< May 19	May 21 >

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. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 05:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Sportspeople by city or town in Suriname to Category:Surinamese sportspeople

Nominator's rationale: Procedural nomination. In the earlier discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_April_28#Category:Sportspeople_from_Suriname, it was proposed that Category:Sportspeople from Suriname be merged with this at one title or the other — but while there was a consensus (and established naming convention for the Category:Sportspeople by nationality tree) that the existing Category:Surinamese sportspeople was the more appropriate merge target for "Sportspeople from Suriname", the status of this category was unresolvable. Since the discussion had been sitting open since April 28 and month-old discussions rarely if ever attract any new input, however, I opted to close it and relist this one for a separate new discussion. The key issue here is that there's only one city in Suriname with its own dedicated "Sportspeople from City" category, making it possibly a WP:SMALLCAT — one participant suggested that subcategories might be possible for other cities, but as of today none have actually been created. So what needs to be determined here is whether this should be kept and populated with subcategories for other cities that have enough sportspeople to justify them, or whether it should be upmerged to Category:Surinamese sportspeople as a small category that isn't actually aiding navigation — as this is a purely procedural nomination, however, I have no opinion and leave it to consensus to decide. Bearcat (talk) 22:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, chances for expansion are low, even Category:People by city or town in Suriname only contains a Paramaribo category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uomerge no point to have a contained category for one sub-category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:09, 5 June 2016 (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: no consensus. It looks to me like there has been some movement on this issue since 2009, in that there no longer appears to be a consensus that these are a good idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:English-language albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:English-language EPs
Category:English-language compilation albums
Category:English-language live albums
Category:English-language video albums
Category:English-language remix albums
Category:English-language soundtracks

Nominator's rationale: Hard to imagine how this is a defining quality of any album. It's doubtful that any source for over 99% of the articles in these categories would describe an album as "an English-language album by Foo", unless the album was recorded in English by an artist whose previous recordings were all in Spanish, for example. What is defining for these is the nationality of the artist who recorded the album, which would already be captured in the album's categorization scheme of Category:Albums by artist and Category:Albums by artist nationality ("... is an album by British rock band ..."). The language of an album has to be less defining than that of songs (as the album itself is just a collection of songs) and Category:English-language songs was repurposed as a container category so as no individual song articles would be placed there per a CfD in August 2012. I also don't see how the category itself is of much help to readers. Would readers use the category simply to find another album out of the 10,000+ listed that is in English? I use categories for navigation and exploration a lot but never for this purpose. So I see this categorization as not useful for readers, unable to verify via a reliable source, and non-defining in nearly all cases. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This was previously nominated for deletion in May 2009. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what language the album is in is absolutely defining. Most sources identify the language of an album with the exception of the language of the source and the language of album coinciding. Biasing towards English-language sources, that seems as though no one articulates English language as a notable feature of the album. But alas, French sources don't talk about French language albums from French acts (unless they normally record in some other language), and Spanish sources don't talk about Spanish language from acts normally recording in Spanish etc. Category:Albums by language would be a real fake without it's English daughters. Although we are the English-language wikipedia, the scope of our content and userbase, is worldwide and polyglot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- First, per WP:CATDEF, "it should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories." Second, I apologize for not taking the nomination far enough, I suppose, as other language categories should probably be nominated as well. I would not consider Park Hotel as the Italian-language album by Alice but as the album by Italian singer Alice. What language it is in is of no consequence as a defining aspect. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:56, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - If I am talking about an album that isn't in English the very first thing I am going to say is what language it is in. The same can most likely be said for French speakers indicating that a given album is English. It is more defining of an album that pretty much anything else. No different than labelling a book as English or Italian. -DJSasso (talk) 19:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose This seems to me like a ridiculous nomination. Quite frankly the language an album is in is probably the most defining aspect of it. And I would note, it is verifiable, it is verifiable by the album itself, which would otherwise be known as a primary source. -DJSasso (talk) 19:10, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- The most defining aspects of an album are who recorded it and who produced it. No one will ever say "Hey Bruce Springsteen has released his latest English-language album!" or "Have you heard Beyoncé's new album - all the songs are in English!" --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:55, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Defining, doesn't just mean what people said, defining means an aspect that sets it apart from others. One of the things that makes it different from others is its language. Of course there are other things that define it such as the artist or the genre. But thankfully, we aren't limited to one category per article so you can include multiple defining aspects. -DJSasso (talk) 11:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - I understand as I was just attempting to reemphasize my point regarding the definition of "defining characteristics", which suggests it is when the subject of the article is commonly and consistently referred to as having these characteristics in reliable sources. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit torn on this one, to be honest, as I can see valid points on both sides. It's technically true that the language in which an album is recorded and performed is a pretty basic characteristic, as fundamentally "defining" as a person's skin colour — though it's worth noting that we don't maintain "people by skin colour" categories for people who belong to the majority skin colour in their national context, because those end up being unmaintainable "75 per cent of everybody who has an article at all" megagroupings — but it's also entirely true that reliable source coverage of the albums doesn't routinely call attention to the language an album is in unless it's contextually outside the norm for some reason (e.g. a Canadian or American or British music magazine would normally only go out of its way to note an album's English-language-ness as a thing in and of itself if the artist was normally more renowned for performing and recording in a language other than English.) What I'm not so sure about is whether the language of an album is a thing that users would actually be looking for as a research grouping in and of itself — is anybody seriously looking for a one-stop-shopping location where they could hit Nirvana's Nevermind directly alongside Céline Dion's Falling into You and Michael Jackson's Off the Wall and Randy Newman's 12 Songs and Neil Diamond's 12 Songs and P.D.Q. Bach's 1712 Overture and Other Musical Assaults and Lydia Lunch's Queen of Siam and Neil Young's Re-ac-tor and The Supremes' Reflections and Idina Menzel's Holiday Wishes, solely on the basis that they're all sung in the same language despite the fact that there's no other conceivable reason why anybody would ever need albums in such wildly divergent genres to be grouped together at all? I simply don't see how that's helping anybody do anything that needs done — which is why I'm leaning delete. Bearcat (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearcat: Do you think this is any different than (e.g.) Category:English-language films or Category:English-language books? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:51, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. WP:NONDEF, WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION, WP:INDISCRIMINATE At time of writing there are 10,403 music album articles in the album category, there’s probably 100,000 plus “English-language” albums on the English Wikipedia. How is that defining? At what point would a reader wish to investigate such an enormous non-defining category to see what is recorded in English? The few music albums I checked are silent on what language is used because it is not defining. We don’t categorise, say, Lady Gaga by the language(s) she speaks, so why should her albums be categorised so? We automatically assume that a music album by LG is sung in English. It is not really defining unless Lady Gaga does an album that is not in English. We are working on the English WP where the lingua franca is English. That’s the automatic and assumed position. The accepted norm, by definition, cannot be defining. Ballet dancers with one leg is defining, two legs is not. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:10, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The accepted norm? You do realize there are more non-English speakers on the planet than English right? So for all those people the norm would not be to assume an album is in English. And remember even though we are English wikipedia we write for an international audience, not just an English one. -DJSasso (talk) 11:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely the reason I used the words "lingua franca." --Richhoncho (talk) 11:29, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The language of the album seems to be a defining feature and it is probably easier to source than the names of the artists. Dimadick (talk) 00:41, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unhelpful and obscure (or rename to "Albums containing English-language songs"). What is being defined? The language on the album cover, the language of the artist, the language of the music, or the language of the lyrics? Albums in themselves are not "English-language" so can't be defined as such. If the intention is to identify albums that have lyrics in the English language, then perhaps the category should be renamed "Albums containing English-language songs". SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:40, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this contains far too many albums with people singing in their own language, which is totally indiscriminate. By the way, I would not have objections against e.g. Category:German-language albums by English-speaking singers (if there are enough articles to populate the category) but at the same time I would still have objections against Category:English-language albums by German-speaking singers because it has meanwhile become too common to sing in English even if you're not a native speaker. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but repurpose along the lines of categories like Category:English-language singers where the category is limited to those not from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the UK, Jamaica and probably a few other countries where the majority of music is produced in English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per WP:NOTDEF. As noted at not-defining, "if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining". This category is such a basic piece of information that it's not worth mentioning at all in almost all reliable sources or articles, let alone the lead portion of an article. Moreover, what use does a category with over 100,000 articles have for our readers? It doesn't help them navigate between articles when a category is that large. And what reader would want to navigate from one English-language album to another based only on them both being in English? ~ Rob^Talk 05:41, 9 June 2016 (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: dual upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Buildings and structures in Wilton, Maine to Category:Wilton, Maine

Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 16:00, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom, with the proviso that the articles will also need to be upmerged to Category:Buildings and structures in Franklin County, Maine. Bearcat (talk) 22:12, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Bearcat....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:02, 21 May 2016 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Benefit corporation to Category:Benefit corporations

Nominator's rationale: Should be plural, consistent with the parent category Category:Corporations. Deli nk (talk) 15:59, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 26 May 2016 (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: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:NSS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: A small category. Shyamsunder (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Rename if Kept One article categories don't usually aid navigation. Rename to National Service Scheme if kept. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Everything that exists does not automatically get its own dedicated eponymous category just to contain its main article; these are warranted only if there's a sizable volume of spinoff content besides the eponym itself. And even if this were justified, it would have to be at the full name of the eponym and not just at its initialism, as there are simply too many other things listed on the dab page at NSS. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The one artivlce is already well categorised, so no need to merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 23 May 2016 (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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:33, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Development criticism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, this is a mishmash of a book, a theory, a town and a few people who aren't coherent in their criticism. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:29, 20 May 2016 (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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Ancient Macedonian individuals to Category:Ancient Macedonians

Nominator's rationale: upmerge, these categories seem to have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:27, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per above, it's the same thing. Brandmeister^talk 07:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:10, 24 May 2016 (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. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 05:43, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Immunity (law) to Category:Legal immunity

Nominator's rationale: per main article Legal immunity and WP:NATURALDIS. Seems like an obvious case, but as the article is quite new and has not received much scrutinity, I was unsure whether it would qualify for WP:CFD/S. PanchoS (talk) 13:25, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Yes, I agree we should follow the article Legal immunity here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:34, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I created this category without realizing that there was already a naming convention. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 02:27, 26 May 2016 (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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 05:46, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Eros in ancient Greece to Category:Eroticism in ancient Greece

Nominator's rationale: The current title is ambiguous and may mean god Eros as well. The category's content basically reflects eroticism. The main article for this is Ancient Greek eros, so an alternative title could be Category:Ancient Greek eros which is currently a soft redirect. Brandmeister^talk 13:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom This is a category about sexuality and erotic materials, not Eros the deity. Dimadick (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alt rename to Category:Sexuality in ancient Greece, not because the proposed name of the nomination might be wrong, but simply because the alternative name fits better in the existing Sexuality tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 27 May 2016 (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: no consensus. Part of the issue here is that the names of the articles and other categories have been somewhat in flux. I suggest that rather than having separate discussions, as in this discussion and also here, a group nomination be started for the subcategories of Category:Judiciaries by country that need to be renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Judicial system of Albania to Category:Judiciary of Albania

Nominator's rationale: I just sent off a bunch of RM to standardize the title names of main articles for judiciaries in Category:Judiciaries. There are still several subcategories that need renaming, and this is the first one (they should use the most popular "judiciary of foo" style. So we need to rename Category:Judicial system of Albania to Category:Judiciary of Albania, and so on). I don't want to do it one by one manually for the remaining categories, so I'd appreciate if someone who uses automated tools could append the list of the 10-20 related subcategories to this nom, or just start a new one for them. For the record, "Judicial system of foo" is the second most common variant after "judiciary of foo", but there are few weirder ones such as "Judicial branch of foo". Hopefully we can get this straightened out. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree these categories are a mess, so should clearly be standardized. I'd also be ready to help you with tagging and listing, but at this point I'm unsure if "Judiciary" really is the best term for all cases, even though it might be the most prevalent title now.
"Judiciary" is slightly ambiguous. While it may be used as a synonym for the whole judicial system, it is often used as an aggregate term for (all) judges only. Also, a number of sovereign countries has more than a single judiciary, see for example Category:State judiciaries in the United States and Category:Judicial branch of the United States government; Category:Judiciaries of the United Kingdom; or Category:Judicial system of China with Category:Judiciary of Hong Kong and Category:Judiciary of Macau. While it seems incorrect to speak of a single judiciary in these countries, it seems possible to refer to a judicial system in more generic, WP:TOPICCAT terms. For these reasons, while there would might be opposition to renaming all categories to the "Judiciary in" scheme, everybody might be okay with a "judicial system in" scheme. IMHO, we should also take into consideration the larger context, and consider the scope of Category:Law by country and its subcategories. How do they relate to this decision here? Do we want these categories here to be rather wide or narrow in scope?
I'm not yet fully convinced which way we should go, but think we should gather some feedback first, before either expanding/restarting this nomination or renominating with both alternatives being offered. --PanchoS (talk) 14:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@PanchoS: I based my proposal on our article on Judiciary, which states in the lead "The judiciary (also known as the judicial system or court system) is... ". Seems like they are synomyms. Note also related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_21#Category:Court_systems_by_country and that Category:Court systems by country (which probably should be renamed to Judiciaries by country) is of course different from Category:Courts by country. PS. If you reply to me here, please can you ECHO me? Otherwise I may forget about this discussion for days if not longer. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- The Judiciary consists of the judges. The judicial system relates to the whole ofthe court system over which they preside: these are not the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:15, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- "The Judiciary consists of the judges". Citation needed for that claim, please. This is not what our article on judiciary states. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Update Main category has been renamed, see Category:Judiciaries by country.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:48, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose (with Sources!) While the court system is the one meaning of "judiciary", it is also used like "the bench" to refer to judges (source, souurce, source). That being said, I do support the concept of standardizing these categories and this name isn't bad, just a little ambiguous. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Query Wouldn't an explicit scoping note of every category in the tree to the effect that it covers bench/judges/ courtts/ cout systems be sufficient to get over any lingering doubts? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:04, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose without prejudice against a proper renomination of all categories that offers sensible answers to the various problems raised, and a viable solution for the whole category tree. --PanchoS (talk) 19:18, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Update. The main article for this category was renamed, see Talk:Judiciary of Albania - with no objections. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support It is not true to say that "The Judiciary consists of the judges". Take a look at Federal judiciary of the United States where "judiciary" and "courts" are used interchangeably. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:41, 1 June 2016 (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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:2015 Tour de France places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:2014 Tour de France places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: That the Tour de France (in a particular year) has passed through a place is (in most/all cases) a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of that place (e.g. Utrecht, Holme Moss). This form of categorization could lead to some places (e.g. some cols) being in many categories. A list of places on the route of a particular year's Tour may be appropriate, but any such list should be developed directly from WP:RSs (rather than from these categories) - that way the places can be listed in order. See also essay WP:DNWAUC. DexDor^(talk) 05:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: If this discussion results in delete then other categories should be purged - e.g. Category:2007 Tour de France should not contain articles such as Briançon. DexDor^(talk) 06:07, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being non-defining to the place. Of course there are obvious exceptions (Alpe d'Huez being one), but this would be overcating at its worst. Some places in France could have dozens and dozens of year categories added to it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:45, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feels like a performance category even though these aren't biography articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-defining. I created the 2015 cat after it appeared on Special:WantedCategories, which I now realise was because of this IP's edits; had I considered my edit properly, I don't think I would have thought it was a defining category, and it sets a bad precedent for people cluttering up the relevant articles with a plethora of "[year] Tour de France places" categories. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 12:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, (re)considering the vague scope of these categories, they indeed are unviable for attracting place articles that aren't defined by the Tour de France having passed through. However, please consider merging at least the mountain climbs to Category:Climbs in cycle racing, which seems basically viable. --PanchoS (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A performance category: places perform by the tour passing through them. Category Clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone before. About PanchoS' suggestion of merging, see this discussion about Category:Climbs in cycle racing. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 28 May 2016 (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.

May 20

Category:Sportspeople by city or town in Suriname

Category:English-language albums

Category:Buildings and structures in Wilton, Maine

Category:Benefit corporation

Category:NSS

Category:Development criticism

Category:Ancient Macedonian individuals

Category:Immunity (law)

Category:Eros in ancient Greece

Category:Judicial system of Albania

Category:2015 Tour de France places