< May 27	May 29 >

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: Administrative close: category has never been created. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: spelling error in the category Ralf.treinen (talk) 19:27, 28 May 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to be a duplicate of Category:Unknown strength tropical cyclones. Both categories are subcategories of Category:Tropical cyclones by strength. Or is there something I have not seen? I do wonder why the two editors who have cleaned up the category over the years [1] didn't propose a merge at that time. Hoping some more experienced hands in categories and/or cyclones can comment either way. If this category is to be deleted, the three entries should be moved to Category:Unknown strength tropical cyclones, and I'm happy to do this. TIA. Andrewa (talk) 19:13, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tropical cyclones#Deletion of Category:Tropical cyclones of unknown intensity. Andrewa (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'd rather delete the other one, since this one has a better ring to it. Otherwise, yea they're duplicates, and one should go. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 19:52, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Either would do, but Category:Unknown strength tropical cyclones has a (rudimentary) talk page and a more complete category description page, has a few more members, and fits better into the naming scheme of the other members of Category:Tropical cyclones by strength. Andrewa (talk) 01:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Makes sense. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - I note you're an active member of the relevant WikiProject, so this is exactly the sort of input I was hoping for, thank you! Andrewa (talk) 11:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not all that familiar with this process, but just in case we lose them somehow, the three members of the category proposed for deletion are Great Backerganj Cyclone of 1876, 1889 Apia cyclone and Cyclone Catarina. The last of these may possibly be a miscategorisation, as the infobox gives it as a category 2. Andrewa (talk) 11:59, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, to make it simpler, I just changed the cats, so now the proposed deleted category is blank. --♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 17:56, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, I'm not sure of the process or protocols, but it seems to be working. I see you gave Catarina a 2 to match the infobox. Andrewa (talk) 03:30, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomCurb Chain (talk) 09:23, 1 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:59, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: In common law Canada, there is no real distinction between "barristers" and "solicitors". In all common law provinces of Canada, members of the provincial bar are both barristers and solicitors. The legal practice in Canada differs from that of England, where the distinction is relevant and members of the bar practice as barristers or solicitors. Therefore, the existing Category:Canadian lawyers will suffice for lawyers in Canada. There is only one article in the category proposed for deletion, about a Canadian-born person who practices law in New Zealand. The fellow may have trained in Canada, but as he was not called to the bar in Canada, he is not a "Canadian lawyer" as in "a member of the bar in Canada". Rather, he is a Canadian-born person who is a lawyer in another country. Whether New Zealand maintains the distinction between barristers and solicitors as they do in England, I do not know, but it is largely an irrelevant distinction in Canada. The one article in this category is already included in the "Canadian lawyers" category in any event. Agent 86 (talk) 11:51, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with deletion as he has only historic claims as a Canadian lawyer, and in any case "barristers" are not seperate in New Zealand. If retained though, perhaps Bill Hastings (censor) would (also) qualify as a Canadian barrister! Hugo999 (talk) 23:47, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lawyers in Canada and lawyers in New Zealand are both barristers and solicitors by definition. There is no distinction in either country as there is in England. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 1 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Defined as "Academy Award winners and nominees related to other winners." This is a relatively trivial biographical detail, and certainly not one that we should be categorizing by, since an Academy Award winner has no control over whether one of his or her relatives wins an Academy Award. The category is also misnamed, since it indicates that it contains articles about families, but the articles that have been added are about individuals. This information is fully listified at List of Academy Award winning families, so deletion will result in the net loss of no information. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:53, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. If articles are not to be trivial or contain trivia, categories should aslo be non-trivial. While it might be more a matter of semantics, "families" don't win Academy Awards, individuals win them. The category name suggests otherwise. Finally, as an aside, I wonder if even an article listing such relationships is anything more than trivial. I would think that such things might be mentioned in the articles about these people. Agent 86 (talk) 11:58, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial, not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete VanityCurb Chain (talk) 09:24, 1 June 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:04, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tobacco cessation to Category:Smoking cessation

Nominator's rationale: It is smoking that is the target of cessation - not tobacco. It is not correct to say that tobacco is being stopped (cessation). Tobacco will always grow. We cannot tell it to stop!! Also, Google gives more hits on "smoking cessation". Note that there is a smoking cessation article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:45, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. I can't really find any flaw with the nominator's rationale. You don't see "No Tobacco" signs or tell people to "quit tobacco". It's "No Smoking" and "quit smoking".Agent 86 (talk) 12:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and to match the parent article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Tobacco cessation" appears to be industry or clinical terminology (see e.g. http://www.tobacco-cessation.org/, http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/tobacco/ ) encompassing cessation of tobacco use in all forms— both smoked and smokeless such as chaw, snuff or dip. Since we do have articles such as herbal smokeless tobacco represented here, perhaps the specifically smoking-related items can be moved to a subcategory, but it seems the existence of this category under this name or similarly generic alternative like Category:Tobacco use cessation is justified.- choster (talk) 18:37, 28 May 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. These are a series of recently created categories which I feel are a result of overcategorisation - the year categories are alone sufficient, it is not necessary to have decade and century categories as well. I discussed the removal of these categories with the creator, Snowman Guy (talk · contribs). He supported my proposal which I proceeded with by removing them from the category tree and then requesting speedy deletion. Speedy deletion for these categories was declined by Nyttend (talk · contribs) who is refused to respond to me. Themeparkgc Talk 01:00, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If consensus has been reached between the nominator and the category creator, then I see no reason why these shouldn't have been speedied. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:35, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As I said I have tried that but it was declined. When I tried to given Nyttend (talk · contribs) the full details as I have provided here, I received no response. Themeparkgc Talk 04:51, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, I was just saying that I agreed with your comments that they could have been speedied. You tried but were turned down, so you did the right thing by bringing it here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:23, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all of the decade categories. I'm firmly in the camp that we don't need decade categories, in most cases, but by year grouped by century works. Remove Category:Amusement rides by opening year from the year subcategories and use that as the parent for the two century categories. This would then match the buildings and structures by year tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - My original suggestion (on the previously linked talk pages) was to remove the century categories as well. This was to mimic the structure of Category:Roller coasters by opening year. I personally don't feel we need the century categories for amusement rides because there would be very few articles on Wikipedia about amusement rides before the 20th century (unlike the building and structures category tree which has articles dating back to the 4th Century BC). It seems silly to split something with such a comparatively miniscule scope. Themeparkgc Talk 09:59, 1 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yea, this can be an issue when we have multiple parent categories. However the structures parent probably should be the major parent here since these are, in the end, structures. Having the century categories does not really hurt anything since the navigation template navigates to the surrounding years without regard for centuries or for decades. Also the coaster categories are subcategories by year in these so they really don't present a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 1 June 2011 (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 28

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Hôtel Begeret de Grancourt

Category:Tropical cyclones of unknown intensity

Category:Canadian barristers

Category:Members of Academy Award Winning Families

Category:Tobacco cessation

Category:Amusement rides that opened in x