< October 26	October 28 >

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) 00:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Former Jessup mooters (if kept, rename to Category:Winners of the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition)

Nominator's rationale: Delete (but rename if kept). Merely competing in this competition is definitely not defining for an individual; it's not that difficult to become a member of a participant team. Being a member of a winning team for it also is probably not defining for anyone, which is why I think deletion is the preferred option. (But if the category is kept it should be renamed to be for winners only and to use the name of the moot per Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition. The category currently contains only members of winning teams.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:16, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have no articles on the individual winners, and it is trivial to add cats to our existing articles just because those people participated in this event. There no problem for recreation when such individuals have articles because of wining this competition.Curb Chain (talk) 02:48, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify—we do not have articles on the winning teams, but we do have articles about individual persons who were on winning teams. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:56, 28 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Obvious case of WP:OC is obvious. Also ambigious: do they mean "did not start" period, or "did not qualify"? (There is a difference). And duplicates List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race. Contents can be upmerged to the apppropirate subcats of Category:Formula One drivers by nationality if they aren't already F1 categorised elsewhere. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not that it matters, but the category is not even accurate to its own definition as it does not define Formula One race or Formula One driver. --Falcadore (talk) 06:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Formula One driver" is self-defining - but good point on it not specifying what sort of race! (Frog race, anyone?) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:12, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pointless, it basically is a duplicate of List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race, and as stated, the title is not specific. Editadam 00:35, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the category is intended to contain drivers who entered one or more Formula One World Championship races but did not start any, for whatever reason, e.g. failed to qualify, failed to pre-qualify, qualified but did not actually take the start, etc. So in that regard, it's not entirely redundant to List of Formula One drivers who never qualified for a race, but the two are certainly very similar. DH85868993 (talk) 02:48, 31 October 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 to Category:Public schools in the United States by state.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A related merge proposal failed, so now we need to consider an outright delete. Almost every school in the US receives some level of public funding. So on the surface, this category would include every school in the US. That is not defining. Trying to limit contents based on the percent of public funding would be problematic since it would be arbitrary and vary by year. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:10, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

comment Would there still be value in having a category tree of 'public schools in the United State by state' since 'public schools' is the US name for schools created and administered by an element of American government, usually schools districts, sometimes counties? This would be the complement to the Category:Private schools in the United States by state and so would provide complete category navigation to schools (K-12) without overlap. Hmains (talk) 03:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Unclear. If it is a choice of public or private, then if it is not private, it's public. Is that worth categorizing? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:32, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As things are now (including my work), schools in each US state are broken out by county (public and private) and by private. There is no single category where one can find all the [notable] public schools in a state. My idea of Category:Public schools in the United State by state would fill that void. We should not depend on the logical negative (if not private, well then public) in article navigation by category--and do not generally do so. And public schools are what most childen attend in most states. Hmains (talk) 17:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Public schools in the United State by state as I discussed above. Same pattern with the immediate subcats of this category. Hmains (talk) 01:17, 31 October 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. All of these categories are of low utility since they contain only the main article and a subcategory for prize-winners. I'm not aware of anything else that could be added to them. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 27 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Seems to fall under overcategorization and discouraged by Wikipedia:TELEVISION#Categories as numerous writers could work on a series and you'd end up with a TV show with numerous Television series written by Foo categories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Falcadore (talk) 06:59, 28 October 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 for consistency to Option A; revisit if necessary, perhaps in a wider nomination. Nobody is supporting keeping the two at separate formats but opinion is split down the middle on which direction. Since "the Solomon Islands" is more commonly used in the categories that's the best way to break the tie, but the whole tree may need to be looked at again. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

OPTION A: Category:Speakers of the National Parliament of Solomon Islands to Category:Speakers of the National Parliament of the Solomon Islands
OPTION B: Category:Members of the National Parliament of the Solomon Islands to Category:Members of the National Parliament of Solomon Islands

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Renaming the Speakers category was a speedy rename proposed that was opposed. See the rationale for opposition below. Either the Speakers category can be renamed to include the "the", or the Members category could be renamed to eliminate it. All other categories for the Solomon Islands use "the Solomon Islands", but as pointed out we may want to diverge from this if the formal proper name is different. I personally think that Option B sounds like the writer/speaker does not speak English well, so on balance I favour A, but for consistency one or the other should be chosen and I would prefer that "B" be chosen to no change being made at all. The article is at National Parliament of Solomon Islands. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copy of speedy nomination/discussion
Category:Speakers of the National Parliament of Solomon Islands to Category:Speakers of the National Parliament of the Solomon Islands – C2B per Category:Members of the National Parliament of the Solomon Islands Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply] Disagree. The official name of that Parliament is "National Parliament of Solomon Islands", because the official name of that country in English is "Solomon Islands", with no definite article. Hence Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, and so on. There should be standardisation, but going the other way - removal of the definite article where it still remains. Aridd (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

copy of speedy nomination/discussion

Category:Speakers of the National Parliament of Solomon Islands to Category:Speakers of the National Parliament of the Solomon Islands – C2B per Category:Members of the National Parliament of the Solomon Islands Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:48, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. The official name of that Parliament is "National Parliament of Solomon Islands", because the official name of that country in English is "Solomon Islands", with no definite article. Hence Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands, and so on. There should be standardisation, but going the other way - removal of the definite article where it still remains. Aridd (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

do option A How can there be any question? Every subcat of this naming pattern that I checked in Category:Solomon Islands has 'the' in it, so Category:Speakers of the National Parliament of Solomon Islands should also have the 'the'. Hmains (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- See Aridd's comment in the collapsed portion for how there can be a question. Apparently the actual name of the body is "National Parliament of Solomon Islands", without the "the". Nevertheless, I also prefer "A" for consistency' sake. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
option B. (Thank you, Good Ol'factory, for including my reasons here.) There are two issues here. The first is what to call the country. Its official name in English is "Solomon Islands", with no definite article. Which means we have to choose between respecting the country's own English language name for itself, or preferring the name commonly given to it (due to "standard" English grammar and/or lack of knowledge of the official name) internationally. But even if we decide to call the country "the Solomon Islands", we have a second issue here. The country's parliament is called "National Parliament of Solomon Islands" - and, to my knowledge, we don't go around changing the official English name of any parliamentary institution. It's one thing using the "common international" name for a country. It's rather another changing the official English name of an institution. Aridd (talk) 11:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- We do tend to use the common English name of an institution, and not necessarily the official English name. I'm not saying the alternative is the common name, but I don't think we follow the official name in all cases in the way you suggest. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Option B. If that's the name of the group, that's the name of the group.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Renaming - The most common reference to the country is "the Solomon Islands" or "the Solomons." It's extremely rare to hear this country referred to as just "Solomon Islands" without the "the." Stay with most common phrase. Scanlan (talk) 03:48, 16 November 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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There was only one article in this category, which was the catmain. I moved that one and now this is ready for deletion. —GoldRingChip 21:38, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - An empty category can be tagged for speedy deletion (C1). Concur that this one's unneeded - WP:SMALLCAT's exemption doesn't apply. What about Category:United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2006 though? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:50, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- As the 2006 cat has 3 articles, I figured it wasn't worth deleting, whereas 2004 was a sure thing. Where to draw the line is a discussion for a different day, I suppose.—GoldRingChip 12:45, 28 October 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: Deleted by Malik Shabazz. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Single-article category. All other related articles were deleted. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Redwall and delete. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:18, 27 October 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, with no prejudice aginast recreating when it can be populated by articlkes which would clearly survive. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:30, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Until players from this team are notable enough for an article and to be placed in this category, this is not needed. Category creator wants to use it as a placeholder until that happens. I suggest recreating the category when a Summerside Storm player is notable enough to have an article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:54, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Does not belong if nothing goes in it. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:01, 30 October 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: Speedy rename C2C. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Biblical musicals to Category:Musicals based on the Bible

Nominator's rationale: All other categories in Category:Works based on the Bible use the "based on" form, except Category:Biblical art, which can be used for art in bibles. At last count, however, there were no musicals in the Bible.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 17:50, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename C2C - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:17, 27 October 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. Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Do we really want to go the way with novelty songs by genre. "Novelty" seems defining enough for these types of songs, and it's not as if there's too many of them to require genre diffusion. This category specifically is small enough where an upmerge of the articles into Category:Electropop songs and Category:Novelty songs should suffice. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OVERCATEGORIZATION Curb Chain (talk) 02:37, 28 October 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: Merge. Dana boomer (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Adaptations of novels by source to Category:Works based on novels

Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_19#Adaptations_of_works, all of this category's subcategories are now "Works based on (novel name)".-- Mike Selinker (talk) 12:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support per rationale, seems like unnecessary redundancy... was clearing through some of the related categories the other day, and hadn't quite made a decision on this one, thanks for being bold Mike, Sadads (talk) 18:57, 27 October 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: None of the pages in this cat have anything directly to do with the group. Chesdovi (talk) 10:52, 27 October 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: merge.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Old Yishuv to Category:Jews and Judaism in Palestine

Nominator's rationale: "Jews and Judaism in Palestine" and more clear than "Old Yishuv", which refers to the same thing. Chesdovi (talk) 10:26, 27 October 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 to Category:Buildings and structures in the Southern Levant.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete: There is no "Holyland" parent categorry; all sub-cats refer to modern day place names, not "Holyland." Chesdovi (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in the Southern Levant. There is a parent cat Category:Southern Levant which has articles about all the entities currently in the cat (i.e. Israel, Gaza Strip, West Bank). Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:19, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Counter proposal Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in the Land of Israel, which has a parent category Category:Land of Israel with subcategory Category:Ancient synagogues in the Land of Israel. Category:Ancient churches in the Holy Land could also be made a subcat. Hugo999 (talk) 11:08, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Query What are the geographic boundaries of the Land of Israel? Even roughly. What modern territories does it include? What definition will you use - biblical, geographical, historical, political ? The Southern Levant, on the other hand, does not have this difficulty; it has defined geographic limits. A building is either in a place or not in a place. If you can't define the place, how can you say that the building is in that place. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:29, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article on the Southern Levant actually gives a wider definition of it than given above, ie as well as Palestine and Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, the article includes Jordan and the southern part of Lebanon. The Levant as a whole includes the rest of Lebanon, Syria and sometimes parts of Iraq and Turkey, ie roughly “Greater Syria”. Hence while the term “Southern Levant” is somewhat more neutral, it does not seem precisely defined as it includes only part of Lebanon. NB: “Land of Israel” category is a subcategory of “Southern Levant”, “Palestine” and “Lebanon”. Hugo999 (talk) 07:33, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2 While SL includes the modern non sovereign territories mentioned above, contrast this with some definitions of the land of Israel which could include not only those self same territories but also bring it as far as the Euphrates (i.e. Iraq). So the SL name is much more moderate, as well as more neutral. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Category:Buildings and structures in the Southern Levant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 20:07, 9 November 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is similar to (though of course slightly different than) winning a prize or award related to one's career. I do not believe that being a member of a jury in any competition is defining for that person. They are selected for the jury because of their expertise in an area, and typically the person will be defined for being an expert in that area, not for being selected as a jury member or judge in a competition. (Deletion will result in no net loss of information, since the jury members are listed in List of jurors of the International Chopin Piano Competition. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:02, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think we need to do more research, because this category could be useful to identify a number of prominent XX century muscians. As an example - Witold Maliszewski, student of Nikolai Rimsky-Korsakov, the founder of Odessa conservatory and teacher of Witold Lutoslawski and Mykola Vilinsky. Semimartingale (talk) 15:35, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's anything that that couldn't be garnered from the list just as easily. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:05, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Good Ol'factory! For a busy researcher (musicologist or critic for example) it is more convenient and easier to have this category than to search for the list. In general the List and the Category carry different semantic value and thus they are not interchangeable, but they are complementary. Regards, Semimartingale (talk) 02:54, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - being on the jury may add to their notability, but it is not what makes the members notable. Maliszewski is notable in his own right. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:48, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We need to use some logic here, it is not just about adding personal 'notability', though it might be valuable information for comperative studies. The category is important in 3 ways - first it assembles a number of prominent XX century musicians as a group, secondly it serves as a convenient link to the List, finally the List is not a substitute for the Category, because otherwise one should add an inline note with the direct link to the List in all relevant articles. In spite of some redundancy here, I am in favor to keep. Semimartingale (talk) 14:03, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It's not terribly nice to suggest that others' comments have not yet used logic. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hello Good Ol'factory! Nice to meet you in WikiVerse! It was not my intention, but I am sorry that my remark could be misconstrued in such a way. With best regards,Semimartingale (talk) 00:25, 11 November 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 all to "rail transport stations ...". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stations by London fare zone to Category:Railway stations in London by fare zone

and its subcategories
Category:Stations in London fare zone 1 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 1 Category:Stations in London fare zone 2 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 2 Category:Stations in London fare zone 3 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 3 Category:Stations in London fare zone 4 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 4 Category:Stations in London fare zone 5 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 5 Category:Stations in London fare zone 6 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 6 Category:Stations in London fare zone 7 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 7 Category:Stations in London fare zone 8 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 8 Category:Stations in London fare zone 9 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 9 Category:Stations in London fare zone G to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone G Category:Stations in London fare zone W to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone W

and its subcategories

Category:Stations in London fare zone 1 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 1
Category:Stations in London fare zone 2 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 2
Category:Stations in London fare zone 3 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 3
Category:Stations in London fare zone 4 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 4
Category:Stations in London fare zone 5 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 5
Category:Stations in London fare zone 6 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 6
Category:Stations in London fare zone 7 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 7
Category:Stations in London fare zone 8 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 8
Category:Stations in London fare zone 9 to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone 9
Category:Stations in London fare zone G to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone G
Category:Stations in London fare zone W to Category:Railway stations in London fare zone W

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Parent category is Category:Railway stations in London, not Category:Stations in London. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:41, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some of these might be fair; some might even be beautiful; but probably best to call them fare!. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:42, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, my mistake - I have fixed it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Given the context of fare zones, stations seems adequate and appropriate on its own, particularly as it includes both tube stations and (mainline) railway stations. Cjc13 (talk) 15:08, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose. The longstanding nomenclature for stations in London is "X station" for stations serving one mode (see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (UK stations)). Given that these categories contain DLR stations, tube stations, etc, not just railway stations "Station" seems fine, particularly given the fare zone context (which applies exclusively to rail-based modes). If disambiguation away from the generic "station" is needed/desired then the best alternative is the all-encompasing "Rail transport stations". Thryduulf (talk) 22:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The parent category convinces me that's the right format, as all others in that category use "railway."--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think actually the parent category should be renamed for the reasons given here - it contains more than just railway stations. I'll go propose it now in fact. Thryduulf (talk) 10:57, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 16#Railway infrastructure in London. Thryduulf (talk) 11:22, 16 November 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 to Category:Brussels metro stations and Category:Cairo metro stations.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Underground stations in Brussels to Category:Underground railway stations in Brussels

Propose renaming Category:Underground stations in Cairo to Category:Underground railway stations in Cairo

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The parent categories of these are "Railway stations in Foo", not "Stations in Foo". עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:13, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - "Underground" without qualification should only refer to the London Underground, anyway (WP:COMMONNAME). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:47, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. There do not seem to be any underground stations which are not railway stations so railway seems unnecessary. However suggest rename to Category:Brussels metro stations and Category:Cairo metro stations as they relate to the articles Brussels metro and Cairo Metro. Cjc13 (talk) 15:01, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename with metro in these cases, per Cjc13 & main articles. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 1 November 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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:08, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Event venues to Category:Venues

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are really venues rather then event venues. If venue is too ambiguous given that venue is a dab page, then something like Category:Venues (event) or Category:Venues (entertainment) would be a more appropriate name and a better way to disambiguate the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose primary suggestion. "Venue" obviously ambiguous. No opinion on other choices. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 05:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename All events happen at a venue.Curb Chain (talk) 14:29, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment "Venue" is also a magazine. Regardless of where events occur (and events don't all occur in a venue, since an astrological conjunction doesn't have a venue) there are other things called "Venue" as well. And venues can exist without having any event occur there (aside from the "event" of being built) 65.94.77.11 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose IP65 has a point. "Venue" is in fact ambiguous. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- What is your specific objection to the other options offered? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:34, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Venues (event) could work, I suppose. It just looks awkward. (This seems to be another case where all the options aren't too good.) - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 18:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is No great reason for change; no compelling alternative offerred Hmains (talk) 01:51, 6 November 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: keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:06, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This category is a narrow and non-notable intersection that only applies to one person and has no potential for growth. Tibetan Nobel laureates are not themselves "recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". Although that one categorized person (the 14th Dalai Lama) does not identify himself by his nationality for obvious political reasons, any future Nobel laureates of Tibetan ethnicity likely would, making this almost an eponymous category. Quigley (talk) 14:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We have no cats on other ethnic groups. POV pushing and nonnotable intersection.Curb Chain (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In thinking about closing this, I get where the nominator is coming from, but I just can't do it. The Dalai Lama, like all other Nobel laureates, deserves a country category. But the only other ones that apply are Category:Chinese Nobel laureates and Category:Ethnic Chinese Nobel laureates. None of the categories for the Dalai Lama uses the word "Chinese," so I can't see how either of them applies to him. Like everything else with Tibet, I file this under "It's complicated."--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia does not maintain vanity categories that contain only one article. I know that for BLPs we don't do categories for religion and sexual orientation that the subject does not identify with, but I'm not aware of a similar policy for nationality. In any case, the Dalai Lama actually identifies as a stateless refugee, not as some sort of "citizen of Tibet", so I see no problem with simply not putting him in any "Nobel laureates by nationality" category if putting him in the "Chinese Nobel laureates" category is unpalatable. Quigley (talk) 19:45, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Why are we categorizing by nationality/citizenship instead of ethnicity? I see several schemes of the sort "X by ethnicity" as a common method of diffusion (e.g. this would allow for Category:Jewish Nobel Prize laureates), but I can't recall diffusing by citizenship--how is this preferable? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I don't see any problem here. (Wikipedia maintains plenty of categories that contain only one article, without any inference that they are 'vanity'.) Category:Nobel laureates is subcatted 'by nationality', Category:Nobel laureates by nationality (which has several single item subcats) goes down to Category:Chinese Nobel laureates within which is Category:Tibetan Nobel laureates. So either we categorise him as 'Chinese', which seems inappropriate, or keep the present set-up. This seems to me much the same as subcatting 'British' into Welsh, Scottish etc. Occuli (talk) 14:44, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - WP:SMALLCAT allows for few- or single-article categories when part of an established scheme, which, as noted by Occuli, this is. Whether you count it as an independent-and-occupied country or a subdivision of China, Tibet exists in a form that allows for the people there to be categorised distinctly from the rest of China. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 1 November 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: Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. After rm'ing all the entries for Dexter (as the real Miami-Dade was never called "Miami Metro" as used in Dexter), the category consists of 11 entries for CSI: Miami characters and two for Crockett and Tubbs from Miami Vice. As the franchises bear no relation to one another and have their own categories, and because it is overwhelmingly a CSI: Miami cat, this is obvious overcategorization. MSJapan (talk) 21:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Parallels Category:Fictional New York City Police Department detectives, Category:Fictional Los Angeles Police Department detectives, and Category:Fictional Baltimore Police Department detectives. I understand your rationale for removing the Dexter entries, but please don't remove entries before nominating a category for deletion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:45, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If I hadn't removed the incorrect entries, I wouldn't have seen how small the cat really was, and would not have nominated it if those entries were correct. Also, I would argue against parallelism because the cats you mention have over 30 entries apiece spanning multiple decades, TV programs, and films, so there's a lot of crossref space. This one has 13 entries for two shows set 25 years apart, and is overwhelmingly biased towards the later of them in a ratio of just over 5 to 1. Both programs also have their own franchise cats, while some of the entries in the other cats do not. MSJapan (talk) 05:45, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:40, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Despite the small size and temporal seperation of its content, the entries do fit in the category - and there is potential for expansion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:16, 27 October 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: Merge/Delete as proposed. Dana boomer (talk) 00:21, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Illegal immigration to Australia to Category:Immigration to Australia

Propose deleting Category:Illegal immigration to Oceania

Nominator's rationale: Was discussed at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, where it was decided it should be deleted or merged into Category:Immigration to Australia as it was of questionable relevance to most of its contents. Nightw 02:23, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The category contained articles which did not include criminal acts. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with prejudice. Describing some acts of immigration as illegal is a breach of WP:LABEL. I know our politicians do it, but that's no reason for us to continue it. ˜danjel [ talk | contribs ] 05:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral - WP:LABEL or not, if immigration is illegal, it's illegal - but whether or not that means the category is appropriate or not, I don't know. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 23:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problem here is that most of the contents are cases that you could argue both ways for. When a category's applicability becomes contentious (especially such a small one that can easily be merged into its parent), it's likely to cause more trouble than it's worth. Nightw 08:40, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's obvious that the category has already been misused (possibly by the creator) for provocative POV pushing. HiLo48 (talk) 02:03, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two of the three articles are about illegal immigration, and while the third article is about the Tampa affair and the Tampa was not an illegal “people smuggler”, she picked up 411 (?) people off an Indonesian fishing boat who had certainly not gone out there to fish. I know our Dear Leader Helen Clark invited a select number of them to come to New Zealand. And it is part of an overall category of Illegal immigration by country. Hugo999 (talk) 07:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SIEV 36 isn't about illegal immigration. It's an asylum seeker article; asylum seeking isn't illegal in Australia. That leaves SIEV, an article about suspected illegal entries. That's a single-item category. Nightw 12:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And this isn't an established tree that fits under WP:SMALLCAT's exemption, as well. Also: Category:Illegal immigration to Oceania should be deleted as well, as this category is the only entry in it - I'll tag it. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:46, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Nightw 14:04, 4 November 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 immediately per creator/sole editor request. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:15, 27 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center colleges to Category:Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center schools

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I created this category but incorrectly titled it with the suffix "colleges" however, the academic arms of the university are known as "schools" not colleges. NThomas (talk) 00:24, 27 October 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.

October 27

Category:Former Jessup mooters

Category:Formula One drivers who entered a race but did not start

Category:Publicly funded schools in the United States by state

Eponymous music competition categories

Category:Television series written by Chris Lilley

Category:Speakers of the National Parliament of Solomon Islands

Category:United States House of Representatives elections in California, 2004

Category:Redwall characters

Category:Summerside Storm players

Category:Biblical musicals

Category:Electropop novelty songs

Category:Adaptations of novels by source

Category:Edah HaChareidis

Category:Old Yishuv

Category:Buildings and structures in the Holy Land

Category:Jurors of the International Chopin Competition

Category:Stations by London fare zone

Underground stations

Category:Event venues

Category:Tibetan Nobel laureates

Category:Fictional Miami-Dade Police Department detectives

Category:Illegal immigration to Australia

Category:Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center colleges