipedian's presence on the project is a "net negative" then the likelihood of collaboration between them is low and any such collaboration would likely not benefit or improve the project.
Finally, the category was created in the course of the deletion review, in clear violation of
WP:POINT. The project is disrupted by the existence of attack/disparagement categories, it is disrupted when an editor re-creates a category after it's been deleted and it's disrupted when a week-long discussion is forced by the category's creation.
In my opinion the category should again be speedy deleted as an attack and it should be blocked from being recreated (and the creator should be strongly encouraged not to create other similar categories). If it cannot be speedy deleted then it should be deleted per the argument laid out above.
For the record I don't know anything about the underlying dispute and to the best of my knowledge have had no interaction with any of the involved parties outside of what's disclosed in these discussions.
Buck Winston (
talk)
20:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Let the other discussion run its course. There is no need to start a parallel discussion here. If the other category is deleted, then delete this. If the other stays, keep this. No drama. No redundant discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
First, this is not a "parallel discussion". It is a discussion of this category and is independent of the other. Second, regardless of what happens to the other category, this category still needs to go. Third, you should identify yourself as the creator and re-creator of the nominated category.
Buck Winston (
talk)
22:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Buck,
The discussions are contemporaneous, and the arguments there apply here, so don't waste others' time with a duplicate discussion, unless you have an original thought to contribute. What is new in your verbiage? Kiefer.Wolfowitz23:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Reply to Mangoe and Carlossuarez46: You two do not like the category. Please explain why (1) why this category is different than the other category being discussed and (2) what policy suggests a deletion. (WP:POINT has been discussed on the other's talk page.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz07:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I endorsed deletion of the other category as well, on the same grounds. The policy in question would be "WP:Ignore all wikilawyering and get rid of what is causing a lot of disprution to no positive end."
Mangoe (
talk)
14:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete as an unambiguous attack category. NB the other discussion alluded to here is more subtle, this is blatant, with no room for discussion possible.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
07:33, 27 October 2012 (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.
Subnational entities
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.
To my understanding it was not an objection to the renaming but a notice that I forgot to tag the category pages. And /I/ thought when I saw the templates, that the person did fix that. I now checked and see that you put the templates to the category pages. Thanks! Cheers.
ChemTerm (
talk)
00:23, 30 October 2012 (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:Folk Heroes of Assam
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.
Merge -- Until there are enough articles for theri to be a need to split the people out of the wider concept of folklore stories, we do not need more than one category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:27, 30 October 2012 (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:Wedding dress designers
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:Merge. Seems like a rather unnecessary split from fashion designers based on having designed a single type of garment. Surely most fashion designers will have designed one at some point and it is unlikely to be a defining trait.
MaybeMaybeMaybe (
talk)
19:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Some designers either are purely wedding dress designers or are strongly known for it, it is not for every designers who has ever made a wedding dress. Just like
Category:Western (genre) film actors is not intended for every actor who ever appeared in a western. I am baffled why you would pick on this obviously constructive category, aren't there more serious problems on wikipedia?♦
Dr. ☠ Blofeld19:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I have added two small sub-categories into this nomination, to be merged to both parents. The American sub-category currently also has only one member, but I assume that it could easily be expanded. –
FayenaticLondon19:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep, but probably don't need to subdivide by nationality (?). (decided I did have an opinion) No strong opinion, but wanted to add that there is a separate fashion week solely for wedding dress designs, and that most designer wedding dresses worn in the real world (can't speak to celebrities who may wear one-offs by other designers) are made by designers who only (or at least 80-90%) design wedding dresses. For example, Monique Lhuillier, Anne Barge, Vera Wang... Traditionally, a fashion show in the normal fashion week context has one wedding dress as the final look of their ~30-look show, which may give some indication of the percentage of their work devoted to such dresses. (And these days, that traditional wedding dress look is seen less and less.)
Calliopejen1 (
talk)
20:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Whatever happens to the main category I would agree that the nationality sub cats are not needed . In future if the main one got huge I could see it but not in the present.
MaybeMaybeMaybe (
talk)
02:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I only meant to upmerge the two small sub-cats that I have nominated, but have no objection to double-upmerge of the British and American sub-cats as well. –
FayenaticLondon17:14, 26 October 2012 (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:Slovakian aircraft
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. This does not follow the tree naming convention. Renaming to what is anticapted to be the outcome of
this discussion. The others can probably be done as speedy nominations.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:42, 25 October 2012 (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:Goldfinger (band)
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. This category was nominated by the same editor at
CFD September 30, which was closed on October 7 as "keep", after nobody supported deletion. If the nominator disagreed with that closure, they could have opened a
DRV, but it is
tendentious to start a new discussion only 18 days later, and this renomination should have been procedurally closed as soon as it was opened. Since it was not closed, and ran its course, I have assessed it in the usual way for repeat nominations, by considering whether there is a consensus that anything has changed since the previous discussion. In this case, there is no consensus that the previous discussion was flawed or that it overlooked a crucial issue, so the result is keep. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via {{catseealso}}--why keep this? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:37, 25 October 2012 (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:Do-Re-Mi (band)
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: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via {{catseealso}}--why keep this? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose – it was indeed recently listed and deletion was unanimously opposed by 4 editors. (There are image files which should be placed in an images subcat, making 3 subcats, generally kept.)
Oculi (
talk)
19:43, 25 October 2012 (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:Models (band)
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: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via {{catseealso}}--why have this? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:35, 25 October 2012 (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:Beat Happening
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: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose – as this has just been kept (7 Oct 2012) it is too soon to bring it back to cfd. Perhaps consensus against eponymous categories with 2 subcats is shifting.
Oculi (
talk)
19:24, 25 October 2012 (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:Sri Lankan refugee camps
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.
Also restructure making the category a sub-cat of
Category:Sri Lankan internment camps and removing the articles from that, as they are currently also all in it. That would leave the latter containing the renamed category plus
Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya which was used as a rehab camp at a different period. It also currently contains Vanni Mouse, a short film set in an IDP camp, so I would move that into the renamed category.
Rename it is generally better to avoid possesive forms for things that it could be confusing whether it is by location or by nationality of the people involved. We want this to be clearly the former.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:40, 30 October 2012 (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:British people by second-level administrative subdivision
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 for consistency. I've separately nominated all the ones that have "administrative country subdivision" to be shortened, dropping the unnecessary word "administrative", in line with parent
Category:Country subdivisions. This may be different as it's just one country, which has different names for its second-level subdivisions in the various first-level subdivisions, so I have moved it out for separate discussion. Nevertheless "administrative" is not correct, as
Category:People by county in England states that it groups people "by current ceremonial county", not by district even when they are unitary coucils (which have former county council responsibilities). –
FayenaticLondon20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
OpposeSupport As The situation may be is different in Scotland. For instance, "[Perth and Kinross] was created a single district in 1975, in the Tayside region, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, and then reconstituted as a unitary authority (with a minor boundary adjustment) in 1996, by the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994". So it is obviously an administrative subdivision. Moreover,
Category:People by council area in Scotland states This category lists Scottish people by the council area where they were born and/or raised. These sound to me like an adminstrative area and not a ceremonial county or similar. Can anybody correct me on this position? Therefore, although the name is correct for Scotland, it is not for England. --
Bob247 (
talk)
15:06, 27 October 2012 (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.
More country subdivisions
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.
Oppose many countries are divided for administration differently than for culture, history, etc. A few examples: Normandy is divided in the first level of France, for administrative purposes, there is not a cultural or historical division: did William the Conqueror come from Upper Normandy or Lower Normandy - did he care? Similarly, the Province of Khorasan in Iran was in recent times divided into three provinces, without any cultural impact.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
02:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Similar to the situation with Scotland above, France is divided by administrative divisions that have little to do with culture or history. For instance, the region of Savoy, although an historic region, was subdivided administratively into departments on 4 March 1790 by the National Constituent Assembly. These divisions were deliberately chosen to break up France's historical regions in an attempt to erase cultural differences and build a more homogeneous nation. Therefore, clearly an administrative rather that cultural division. --
Bob247 (
talk)
15:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Similar issue arise in England, where there is now an inconsistently-mixed relationship between the ceremonial counties, the traditional counties, and the current administrative structures. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Support generally -- I would like to drop "adminstrative" and also the "first-level"/"second-level". I do not think the French case really helps us. We may have trees involving provinces or departments. Most French provinces cover several departments, but a suspect that few straddle a provincial boundary, at least not significantly. We can include both categoriues in the same parent, as they will probably largely be container-only categories. The present names are far too complex and rather obscure. In England, the county is the first tier authority and the district the second tier, where local government is not unitary. The other three home nations have sinlge tier local government. Unlike US States, the four home nations are NOT tiers of lcoal government or arbitrary division of the UK: the clue is in the word "United".
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:45, 30 October 2012 (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:Malaysian albums in 1976
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:Stellar Kart
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:OC#EPONYMOUS. The category only contains the standard songs and albums categories and a discography article. That's a little too thin for an eponymous category.
Pichpich (
talk)
13:46, 25 October 2012 (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:South American organization stubs
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. Has about the same article count as the perm cat, but still severely undersized. Keep template but upmerge until article count supports stub category (60+).
Dawynn (
talk)
09:28, 25 October 2012 (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:Listed palaces in Scotland
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.
It's almost impossible to give a good reason against a MediaWiki category, as categories are cheap and don't get in the way. However this isn't MediaWiki, it's Wikipedia, where a dogma against transitive categories is ruthlessly over-enforced. So having "listed palaces" must also essentially devalue the far more useful categories of "listed buildings" and "palaces".
"Listed palaces" is a trivial intersection. It's obviously easy to categorize these, but what value does this add? When would a reader interested in "palaces in Scotland" ever want to see them listed, but excluding the unlisted examples?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
15:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Question -- Are there any palaces that are not listed? If not, there is no reason why palaces in Scotland should not appear in the listed buildings category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Answer: Yes. I thought the same, and searched for evidence of listing for the articles which are not in the listed sub-cat, and concluded that not all palaces are listed. At least one was demolished, perhaps before listing came in. –
FayenaticLondon09:11, 2 November 2012 (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:Ethnic Armenian Olympians who represented other countries
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: I think this is
WP:OVERCAT, non-defining and a possible BLP issue. I've already posted a comment on the creator's talkpage raising issues with adding this category to articles, when it is not sourced in the body of the text. No other categories exist in this structure (IE ethnic x who represented...). LugnutsDick Laurent is dead07:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep:No other categories exist in this structure
This is untrue. See Category:Olympic competitors from Iran who represented other countries
That category inspired me to make this one in the first place.
Does this fall under Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation?
It says "only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right."
There is already an entire article called
List of Armenian Olympic medalists. It's already a topic of interest that most successful Armenian Olympians have represented other countries. I'm going to mention this page in the category.
Delete olympic competitors by ethnicity is not a standard formulation. Anyway it is not enough to be able to show these people are ethnic Armenians. To be worth categorizing there has to be evidence that there has been actual scholarly exploration of this subject, which I do not see. A mere list is not enough to justify the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This should be eithger be a very small intersection or a trivial one. A person who is a national of one country but represents one where he is not a national may be unusual enough to merit a singel category of its own, but we cannot go splitting that by either nationality, unless it proves to be very common.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:50, 30 October 2012 (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:Khazar–Arab Wars
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:Railway stations opened in 1829
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.
keep - The handful of stations around pre-1830 are fairly well known. We should include private coal stations as being significant at this date, the world's first passenger stations not opening until the L&MR in 1830. Although obscure, I think
Croft Spamaycitation needed be considered as the successor of the S&DR's 1829 coal branch to
Croft-on-Tees.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
09:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Railway passenger stations opened before 1830 and merge in any earlier categories. These annual categories are a menace at more remove periods, when there is little scope for populating them. Earlier goods trains did not operate so as to stop at stations. One horse took a waggon (or a small train of waggons) from the pit to a staith or landsale wharf. The concept of a station does not work. There is evidence of pre-S&DR passenger traffic, but not of formal stations.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:59, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Waterfront Hotels & Casinos
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 This hotel is part of a very small chain (for which there's no article) and none of the other hotels in the chain currently have articles. Moreover I'm not so sure they're that notable to start with. So this category is not providing any help for navigation and should be deleted.
Pichpich (
talk)
23:25, 25 October 2012 (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:Helix (band)
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:Trujillo Festivals (Peru)
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 to follow the naming conventions. This is my preferred option but upmerging to
Category:Festivals in Peru is another decent option since only three entries truly fit the "Festivals in Trujillo" description.
Pichpich (
talk)
23:10, 25 October 2012 (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:Maccabiah Games rugby union teams
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.
Rugby union at the Maccabiah Games subcategories
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 list this on the relevant projects.
Delete - I would say merge if not assured that they were already in the parent. They can be re-created if there is any prospect of their being adequately populated.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:24, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who are a net negative as an influence on Wikipedia
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 per
WP:SNOW. This is a blatant attack page, which was correctly deleted per
WP:CSD#G10. It was re-created by a non-admin, and per speedy deletion policy it was eligible for further speedy deletion. To prevent its creation again, I have salted it. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. First, the background. There exists
Category:Wikipedians who are not a Wikipedian. Fron what I can piece together from various discussions, the category was created following an insulting comment from one editor to another. Speedy deletion was requested and denied. It was then
proposed for deletion and in the couse of that discussion was speedily deleted as an attack category intended to disparage. Discussion then
moved to deletion review. In the course of that discussion this category was created. I asked that it be speedy deleted as an attack/disparagement category. It was deleted and the category creator recreated it.
This category should be deleted for several reasons. It is an attack/disparagement category and its name leaves no room for dispute on that point. Saying that an editor has a negative influence on Wikipedia is an insult. That the category creator put himself in it, I assume ironically, does not change that.
The category does not serve the purpose of a Wikipedians category, which is to foster collaboration between Wikipedians. If a Wikipedian's presence on the project is a "net negative" then the likelihood of collaboration between them is low and any such collaboration would likely not benefit or improve the project.
Finally, the category was created in the course of the deletion review, in clear violation of
WP:POINT. The project is disrupted by the existence of attack/disparagement categories, it is disrupted when an editor re-creates a category after it's been deleted and it's disrupted when a week-long discussion is forced by the category's creation.
In my opinion the category should again be speedy deleted as an attack and it should be blocked from being recreated (and the creator should be strongly encouraged not to create other similar categories). If it cannot be speedy deleted then it should be deleted per the argument laid out above.
For the record I don't know anything about the underlying dispute and to the best of my knowledge have had no interaction with any of the involved parties outside of what's disclosed in these discussions.
Buck Winston (
talk)
20:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Let the other discussion run its course. There is no need to start a parallel discussion here. If the other category is deleted, then delete this. If the other stays, keep this. No drama. No redundant discussions. Kiefer.Wolfowitz21:55, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
First, this is not a "parallel discussion". It is a discussion of this category and is independent of the other. Second, regardless of what happens to the other category, this category still needs to go. Third, you should identify yourself as the creator and re-creator of the nominated category.
Buck Winston (
talk)
22:26, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Buck,
The discussions are contemporaneous, and the arguments there apply here, so don't waste others' time with a duplicate discussion, unless you have an original thought to contribute. What is new in your verbiage? Kiefer.Wolfowitz23:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Reply to Mangoe and Carlossuarez46: You two do not like the category. Please explain why (1) why this category is different than the other category being discussed and (2) what policy suggests a deletion. (WP:POINT has been discussed on the other's talk page.) Kiefer.Wolfowitz07:44, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I endorsed deletion of the other category as well, on the same grounds. The policy in question would be "WP:Ignore all wikilawyering and get rid of what is causing a lot of disprution to no positive end."
Mangoe (
talk)
14:29, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete as an unambiguous attack category. NB the other discussion alluded to here is more subtle, this is blatant, with no room for discussion possible.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
07:33, 27 October 2012 (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.
Subnational entities
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.
To my understanding it was not an objection to the renaming but a notice that I forgot to tag the category pages. And /I/ thought when I saw the templates, that the person did fix that. I now checked and see that you put the templates to the category pages. Thanks! Cheers.
ChemTerm (
talk)
00:23, 30 October 2012 (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:Folk Heroes of Assam
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.
Merge -- Until there are enough articles for theri to be a need to split the people out of the wider concept of folklore stories, we do not need more than one category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:27, 30 October 2012 (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:Wedding dress designers
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:Merge. Seems like a rather unnecessary split from fashion designers based on having designed a single type of garment. Surely most fashion designers will have designed one at some point and it is unlikely to be a defining trait.
MaybeMaybeMaybe (
talk)
19:16, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I disagree. Some designers either are purely wedding dress designers or are strongly known for it, it is not for every designers who has ever made a wedding dress. Just like
Category:Western (genre) film actors is not intended for every actor who ever appeared in a western. I am baffled why you would pick on this obviously constructive category, aren't there more serious problems on wikipedia?♦
Dr. ☠ Blofeld19:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I have added two small sub-categories into this nomination, to be merged to both parents. The American sub-category currently also has only one member, but I assume that it could easily be expanded. –
FayenaticLondon19:47, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep, but probably don't need to subdivide by nationality (?). (decided I did have an opinion) No strong opinion, but wanted to add that there is a separate fashion week solely for wedding dress designs, and that most designer wedding dresses worn in the real world (can't speak to celebrities who may wear one-offs by other designers) are made by designers who only (or at least 80-90%) design wedding dresses. For example, Monique Lhuillier, Anne Barge, Vera Wang... Traditionally, a fashion show in the normal fashion week context has one wedding dress as the final look of their ~30-look show, which may give some indication of the percentage of their work devoted to such dresses. (And these days, that traditional wedding dress look is seen less and less.)
Calliopejen1 (
talk)
20:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Whatever happens to the main category I would agree that the nationality sub cats are not needed . In future if the main one got huge I could see it but not in the present.
MaybeMaybeMaybe (
talk)
02:06, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
I only meant to upmerge the two small sub-cats that I have nominated, but have no objection to double-upmerge of the British and American sub-cats as well. –
FayenaticLondon17:14, 26 October 2012 (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:Slovakian aircraft
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. This does not follow the tree naming convention. Renaming to what is anticapted to be the outcome of
this discussion. The others can probably be done as speedy nominations.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
18:42, 25 October 2012 (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:Goldfinger (band)
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. This category was nominated by the same editor at
CFD September 30, which was closed on October 7 as "keep", after nobody supported deletion. If the nominator disagreed with that closure, they could have opened a
DRV, but it is
tendentious to start a new discussion only 18 days later, and this renomination should have been procedurally closed as soon as it was opened. Since it was not closed, and ran its course, I have assessed it in the usual way for repeat nominations, by considering whether there is a consensus that anything has changed since the previous discussion. In this case, there is no consensus that the previous discussion was flawed or that it overlooked a crucial issue, so the result is keep. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:58, 2 November 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via {{catseealso}}--why keep this? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:37, 25 October 2012 (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:Do-Re-Mi (band)
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: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via {{catseealso}}--why keep this? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:35, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose – it was indeed recently listed and deletion was unanimously opposed by 4 editors. (There are image files which should be placed in an images subcat, making 3 subcats, generally kept.)
Oculi (
talk)
19:43, 25 October 2012 (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:Models (band)
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: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. The two subcats are linked via {{catseealso}}--why have this? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:35, 25 October 2012 (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:Beat Happening
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: Although recently listed, this was kept with a boilerplate text--there is very little content here and eponymous categories are discouraged. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose – as this has just been kept (7 Oct 2012) it is too soon to bring it back to cfd. Perhaps consensus against eponymous categories with 2 subcats is shifting.
Oculi (
talk)
19:24, 25 October 2012 (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:Sri Lankan refugee camps
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.
Also restructure making the category a sub-cat of
Category:Sri Lankan internment camps and removing the articles from that, as they are currently also all in it. That would leave the latter containing the renamed category plus
Polonnaruwa Rajakeeya Madya Maha Vidyalaya which was used as a rehab camp at a different period. It also currently contains Vanni Mouse, a short film set in an IDP camp, so I would move that into the renamed category.
Rename it is generally better to avoid possesive forms for things that it could be confusing whether it is by location or by nationality of the people involved. We want this to be clearly the former.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
03:40, 30 October 2012 (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:British people by second-level administrative subdivision
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 for consistency. I've separately nominated all the ones that have "administrative country subdivision" to be shortened, dropping the unnecessary word "administrative", in line with parent
Category:Country subdivisions. This may be different as it's just one country, which has different names for its second-level subdivisions in the various first-level subdivisions, so I have moved it out for separate discussion. Nevertheless "administrative" is not correct, as
Category:People by county in England states that it groups people "by current ceremonial county", not by district even when they are unitary coucils (which have former county council responsibilities). –
FayenaticLondon20:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
OpposeSupport As The situation may be is different in Scotland. For instance, "[Perth and Kinross] was created a single district in 1975, in the Tayside region, under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973, and then reconstituted as a unitary authority (with a minor boundary adjustment) in 1996, by the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994". So it is obviously an administrative subdivision. Moreover,
Category:People by council area in Scotland states This category lists Scottish people by the council area where they were born and/or raised. These sound to me like an adminstrative area and not a ceremonial county or similar. Can anybody correct me on this position? Therefore, although the name is correct for Scotland, it is not for England. --
Bob247 (
talk)
15:06, 27 October 2012 (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.
More country subdivisions
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.
Oppose many countries are divided for administration differently than for culture, history, etc. A few examples: Normandy is divided in the first level of France, for administrative purposes, there is not a cultural or historical division: did William the Conqueror come from Upper Normandy or Lower Normandy - did he care? Similarly, the Province of Khorasan in Iran was in recent times divided into three provinces, without any cultural impact.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
02:43, 26 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose Similar to the situation with Scotland above, France is divided by administrative divisions that have little to do with culture or history. For instance, the region of Savoy, although an historic region, was subdivided administratively into departments on 4 March 1790 by the National Constituent Assembly. These divisions were deliberately chosen to break up France's historical regions in an attempt to erase cultural differences and build a more homogeneous nation. Therefore, clearly an administrative rather that cultural division. --
Bob247 (
talk)
15:16, 27 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Similar issue arise in England, where there is now an inconsistently-mixed relationship between the ceremonial counties, the traditional counties, and the current administrative structures. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:13, 27 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Support generally -- I would like to drop "adminstrative" and also the "first-level"/"second-level". I do not think the French case really helps us. We may have trees involving provinces or departments. Most French provinces cover several departments, but a suspect that few straddle a provincial boundary, at least not significantly. We can include both categoriues in the same parent, as they will probably largely be container-only categories. The present names are far too complex and rather obscure. In England, the county is the first tier authority and the district the second tier, where local government is not unitary. The other three home nations have sinlge tier local government. Unlike US States, the four home nations are NOT tiers of lcoal government or arbitrary division of the UK: the clue is in the word "United".
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:45, 30 October 2012 (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:Malaysian albums in 1976
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:Stellar Kart
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:OC#EPONYMOUS. The category only contains the standard songs and albums categories and a discography article. That's a little too thin for an eponymous category.
Pichpich (
talk)
13:46, 25 October 2012 (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:South American organization stubs
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. Has about the same article count as the perm cat, but still severely undersized. Keep template but upmerge until article count supports stub category (60+).
Dawynn (
talk)
09:28, 25 October 2012 (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:Listed palaces in Scotland
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.
It's almost impossible to give a good reason against a MediaWiki category, as categories are cheap and don't get in the way. However this isn't MediaWiki, it's Wikipedia, where a dogma against transitive categories is ruthlessly over-enforced. So having "listed palaces" must also essentially devalue the far more useful categories of "listed buildings" and "palaces".
"Listed palaces" is a trivial intersection. It's obviously easy to categorize these, but what value does this add? When would a reader interested in "palaces in Scotland" ever want to see them listed, but excluding the unlisted examples?
Andy Dingley (
talk)
15:00, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Question -- Are there any palaces that are not listed? If not, there is no reason why palaces in Scotland should not appear in the listed buildings category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:47, 30 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Answer: Yes. I thought the same, and searched for evidence of listing for the articles which are not in the listed sub-cat, and concluded that not all palaces are listed. At least one was demolished, perhaps before listing came in. –
FayenaticLondon09:11, 2 November 2012 (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:Ethnic Armenian Olympians who represented other countries
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: I think this is
WP:OVERCAT, non-defining and a possible BLP issue. I've already posted a comment on the creator's talkpage raising issues with adding this category to articles, when it is not sourced in the body of the text. No other categories exist in this structure (IE ethnic x who represented...). LugnutsDick Laurent is dead07:59, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep:No other categories exist in this structure
This is untrue. See Category:Olympic competitors from Iran who represented other countries
That category inspired me to make this one in the first place.
Does this fall under Non-notable intersections by ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation?
It says "only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right."
There is already an entire article called
List of Armenian Olympic medalists. It's already a topic of interest that most successful Armenian Olympians have represented other countries. I'm going to mention this page in the category.
Delete olympic competitors by ethnicity is not a standard formulation. Anyway it is not enough to be able to show these people are ethnic Armenians. To be worth categorizing there has to be evidence that there has been actual scholarly exploration of this subject, which I do not see. A mere list is not enough to justify the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
15:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete -- This should be eithger be a very small intersection or a trivial one. A person who is a national of one country but represents one where he is not a national may be unusual enough to merit a singel category of its own, but we cannot go splitting that by either nationality, unless it proves to be very common.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:50, 30 October 2012 (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:Khazar–Arab Wars
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:Railway stations opened in 1829
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.
keep - The handful of stations around pre-1830 are fairly well known. We should include private coal stations as being significant at this date, the world's first passenger stations not opening until the L&MR in 1830. Although obscure, I think
Croft Spamaycitation needed be considered as the successor of the S&DR's 1829 coal branch to
Croft-on-Tees.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
09:29, 25 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Railway passenger stations opened before 1830 and merge in any earlier categories. These annual categories are a menace at more remove periods, when there is little scope for populating them. Earlier goods trains did not operate so as to stop at stations. One horse took a waggon (or a small train of waggons) from the pit to a staith or landsale wharf. The concept of a station does not work. There is evidence of pre-S&DR passenger traffic, but not of formal stations.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:59, 30 October 2012 (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.