April 22
Category:Cœur de pirate
- 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 following many precedents for such small categories. There is already a template which is sufficient for navigation. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. With only two albums and a discography page, this is an unnecessary level of categorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep merge the album category into this one, since there are only two albums, but with the two albums, and the rest of the contents in this category, there would be 6 entries. --
70.24.250.103 (
talk) 01:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:ALBUMS, the albums belong in an artist's albums category, so there is no need to upmerge as that is the convention. The song belongs in Category:Cœur de pirate songs. The topic, a discography, and a navbox is generally not enough for an eponymous category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Psy (entertainer)
- 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Psy (entertainer) to Category:Psy
- Propose renaming Category:Psy (entertainer) albums to Category:Psy albums
- Propose renaming Category:Psy (entertainer) songs to Category:Psy songs
- Nominator's rationale: Main article was recently moved; category should as well — Ryulong ( 琉竜) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support; this meaning is not only primary but predominant, and does not need disambiguation, given the lack of notability of the other entries at Psy (disambiguation). – Fayenatic L ondon 18:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support - per main article. jonkerz ♠talk 20:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support, eases both standardization and uniformity as well as the same time together also. — Cirt ( talk) 01:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:History of Quetta
- 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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:History of Quetta to Category:History of Quetta District
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contents seem to relate to the entire Pakistani District, not just its main city. Grutness... wha? 13:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom, e.g. Kharotabad Incident. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Politics of Quetta
- 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.
- Propose renaming Category:Politics of Quetta to Category:Politics of Quetta District
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contents seem to relate to the entire Pakistani District, not just its main city. Grutness... wha? 13:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, as it currently contains only Hazara Democratic Party, and that article refers to Quetta city. It's also currently part of Category:Politics by city in Pakistan. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Settlements with Regis suffix
- 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. If anyone wants to create a list, the entries can be selected from Regis (place) and List of place names with royal patronage in the United Kingdom. But do consider whether any such list would meet WP:LISTN. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES (and/or WP:OC#AWARD). Note (this is not the reason for the proposed deletion, but is provided for information): there are articles Regis (place) and List of place names with royal patronage in the United Kingdom. DexDor ( talk) 06:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- The category overlaps with the following search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/intitle:Regis_OR_R%C3%A9gis It has some meaning; put it to some related use. Consider renaming to Category:Historic English settlements own by the monarch, which if not proving suitable could then be articlified. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- KeepWithout all the places linked by this category there is no navigateable link between Regis settlements or the article Regis (place). I only came across the page by chance. Billhob ( talk) 07:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, not relevant. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 15:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- KeepA good navigateable link between Regis settlements Cheeseladder ( talk) 20:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- If they are related, make a template; that's what templates are good for: navigating between like things. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Listify not a defining characteristic, but could be used as an index or something. (could also be moved into a subpage of WP:ENGLAND) -- 70.24.250.103 ( talk) 01:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete no more useful or justifiable than Category:Cities named for Stalin or Category:Eponymous cities deleted long ago. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Regis suffix is an unusual name, so settlements which have it, deserve to have a navigatable link between them. A template would be too much, I think, and would end up being deleted. This category is adequate for the job.
Dennisbluie (
talk) 14:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- And why exactly would a template be deleted? Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Definitely a template or a list is a preferable way to do this, since this goes directly against the applicable guideline on overcategorization, as cited by the nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, as all these are now listed in Regis (place). – Fayenatic L ondon 17:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete we do not group things just because they have "unusal" names. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Not defining, better suited as a list. Neutrality talk 07:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Honorary Fellows of The Institute of IT Professionals
- 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD DexDor ( talk) 05:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not relevant. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, maybe could be revisited later. — Cirt ( talk) 01:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Subjects taught in medical school
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: (1) Not a WP:DEFINING characteristic, (2) largely, if not completely, redundant to Category:Medical specialties, (3) not part of a wider "Subjects taught in..." category tree, (4) puts articles like Foot under Category:Education which doesn't make sense. DexDor ( talk) 05:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, the "Cat:Medical specialities" has a better name. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it will not be helpful to start listing subjects by whether they are taught in particular fields, even in professional fields like medicine where particular subjects are politicized and regimented. Better to do this as a list. -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- delete there are other cats that do this job better - what is taught in which school is constantly changing. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 03:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - as above. Neutrality talk 07:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, medical specialties is a bit better application. — Cirt ( talk) 01:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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 from Ireland
- 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 as the two remaining sub-cats are already in appropriate sub-cats of Category:Irish sportspeople. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Multiple problems here: (1) the category purports to be a subcategory of Category:Athletes by nationality, but the format for subcategories of that tree is "FOOian athletes", and Category:Irish athletes is pre-existing; if this is an attempt to change this particular naming format, this is not the way to go about it; (2) the category contains subcategories for various footballers, bobsledders, hurlers, etc.—but in the category tree, "athletes" usually refers to those who participate in "athletics", meaning track and field. "Sportspeople" is the term used for people who compete in various sports. The applicable category is the pre-existing Category:Irish sportspeople. I suggest deleting the nominated category and re-sorting out the proper categorization of the subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- delete can people please do a search before creating a new category? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose as this is the best vehicle for the Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland divide. You get Category:Athletes from Northern Ireland and Category:Athletes from the Republic of Ireland as its children. It is not really possible to do that with "Irish athletes". Rather, it is Irish Athletes that ought to be deleted. In some cultures, a player of American Football self describes as an athlete. But admitedly, that rarely happens in Ireland. So I'm happy for the bobsledders, hurlers, etc to leave that tree. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Sportspeople from Ireland, then purge. Athletes is being used in the American sense, which is inappropriate to Ireland, despite the "athletic" in the name of GAA. Some sports (notably GAA sports, but also horse-racing) are organised on an all-Ireland basis, so that there should be an all-Ireland parent. Others are organised on a split NI/RoI basis. This should be reflected in the category structure. This category should be limited to sports organised on an all-Ireland basis (which should be explained in a headnote), with "see also" items (not subcats) for the NI/ROI categories for split sports. I observe that we alos have Category:Irish sportspeople, but that needs a major split according to these principles, so that Iam reluctant to votefora merge there. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Reply I don't think that that suggestion solves the problem as posed. Just to complicate matters further, it appears that we have a cat called
Category:Irish sportspeople by county which operates as a container cat for Sportspeople from the Republic of Ireland and for Sportspeople from Northern Ireland. So really it is this entity that ought to be re-named as
Category:Sportspeople from Ireland and leave the current nomination alone.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 20:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's created a freaking mess. It should be deleted and we can start over. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: yet another daft category created by an editor with much form in that area. Brocach ( talk) 11:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Irish sportspeople. I quite agree that this ill-considered categ is a mess, but let's keep its contents in a place where they can be diffused. Note that the subcats Category:Athletes from the Republic of Ireland and Category:Athletes from Northern Ireland also need attention. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Need deletion, you mean. Still more mad categorisation by Laurel Lodged, who doesn't ever learn.
Brocach (
talk) 23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, Category:Athletes from Northern Ireland should stay, but be tidied up. It is correctly named for a NI category, and like any other categ of NI ppl by occupation, it belongs as a subcat of both Category:Irish athletes and Category:British athletes (alongside Category:English athletes, Category:Scottish athletes, and Category:Welsh athletes). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody's emptied most of the contents of the category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good.
Brocach (
talk) 23:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all good. If there is a consensus to remove the category, the pages can be recategorised according the consensus. What's the point in having consensus-forming discussions if editors act unilaterally without regard to the discussion? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 23:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- When consistently disruptive editors create and populate new categories without any attempt at engagement in "consensus-forming discussions", they must expect to be reverted, and any reverts put an onus on the editor to explain at each page why the change was supposedly an improvement. This rather limits the scope for category obsessives to wreak havoc.
Brocach (
talk) 00:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it was
User:Laurel Lodged, who also created the category:
[1].
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 00:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it was. When you see unwanted geo categories being imposed without discussion on Irish topics, that's who it always is.
Brocach (
talk) 00:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was pointing out that it was
User:Laurel Lodged who emptied the category (and that the person who emptied the category was also the person who created the category). See the link provided above. Everyone was aware that LL created the category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 05:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. As advertised on my first comment. Good Olfactory's analysis was correct. For them to have remained would have distracted from the main point. The main point is that the category is still correct IMHO. Brocach - chill. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was pointing out that it was
User:Laurel Lodged who emptied the category (and that the person who emptied the category was also the person who created the category). See the link provided above. Everyone was aware that LL created the category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 05:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it was. When you see unwanted geo categories being imposed without discussion on Irish topics, that's who it always is.
Brocach (
talk) 00:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it was
User:Laurel Lodged, who also created the category:
[1].
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 00:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- When consistently disruptive editors create and populate new categories without any attempt at engagement in "consensus-forming discussions", they must expect to be reverted, and any reverts put an onus on the editor to explain at each page why the change was supposedly an improvement. This rather limits the scope for category obsessives to wreak havoc.
Brocach (
talk) 00:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all good. If there is a consensus to remove the category, the pages can be recategorised according the consensus. What's the point in having consensus-forming discussions if editors act unilaterally without regard to the discussion? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 23:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good.
Brocach (
talk) 23:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Need deletion, you mean. Still more mad categorisation by Laurel Lodged, who doesn't ever learn.
Brocach (
talk) 23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sidebar It should be noted that Brocach has de-populated Category:Athletes from the Republic of Ireland - see diff here. The rationale offered is hilarious. As he knows by now, if he doesn't like a category, he should bring it here, not unilaterally de-populate it. This has been explained to him many times by, among others, BrownHairedGirl. How are editors to see the logic of my argument if all that's left is a hollow shell? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- (If anyone cares) look at the immediately preceding
: Laurel Lodged deleting the category "Irish athletes" from one of the greatest Irish athletes of all time, who only ever competed for the island of Ireland rather than either state on it, and substituting his own Republic category. Does restoring Sonia O'Sullivan to the category in which she made her name count as "depopulating" the controversial mini-category created only on 21 April by Laurel Lodged? Oooh, take me out and shoot me.
Brocach (
talk) 22:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Shooting is not within the gift of Admins; they're confined to ANI-type censures. But Brocach openly advertises that he is not afraid of ANI - see
Robbie Keane.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong again; I "openly advertised" that the last complaint about me was laughed out of court. This is a sideshow to the main issue here of whether your bizarre "Athletes from Ireland" category should be deleted, so I won't engage further with your attempted distractions.
Brocach (
talk) 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Brocach, you have been warned many times not to depopulate categories just because you thi8nk that they are inappropriate. If you do it again, I will take it to ANI. You and Finnegas used to do this as a double-act, and Finnegas's conduct was unanimously disparaged when I raised it ANI. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong again; I "openly advertised" that the last complaint about me was laughed out of court. This is a sideshow to the main issue here of whether your bizarre "Athletes from Ireland" category should be deleted, so I won't engage further with your attempted distractions.
Brocach (
talk) 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Shooting is not within the gift of Admins; they're confined to ANI-type censures. But Brocach openly advertises that he is not afraid of ANI - see
Robbie Keane.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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.
April 22
Category:Cœur de pirate
- 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 following many precedents for such small categories. There is already a template which is sufficient for navigation. – Fayenatic L ondon 08:22, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. With only two albums and a discography page, this is an unnecessary level of categorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 20:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep merge the album category into this one, since there are only two albums, but with the two albums, and the rest of the contents in this category, there would be 6 entries. --
70.24.250.103 (
talk) 01:25, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS and WP:ALBUMS, the albums belong in an artist's albums category, so there is no need to upmerge as that is the convention. The song belongs in Category:Cœur de pirate songs. The topic, a discography, and a navbox is generally not enough for an eponymous category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 06:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Psy (entertainer)
- 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. Timrollpickering ( talk) 23:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Psy (entertainer) to Category:Psy
- Propose renaming Category:Psy (entertainer) albums to Category:Psy albums
- Propose renaming Category:Psy (entertainer) songs to Category:Psy songs
- Nominator's rationale: Main article was recently moved; category should as well — Ryulong ( 琉竜) 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support; this meaning is not only primary but predominant, and does not need disambiguation, given the lack of notability of the other entries at Psy (disambiguation). – Fayenatic L ondon 18:01, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support - per main article. jonkerz ♠talk 20:14, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support, eases both standardization and uniformity as well as the same time together also. — Cirt ( talk) 01:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:History of Quetta
- 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.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 23:32, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:History of Quetta to Category:History of Quetta District
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contents seem to relate to the entire Pakistani District, not just its main city. Grutness... wha? 13:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Support per nom, e.g. Kharotabad Incident. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:57, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Politics of Quetta
- 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.
- Propose renaming Category:Politics of Quetta to Category:Politics of Quetta District
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Contents seem to relate to the entire Pakistani District, not just its main city. Grutness... wha? 13:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose, as it currently contains only Hazara Democratic Party, and that article refers to Quetta city. It's also currently part of Category:Politics by city in Pakistan. – Fayenatic L ondon 17:54, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Settlements with Regis suffix
- 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. If anyone wants to create a list, the entries can be selected from Regis (place) and List of place names with royal patronage in the United Kingdom. But do consider whether any such list would meet WP:LISTN. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:48, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES (and/or WP:OC#AWARD). Note (this is not the reason for the proposed deletion, but is provided for information): there are articles Regis (place) and List of place names with royal patronage in the United Kingdom. DexDor ( talk) 06:20, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- The category overlaps with the following search: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search/intitle:Regis_OR_R%C3%A9gis It has some meaning; put it to some related use. Consider renaming to Category:Historic English settlements own by the monarch, which if not proving suitable could then be articlified. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:13, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- KeepWithout all the places linked by this category there is no navigateable link between Regis settlements or the article Regis (place). I only came across the page by chance. Billhob ( talk) 07:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete per nomination, not relevant. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 15:27, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- KeepA good navigateable link between Regis settlements Cheeseladder ( talk) 20:11, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- If they are related, make a template; that's what templates are good for: navigating between like things. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Listify not a defining characteristic, but could be used as an index or something. (could also be moved into a subpage of WP:ENGLAND) -- 70.24.250.103 ( talk) 01:28, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete no more useful or justifiable than Category:Cities named for Stalin or Category:Eponymous cities deleted long ago. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Regis suffix is an unusual name, so settlements which have it, deserve to have a navigatable link between them. A template would be too much, I think, and would end up being deleted. This category is adequate for the job.
Dennisbluie (
talk) 14:41, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- And why exactly would a template be deleted? Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:46, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Definitely a template or a list is a preferable way to do this, since this goes directly against the applicable guideline on overcategorization, as cited by the nominator. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, as all these are now listed in Regis (place). – Fayenatic L ondon 17:46, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete we do not group things just because they have "unusal" names. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 01:58, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. Not defining, better suited as a list. Neutrality talk 07:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Honorary Fellows of The Institute of IT Professionals
- 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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD DexDor ( talk) 05:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, not relevant. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, maybe could be revisited later. — Cirt ( talk) 01:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Subjects taught in medical school
- 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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: (1) Not a WP:DEFINING characteristic, (2) largely, if not completely, redundant to Category:Medical specialties, (3) not part of a wider "Subjects taught in..." category tree, (4) puts articles like Foot under Category:Education which doesn't make sense. DexDor ( talk) 05:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, the "Cat:Medical specialities" has a better name. -- NaBUru38 ( talk) 15:28, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- I think it will not be helpful to start listing subjects by whether they are taught in particular fields, even in professional fields like medicine where particular subjects are politicized and regimented. Better to do this as a list. -- Lquilter ( talk) 15:19, 24 April 2013 (UTC)
- delete there are other cats that do this job better - what is taught in which school is constantly changing. -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 03:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete - as above. Neutrality talk 07:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete, medical specialties is a bit better application. — Cirt ( talk) 01:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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 from Ireland
- 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 as the two remaining sub-cats are already in appropriate sub-cats of Category:Irish sportspeople. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Multiple problems here: (1) the category purports to be a subcategory of Category:Athletes by nationality, but the format for subcategories of that tree is "FOOian athletes", and Category:Irish athletes is pre-existing; if this is an attempt to change this particular naming format, this is not the way to go about it; (2) the category contains subcategories for various footballers, bobsledders, hurlers, etc.—but in the category tree, "athletes" usually refers to those who participate in "athletics", meaning track and field. "Sportspeople" is the term used for people who compete in various sports. The applicable category is the pre-existing Category:Irish sportspeople. I suggest deleting the nominated category and re-sorting out the proper categorization of the subcategories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- delete can people please do a search before creating a new category? -- Obi-Wan Kenobi ( talk) 00:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose as this is the best vehicle for the Republic of Ireland / Northern Ireland divide. You get Category:Athletes from Northern Ireland and Category:Athletes from the Republic of Ireland as its children. It is not really possible to do that with "Irish athletes". Rather, it is Irish Athletes that ought to be deleted. In some cultures, a player of American Football self describes as an athlete. But admitedly, that rarely happens in Ireland. So I'm happy for the bobsledders, hurlers, etc to leave that tree. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 12:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Sportspeople from Ireland, then purge. Athletes is being used in the American sense, which is inappropriate to Ireland, despite the "athletic" in the name of GAA. Some sports (notably GAA sports, but also horse-racing) are organised on an all-Ireland basis, so that there should be an all-Ireland parent. Others are organised on a split NI/RoI basis. This should be reflected in the category structure. This category should be limited to sports organised on an all-Ireland basis (which should be explained in a headnote), with "see also" items (not subcats) for the NI/ROI categories for split sports. I observe that we alos have Category:Irish sportspeople, but that needs a major split according to these principles, so that Iam reluctant to votefora merge there. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Reply I don't think that that suggestion solves the problem as posed. Just to complicate matters further, it appears that we have a cat called
Category:Irish sportspeople by county which operates as a container cat for Sportspeople from the Republic of Ireland and for Sportspeople from Northern Ireland. So really it is this entity that ought to be re-named as
Category:Sportspeople from Ireland and leave the current nomination alone.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 20:38, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- It's created a freaking mess. It should be deleted and we can start over. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
- Delete: yet another daft category created by an editor with much form in that area. Brocach ( talk) 11:42, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
- Merge to Category:Irish sportspeople. I quite agree that this ill-considered categ is a mess, but let's keep its contents in a place where they can be diffused. Note that the subcats Category:Athletes from the Republic of Ireland and Category:Athletes from Northern Ireland also need attention. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:31, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Need deletion, you mean. Still more mad categorisation by Laurel Lodged, who doesn't ever learn.
Brocach (
talk) 23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, Category:Athletes from Northern Ireland should stay, but be tidied up. It is correctly named for a NI category, and like any other categ of NI ppl by occupation, it belongs as a subcat of both Category:Irish athletes and Category:British athletes (alongside Category:English athletes, Category:Scottish athletes, and Category:Welsh athletes). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Somebody's emptied most of the contents of the category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 23:24, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good.
Brocach (
talk) 23:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all good. If there is a consensus to remove the category, the pages can be recategorised according the consensus. What's the point in having consensus-forming discussions if editors act unilaterally without regard to the discussion? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 23:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- When consistently disruptive editors create and populate new categories without any attempt at engagement in "consensus-forming discussions", they must expect to be reverted, and any reverts put an onus on the editor to explain at each page why the change was supposedly an improvement. This rather limits the scope for category obsessives to wreak havoc.
Brocach (
talk) 00:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it was
User:Laurel Lodged, who also created the category:
[1].
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 00:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it was. When you see unwanted geo categories being imposed without discussion on Irish topics, that's who it always is.
Brocach (
talk) 00:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was pointing out that it was
User:Laurel Lodged who emptied the category (and that the person who emptied the category was also the person who created the category). See the link provided above. Everyone was aware that LL created the category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 05:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Mea culpa. As advertised on my first comment. Good Olfactory's analysis was correct. For them to have remained would have distracted from the main point. The main point is that the category is still correct IMHO. Brocach - chill. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:11, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- I was pointing out that it was
User:Laurel Lodged who emptied the category (and that the person who emptied the category was also the person who created the category). See the link provided above. Everyone was aware that LL created the category.
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 05:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Of course it was. When you see unwanted geo categories being imposed without discussion on Irish topics, that's who it always is.
Brocach (
talk) 00:32, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Looks like it was
User:Laurel Lodged, who also created the category:
[1].
Good Ol’factory
(talk) 00:18, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- When consistently disruptive editors create and populate new categories without any attempt at engagement in "consensus-forming discussions", they must expect to be reverted, and any reverts put an onus on the editor to explain at each page why the change was supposedly an improvement. This rather limits the scope for category obsessives to wreak havoc.
Brocach (
talk) 00:14, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Not at all good. If there is a consensus to remove the category, the pages can be recategorised according the consensus. What's the point in having consensus-forming discussions if editors act unilaterally without regard to the discussion? --
BrownHairedGirl
(talk) • (
contribs) 23:38, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Good.
Brocach (
talk) 23:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
- Need deletion, you mean. Still more mad categorisation by Laurel Lodged, who doesn't ever learn.
Brocach (
talk) 23:19, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Sidebar It should be noted that Brocach has de-populated Category:Athletes from the Republic of Ireland - see diff here. The rationale offered is hilarious. As he knows by now, if he doesn't like a category, he should bring it here, not unilaterally de-populate it. This has been explained to him many times by, among others, BrownHairedGirl. How are editors to see the logic of my argument if all that's left is a hollow shell? Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- (If anyone cares) look at the immediately preceding
: Laurel Lodged deleting the category "Irish athletes" from one of the greatest Irish athletes of all time, who only ever competed for the island of Ireland rather than either state on it, and substituting his own Republic category. Does restoring Sonia O'Sullivan to the category in which she made her name count as "depopulating" the controversial mini-category created only on 21 April by Laurel Lodged? Oooh, take me out and shoot me.
Brocach (
talk) 22:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Shooting is not within the gift of Admins; they're confined to ANI-type censures. But Brocach openly advertises that he is not afraid of ANI - see
Robbie Keane.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong again; I "openly advertised" that the last complaint about me was laughed out of court. This is a sideshow to the main issue here of whether your bizarre "Athletes from Ireland" category should be deleted, so I won't engage further with your attempted distractions.
Brocach (
talk) 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Brocach, you have been warned many times not to depopulate categories just because you thi8nk that they are inappropriate. If you do it again, I will take it to ANI. You and Finnegas used to do this as a double-act, and Finnegas's conduct was unanimously disparaged when I raised it ANI. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
- Wrong again; I "openly advertised" that the last complaint about me was laughed out of court. This is a sideshow to the main issue here of whether your bizarre "Athletes from Ireland" category should be deleted, so I won't engage further with your attempted distractions.
Brocach (
talk) 23:45, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- Shooting is not within the gift of Admins; they're confined to ANI-type censures. But Brocach openly advertises that he is not afraid of ANI - see
Robbie Keane.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 22:15, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
- 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.