Category:Motorsport venues in the United States by city
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: Unnecessary granularity. Not only is there a scheme by state, there are only a few dozen entries total and how many racetracks can any city have? The only entry now is for one city with one track. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯23:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Double upmerge the article and delete - If we had a city with a significant number of motorsport venues, it would make sense to have such a category. However, New Orleans only has one articl in this category, and that wouldn't be enough even if we had similar categories for several other cities. And we would only need the "by city" category if we had several cities.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu10:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge back to state -- This differs from wrestling in that these will be dedicated venues, used for little or nothing else. If there were cities with 5 dedicated venues, having a category might just be permissible, but the present thread is unnecessary fragmentation.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:13, 17 September 2017 (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.
Template:BaltimoreCityMD-NRHP-stub
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:Sahrawi people stubs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Printworthy redirects
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: This doesn't bother me a whole heck of a lot, but I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that
printworthy is not a word. I can't find any attestations in any major dictionaries, and it appears to only have social media/blog-related usage online.
Textworthy, on the other hand, is attested. I know it would be a bit of a pain because there's a lot of links and usage in WikiProjects and such, but the discussion ought to be had at least.
Pariah24 (
talk)
18:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose per
WP:IFITAINTBROKE. It's a very good observation that popular dictionaries don't carry a definition of "printworthy" (TIL) but this is a case where Wikipedia has invented its own definition, and it's part of our
site jargon. We carry the definitions in the category descriptions, and also at length in
Wikipedia:Printability. These aren't visible to readers, we could call them "disflopified" and "reproductile", as long as we defined those terms for ourselves. But as a practical matter, changing them is a fairly simple matter of recoding a few (dozen?) rcat templates.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
21:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the question isn't whether these redirects should be in text format (they are), but whether they should be printed. The word "Printworthy", while it may be one we made up, expresses tis in a clear way.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu06:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The term textworthy in nearly every case refers to written or printed text; not digital media. Typically, the purpose of jargon is to provide a name for novel things that are not easily accommodated by existing language. This is less a case of needing jargon, and more an example of a perfectly good existing term that was passed up for whatever reason. I could call an article a "WikiArticle", or a protected page "unnewbworthy," but why would I?
Pariah24 (
talk)
23:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Honestly while thinking more on it I'm starting to oppose my own proposal just on the basis of not wishing to put someone through the work of re-coding all the rcat templates. I'll close the discussion in a while if nobody else has anything to add.
Pariah24 (
talk)
21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Recoding the templates is not that much of a problem, but any reader seeing the terms "printworthy" or "unprintworthy" can fairly intuitively understand what they are intended to mean.
bd2412T 11:33, 15 September 2017 (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.
Gurgaon, Yamuna Nagar and associated subcategories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep Gurgaon categories, rename Yamuna Nagar categories. This is a confirmation of the latest status quo, since the Gurgaon have been renamed back during this discussion, while the Yamunanagar have been kept at their new name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: As the district name is changed by government, so I renamed all these categories. But at that time i dont know that we have discuss before renaming categories, but if decision after discussion comes that all those changes are wrong, I'll revert them myself or you can help me too. ― 1997kB17:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose Gurgaon I came across this following a thread at WT:CFD (
here) where I tried to reverse some of the undiscussed category moves and changes. So while I don't have prior knowledge of this area, my oppose is for two reasons: (1) neither this category, not all the other ones potentially affected, have been tagged; (2) the naming of categories follows the naming of the main article, not vice versa – the article is still at
Gurgaon and two requests within the last nine months to move it have failed (
Dec '16,
Apr '17).
Oppose Gurgaon until the article is renamed with consensus - in this case, the general rule is simple: Unless you can prove that an issue exists with the category which doesn't with the article (e.g
Queens), the categories always follow the articles. Support Yamunanagar as having 2 years of stability at this title makes it a C2D speedy-worty case.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu06:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Just a note that every category apart from the first was added after my initial comment, and none of them have been tagged with {{cfr}} to point people here. As for the Yamuna Nagar categories, they are moot as is nothing that needs doing here now: they were moved to Yamunanagar out of process (and so the "Yamuna Nagar" categories are empty redirects) but, as Od Mishehu notes, the "
Yamunanagar" name is established and so the end result is fine.
BencherliteTalk10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose Gurgaon While the government has tried to change the name recently, the old name is still very well known and continuously used in newspapers, advertisements and television. It will take quite some time before people start using the term "Gurugram". Many people outside India may not even know of the change. So I think it is practical to keep it at Gurgaon for the time being.--
DreamLinker (
talk)
02:39, 17 September 2017 (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:Fictional shooting victims
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:Law of the Russian Empire
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted from
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 14. There is a weak preference for Law in [X] (e.g. Law in the Russian Empire) over Law of [X] (e.g. Law of the Russian Empire) or [X]ian law (e.g. Russian Empire law), and a slightly stronger preference for the Russian Empire over Imperial Russia. However,
Category:Law in the Russian Empire would be inconsistent with every other category in
Category:Law by country. I am hoping for some additional discussion, insights, and/or preferences.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Black Falcon(
talk)17:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose the initial alternate proposal. "Law of the RE" is better than "RE law"; "RE" is not an adjective. "Imperial Russian law" or "Law in Imperial Russia" are both better than "RE law". No opinion on the main proposal.
Nyttend (
talk)
03:00, 20 September 2017 (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:White African
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.
A rename like that would probably need to apply to the whole "white culture" tree, so we might discuss that some other time with a batch nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep if I'm understanding rightly; if we're needing to talk about renaming the whole tree, renaming or name-related-merging just one category is rather pointless.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)reply
That is a misunderstanding, the nominated merge only applies to this single category. Wrt the whole tree, that would be a discussion about renaming instead of merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:13, 24 September 2017 (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:Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017) tournaments
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.
Marcocapelle They appear to fit only at first glance. The more notable
Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (which held quite a few notable tournaments) merged with this Global Force Wrestling and took their name. Those tournaments actually don't belong to this GFW, this GFW held not notable tournaments. The articles were placed in this category by good faith editors who got confused by the name change.
LM2000 (
talk)
06:15, 19 September 2017 (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:GFW (2014–2017) shows
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:Physician astronauts
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep -- I am far from sure it is trivial, because (1) the people were probably selected to be astronauts because they were already physicians, perhaps because they were particularly qualified to undertake research on the effects of zero-gravity on the human physique (2) it is adequately populated.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep; it's indeed part of their job. Astronauts tend to be selected from pilots and physicists, basically because astronaut duties are related to those kinds of work, and physicians are definitely not the ordinary type. Therefore, physicians (like
teachers) get picked only if the bureaucrats specifically want someone in that profession, and it's part of the physician's job to be a physician in space, not a trivial intersection.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:16, 21 September 2017 (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:White people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete The term "white people" is not clearly defined. I cannot find a similar category "black people" either (it has been deleted). There is also no use for this category because it would be incorrect to categorise individuals as "white people".--
DreamLinker (
talk)
15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per all of the above; I can't see a keep rationale I agree with or vice versa. Just because an overgeneralization exists in the language doesn't mean we have to have a category for it. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:19, 23 September 2017 (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:Bette Davis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep but PurgeB. D. Hyman should be removed (since we shouldn't confuse this with a family cat) but that still leaves 7 articles and my cutoff for
WP:SMALLCAT is 5. (I'd also be open to creating a more narrow category instead of Works about Bette Davis but there is a group of articles her that readers are likely to want to navigate between.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with RevelationDirect that there's enough here to go past SMALLCAT. I'd disagree with removing Hyman though, her notability relies on the book she wrote about Davis.
LM2000 (
talk)
04:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - SMALLCAT gives examples in the hatnote of Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor, Wives of The Beatles, and Catanian-speaking Countries which would have had 7, 9, and up to 8 pages in them, respectively. This category has 7 currently. Unless someone can convince me there's room for growth or I'm incorrect on my interpretation of SMALLCAT (I'm new to CfD so if there's some norm I don't know, ping me and inform me), I'd have to say delete.
EvergreenFir(talk)04:25, 20 September 2017 (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:Opponents of affirmative action
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:OPINIONCAT. Is also underpopulated. Many members are
alive. Worse, if they are like
Doug LaMalfa where sourced content verifies opposition to a certain affirmative action bill but not necessarily affirmative action generally, then there could be justified complaints filed to the BLP office. Seriously, the category must go. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs)
03:20, 11 September 2017 (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:Botanists active in California
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose merge, Keep — it is actually for botanists active in the
California Floristic Province &/or the
California chaparral and woodlands ecoregion, using the 'abbreviated' geopolitical 'California.' The state's biogeography & phytogeography situation is quite unique in continental N.Am, and a
biodiversity hotspot receiving lots of botanizing.
Comment The category currently has 46 pages in it, although some shouldn't be there, as they aren't botanists, but organizations or publications. The parent category has 98 pages. Since there's an overlap of 14, upmerging would result in a category with 130 pages, or 124 if the 6 are removed that shouldn't be there given the title of the category. I'm generally in favour of smaller categories, but I accept that 124 is on the margin for requiring diffusion. My preference is to clarify the title of the category, since it doesn't really mean the state, and then accept that it's a worthwhile subcategorization.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
13:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete If there's not agreement about whether this is the state of California, a California bioregion and who/what it should contain, we have a vague name with
WP:ARBITRARYCAT inclusion criteria. No objection someone wants to take a stab at a more precise category with a clearer name.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
15:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - Peterkingiron appears to think this is a category about biota instead of botanists. Categorizing people by political boundaries seems fine. But I'm concerned with "active in". We typically categorize by where someone is from or where they currently are, but the many places they may be active in is too broad for me. It's possible a botanist is active in 10 states. Categorize them by where they live now or their professional affiliation instead.
EvergreenFir(talk)04:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom's and RevelationDirect's clear reasoning. This is not about biota at all or nor (in the minds of more than a tiny, tiny fraction of readers) about an ecological region, but about botanists and a US administrative division. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The first keep rationale that this is about botanists specifically active in the
California Floristic Province &/or the
California chaparral and woodlands is not confirmed by the contents of the articles that are in this category. (If this would have been an issue, a rename of the category could have been considered.) In fact the category name with plain California in it is completely reasonable. And if so many botanists specialize in Californian biota, then why merge or delete?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Malaysian nobility stubs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Motorsport venues in the United States by city
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: Unnecessary granularity. Not only is there a scheme by state, there are only a few dozen entries total and how many racetracks can any city have? The only entry now is for one city with one track. ―
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯23:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Double upmerge the article and delete - If we had a city with a significant number of motorsport venues, it would make sense to have such a category. However, New Orleans only has one articl in this category, and that wouldn't be enough even if we had similar categories for several other cities. And we would only need the "by city" category if we had several cities.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu10:07, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Merge back to state -- This differs from wrestling in that these will be dedicated venues, used for little or nothing else. If there were cities with 5 dedicated venues, having a category might just be permissible, but the present thread is unnecessary fragmentation.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:13, 17 September 2017 (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.
Template:BaltimoreCityMD-NRHP-stub
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:Sahrawi people stubs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Printworthy redirects
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: This doesn't bother me a whole heck of a lot, but I feel I'd be remiss if I didn't mention that
printworthy is not a word. I can't find any attestations in any major dictionaries, and it appears to only have social media/blog-related usage online.
Textworthy, on the other hand, is attested. I know it would be a bit of a pain because there's a lot of links and usage in WikiProjects and such, but the discussion ought to be had at least.
Pariah24 (
talk)
18:26, 11 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose per
WP:IFITAINTBROKE. It's a very good observation that popular dictionaries don't carry a definition of "printworthy" (TIL) but this is a case where Wikipedia has invented its own definition, and it's part of our
site jargon. We carry the definitions in the category descriptions, and also at length in
Wikipedia:Printability. These aren't visible to readers, we could call them "disflopified" and "reproductile", as long as we defined those terms for ourselves. But as a practical matter, changing them is a fairly simple matter of recoding a few (dozen?) rcat templates.
Ivanvector (Talk/Edits)
21:25, 12 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose - the question isn't whether these redirects should be in text format (they are), but whether they should be printed. The word "Printworthy", while it may be one we made up, expresses tis in a clear way.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu06:27, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The term textworthy in nearly every case refers to written or printed text; not digital media. Typically, the purpose of jargon is to provide a name for novel things that are not easily accommodated by existing language. This is less a case of needing jargon, and more an example of a perfectly good existing term that was passed up for whatever reason. I could call an article a "WikiArticle", or a protected page "unnewbworthy," but why would I?
Pariah24 (
talk)
23:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Honestly while thinking more on it I'm starting to oppose my own proposal just on the basis of not wishing to put someone through the work of re-coding all the rcat templates. I'll close the discussion in a while if nobody else has anything to add.
Pariah24 (
talk)
21:27, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Recoding the templates is not that much of a problem, but any reader seeing the terms "printworthy" or "unprintworthy" can fairly intuitively understand what they are intended to mean.
bd2412T 11:33, 15 September 2017 (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.
Gurgaon, Yamuna Nagar and associated subcategories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep Gurgaon categories, rename Yamuna Nagar categories. This is a confirmation of the latest status quo, since the Gurgaon have been renamed back during this discussion, while the Yamunanagar have been kept at their new name.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: As the district name is changed by government, so I renamed all these categories. But at that time i dont know that we have discuss before renaming categories, but if decision after discussion comes that all those changes are wrong, I'll revert them myself or you can help me too. ― 1997kB17:55, 11 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose Gurgaon I came across this following a thread at WT:CFD (
here) where I tried to reverse some of the undiscussed category moves and changes. So while I don't have prior knowledge of this area, my oppose is for two reasons: (1) neither this category, not all the other ones potentially affected, have been tagged; (2) the naming of categories follows the naming of the main article, not vice versa – the article is still at
Gurgaon and two requests within the last nine months to move it have failed (
Dec '16,
Apr '17).
Oppose Gurgaon until the article is renamed with consensus - in this case, the general rule is simple: Unless you can prove that an issue exists with the category which doesn't with the article (e.g
Queens), the categories always follow the articles. Support Yamunanagar as having 2 years of stability at this title makes it a C2D speedy-worty case.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu06:29, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Just a note that every category apart from the first was added after my initial comment, and none of them have been tagged with {{cfr}} to point people here. As for the Yamuna Nagar categories, they are moot as is nothing that needs doing here now: they were moved to Yamunanagar out of process (and so the "Yamuna Nagar" categories are empty redirects) but, as Od Mishehu notes, the "
Yamunanagar" name is established and so the end result is fine.
BencherliteTalk10:41, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose Gurgaon While the government has tried to change the name recently, the old name is still very well known and continuously used in newspapers, advertisements and television. It will take quite some time before people start using the term "Gurugram". Many people outside India may not even know of the change. So I think it is practical to keep it at Gurgaon for the time being.--
DreamLinker (
talk)
02:39, 17 September 2017 (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:Fictional shooting victims
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:Law of the Russian Empire
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.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Relisted from
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 August 14. There is a weak preference for Law in [X] (e.g. Law in the Russian Empire) over Law of [X] (e.g. Law of the Russian Empire) or [X]ian law (e.g. Russian Empire law), and a slightly stronger preference for the Russian Empire over Imperial Russia. However,
Category:Law in the Russian Empire would be inconsistent with every other category in
Category:Law by country. I am hoping for some additional discussion, insights, and/or preferences.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, --
Black Falcon(
talk)17:10, 11 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Oppose the initial alternate proposal. "Law of the RE" is better than "RE law"; "RE" is not an adjective. "Imperial Russian law" or "Law in Imperial Russia" are both better than "RE law". No opinion on the main proposal.
Nyttend (
talk)
03:00, 20 September 2017 (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:White African
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.
A rename like that would probably need to apply to the whole "white culture" tree, so we might discuss that some other time with a batch nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep if I'm understanding rightly; if we're needing to talk about renaming the whole tree, renaming or name-related-merging just one category is rather pointless.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:14, 21 September 2017 (UTC)reply
That is a misunderstanding, the nominated merge only applies to this single category. Wrt the whole tree, that would be a discussion about renaming instead of merging.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
08:13, 24 September 2017 (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:Global Force Wrestling (2014–2017) tournaments
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.
Marcocapelle They appear to fit only at first glance. The more notable
Total Nonstop Action Wrestling (which held quite a few notable tournaments) merged with this Global Force Wrestling and took their name. Those tournaments actually don't belong to this GFW, this GFW held not notable tournaments. The articles were placed in this category by good faith editors who got confused by the name change.
LM2000 (
talk)
06:15, 19 September 2017 (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:GFW (2014–2017) shows
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:Physician astronauts
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep -- I am far from sure it is trivial, because (1) the people were probably selected to be astronauts because they were already physicians, perhaps because they were particularly qualified to undertake research on the effects of zero-gravity on the human physique (2) it is adequately populated.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep; it's indeed part of their job. Astronauts tend to be selected from pilots and physicists, basically because astronaut duties are related to those kinds of work, and physicians are definitely not the ordinary type. Therefore, physicians (like
teachers) get picked only if the bureaucrats specifically want someone in that profession, and it's part of the physician's job to be a physician in space, not a trivial intersection.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:16, 21 September 2017 (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:White people
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete The term "white people" is not clearly defined. I cannot find a similar category "black people" either (it has been deleted). There is also no use for this category because it would be incorrect to categorise individuals as "white people".--
DreamLinker (
talk)
15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete per all of the above; I can't see a keep rationale I agree with or vice versa. Just because an overgeneralization exists in the language doesn't mean we have to have a category for it. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:19, 23 September 2017 (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:Bette Davis
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Keep but PurgeB. D. Hyman should be removed (since we shouldn't confuse this with a family cat) but that still leaves 7 articles and my cutoff for
WP:SMALLCAT is 5. (I'd also be open to creating a more narrow category instead of Works about Bette Davis but there is a group of articles her that readers are likely to want to navigate between.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
23:00, 4 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep I agree with RevelationDirect that there's enough here to go past SMALLCAT. I'd disagree with removing Hyman though, her notability relies on the book she wrote about Davis.
LM2000 (
talk)
04:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete - SMALLCAT gives examples in the hatnote of Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor, Wives of The Beatles, and Catanian-speaking Countries which would have had 7, 9, and up to 8 pages in them, respectively. This category has 7 currently. Unless someone can convince me there's room for growth or I'm incorrect on my interpretation of SMALLCAT (I'm new to CfD so if there's some norm I don't know, ping me and inform me), I'd have to say delete.
EvergreenFir(talk)04:25, 20 September 2017 (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:Opponents of affirmative action
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:OPINIONCAT. Is also underpopulated. Many members are
alive. Worse, if they are like
Doug LaMalfa where sourced content verifies opposition to a certain affirmative action bill but not necessarily affirmative action generally, then there could be justified complaints filed to the BLP office. Seriously, the category must go. —Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs)
03:20, 11 September 2017 (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:Botanists active in California
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose merge, Keep — it is actually for botanists active in the
California Floristic Province &/or the
California chaparral and woodlands ecoregion, using the 'abbreviated' geopolitical 'California.' The state's biogeography & phytogeography situation is quite unique in continental N.Am, and a
biodiversity hotspot receiving lots of botanizing.
Comment The category currently has 46 pages in it, although some shouldn't be there, as they aren't botanists, but organizations or publications. The parent category has 98 pages. Since there's an overlap of 14, upmerging would result in a category with 130 pages, or 124 if the 6 are removed that shouldn't be there given the title of the category. I'm generally in favour of smaller categories, but I accept that 124 is on the margin for requiring diffusion. My preference is to clarify the title of the category, since it doesn't really mean the state, and then accept that it's a worthwhile subcategorization.
Peter coxhead (
talk)
13:00, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete If there's not agreement about whether this is the state of California, a California bioregion and who/what it should contain, we have a vague name with
WP:ARBITRARYCAT inclusion criteria. No objection someone wants to take a stab at a more precise category with a clearer name.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
15:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment - Peterkingiron appears to think this is a category about biota instead of botanists. Categorizing people by political boundaries seems fine. But I'm concerned with "active in". We typically categorize by where someone is from or where they currently are, but the many places they may be active in is too broad for me. It's possible a botanist is active in 10 states. Categorize them by where they live now or their professional affiliation instead.
EvergreenFir(talk)04:30, 20 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nom's and RevelationDirect's clear reasoning. This is not about biota at all or nor (in the minds of more than a tiny, tiny fraction of readers) about an ecological region, but about botanists and a US administrative division. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 19:21, 23 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep. The first keep rationale that this is about botanists specifically active in the
California Floristic Province &/or the
California chaparral and woodlands is not confirmed by the contents of the articles that are in this category. (If this would have been an issue, a rename of the category could have been considered.) In fact the category name with plain California in it is completely reasonable. And if so many botanists specialize in Californian biota, then why merge or delete?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
20:42, 26 September 2017 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Malaysian nobility stubs
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.