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.
MER-C 21:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - makes sense, it's a more concise, less ambivalent name ('area' could be misconstrued as geographic). There definietely seems scope for keeping the 'type' and 'subject' categories.
Sionk (
talk) 15:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Support; they do sound rather redundant. The distinction between "libraries by type" and "types of library" is the nature of the articles contained therein: the former holds articles about individual libraries (one subcategory of digital libraries such as
California Digital Library, another of law libraries such as
Jenkins Law Library, etc.), while the other holds articles about library types, e.g.
green library and
one-person library. The contents slightly overlap, so a little cleanup is needed, but they're still different.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:PPL Montana dams
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TransCanada Corporation dams
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.
Technically there are 5 articles in this subcategory but only 2 of them are primarily about dams. I just created the parent/target category,
Category:TransCanada Corporation, which is broader.
TransCanada Corporation is known mostly for pipelines (e.g.
Keystone) but it does own some other energy assets so no objection to recreating this category later if we get up around 5 true articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 12:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This category is also a member of a larger category, "United States power company dams", which break out US dams by the companies that own them. TransCanada is one of 13 of those. A merge would break that relationship. BTW many of the dam articles were merged with reservoir articles in a separate round of simplification, that's why those articles are not "primarily about dams". That's where the dam information is, though. I think we would lose something with this merge. --
Lockley (
talk) 17:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose My thoughts mirror Lockley's. A reservoir article can often be found in a dam category as both are prominent, directly-associated landmarks.--
NortyNort(Holla) 14:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women's association football strikers
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This subcategory is not needed and should be deleted or merged
JMHamo (
talk) 13:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
JMHamo (
talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge - agreed, no need to define positions by gender.
GiantSnowman 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Support, given that
striker sends us to
forward (association football) for coverage of the topic. It's one thing to subcategorise articles by topics that are all covered in a single article if they're in a lesser field, a field that's not as heavily written about, but with something as prominent as football, the absence of a separate article would be truly exceptional if these two positions really were significantly different.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Association of Indian Universities
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.
MER-C 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Being a member of this association appears to generally be a
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of a university (e.g. it is not mentioned prominently in the
University of Calcutta article). This could be listified to
Association of Indian Universities, but it would be better for any such list to be created directly from a
WP:RS.
Related CFD.
For info this
[1] says "The membership includes traditional universities, open universities, professional universities, Institutes of National Importance and deemed-to-be universities ... Associate Membership to universities of neighbouring countries." which suggests that the category which currently contains 2 articles is very incomplete. DexDor(talk) 08:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The group rates non-Indian schools to see what credits Indian schools will recognize per the article. That doesn't seem defining to the Inidan schools that belong to this service.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We have deleted numerous other university-association membership categories. I doubt we need a category for this at all.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Categorizes of this type are not defining to the universities.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 08:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Academic pressure in East Asian cultures
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The use of the word East Asian only is incorrect because the pages listed in this category such as
Tiger mother,
Study mama,
Cram school,
I Not Stupid and
Rote learning for example, relate to concepts that are also and sometimes only found in South Asia and Southeast Asia. (
137.147.55.166 (
talk) 08:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC))reply
Oppose original nom. We don't have
Category:East, South and Southeast Asia etc (to be a parent of the proposed new category). It would be better to stick with existing geographical areas and if articles don't belong in a particular category then remove them from it. DexDor(talk) 09:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)revised DexDor(talk) 09:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, it appears to be wrong to lump South Asian and Southeast Asian pages into East Asian, that is politically incorrect. You said remove some of these pages that aren't suitable well that's not the case because many of these pages e.g. Tiger mother, cram school and rote learning overlap with East Asian culture too, meaning it is East Asian, South Asian and Southeast Asian. I also don't understand what you mean by "parent category" the category, Academic pressure in East Asian cultures is not even located in Category:East Asia. (
137.147.55.166 (
talk) 09:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)) (I've restructured this as a response rather than a !vote. DexDor(talk) 09:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC))reply
The normal categorization structure (in en wp) is that, for example, a <Topic>_in_<Area> category is parented by <Topic> and <Area> categories. Note: I've removed the articles about
cram school and
rote learning from this category as those articles are not specifically about Asia (if that was how categorization worked then such articles would end up in a lot of country categories etc). DexDor(talk) 09:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Renamed to Academic pressure in Asian cultures it relates to the parent category Category:Asia and supports the pan-Asian concept. (
137.147.55.166 (
talk) 09:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC))reply
Strong oppose the suggestion that some disparate Asian category is useful is wrong. If there are also South Asian topics, then create a South Asian category. Just because they fit in East Asia does not mean they cannot have additional categories. Same as how we add multiple country based categories to articles, instead of renaming country categories into some nebulous large geographic region. There is a unifying cultural experience for East Asia, as there is for South Asia, making such categories defining. "Asia" is not such a form, and is not defining, unless it is used as a container for smaller defining categorization, as an organizational level. However, DexDor's suggestion of Academic pressure would remove the cultural problems, and nix the problems with "Asia" as a category name. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk) 06:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong support Creating seperate categories is unnecessary as the original user said that many of these overlap with East Asia. Creating such a category will result in almost the same pages being listed in several different categories, that's just ridiculous. For the above user what about Southeast Asians, they are culturally different from East Asians, does that mean creating a seperate category for Southeast Asians too? Grouping them with East Asians is incorrect and to an extent even offensive. Support renaming of the category to
Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures, all the pages listed there relate to Asia and a variety of Asian cultures so renaming it is correct. (
110.148.163.153 (
talk) 02:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC))reply
Support the rename because it's unnecessary to create Category:Academic pressure in South Asian cultures and Category:Academic pressure in Southeast Asian cultures because South and Southeast Asia are in Asia so it's only right to rename it to
Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures, it's not like these regions are on different continents they're in Asia, so there's nothing wrong in renaming the category to "Academic pressure in Asian cultures". (
124.180.10.175 (
talk) 08:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC))reply
Oppose per DexDor. If there's a problem with this category's geographic scope, create several geography-based categories, or omit the geography entirely, but don't create a "TOPIC in PLACE" category if we don't have an article on or a category for the PLACE in question.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Iranians in Caucasus
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Persian language in Caucasus
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: needs article "the" in English.
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk) 03:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Support rename. Also purge category because most articles aren't about Persian language, but are instead biographies or articles about places.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
MER-C 21:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Support - makes sense, it's a more concise, less ambivalent name ('area' could be misconstrued as geographic). There definietely seems scope for keeping the 'type' and 'subject' categories.
Sionk (
talk) 15:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Support; they do sound rather redundant. The distinction between "libraries by type" and "types of library" is the nature of the articles contained therein: the former holds articles about individual libraries (one subcategory of digital libraries such as
California Digital Library, another of law libraries such as
Jenkins Law Library, etc.), while the other holds articles about library types, e.g.
green library and
one-person library. The contents slightly overlap, so a little cleanup is needed, but they're still different.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:PPL Montana dams
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TransCanada Corporation dams
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.
Technically there are 5 articles in this subcategory but only 2 of them are primarily about dams. I just created the parent/target category,
Category:TransCanada Corporation, which is broader.
TransCanada Corporation is known mostly for pipelines (e.g.
Keystone) but it does own some other energy assets so no objection to recreating this category later if we get up around 5 true articles. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 12:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose. This category is also a member of a larger category, "United States power company dams", which break out US dams by the companies that own them. TransCanada is one of 13 of those. A merge would break that relationship. BTW many of the dam articles were merged with reservoir articles in a separate round of simplification, that's why those articles are not "primarily about dams". That's where the dam information is, though. I think we would lose something with this merge. --
Lockley (
talk) 17:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose My thoughts mirror Lockley's. A reservoir article can often be found in a dam category as both are prominent, directly-associated landmarks.--
NortyNort(Holla) 14:03, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Women's association football strikers
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.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This subcategory is not needed and should be deleted or merged
JMHamo (
talk) 13:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Note: This discussion has been included in
WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.
JMHamo (
talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge - agreed, no need to define positions by gender.
GiantSnowman 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Support, given that
striker sends us to
forward (association football) for coverage of the topic. It's one thing to subcategorise articles by topics that are all covered in a single article if they're in a lesser field, a field that's not as heavily written about, but with something as prominent as football, the absence of a separate article would be truly exceptional if these two positions really were significantly different.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Association of Indian Universities
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.
MER-C 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Being a member of this association appears to generally be a
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of a university (e.g. it is not mentioned prominently in the
University of Calcutta article). This could be listified to
Association of Indian Universities, but it would be better for any such list to be created directly from a
WP:RS.
Related CFD.
For info this
[1] says "The membership includes traditional universities, open universities, professional universities, Institutes of National Importance and deemed-to-be universities ... Associate Membership to universities of neighbouring countries." which suggests that the category which currently contains 2 articles is very incomplete. DexDor(talk) 08:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The group rates non-Indian schools to see what credits Indian schools will recognize per the article. That doesn't seem defining to the Inidan schools that belong to this service.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 10:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We have deleted numerous other university-association membership categories. I doubt we need a category for this at all.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete Categorizes of this type are not defining to the universities.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 08:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Academic pressure in East Asian cultures
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The use of the word East Asian only is incorrect because the pages listed in this category such as
Tiger mother,
Study mama,
Cram school,
I Not Stupid and
Rote learning for example, relate to concepts that are also and sometimes only found in South Asia and Southeast Asia. (
137.147.55.166 (
talk) 08:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC))reply
Oppose original nom. We don't have
Category:East, South and Southeast Asia etc (to be a parent of the proposed new category). It would be better to stick with existing geographical areas and if articles don't belong in a particular category then remove them from it. DexDor(talk) 09:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC)revised DexDor(talk) 09:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, it appears to be wrong to lump South Asian and Southeast Asian pages into East Asian, that is politically incorrect. You said remove some of these pages that aren't suitable well that's not the case because many of these pages e.g. Tiger mother, cram school and rote learning overlap with East Asian culture too, meaning it is East Asian, South Asian and Southeast Asian. I also don't understand what you mean by "parent category" the category, Academic pressure in East Asian cultures is not even located in Category:East Asia. (
137.147.55.166 (
talk) 09:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)) (I've restructured this as a response rather than a !vote. DexDor(talk) 09:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC))reply
The normal categorization structure (in en wp) is that, for example, a <Topic>_in_<Area> category is parented by <Topic> and <Area> categories. Note: I've removed the articles about
cram school and
rote learning from this category as those articles are not specifically about Asia (if that was how categorization worked then such articles would end up in a lot of country categories etc). DexDor(talk) 09:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Renamed to Academic pressure in Asian cultures it relates to the parent category Category:Asia and supports the pan-Asian concept. (
137.147.55.166 (
talk) 09:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC))reply
Strong oppose the suggestion that some disparate Asian category is useful is wrong. If there are also South Asian topics, then create a South Asian category. Just because they fit in East Asia does not mean they cannot have additional categories. Same as how we add multiple country based categories to articles, instead of renaming country categories into some nebulous large geographic region. There is a unifying cultural experience for East Asia, as there is for South Asia, making such categories defining. "Asia" is not such a form, and is not defining, unless it is used as a container for smaller defining categorization, as an organizational level. However, DexDor's suggestion of Academic pressure would remove the cultural problems, and nix the problems with "Asia" as a category name. --
70.51.44.60 (
talk) 06:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Strong support Creating seperate categories is unnecessary as the original user said that many of these overlap with East Asia. Creating such a category will result in almost the same pages being listed in several different categories, that's just ridiculous. For the above user what about Southeast Asians, they are culturally different from East Asians, does that mean creating a seperate category for Southeast Asians too? Grouping them with East Asians is incorrect and to an extent even offensive. Support renaming of the category to
Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures, all the pages listed there relate to Asia and a variety of Asian cultures so renaming it is correct. (
110.148.163.153 (
talk) 02:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC))reply
Support the rename because it's unnecessary to create Category:Academic pressure in South Asian cultures and Category:Academic pressure in Southeast Asian cultures because South and Southeast Asia are in Asia so it's only right to rename it to
Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures, it's not like these regions are on different continents they're in Asia, so there's nothing wrong in renaming the category to "Academic pressure in Asian cultures". (
124.180.10.175 (
talk) 08:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC))reply
Oppose per DexDor. If there's a problem with this category's geographic scope, create several geography-based categories, or omit the geography entirely, but don't create a "TOPIC in PLACE" category if we don't have an article on or a category for the PLACE in question.
Nyttend (
talk) 03:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Iranians in Caucasus
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Persian language in Caucasus
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: needs article "the" in English.
Kintetsubuffalo (
talk) 03:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
Support rename. Also purge category because most articles aren't about Persian language, but are instead biographies or articles about places.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.