< November 11	November 13 >

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. — ξ^xplicit 00:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Frémont expeditions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another creation by a banned user that on the surface might make sense. Fremont's article actually does a better job of covering these places and logically tying them to each other. Using a grouping in the category to gather these otherwise associated articles together by the date of a trip does not seem to be what categories are designed for. If the navigation in the article is lacking, then a template would be the better navigation tool. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for rather the same reasons we delete awards categories. alternatively rename to Category:Places visited by Frémont expeditions. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 14 November 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 00:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bonneville Expedition (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. DB OC small. Not clear that there would be enough entries where this one expedition would be defining for the individuals or places. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- too little content to be worht keeping. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2010 (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 both. — ξ^xplicit 00:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball players who have hit for the cycle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining characteristic. The cycle is when you hit a single, double, triple and home run in one game. It has been accomplished hundreds of times in over the years. It is a one time accomplishment and not definitive of a player's career. TM 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Major League Baseball players who have hit for the cycle is also included in this.

• Delete as per National Basketball Association players who have completed a four-point play, quadruple double, 4π-radian dunk, etc. Such subjects remain suitable for a list article, but I don’t think purely statistical (non-award) achievements (even including no-hitters, perfect games) are a useful basis for categorization. ―cobaltcigs 08:54, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per above. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:33, 17 November 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 00:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places named after nearby United States cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. For any number of reasons. Totally ambiguous and subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for any number of reasons, indeed. Occuli (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, posthaste. older ≠ wiser 12:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as WP:OCAT by shared naming characteristic. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 13 November 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 01:52, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Military bases and Category:Military facilities into new Category:Military installations

Nominator's rationale: Military facilities and Military bases cover both the same type of place. As suggested by User:Bahamut0013 at an earlier discussion (Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_23#Category:Military_bases), 'military installations' covers both descriptions more neatly. Buckshot06 (talk) 22:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also request that all the subcategories (Category:Military facilities by country etc be renamed to Military installations.

• Support merge: per nominator's rationale. AustralianRupert (talk) 23:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: gosh, that was a while ago, but yes, I still think it is wise. The previous discussion fizzled out for lack of interest after I offered the compromise. Thanks for the heads up. bahamut0013^words_deeds 15:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Reject Surely a base would be a sub-cat of installation? A firing range is a facility but it is not a base per se, another example would be Salisbury Plain which is a facility but not a base?? My suggestion would be to have all three with installation at top level, but come up with a definition of base Kernel Saunters (talk) 14:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Kernel Saunders. Artillery ranges are facilities but not bases, as are areas made available for military exercises. In US, with all the space it has, they may be the same, but certainly not in UK. We do not have enough land for large amounts to be reserved exclusively for the military. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Both Salisbury Plain and artillery ranges are military installations - and would be covered by this whole-encompassing category. Salisbury Plain could easily be described as a base. Buckshot06 (talk) 20:02, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge 'Base' and 'facility' are vague terms and as there's no clear difference between them (for instance, some 'bases' such as the RAAF Bare Bases host no units) the categories would be difficult to use. Combining them as suggested makes sense to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. per NickD.- The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:29, 19 November 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Young Artist Awards winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Removal per Wikipedia:OC#Award recipients (compare award discussion for BBC Young Musician of the Year, MusiCares Person of the Year, NAACP Image Award Winners, Time Persons of the Year, etc.). Hekerui (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and guideline; doesn't appear to be defining for the recipients. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per long standing consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:55, 23 November 2010 (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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 24. Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Film artists to Category:Film crew

Nominator's rationale: We have categories for Film artists and Film crew both under Category:Filmmaking occupations. I understand that there's a distinction being made here -- or at least, I think there is, or there could be -- between a crew member who is generally recognized as an "artist" in some way and others, such as stunt people, who are not. But a look at the category contents shows that there's confusion over where things go (including on my part) and I believe a merge would help navigation. Film crew categories for bona fide "artists" can also be categorized under the relevant artistic category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I think I'm going to oppose but am going to reserve my decision for now. Category:Set decorators are a part of the crew. The others not really. This may be a case where it will be clear to some where the dividing line is. This may be a case where the break point is that the crew works on set during filming. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Film positions not on set during production could still be categorized under the main Filmmaking occupations category. There might be a few such categories to move up to the higher level category, yes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I think there is a problem with the article Film crew which defines the crew as everyone involved from inception to release but excluding actors and producers. My view (like Vegaswikian above) is that the 'crew' is just those involved during actual filming. There needs to be a clear definition laid down as an introduction to these categories and then they may start to make sense. At the moment they appear to be rather jumbled up. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I agree. But again, retaining Cat:Film artists does nothing to clear up the 'on the set = crew' issue, that's another issue entirely, one that can be rectified fairly easily by clarifying category descriptions of Crew and Occupations and re-categorizing some of the contents accordingly. It doesn't require an CfD discussion for that to happen. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:30, 15 November 2010 (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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 24. Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christmas by medium to Category:Christmas media

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This isn't really an "X by Y" category, but a catchall of media related to Christmas. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Seems to fit perfectly well into Category:Topics by medium to me. Both old master paintings and novels are a medium, but I'm dubious they are part of the Media (communication) as the term is normally used: "In communication, media (singular medium) are the storage and transmission channels or tools used to store and deliver information or data. It is often referred to as synonymous with mass media or news media, but may refer to a single medium used to communicate any data for any purpose.[1][2][3]". I'm not sure that really includes Fra Angelico or J.S. Bach! Johnbod (talk) 18:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Query – why are the various subcats not thought to be 'by medium' (novels, songs, films etc)? I'm not sure why the top-level articles are there and not just in Category:Christmas. Occuli (talk) 20:21, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the latter point, there is no "Christmas radio" or "Christmas editorials" category, so I think it is reasonable for them to go there. The first point puzzled me too. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 13 November 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tennessee Volunteers athletes to Category:Tennessee Volunteers and Lady Vols athletes

Propose renaming Category:Tennessee Lady Volunteers athletes to Category:Tennessee Volunteers and Lady Vols athletes

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Combining the two into a unified category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. No use for separate categories at this level for men and women's team.--TM 06:11, 23 November 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former sports venues in the United States to Category:Defunct sports venues in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Both other "by country" categories use "defunct", as do all of this category's subcats. Grutness...wha? 09:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: There's actually a whole category tree for former buildings and structures, some of which use "defunct", some "former". Jafeluv (talk) 12:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• And the US sub-tree is Category:Former buildings and structures of the United States. Occuli (talk) 15:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Mmmm. Tricky. It should be one or the other, though, and the use of defunct in all the subcats of this one suggests that defunct may be better, for sports venues, at least. Grutness...wha? 22:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Not tricky. Overall, B&S use "Former", but the terms "former" and "defunct" are used specifically depending on what type or use the structure has. Hospitals are always "defunct", as are hotels, airports and amusement parks; but theatres are always "former", as a places of worship and courthouses. I'm not talking about the entire B&S tree - just sports venues, which overwhelmingly use "defunct". Grutness...wha? 10:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• At some point we probably need a simple discussion on when to use former, previous, defunct, disused, reused, repurposed, and related names. I believe that usage does vary by country and there can be differences between the various terms. So, while I hate to suggest it, we might be served by adding a by country guideline in this area. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Certainly within Wikipedia's categories usage does not vary by country at all. All other US ex-sports venue categories use "Defunct". This is the unique odd-one-out. See the analysis of them below. Grutness...wha? 10:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've done a tally-up. Ignoring the Buildings and structures categories (which are basically irrelevant since they use either former or defunct depending on the type of structure, not the nationality (and we're only trying to settle the matter for one type of structure)) there are 66 "defunct" sporting venue categories and 4 "former" sporting venue categories. Of those, one is up for renaming elsewhere as its name is clearly non-standard ("Speedway former venues"). No other US-specific sporting venue categories use "former", they all use "defunct". The remaining two "former sporting venue" categories are Category:Former horse racing venues in the United Kingdom - part of a tree which otherwise uses defunct exclusively, and Category:Former ice hockey venues - all three of whose subcats (including a US-specific one) use defunct. It seems that defunct is overwhelmingly used on WP for sports venues. Grutness...wha? 10:34, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, this seems wholly persuasive. Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 12:14, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm going to remain neutral on this. However we still need a discussion at some point on the usage of the above terms. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:49, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, I'll support. If it's really that much more common to use "defunct" I think it makes sense to rename in that direction. In any case there's no point in using two words for the same thing in different categories. Jafeluv (talk) 20:28, 22 November 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 00:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I fail to see why this classification would be defining for the three counties. Also this should be deleted as OC small since the counties are basically fixed and will not expand. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – an absurd grouping, a wholesale misunderstanding of categorisation. Occuli (talk) 10:17, 12 November 2010 (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. Jafeluv (talk) 21:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose merging Category:Great Basin desert region to Category:Great Basin

Nominator's rationale: Merge. No reason to have an extra level of navigation for these. I have been doing cleanup in this area, but I did not look to see what was in this category before I started so it is possible that I removed some articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – it has been recently created as a subcat of Category:Geography of the Great Basin yet its 2 subcats are flora and fauna, neither of which is geographical. So it is an empty category masquerading as a legitimate parent. (User:Hike796 seems to be the problem in the Great Basin. Category:Places named after nearby United States cities is a good example of an ill-considered creation.) Occuli (talk) 10:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 00:48, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. - another needed and good step cleaning up plethora of Great Basin micro-categories masquerading as articles. - Look2See1 t a l k → 02:10, 20 November 2010 (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. — ξ^xplicit 00:44, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Electoral College to Category:Electoral College (United States)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match name to article Electoral College (United States). "United States" is not part of the body's name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Johnbod (talk) 14:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support per above. WAYNEOLAJUWON 20:35, 17 November 2010 (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.