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: speedy rename per creator request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ontario Regin to Category:Ontario Reign

Nominator's rationale: I misspelled Reign when I created the category. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 21:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename.- choster (talk) 22:09, 13 October 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) 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Northern Electric (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not likely to be populated any further and sticks out like a sore thumb in the category schemes. Hmm, are they good reasons? -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:30, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is also no context to the category. Northern Electric is a British outfit yet this category is for a Canadian company of the same name. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initially I considered deletion but I agree with Shawn in Montreal (below) that it should be upmerged. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 18:54, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say upmerge to Category:Nortel if judged to fail WP:SMALLCAT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• support upmerge to Nortel, the current company name Hugo999 (talk) 03:45, 18 October 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) 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Pre-Islamic heritage of Afghanistan to Category:Pre Islamic history of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: I don't understand why these are two separate categories; is there something I'm missing here? See also rename below. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:21, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename to Category:Pre-Islamic history of Afghanistan so we have one well named category to handle these articles. See next nom. Hmains (talk) 02:15, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep : National Heritage is recognised by Unesco. The category is populated with appropriate articles . Merging with a category of History would be unsuitable .Intothefire (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand the distinction--how do you determine if something is a part of its heritage or its history? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:14, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : My friend another way of looking at this is that
..something may be a part of its heritage and its history .
You have asked a much larger philosophical question ,your purpose to reduce collective intangible heritage to bare bones would be damaging to an important aspect of the intangible heritage of Afghanistan , when the tangible heritage is already under attack . We could even ask afterall what is heritage at all ?? Which is why I provided the link to UNESCO'S site . You could also take a look at the two articles on wikipedia on Cultural heritage and History . When I saw these two articles a few moments back they fairly well describe the difference between Heritage and History . Incidently have you already started to delete this category ??Intothefire (talk) 15:40, 16 October 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) 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pre Islamic history of Afghanistan to Category:Pre-Islamic history of Afghanistan

Nominator's rationale: Grammar. See also merge above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom as a better naming option. Hmains (talk) 02:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom as a better naming option.Intothefire (talk)

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. Dana boomer (talk) 14:43, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Karting venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is populated with WP:SPAM sites with no notability, all self-referencing. All WP:PR. Student7 (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Most of the articles in this category should qualify for speedy deletion under G-11 (promotional). The only sources are to the venues' websites or to adds in local papers. (note: I prodded them, but the prods have all been denied... which means these will have to go through AfD). Blueboar (talk) 22:11, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The category is populated with notable articles. Note that attempts by the nominator to speedy the article were declined. Perfectly acceptable category. Also, out of interest, what does WP:PR have to do with this? You seem to be throwing it around quite a bit! Jeni ^(talk) 10:40, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- I have recently voted against the direct retention of two karting venues. Such local facilities (if they need to appear in WP at all) should be merged into an article on the plakce where they are. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep these articles exist, there are more than a handful of these articles. They are properly categorized. There is no reason to delete the category. If you think the articles are improper, you need to handle that first. Deleting the category first is putting the horse before the cart. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:00, 20 October 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) 14:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Brand name potato-based snack foods to Category:Brand name snack foods

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Not convinced that we need to classify companies and brands based on the use of a single product. For large companies this type of categorization could cause some brands and companies to be in scores of categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:52, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There are subcategories Category:Brand name biscuits, Category:Brand name confectionery etc so all or nearly all snack foods can go into such a subcategory. Potato-based snack foods form a clear subcategory distinct from biscuits, confectionery etc. and so should be kept as a category. The name avoids the crisps/potato chips issue, see Potato chip. Cjc13 (talk) 14:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Biscuits (or is cookies?) and confectionery are types of products and not based on the use of a single product. In fact, biscuits could have potato as the major ingredient. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom's original rationale and follow-up clarification directly above. I think Category:Brand name potato chips (to match the main article: Potato chip) could be a viable category, as long as it included only articles about potato chips brands and not the companies that manufacture them. However, I agree with Vegaswikian that categorization of foods by their ingredients (even their main ingredients) is something we should avoid. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the problem with the name or the category itself? If the name is changed then there is also the matter of whether to include in the category brands of British crisps such as Monster Munch which are not made from potato. The category could be renamed to Category:Brand name potato chips and crisps to be inclusive. At the moment Crisps redirects to Potato chip. I agree that it should only include brands not companies, although the brand name and company name may be the same. Looking at the category there seem to be several British brands such as Salt 'n' Shake missing. Cjc13 (talk) 13:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category itself; or, rather, the fact that the category title defines the scope of the category by a particular ingredient. Renaming to Category:Brand name potato chips and crisps and removing articles primarily about companies (to clarify, e.g., the article Lay's is about the brand and the company, and so probably should remain in the category; the article Hain Celestial Group is primarily about the company, and so should be removed) would be fine, in my opinion. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 00:53, 18 October 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) 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places affected by the 2010 Haiti earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Structures affected by the 2010 Haiti earthquake (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous/vague/unclear inclusion criteria and bad precedent for overcategorization.

Ambiguous/vague/unclear inclusion criteria: These categories include places and structures "affected by" the 2010 Haiti earthquake. In the case of a major natural disaster, such as a magnitude 7.0 M_w earthquake, virtually every place and structure in the area will be "affected" to some extent. To the credit of whoever populated these categories, they include only articles which contain at least one reliably-sourced sentence about the damage caused by the earthquake. Despite this, the categories still group together an extremely diverse range of objects. The Places category, for example, contains articles about individual settlements, an airport, a base, Catholic dioceses, a river, and first- and second-level administrative divisions of Haiti.

More importantly, the type and extent of the effect of the earthquake on these places and structures varies greatly. Up to 90% of Léogâne and Grand-Goâve was destroyed, yet Pétion-Ville was relatively unscathed. Titanyen, on the other hand, appears to be in the category solely because it is the site of the mass graves for the victims. And it is precisely here where the ambiguity lies: what effect is sufficient for a place to merit inclusion in this category? From the perspective of structural damage: if even a single building in a particular settlement collapses (and this fact is documented by a reliable source) then, technically, that settlement was affected by the earthquake. And there are other perspectives: human death (of someone from a settlement in the affected area or a visitor who was in the affected area), economic effects, socio-political consequences, geologic changes, and so on. Categorizing structures poses the same problem: how much and what type of effect is sufficient for a structure to be placed in the category?

Bad precedent for overcategorization: This is not much of a problem yet because similar categories have not proliferated for other events (the only other one is Category:Places affected by Hurricane Katrina). However, even accounting for the magnitude of the Haiti earthquake, there are countless events for which such categories could be created.

Many places and structures routinely are affected by major natural and man-made events. Consider how many Places affected by Hurricane (Name) categories could be added to Miami, Havana, Jamaica, and many other places and structures. Consider how many Places affected by the (Name or year) wildfire categories could be added to settlements and counties in California; and how many Places affected by the (Name or year) flood, Places affected by the (Name or year) drought, Places affected by the (Name) earthquake, and so on... And there would be, in principle, no reason to not extend this categorization scheme beyond natural disasters: e.g. Category:Places affected by the Iraq War, Category:Structures affected by World War II.

The information conveyed by this category is useful. However, for the reasons I've indicated, I think that categorization is not a good way of conveying this information; what would be better is a list that provides details about the type and extent of the earthquake's effect on each individual place and structure. I have started such a list at List of populated places affected by the 2010 Haiti earthquake. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 06:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for the reasons well summarised by the nominator. When these were created, I argued that they were prompted by a sort of recentism, and while there were some users who wanted to keep them back at the beginning of the year, I think the perspective of time and the comparison to other hypothetical categories for other disasters demonstrate why these are inappropriate means of categorization. Template:2010 Haiti earthquake is already "grouping" the subjects of the first category and for the second we have damage to infrastructure in the 2010 Haiti earthquake, so it's not like the topic would suffer from deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 10:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This sort of thing is much better dealt with in a list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:14, 19 October 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) 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Former Jersey politicians to Category:Jersey politicians

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. With very few exceptions, we don't make distinctions between current and former or alive and dead people in occupational categories. These can simply be merged into the parent Category:Jersey politicians. Since all of the contents are in another appropriate subcategory of Category:Jersey politicians, in practical terms this category can just be deleted to complete the merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and move Philippe Langlois to Augustus Asplet Le Gros (not otherwise categorized) to the parent category. Both were Jurats (maybe, Category:Jurats of the Royal Court of Jersey...?) and Langlois appears also to have been a Deputy. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 16:02, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, thanks for catching those—I'm not sure how I missed them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as nom. We do not do "current" and "former", for politicians or in many other fields. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 19 October 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) 23:58, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Popular Alliance (Spain) to Category:People's Alliance (Spain)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article People's Alliance (Spain). Popular Alliance (Spain) redirects there and is an alternative translation of the party name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no need for a category for one article and one category. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 14:57, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Armbrust. The article is in Category:Political parties in Spain and the subcat in Category:Spanish politicians by party. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:49, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nom). Deletion is fine with me as nominator. It does seem relatively pointless. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:08, 13 October 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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 25. Dana boomer (talk) 14:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Music from Dublin to Category:Musicians from Dublin

Nominator's rationale: This category should be renamed, in keeping with other categories of "musicians from" various cities, i.e., Category:Musicians from Toronto. Music from Dublin implies that the category discusses styles of music with origins in Dublin. This is, of course, not the case. Musicians from Dublin would make more sense. RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 00:10, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Musicians from Dublin, Ireland since Dublin is ambiguous. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep – many of the articles are of bands, not musicians. The scheme Category:Musicians by city has not been established in general and is so far mostly restricted to N America. Category:Music by city in contrast is well-developed (and should be restricted to music having some particular connection to the place: eg Oasis is a Manchester band but is not restricted to people from Manchester AFAIK). Occuli (talk) 09:13, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Music of Dublin. If the criterion for inclusion is a connection to the city (which I support), then "of" is better than "from", since the latter implies origin. Subcategories for musicians or musical groups from Dublin can then be split out, if desired. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 15:46, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Neither of these arguments make sense to me. Even if you say some of these are bands rather than musicians, bands are made up of musicians. But "music from" or "music of," do not make sense because this is a categorization of people, not musical styles. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 13:20, 20 October 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.