- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: We don't normally use cryptic names for categories. There are other possible names (e.g. "PD German Government files"). Note: The other categories below Category:Public domain images by government have names in a variety of formats. DexDor ( talk) 21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Updated. DexDor ( talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as current name choice is obtuse. @ DexDor: However, I think by using files you're also arguing for a change to "files" over "images" (as stated in the parent). This is a broader change I also agree with, but one that isn't really specified in the nomination. SFB 22:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, probably best to do any renaming from "images" to "files" separately. DexDor ( talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (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.
- 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 as nominated. This close is no bar to early re-nomination of this and siblings to have "user" prepended, as well as "templates" appended to the others. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Membership top icons to Category:Membership top icon templates
- Nominator's rationale: As the notice at the top of the category text says "The pages listed in this category are meant to be top icon templates." DexDor ( talk) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose as redundant. It is redundant that it is already a sub-cat of Category:Top icon templates and in that the very nature of a {{ Top icon}} is that it is a template. It would also break the consistent naming scheme of most of the other sub-cats in Category:Top icon templates. Despite the fact that WP:PRECISE is intended only for the naming of articles, it states Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. For instance, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. I would think that the same logic would apply here and appending "templates" to the existing name is too precise. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 22:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support All template categories should be marked as so. It took me quite a while to realise what a "top icon" was – this isn't an intuitive form of template type like "navigational boxes" or "footers" that are well known templates. Therefore the "template" phrase needs to be in the name for clarity. SFB 22:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Like SFB, I was originally confused by this name. Would also support future nominations of the different sub-categories of Category:Top icon templates. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:User top icon membership templates. These need "user" and "template" added per various guidelines. - jc37 05:45, 9 March 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Teahouse hosts to Category:Wikipedia Teahouse hosts
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate, poorly named for a category that is part of wiki admin rather than part of the encyclopedia content. DexDor ( talk) 21:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy per WP:C2B, clear Wikipedia naming convention. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strong rename this is not about real life teahouse hosts, who can be notable, since teahouses have been power establishments in the history of East Asia -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 11:55, 9 January 2015 (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.
- 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. -- BDD ( talk) 19:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category contains 2 subcats (Mauritius navigational boxes and Mauritius stubs) and does not appear to perform a useful navigational purpose. This category places articles/templates (not talk pages) under a wikiproject category which is not how such pages are normally categorized.
- Note: This category is one of 9 "<country> Wikipedia administration" categories, but there is no such category for the other 200+ countries (e.g. there is no "France Wikipedia administration" category). If this CFD results in delete then a separate CFD should be started for the other 8 categories (which have anomalies such as circular categorization in the Canada category). DexDor ( talk) 20:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete this should be handled through a WP:WikiProject Mauritius banner template {{ WikiProject Mauritius}} if this is needed -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 07:00, 9 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 2 redirect but no actual song articles as expected. Richhoncho ( talk) 20:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. No objection to including redirects in a category but it doesn't aid navigation to have nothing else. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:02, 9 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 1 redirect i.e. no song articles Richhoncho ( talk) 19:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. No objection to including redirects in a category but it doesn't aid navigation to have nothing else. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:02, 9 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 1 redirect i.e. no song articles Richhoncho ( talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. No objection to including redirects in a category but it doesn't aid navigation to have nothing else. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:03, 9 January 2015 (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.
- 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, strongest argument is that few, if any, are notable for having died form surgical complications, in most cases it is a trivium. Guy ( Help!) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The great majority of people in this category were not defined by this circumstance of their death. Almost all of them were at an age where the chance of death during surgery is raised due to ill health. It is relatively common to die during surgery in the developed world. None of the people I saw in this category represent cases where this is a defining characteristic of the persons life - it is merely incidental. I propose deleting outright this category of unrelated people. A more useful and distinguishing category would be one based upon deaths in surgery due to malpractice. SFB 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The subcat ( Category:Deaths from plastic surgery complications) (unless it's also deleted) should be moved up to Category:Deaths by type of illness. "Deaths from ..." categories should contain only articles specifically about deaths. Renaming these categories to "People who died from ..." would be possible but IMO it's in WP:DNWAUC territory and the category would then need to be removed from Category:Surgery etc (e.g. John Ely (Iowa politician) should not be in Category:Medicine). DexDor ( talk) 20:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just as a note for clarity, I'm not looking to delete the plastic surgery child category as my rationale does not apply to that one. SFB 22:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Valid sub-category of
Category:Complications of surgical and medical care and
Category:Deaths by cause. Nom is certainy correct in saying age or disease play a role in deaths from surgical complications, that said the point remains these people all died during or shorty after surgery and in consequence of surgical complications. There is not OR, nothing subjective in that, and being "relatively common in the developed world" is not a rationale for deletion. Deleting this category would raise more problems than it solves, as re-categorizing people under an appropriate category in
Category:Deaths by cause would be problematic. Neutral about renaming and about creating a sub-cat based upon deaths due to malpractice.
Cavarrone
08:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- @
Cavarrone: My main point is that this topic is not a defining feature of the people. None of them are remembered as cases of death during surgery (hence my point about death by malpractice, as that will likely be much more relevant in biographical terms. We shouldn't be categorising people by things that aren't definitive of them (e.g. "People born prematurely").
SFB
20:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see your point, but yours is more a general point against the whole
Category:Deaths by cause than against this specific category. For the majority of biographies the circumstances of death are not a primary defining feature of the people, see cancer deaths, deaths from cardiovascular diseases, deaths from heart attack etc. If we adopt such point of view, the whole
Category:Deaths from disease and particularly very common causes of deaths such as
Category:Deaths from cancer should be discussed, but as long as we use to categorize all the people according the circumstances of their death, this category is still valid. Otherwise, we could decide to remove the most common/ordinary causes of deaths, but this is beyond the scope of this discussion. About death by malpractice, I see it as very problematic: possible POV in first place, eg I remember the death of
Enrico Simonetti during a surgery to remove a throat cancer was widely attribuited by the press to malpractice, but never recognized as malpractice by law. I have not followed the
Joan Rivers case, but apparently there is a controversity about her surgical complications too. Marking a death as a consequence of malpractice is a slippery slope, I would prefer to avoid that.
Cavarrone
20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Cavarrone: Interesting points and ones that I'll take on board. I've come to realise I'm going to nominate all the other common causes of death as well. The death category tree is taking on a morbid tone which is not warranted. SFB 03:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Cavarrone's "more problems" comment presupposes that every article about a dead person needs to be in a deaths-by-cause category. If we are to have a database of how (notable) people died then it should be in WikiData, not in the wp category scheme. There is far too much categorization on characteristics of someones death - it's not uncommon (
example) to find someone in 4 or more such categories (apart from year of death). Death should not be an exception to
WP:DNWAUC.
DexDor (
talk)
08:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't "presuppose" anything, that's how things have worked so far, people are regularly categorized according birth data and death data, among other things. The stated rationale applies equally to most if not all these categories, but offers no reason to delete the deaths by surgical complications while keeping way more common death-types such as cancer deaths or deaths by heart attack. If you want remove the whole tree because there is too much categorization on type of deaths so be it, you are welcome, but you have to start from the roots, not to cut a random branch, ie, a wider and more centralized discussion is necessary to decide if and in which cases a death-type category is warranted. Otherwise it is like saying "let's delete Category:1981 deaths, it is common to a lot of people and non-defining for their biographies" while keeping both Category:1980 deaths and Category:1982 deaths. Cavarrone 09:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see your point, but yours is more a general point against the whole
Category:Deaths by cause than against this specific category. For the majority of biographies the circumstances of death are not a primary defining feature of the people, see cancer deaths, deaths from cardiovascular diseases, deaths from heart attack etc. If we adopt such point of view, the whole
Category:Deaths from disease and particularly very common causes of deaths such as
Category:Deaths from cancer should be discussed, but as long as we use to categorize all the people according the circumstances of their death, this category is still valid. Otherwise, we could decide to remove the most common/ordinary causes of deaths, but this is beyond the scope of this discussion. About death by malpractice, I see it as very problematic: possible POV in first place, eg I remember the death of
Enrico Simonetti during a surgery to remove a throat cancer was widely attribuited by the press to malpractice, but never recognized as malpractice by law. I have not followed the
Joan Rivers case, but apparently there is a controversity about her surgical complications too. Marking a death as a consequence of malpractice is a slippery slope, I would prefer to avoid that.
Cavarrone
20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- @
Cavarrone: My main point is that this topic is not a defining feature of the people. None of them are remembered as cases of death during surgery (hence my point about death by malpractice, as that will likely be much more relevant in biographical terms. We shouldn't be categorising people by things that aren't definitive of them (e.g. "People born prematurely").
SFB
20:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I think we have gone way too overboard with means of death categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:40, 1 February 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Disney's Big Hero 6 characters to Category:Big Hero 6 characters
- Nominator's rationale: The characters apply to both the Marvel Comics and Disney universes, and the articles use the Marvel names instead of the Disney ones. Best to keep the name generic since these are not Disney-exclusive. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as not Disney-exclusive characters. SFB 23:29, 13 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
19:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Professional wrestlers from Monterrey to Category:Professional wrestlers from Nuevo León and Category:Sportspeople from Monterrey
- Propose merging Category:Baseball players from Monterrey to Category:Baseball players from Nuevo León and Category:Sportspeople from Monterrey
- Propose merging Category:Footballers from Monterrey to Category:Footballers from Nuevo León and Category:Sportspeople from Monterrey
- Nominator's rationale: This subdivision by city and sport-specific occupation is not helpful to navigation. The parents ( Category:Sportspeople from Monterrey and the state level Nuevo León categories) are not well populated in the first place. This city level of geography does not help define the sport-specific occupation much further (as the people in the wider area will have entered and competed in the sport in a similar way to those in the city). Moreover, Monterrey is not very definitive of a person's taking part in a specific sport. Also note that Category:Footballers from Monterrey is logically part of this nomination but is already nominated here. Should that broader and more complex nomination not result in deletion of that category, I would like to add it to this nomination as the rationale is exactly the same. SFB 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge dividing by specific sport at the city level is generally avoided. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:40, 1 February 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Male professional wrestlers from Jalisco to Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers and Category:Professional wrestlers from Jalisco
- Propose merging Category:Male professional wrestlers from Nuevo León to Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers and Category:Professional wrestlers from Nuevo León
- Propose merging Category:Male professional wrestlers from Tabasco to Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers and Category:Professional wrestlers from Tabasco
- Propose deleting Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers by state
- Nominator's rationale: Following on from this discussion - the gender element does not have much relevance to or effect on the area element. Hence, this is not a definitive characteristic. I propose upmerging to the non-gendered regional category and the gendered national parent. Even worse, these categories are leaving the parents depopulated. Further to this logic, the "by state" container should be deleted. SFB 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose In sports, female and male competitors are essentially in different sports, and all levels of dividing by such make sense.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @ Johnpacklambert: But effectively the commonality of place is not affected by the gender (i.e. they will likely have been trained by and been involved with the same groups of local people - women's wrestling is typically done in non-single-sex organisations). I'm using a similar logic at this nomination so you might want to comment there as well. It's quite an important one because introducing gender into sub-national location-based categories would be a new area with potential for tens of thousands of categories. SFB 13:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Merge per larger decision at Jan 30. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Merge These categories are too detailed and set a wrong precedent. gidonb ( talk) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 2 entries. ...William 13:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Merge Town with 17,000 people unlikely to grow this category in the future. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:05, 9 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Ambystoma to Category:Mole salamanders
- Nominator's rationale: " Mole salamanders" is the collective common name for the family Ambystomatidae, represented by the sole genus Ambystoma. Thus Category:Ambystoma is redundant, and if populated would be identical to Category:Mole salamanders. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 08:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support per main article (at main target) which is showing identical scope. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Oral citations experiment to Category:Wikipedia oral citations experiment
- Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other Wikipedia administration categories, clarity (this is not a content category) and consistency with the pages in the category (e.g.
Wikipedia:Oral citations experiment).
DexDor (
talk)
07:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Creator's comment: No objection from my side. Sorry for the extra work, will be more careful next time. -- Pgallert ( talk) 09:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as speedy per usual conventions and creator agreement. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support per the spirit of WP:C2E, author request. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:26, 8 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:World War II images (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Images by war
- Propose deleting
Category:World War II images (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: These two categories contain just a single file (which is in other categories and probably doesn't need to be in en wp anyway). DexDor ( talk) 06:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Sole image is a candidate to be moved to commons as well, so this doesn't appear to be a useful Wikipedia category. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep images are not properly categorized, which is why these are empty. Rather, we should create categories for the various wars and populated them. For instance, we have
File:TrangBang.jpg which should be categorized as
Category:Vietnam War images, yet we are missing the category to categorize it. Or
File:George Nicholson Bradford VC.jpg which should be categorized as
Category:World War I images yet no category exists. We need to build this category tree. Certainly there are historic images of recent wars that are under fair-use that need recent war categories to categorize them. There are many WWI fair-use images on Wikipedia, which we are missing a category to categorize them into. The Vietnam War is not 75 years old yet, so most historic images would be under copyright. --
65.94.40.137 (
talk)
12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment WWII category now has more images. There should be more, but these were the low hanging fruit easy to categorize. --
65.94.40.137 (
talk)
12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment can someone create Category:World War I images, Category:Korean War images, Category:Vietnam War images, Category:Gulf War images, Category:Yugoslav wars of dissolution images, Category:Iraq War images, Category:Afghanistan War images so we can get cracking and categorize existing images ? (these are "popular"/"famous" wars and the ones less than 75 years old would have images normally under copyright protection, so I expect we would have images for them; and there are still WWI images under fair-use restriction on Wikipedia) -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 06:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment WWII category now has more images. There should be more, but these were the low hanging fruit easy to categorize. --
65.94.40.137 (
talk)
12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Images by war - waaaay too broad of a category. If Category:World War II images is kept, it should be a subcat of Category:History images and maybe a subcat of Category:Military images. - jc37 21:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Note that IP65* moved a number of fair-use images to the category, so that the rationale is no longer valid.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:00, 23 March 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Windsor Suburban Roads
- Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category, since there are no current articles on this topic. Windsor Suburban Roads were a type of county road until 1988 when they merged into the county system. But this category only contains a provincial highway article, a redirect to that same aricle, and a redirect to a city street. None of these are county roads, let alone former WSRs, but I didn't want to empty the category without consensus. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Canada Roads. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as redirects are not content requiring navigation and the category is not reasonably expandable. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- If we kept this it would need a disambiguator since Windsor (unqualified) is a English town in Berkshire. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:00, 16 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People from Venice (city) to Category:People from Venice
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Italian city is the primary topic for the term 'Venice', its article is located at the undisambiguated name Venice, as is its primary category. This is the only subcategory in its hierarchy to be disambiguated, and the target disambiguates between this category and Category:People from Venice, Los Angeles, a neighbourhood of a much larger city. The primary category should serve the Italian city; a note leading readers to Category:People from Venice, Los Angeles can be included to properly direct the minority of readers interested in that category. (Page views are 5:1 for the Italian category, despite this being the English Wikipedia.) Mind matrix 02:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose the original discussion in 2007 shows this was moved to avoid confusion with people from Venice meaning Category:People from the Province of Venice (of which Venice the city is the capital). I'd say that's a reasonable source of confusion. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator's sound analysis. The linked discussion above is moot: at the time of the previous discussion, there was a big confusion between categories about Italian provinces and categories about Italian cities, there were categories such as "Natives of Bergamo" which referred to the province excluding the relevant cities and categories such as "Natives of Treviso" referring to the cities excluding the relevant provinces. Now the categorization improved, the "province" categories are clearly marked ("People from the Province of..."), all the "(city)" specification were removed and this is the only survivor... there is no reason for making an exception. -- Cavarrone 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rename. Should Category:Venice be too ambiguous, it would need to be renamed, along with all the subcats, and this is beyond the scope of this discussion; otherwise, this category should be renamed to match the parent, since it isn't any more mbiguous than the parent. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:12, 15 January 2015 (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.
- 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. -- BDD ( talk) 19:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems a little unnecessary to have this category, as he has only released one album. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete
per WP:SMALLCAT,1 article and no room for growth. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC) - Keep per
WP:SMALLCAT – "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist", or indeed subdividing albums in
Category:Albums by artist. We categorise by defining characteristics, and the artist is quite the most salient characteristic of an album.
Oculi (
talk)
13:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. I think Smallcat is too generous here: I support keeping small categories with closed set like Provinces of China or Amendments to the US Constitution, but not with open ended category like albums or songs that are likely to be linked in the article anyway.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
11:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I find the accepted smallcat scheme for albums very helpful. Otherwise, this album and hundreds of others by artists with one album with an article would end up in categories such as Category:Contemporary R&B albums by American artists, creating just a jumble of articles. The "by artist" scheme allows me to immediately identify artists of such albums (as Oculi points out, the most salient characteristic of an album), enabling me to better navigate to other possible topics of interest. Knowing the artist is much more helpful in that regard than the title. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 02:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. I think Smallcat is too generous here: I support keeping small categories with closed set like Provinces of China or Amendments to the US Constitution, but not with open ended category like albums or songs that are likely to be linked in the article anyway.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
11:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent, as pointed out by Oculi. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:04, 8 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Open content publishing companies to Category:Open access publishers
- Nominator's rationale: The current unmodified lead reads: "This is a list of publishers of scientific open access journals" (although there are book publishers, too). I propose the title to better reflect the intended scope.
Open access is a more restrictive definition than
open content. Investigating the category members, I find that the vast majority is indeed open access, not just open content. (I have removed membership of a few entries that were no publishing companies at all:
Mozilla Open Badges,
Science Iran,
Eric Eldred.) I suggest the one exception (
Saylor Foundation), be recategorized under
Category:Open content projects or simply
Category:Open content. Then proceed with the cat rename. Members of the more specific
Category:Open access publishers will dispense membership in the more general
Category:Open access (publishing). Thanks.
Fgnievinski (
talk) 01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Fgnievinski (
talk)
01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rename I agree with the nominator's rationale. A 'publishing company' is pretty much always referred to as a 'publisher', and the current articles within the category are open access publishers. It seems like an good, clear, discrete category to have. Lawsonstu ( talk) 09:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as many such publishing groups operate on a non-company model, so the broader term of "publishers" better fits what we are trying to group here. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: We don't normally use cryptic names for categories. There are other possible names (e.g. "PD German Government files"). Note: The other categories below Category:Public domain images by government have names in a variety of formats. DexDor ( talk) 21:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC) Updated. DexDor ( talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as current name choice is obtuse. @ DexDor: However, I think by using files you're also arguing for a change to "files" over "images" (as stated in the parent). This is a broader change I also agree with, but one that isn't really specified in the nomination. SFB 22:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, probably best to do any renaming from "images" to "files" separately. DexDor ( talk) 07:59, 10 January 2015 (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.
- 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 as nominated. This close is no bar to early re-nomination of this and siblings to have "user" prepended, as well as "templates" appended to the others. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Membership top icons to Category:Membership top icon templates
- Nominator's rationale: As the notice at the top of the category text says "The pages listed in this category are meant to be top icon templates." DexDor ( talk) 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose as redundant. It is redundant that it is already a sub-cat of Category:Top icon templates and in that the very nature of a {{ Top icon}} is that it is a template. It would also break the consistent naming scheme of most of the other sub-cats in Category:Top icon templates. Despite the fact that WP:PRECISE is intended only for the naming of articles, it states Usually, titles should be precise enough to unambiguously define the topical scope of the article, but no more precise than that. For instance, Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta is too precise, as Mother Teresa is precise enough to indicate exactly the same topic. I would think that the same logic would apply here and appending "templates" to the existing name is too precise. — {{U| Technical 13}} ( e • t • c) 22:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support All template categories should be marked as so. It took me quite a while to realise what a "top icon" was – this isn't an intuitive form of template type like "navigational boxes" or "footers" that are well known templates. Therefore the "template" phrase needs to be in the name for clarity. SFB 22:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Like SFB, I was originally confused by this name. Would also support future nominations of the different sub-categories of Category:Top icon templates. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:57, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:User top icon membership templates. These need "user" and "template" added per various guidelines. - jc37 05:45, 9 March 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:06, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Teahouse hosts to Category:Wikipedia Teahouse hosts
- Nominator's rationale: Duplicate, poorly named for a category that is part of wiki admin rather than part of the encyclopedia content. DexDor ( talk) 21:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy per WP:C2B, clear Wikipedia naming convention. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:59, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strong rename this is not about real life teahouse hosts, who can be notable, since teahouses have been power establishments in the history of East Asia -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 11:55, 9 January 2015 (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.
- 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. -- BDD ( talk) 19:04, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category contains 2 subcats (Mauritius navigational boxes and Mauritius stubs) and does not appear to perform a useful navigational purpose. This category places articles/templates (not talk pages) under a wikiproject category which is not how such pages are normally categorized.
- Note: This category is one of 9 "<country> Wikipedia administration" categories, but there is no such category for the other 200+ countries (e.g. there is no "France Wikipedia administration" category). If this CFD results in delete then a separate CFD should be started for the other 8 categories (which have anomalies such as circular categorization in the Canada category). DexDor ( talk) 20:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete this should be handled through a WP:WikiProject Mauritius banner template {{ WikiProject Mauritius}} if this is needed -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 07:00, 9 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 2 redirect but no actual song articles as expected. Richhoncho ( talk) 20:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. No objection to including redirects in a category but it doesn't aid navigation to have nothing else. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:02, 9 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 1 redirect i.e. no song articles Richhoncho ( talk) 19:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. No objection to including redirects in a category but it doesn't aid navigation to have nothing else. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:02, 9 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: No navigational use. Category contains 1 redirect i.e. no song articles Richhoncho ( talk) 19:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Speedy per WP:C1, an empty category. No objection to including redirects in a category but it doesn't aid navigation to have nothing else. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:03, 9 January 2015 (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.
- 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, strongest argument is that few, if any, are notable for having died form surgical complications, in most cases it is a trivium. Guy ( Help!) 21:42, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: The great majority of people in this category were not defined by this circumstance of their death. Almost all of them were at an age where the chance of death during surgery is raised due to ill health. It is relatively common to die during surgery in the developed world. None of the people I saw in this category represent cases where this is a defining characteristic of the persons life - it is merely incidental. I propose deleting outright this category of unrelated people. A more useful and distinguishing category would be one based upon deaths in surgery due to malpractice. SFB 18:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The subcat ( Category:Deaths from plastic surgery complications) (unless it's also deleted) should be moved up to Category:Deaths by type of illness. "Deaths from ..." categories should contain only articles specifically about deaths. Renaming these categories to "People who died from ..." would be possible but IMO it's in WP:DNWAUC territory and the category would then need to be removed from Category:Surgery etc (e.g. John Ely (Iowa politician) should not be in Category:Medicine). DexDor ( talk) 20:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Just as a note for clarity, I'm not looking to delete the plastic surgery child category as my rationale does not apply to that one. SFB 22:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep Valid sub-category of
Category:Complications of surgical and medical care and
Category:Deaths by cause. Nom is certainy correct in saying age or disease play a role in deaths from surgical complications, that said the point remains these people all died during or shorty after surgery and in consequence of surgical complications. There is not OR, nothing subjective in that, and being "relatively common in the developed world" is not a rationale for deletion. Deleting this category would raise more problems than it solves, as re-categorizing people under an appropriate category in
Category:Deaths by cause would be problematic. Neutral about renaming and about creating a sub-cat based upon deaths due to malpractice.
Cavarrone
08:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- @
Cavarrone: My main point is that this topic is not a defining feature of the people. None of them are remembered as cases of death during surgery (hence my point about death by malpractice, as that will likely be much more relevant in biographical terms. We shouldn't be categorising people by things that aren't definitive of them (e.g. "People born prematurely").
SFB
20:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see your point, but yours is more a general point against the whole
Category:Deaths by cause than against this specific category. For the majority of biographies the circumstances of death are not a primary defining feature of the people, see cancer deaths, deaths from cardiovascular diseases, deaths from heart attack etc. If we adopt such point of view, the whole
Category:Deaths from disease and particularly very common causes of deaths such as
Category:Deaths from cancer should be discussed, but as long as we use to categorize all the people according the circumstances of their death, this category is still valid. Otherwise, we could decide to remove the most common/ordinary causes of deaths, but this is beyond the scope of this discussion. About death by malpractice, I see it as very problematic: possible POV in first place, eg I remember the death of
Enrico Simonetti during a surgery to remove a throat cancer was widely attribuited by the press to malpractice, but never recognized as malpractice by law. I have not followed the
Joan Rivers case, but apparently there is a controversity about her surgical complications too. Marking a death as a consequence of malpractice is a slippery slope, I would prefer to avoid that.
Cavarrone
20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- @ Cavarrone: Interesting points and ones that I'll take on board. I've come to realise I'm going to nominate all the other common causes of death as well. The death category tree is taking on a morbid tone which is not warranted. SFB 03:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- Cavarrone's "more problems" comment presupposes that every article about a dead person needs to be in a deaths-by-cause category. If we are to have a database of how (notable) people died then it should be in WikiData, not in the wp category scheme. There is far too much categorization on characteristics of someones death - it's not uncommon (
example) to find someone in 4 or more such categories (apart from year of death). Death should not be an exception to
WP:DNWAUC.
DexDor (
talk)
08:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I don't "presuppose" anything, that's how things have worked so far, people are regularly categorized according birth data and death data, among other things. The stated rationale applies equally to most if not all these categories, but offers no reason to delete the deaths by surgical complications while keeping way more common death-types such as cancer deaths or deaths by heart attack. If you want remove the whole tree because there is too much categorization on type of deaths so be it, you are welcome, but you have to start from the roots, not to cut a random branch, ie, a wider and more centralized discussion is necessary to decide if and in which cases a death-type category is warranted. Otherwise it is like saying "let's delete Category:1981 deaths, it is common to a lot of people and non-defining for their biographies" while keeping both Category:1980 deaths and Category:1982 deaths. Cavarrone 09:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
- I see your point, but yours is more a general point against the whole
Category:Deaths by cause than against this specific category. For the majority of biographies the circumstances of death are not a primary defining feature of the people, see cancer deaths, deaths from cardiovascular diseases, deaths from heart attack etc. If we adopt such point of view, the whole
Category:Deaths from disease and particularly very common causes of deaths such as
Category:Deaths from cancer should be discussed, but as long as we use to categorize all the people according the circumstances of their death, this category is still valid. Otherwise, we could decide to remove the most common/ordinary causes of deaths, but this is beyond the scope of this discussion. About death by malpractice, I see it as very problematic: possible POV in first place, eg I remember the death of
Enrico Simonetti during a surgery to remove a throat cancer was widely attribuited by the press to malpractice, but never recognized as malpractice by law. I have not followed the
Joan Rivers case, but apparently there is a controversity about her surgical complications too. Marking a death as a consequence of malpractice is a slippery slope, I would prefer to avoid that.
Cavarrone
20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- @
Cavarrone: My main point is that this topic is not a defining feature of the people. None of them are remembered as cases of death during surgery (hence my point about death by malpractice, as that will likely be much more relevant in biographical terms. We shouldn't be categorising people by things that aren't definitive of them (e.g. "People born prematurely").
SFB
20:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete I think we have gone way too overboard with means of death categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:40, 1 February 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Disney's Big Hero 6 characters to Category:Big Hero 6 characters
- Nominator's rationale: The characters apply to both the Marvel Comics and Disney universes, and the articles use the Marvel names instead of the Disney ones. Best to keep the name generic since these are not Disney-exclusive. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as not Disney-exclusive characters. SFB 23:29, 13 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon
19:25, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Professional wrestlers from Monterrey to Category:Professional wrestlers from Nuevo León and Category:Sportspeople from Monterrey
- Propose merging Category:Baseball players from Monterrey to Category:Baseball players from Nuevo León and Category:Sportspeople from Monterrey
- Propose merging Category:Footballers from Monterrey to Category:Footballers from Nuevo León and Category:Sportspeople from Monterrey
- Nominator's rationale: This subdivision by city and sport-specific occupation is not helpful to navigation. The parents ( Category:Sportspeople from Monterrey and the state level Nuevo León categories) are not well populated in the first place. This city level of geography does not help define the sport-specific occupation much further (as the people in the wider area will have entered and competed in the sport in a similar way to those in the city). Moreover, Monterrey is not very definitive of a person's taking part in a specific sport. Also note that Category:Footballers from Monterrey is logically part of this nomination but is already nominated here. Should that broader and more complex nomination not result in deletion of that category, I would like to add it to this nomination as the rationale is exactly the same. SFB 14:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Upmerge dividing by specific sport at the city level is generally avoided. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:40, 1 February 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Merge.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:22, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Male professional wrestlers from Jalisco to Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers and Category:Professional wrestlers from Jalisco
- Propose merging Category:Male professional wrestlers from Nuevo León to Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers and Category:Professional wrestlers from Nuevo León
- Propose merging Category:Male professional wrestlers from Tabasco to Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers and Category:Professional wrestlers from Tabasco
- Propose deleting Category:Mexican male professional wrestlers by state
- Nominator's rationale: Following on from this discussion - the gender element does not have much relevance to or effect on the area element. Hence, this is not a definitive characteristic. I propose upmerging to the non-gendered regional category and the gendered national parent. Even worse, these categories are leaving the parents depopulated. Further to this logic, the "by state" container should be deleted. SFB 14:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose In sports, female and male competitors are essentially in different sports, and all levels of dividing by such make sense.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
06:42, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- @ Johnpacklambert: But effectively the commonality of place is not affected by the gender (i.e. they will likely have been trained by and been involved with the same groups of local people - women's wrestling is typically done in non-single-sex organisations). I'm using a similar logic at this nomination so you might want to comment there as well. It's quite an important one because introducing gender into sub-national location-based categories would be a new area with potential for tens of thousands of categories. SFB 13:43, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
- Merge per larger decision at Jan 30. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:30, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
- Merge These categories are too detailed and set a wrong precedent. gidonb ( talk) 11:23, 12 April 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 2 entries. ...William 13:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Merge Town with 17,000 people unlikely to grow this category in the future. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:05, 9 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:03, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Ambystoma to Category:Mole salamanders
- Nominator's rationale: " Mole salamanders" is the collective common name for the family Ambystomatidae, represented by the sole genus Ambystoma. Thus Category:Ambystoma is redundant, and if populated would be identical to Category:Mole salamanders. --Animalparty-- ( talk) 08:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support per main article (at main target) which is showing identical scope. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:02, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Oral citations experiment to Category:Wikipedia oral citations experiment
- Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other Wikipedia administration categories, clarity (this is not a content category) and consistency with the pages in the category (e.g.
Wikipedia:Oral citations experiment).
DexDor (
talk)
07:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Creator's comment: No objection from my side. Sorry for the extra work, will be more careful next time. -- Pgallert ( talk) 09:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as speedy per usual conventions and creator agreement. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support per the spirit of WP:C2E, author request. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:26, 8 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: no consensus.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:58, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
- Propose deleting
Category:World War II images (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Propose deleting Category:Images by war
- Propose deleting
Category:World War II images (
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs)
- Nominator's rationale: These two categories contain just a single file (which is in other categories and probably doesn't need to be in en wp anyway). DexDor ( talk) 06:55, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support Sole image is a candidate to be moved to commons as well, so this doesn't appear to be a useful Wikipedia category. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Strong keep images are not properly categorized, which is why these are empty. Rather, we should create categories for the various wars and populated them. For instance, we have
File:TrangBang.jpg which should be categorized as
Category:Vietnam War images, yet we are missing the category to categorize it. Or
File:George Nicholson Bradford VC.jpg which should be categorized as
Category:World War I images yet no category exists. We need to build this category tree. Certainly there are historic images of recent wars that are under fair-use that need recent war categories to categorize them. There are many WWI fair-use images on Wikipedia, which we are missing a category to categorize them into. The Vietnam War is not 75 years old yet, so most historic images would be under copyright. --
65.94.40.137 (
talk)
12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment WWII category now has more images. There should be more, but these were the low hanging fruit easy to categorize. --
65.94.40.137 (
talk)
12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment can someone create Category:World War I images, Category:Korean War images, Category:Vietnam War images, Category:Gulf War images, Category:Yugoslav wars of dissolution images, Category:Iraq War images, Category:Afghanistan War images so we can get cracking and categorize existing images ? (these are "popular"/"famous" wars and the ones less than 75 years old would have images normally under copyright protection, so I expect we would have images for them; and there are still WWI images under fair-use restriction on Wikipedia) -- 65.94.40.137 ( talk) 06:44, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment WWII category now has more images. There should be more, but these were the low hanging fruit easy to categorize. --
65.94.40.137 (
talk)
12:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete Category:Images by war - waaaay too broad of a category. If Category:World War II images is kept, it should be a subcat of Category:History images and maybe a subcat of Category:Military images. - jc37 21:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
- Comment: Note that IP65* moved a number of fair-use images to the category, so that the rationale is no longer valid.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 08:00, 23 March 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: delete.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
00:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Windsor Suburban Roads
- Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category, since there are no current articles on this topic. Windsor Suburban Roads were a type of county road until 1988 when they merged into the county system. But this category only contains a provincial highway article, a redirect to that same aricle, and a redirect to a city street. None of these are county roads, let alone former WSRs, but I didn't want to empty the category without consensus. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Canada Roads. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as redirects are not content requiring navigation and the category is not reasonably expandable. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support -- If we kept this it would need a disambiguator since Windsor (unqualified) is a English town in Berkshire. Peterkingiron ( talk) 19:00, 16 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:People from Venice (city) to Category:People from Venice
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. The Italian city is the primary topic for the term 'Venice', its article is located at the undisambiguated name Venice, as is its primary category. This is the only subcategory in its hierarchy to be disambiguated, and the target disambiguates between this category and Category:People from Venice, Los Angeles, a neighbourhood of a much larger city. The primary category should serve the Italian city; a note leading readers to Category:People from Venice, Los Angeles can be included to properly direct the minority of readers interested in that category. (Page views are 5:1 for the Italian category, despite this being the English Wikipedia.) Mind matrix 02:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Oppose the original discussion in 2007 shows this was moved to avoid confusion with people from Venice meaning Category:People from the Province of Venice (of which Venice the city is the capital). I'd say that's a reasonable source of confusion. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rename per nominator's sound analysis. The linked discussion above is moot: at the time of the previous discussion, there was a big confusion between categories about Italian provinces and categories about Italian cities, there were categories such as "Natives of Bergamo" which referred to the province excluding the relevant cities and categories such as "Natives of Treviso" referring to the cities excluding the relevant provinces. Now the categorization improved, the "province" categories are clearly marked ("People from the Province of..."), all the "(city)" specification were removed and this is the only survivor... there is no reason for making an exception. -- Cavarrone 23:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rename. Should Category:Venice be too ambiguous, it would need to be renamed, along with all the subcats, and this is beyond the scope of this discussion; otherwise, this category should be renamed to match the parent, since it isn't any more mbiguous than the parent. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:12, 15 January 2015 (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.
- 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. -- BDD ( talk) 19:06, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems a little unnecessary to have this category, as he has only released one album. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 01:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Delete
per WP:SMALLCAT,1 article and no room for growth. RevelationDirect ( talk) 02:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC) - Keep per
WP:SMALLCAT – "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist", or indeed subdividing albums in
Category:Albums by artist. We categorise by defining characteristics, and the artist is quite the most salient characteristic of an album.
Oculi (
talk)
13:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. I think Smallcat is too generous here: I support keeping small categories with closed set like Provinces of China or Amendments to the US Constitution, but not with open ended category like albums or songs that are likely to be linked in the article anyway.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
11:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Comment I find the accepted smallcat scheme for albums very helpful. Otherwise, this album and hundreds of others by artists with one album with an article would end up in categories such as Category:Contemporary R&B albums by American artists, creating just a jumble of articles. The "by artist" scheme allows me to immediately identify artists of such albums (as Oculi points out, the most salient characteristic of an album), enabling me to better navigate to other possible topics of interest. Knowing the artist is much more helpful in that regard than the title. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 02:39, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
- Good point. I think Smallcat is too generous here: I support keeping small categories with closed set like Provinces of China or Amendments to the US Constitution, but not with open ended category like albums or songs that are likely to be linked in the article anyway.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
11:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
- Keep per precedent, as pointed out by Oculi. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 17:04, 8 January 2015 (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.
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: rename.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:12, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Open content publishing companies to Category:Open access publishers
- Nominator's rationale: The current unmodified lead reads: "This is a list of publishers of scientific open access journals" (although there are book publishers, too). I propose the title to better reflect the intended scope.
Open access is a more restrictive definition than
open content. Investigating the category members, I find that the vast majority is indeed open access, not just open content. (I have removed membership of a few entries that were no publishing companies at all:
Mozilla Open Badges,
Science Iran,
Eric Eldred.) I suggest the one exception (
Saylor Foundation), be recategorized under
Category:Open content projects or simply
Category:Open content. Then proceed with the cat rename. Members of the more specific
Category:Open access publishers will dispense membership in the more general
Category:Open access (publishing). Thanks.
Fgnievinski (
talk) 01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Fgnievinski (
talk)
01:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Rename I agree with the nominator's rationale. A 'publishing company' is pretty much always referred to as a 'publisher', and the current articles within the category are open access publishers. It seems like an good, clear, discrete category to have. Lawsonstu ( talk) 09:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
- Support as many such publishing groups operate on a non-company model, so the broader term of "publishers" better fits what we are trying to group here. SFB 11:50, 8 January 2015 (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.