< January 16	January 18 >

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: Upmerge to Category:Orchards. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Orchards of Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Orchards in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Created by Target for Today because there is an orchard in, you guessed it, Gettysburg. My search of WP does not reveal a lot of articles on orchards in the U.S. in general (as opposed to places merely named "FOO orchard.") I did just add a single article to populate Orchards in the United States and suggest we upmerge to have at least two, there. I also propose we do this so as not to allow Target for Today's continued WP:POINTy creation of Gettysburg micro-categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to Category:Orchards. The usual process is to create a single top category and then 'by country' subcats once it becomes sizeable. Delete Category:Orchards in the United States. (An orchard is not a forest, at least in the UK, so the other parent is incorrect.) Oculi (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • An orchard is not a forest in the US either. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Orchards given that the whole structure has exactly three page members. Mangoe (talk) 21:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've added it to my nomination as I have certainly no objection. However, are we certain that there are not more articles on orchards in the U.S., over and above the one I'd added? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Orchards, which I have re-parented and populated based on the top 500 or so search results for "orchard." There are not very many, but enough I think for at least the base category to remain.- choster (talk) 00:15, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge until more PA articles are created. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge with no prejudice against recreating this category if in the future it is justified. With only one article here and one in the US cat, there is no reason to subdivide by state. Maybe if we get a lot more orchard articles, but as it is the US level is going to be hard pressed to not be classed as an overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2012 (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: Listify and delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:27, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Loanwords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I have in the previous day nominated two subcategories for deletion (Category:Latin loanwords and Category:Greek loanwords) over more specific issues having to do with the interrelationships of the languages in question. Examination of some other current discussions, however, leads me to consider WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, which implies that shared etymology of origin isn't enough to tie a bunch of otherwise unrelated words together. I am therefore proposing to delete this and all its subcategories. Mangoe (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Important parent category with numerous interwikis. The inclusion should be judged on case-by-case basis. Brandmeister t 21:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• How can there possibly be valid interwiki links? The set of loanwords for each language is likely to be different, not to mention that there isn't for example, going to be a "French loanwords" category on the French Wikipedia. Mangoe (talk) 21:33, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd opt for a soft redirect to Category:Words and phrases by language. Brandmeister t 00:42, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, but all the subcategories would need to be tagged and listed. The presence of interwiki links is wholly irrelevant, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A side comment There are a lot of surname disambiguation pages in these categories which give no justification for the categorization. I'm going to start removing them after the blackout as well as getting all the subcats in here. Mangoe (talk) 00:45, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES; it's time for these to go. Interwikis are hardly justification for our categorization schema. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:57, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Someone should tag all the subcats and consolidate the discussion here. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or Listify Although the Greek and Latin are probably the two least useful cats in the tree, most document clear cultural influences. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I can support listify given that many of these categories are already paralleled by list articles. Mangoe (talk) 11:06, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Good Olfactory's statement. This is a category built around linking words by the nature of the word. We categorize not by words, but by the things they represent. Wikipedia is not a dictionary. The origin of candle and torch as words is not the issue, but that they are similar things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the list of subcategories: I have omitted toponym and surname categories from this list, and I have not gone out and tagged each of these.

Mangoe (talk) 04:25, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatever you do, please Listify. Concept/topic IS one that is encyclopaedic. - jc37 19:57, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Cache-sexe is a garment, not a loan word; it is the word 'Cache-sexe' that is loaned. No objection to listify. Oculi (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2012 (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: Upmerge/delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:24, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Cold War sites established in 1952 to all parents

Propose merging Category:Cold War sites established in 1951 to all parents

Propose merging Category:Cold War sites established in 1948 to all parents

Propose merging Category:Cold War sites established in 1958 to all parents

Propose merging Category:Cold War organizations established in 1950 to all parents

Propose merging Category:Cold War organizations established in 1946 to all parents

Propose merging Category:Cold War organizations established in 1948 to all parents

Propose merging Category:Cold War organizations established in 1949 to all parents

Propose merging Category:Cold War organizations established in 1955 to all parents

Propose merging Category:Cold War organizations established in 1960 to all parents

Propose deletion of Category:1951 in the Cold War

Propose deletion of Category:1955 in the Cold War

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge to all parents. I'm not convinced that we can really say that the establishment of these sites by year was specifically due to the cold war as the reason for their establishment in that year. Those that are clearly cold war related belong in Category:Cold War military installations‎ or Category:Cold War sites‎, which are not so over populated as to need an additional level of categorizing by year. Is by year defining or is that a function of available budgets and the state of technology at the time they were built? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to all parents, per nom. This is, I think, a case of overcategorization via a narrow intersection of three characteristics: a (military) site, of the Cold War, established in 1952. None of the parent categories are highly populated, so there is no need at this time to consider this type of subcategorization. Note, please, that there is a similar category for 1951: Category:Cold War sites established in 1951. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:07, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for pointing that out. Added. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge as described except for Delete the year in category listed since the 1951 sites category is its only member. Mangoe (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've struck the second deletion since this category is now populated. Mangoe (talk) 20:04, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• A belated note. Other similar categories have been added to the nomination over the last few days. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge/delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 00:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge/delete per nom. Wild Wolf (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2012 (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 and populate. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:31, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rail junctions in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think I would have to think about this category if we had a large number of articles on rail junctions. However including towns that have a junction or stations that service multiple lines may not junctions as described in the article (they may be outside of the station proper in a switching yard. In the few cases where the stations might actually be a junction, do they provide detailed coverage of the junction or just a mention? Best to avoid the problems and delete. If this is deleted, a cleanup of the parent category based on these conditions would be merited. The UK category might be best looked at independently since their use of the term may well be different. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comments – there are several possibly valid US junctions in the parent category Category:Rail junctions. I agree entirely with the nom that Hunters Run, Pennsylvania is miscategorised as any sort of junction or station - it is a populated place, not a junction, not a station. We don't categorise a place by entities which it happens to contain. (The UK category seems to consist mostly of articles about junctions, or stations at which one could change lines, reasonably described as junctions.) Oculi (talk) 21:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the article on rail junctions states that the rail lines themselves merge. So a station that allowed passengers to transfer is not a junction by that definition. Still likely a notable aspect of a station. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stations that allow a transfer between two lines are covered under Category:Union stations in the United States. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:11, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't exactly consider stations like Rockaway Junction (LIRR station) or Manorville (LIRR station) to be Union Stations, since the same railroad used both lines at the junction those stations served. ----DanTD (talk) 16:28, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You're right, if two lines have always had the same owner and are not physically connected, stations allowing a transfer between them would fall into neither category. Since they are named junctions I am assuming they are junctions even if the article doesn't document that though. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • And if the article does not support them as physical track junctions, then those articles should be removed. I will agree that for some of these at some time in the past, there may have been junctions around those stations. However if those junctions are or were notable, then they merit an article. Lacking the article, there is no grounds to say that belong located on or near the junction is defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Populate Plenty of valid articles that could be pulled down from the parent cat, Category:Rail junctions. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do we really need to split that small category out by country at this point? Also, I'm not convinced that all of those are junctions. Maybe I'll go through and remove those that don't mention that they are a real rail junction or only a junction in name only. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm moving more toward neutral as the overall cat is not that large, as you say. I would put money down that every single one of those "junctions" was named by a railroad staffer because there was in fact a "junction" there at that time. But determining whether there still is could be tricky. Similarly, most American "Union Stations" are lucky if they have one Amtrak line operating let alone two railroads. To some extent, these cats document their historical status. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:22, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - Almost every junction listed in the parent category is in the United States, and a separate category already exists for the UK. I say redirect it to the parent category until the US-specific one can be populated. Once that happens, revive it. ----DanTD (talk) 07:15, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • UPDATE - Changing my vote. I now vote to Populate, per RevelationDirect. In fact, I think I'll do it myself. ----DanTD (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would argue that documenting these in list articles like List of New Jersey railroad junctions would better serve the community. I would have no objection to creating Category:Lists of rail junctions in the United States if we have a number of these articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • For articles like List of New Jersey railroad junctions that would be great, although such a category would be worth populating as well. However, individual junctions would be better suited in the category that's currently up for deletion, unless they're not in the United States. The UK already has Category:British railway junctions as well as the sub-category Category:Rail junctions in England, and they US has enough for a category of its own. While we're at it, can we really consider Montclair Connection to be a true junction, and thus deserving of this category? ----DanTD (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I had looked at that and don't think it is a junction. So, I will agree with you. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 24 January 2012 (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 delete as re-creation of previously deleted category: see here and here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:39, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

Category:High school dropouts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Very trivial way of categorizing biographical articles, seems to fall under WP:Overcategorization, particularly because it is a non-defining characteristic (e.g. "it would not be appropriate to mention in the lead sentence of the subject's article") I see no option but to delete. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:57, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Mud-slinging category. Brandmeister t 00:17, 18 January 2012 (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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SKM stops to Category:Railway stations served by Szybka Kolej Miejska (Tricity)

Nominator's rationale: As per Szybka Kolej Miejska (Tricity) and other categories in Category:Railway stations in Poland by company. Severo^TC 13:43, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename (C2D) - 17:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

---

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) 19:21, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of Adams County, Pennsylvania, in the American Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Stimied in his efforts to create a Gettysburg battlefield people category at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_3#Category:Gettysburg_Battlefield_people, User:Target for Today recreates it with a slightly different approach. Delete as an overly narrow intersection category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – taking 'narrow' to new extremes. The creator should be banned from category space (cf PastorWayne). Oculi (talk) 15:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Unnecessary narrow WP:OC at a truly trivial intersection. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is extreme RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the precedent is that we divide people by county into people by specific place in that county. We do not divide them by specific time period, and if we are to do that, we probably should do it by century and not by a four-year time frame.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2012 (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) 19:28, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geography of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: User:Target for Today has resumed editing, which means, of course, that we have more pointless Gettysburg micro-categories to deal with at CfD. This is basically a recreation of the recently deleted Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_January_4#Category:Gettysburg_Battlefield_landforms. We already have Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield, for these very places. We also already have Category:Landforms of Adams County, Pennsylvania. The creator seems to believe that places that are named after physical features deserve some special taxonomy, per his recently deleted Category:Fields (geography) and that is, I believe, what is behind this latest creation. A true geography category for such a small area would be a WP:SMALLCAT. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete – recreation of deleted category. Oculi (talk) 15:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete - is indeed a recreation trying to sneak in under a slightly different but means-the-same name. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:29, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • For future reference (I don't imagine Target for Today is done with this) do I have the right to add ((db-repost)) to categories? I thought not. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I see that Baltimore Hill had been added to this category, then removed by another editor. I've restored it, to allow Target for Today his due process. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but slowly. There are non-battlefield articles that could go in this category, such as Eisenhower National Historic Site (and thus it's not a repost), but there aren't enough to get this over the hump of being too small. Nyttend (talk) 06:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Landforms of Adams County, Pennsylvania. If there were more articles to populate this with, I'd actually be willing to go for this one. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Another case of overcategorization. Wild Wolf (talk) 04:40, 22 January 2012 (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) 19:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Team Angle members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category; Subject matter adheres to only one team which has its own article called The World's Greatest Tag Team. Included is another group, which also has its own article The Angle Alliance. WillC 06:52, 17 January 2012 (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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Charities to Category:Charitable organizations

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. The word "charity" is a bit ambiguous. Brandmeister t 12:44, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

---

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:People charged with child sexual abuse

Nominator's rationale: A Category:People convicted of child sexual abuse also exists. Given the significant difference between "charged with" and "convicted of", this more recent category seems inappropriate and a magnet for BLP issues and innuendo. Fat&Happy (talk) 03:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete While the charges may be substantiated, a conviction is more EVish and serious, especially child abuse. A charged person, instead, may be acquitted. Brandmeister t 12:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The usual standard for criminal categories is conviction (with minor exceptions for those who died before convictions, etc.).   Will Beback  talk  19:26, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Conviction is more meaningful. If there is an exception, it can be discussed in the article. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:24, 21 January 2012 (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) 19:24, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Marine Animals of the Cape Peninsula to Category:Marine animals of the Cape Peninsula

Nominator's rationale: Rename. C2A, but maybe to Category:Marine fauna of the Cape Peninsula in compliance with parent categories. Brandmeister t 01:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I don't see how being "of the Cape Peninsula" is defining for a marine animal. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:23, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Bushranger. Jeancey (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Alabama to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Arizona to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Arkansas to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from California to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Colorado‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Connecticut‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Delaware to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Florida‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Georgia (U.S. state)‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Hawaii‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Idaho to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Illinois to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Indiana to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Iowa to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Kansas‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Kentucky to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Louisiana to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Maine to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Maryland to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Massachusetts‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Michigan to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Minnesota‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Mississippi‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Missouri‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Montana to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Nebraska to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Nevada to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from New Hampshire to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from New Jersey to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from New Mexico to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from New York to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from North Carolina to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from North Dakota to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Ohio to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Oklahoma‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Oregon to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Pennsylvania‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Rhode Island to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from South Carolina to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from South Dakota to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Tennessee‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Texas to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Utah to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Vermont‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Virginia to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Washington (state)‎ to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from West Virginia to Category:American racing drivers

Propose merging Category:Racing drivers from Wisconsin to Category:American racing drivers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. State of origin is not a defining charateristic for racing drivers and particularly for international drivers not well known. With 50+ sub categories searching will be a very frustrating experience. Falcadore (talk) 03:12, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and comment First off, these should all be merged into one discussion as they are all essentially going to have the same rationale. Furthermore, if these "by state" categories were deleted, it would make Category:American racing drivers so big as to be unnavigable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Justin - you're missing the point a bit. I am not saying American racing drivers should not be subdivided. I am saying that state of birth or residence (the categories concerned do not actually make this very important distinction) is not a good method of doing so. It rquires a level of familiarity with the subject not present in the majority of casual readers. If I was to make a suggestion, drivers should be subdivided by the type of racing cars they compete in rather than something as comparitively lowly notable as birthstate or as transitory as residential address. --Falcadore (talk) 07:16, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merged. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:59, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - State of origin is just as defining a characteristic as nationality of orign; US people are traditionally categorised by state, racing drivers should be no different. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 11:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI don't think categorizing by racing class is going to help much, because it looks to me as though the vast majority of these are NASCAR drivers, and I'm guessing that the Indy car guys, if smaller in number, are still going to be a pretty large group too. Place of origin, for better or worse, is how we divide and conquer these big American categories. Mangoe (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Then split into American NASCAR drivers, American Indycar drivers, American ALMS drivers, then subdivide by state into Calfornian NASCAR drivers and South Dakota Indycar drivers. That would address all objections, and not make it difficult to find a Formula 3000 driver when you are unsure of the spelling. Racing drivers are more famous for what they race than where they are born. Vast majority does not assist those who are searching the minority. We should not be making the job harder. --Falcadore (talk) 13:04, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it would not address all objections - I strongly object to "country/state+series" categorisation (the existing "Fooian F1 drivers" categories notwithstanding, and yes, I believe they should be upmerged at some point, too). If somebody is looking for a Formula 3000 driver, then they can look in Category:Formula 3000 drivers. Just because racing drivers are more famous for their series than their home state/country, does not mean we shouldn't categorise them by their state/country. (Or is Nigel Mansell somehow not notable for being from Britian?)- The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comparing Nigel Mansell being of Britain is no comparable. The comparable example would be is Nigel Mansell not notable for being from Worcestershire? In that event I would say no he is not.
      • Isn't your argument dependant on linking state to nationality? State based subdivision is a geographical subdivision not related to nationality. Yet Formula One drivers are subdivided by nationality, not geography. You do not sense the disconnect? --Falcadore (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You suggested creating categories like Category:American IndyCar drivers. I was simply pointing out that that sort of categorisation shouldn't be used, and that the existing by-nationality F1 categories shouldn't exist, is all. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • That is a separate debate obviously, but it does support that you do not believe in charateristics of defining notability driving category divisions. Which is curious. --Falcadore (talk) 12:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, it's that I believe categories using series+political unit as "trivial intersections", whereas political unit and series individually are just fine. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose mergers - All it would do is remove a useful way to find similar articles and create an unnavigable mess in one category, since all the state categories are already subs of Category:American racing drivers . Best, Markvs88 (talk) 16:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: If this is merged all the articles in the categories will be required to be recategorised in the appropriate Category:Sportspeople from (state) categories. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:21, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it wouldn't. I am not advocating changes to any other category other than this one. I also believe each category should be debated on its own merits. Any mergers in other categories would have to be debated on the indivdual cases involved. --Falcadore (talk) 08:39, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, yes, it would, because otherwise the articles would no longer be in any sort of by-state category, and the existing "Racing drivers of state" categories are subcats of "Sportspeople of state". In order to remain in the "Sportspeople by state" tree, where they belong, they would need the "Sportspeople of (state)" category addded. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:33, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So your justification is to remain linked to other by-state categories? That's the same reason as before, just dressed differenty, the counter-argument is the same - 'state' is not a relevant related category to 'racing driver'. These categories are only two weeks old, it is not as though I am suggesting the removal of categories that have been in place for years. --Falcadore (talk) 12:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • First, American biographies are categorised by state. To address your second point...er...well, they look like they're less than a month old, but that's only because Cydebot "cut and paste moves" categories when they're renamed. In the format Racecar drivers from (state), these categories have been around quite a bit longer... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:02, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • First, American biographies are categorised by state. Yes, but this isn't about American biographies, this is about American racing drivers, and state is not connected to that. Sometimes, what happens elsewhere in wikipedia can be wrong. --Falcadore (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, because it's in line with our category tree. Subdividing by state is a standard method of reducing the size of US-based categories for biographies. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: And I wolud even support dividing them further to smaller regions, if they would be as large as Category:American racing drivers is right now. Danim (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep / Oppose merge The parent category is too large and should be diffused. State is a common and widely used way to subdivide American categories. See Category:American musicians by state and Category:American writers by state for examples. The state of the driver's hometown is easily verifiable. State is easily found for a driver and a logical way to subdivide such a large category. Dividing by series is problematic since so many racing drivers raced in multiple series / genres which would require most drivers to be many categories (or would be too subjective). If you want to be able to search for drivers in a series then why not create lists? Deleted Category:Racecar drivers from Florida was created in December 2010 for those without the admin tools. Royalbroil 23:20, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. State is not a defining characteristic, and smacks of overcategorization. Series would be a better way of diffusing the main category. Arguments that other by-state cats exists should be ignored as WP:OTHERSTUFF. jcgoble3 (talk) 23:55, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instead of being considered as WP:CONSENSUS? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:01, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you actually have a consensus debate to refer obviously I would very much like to read to see how it was arrived it, and I'm sure everyone else would too. I was not aware this subject had been debated previously. Do you have a link? --Falcadore (talk) 01:32, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quoting WP:CONSENSUS: "Editors usually reach consensus as a natural product of editing." Given that, as far as I know, the majority of American categories containing biographies (and most American categories period) are subdivded by state, it is clear that that is the consensus position achieved through normal editing. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:37, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Consensus is also redefined through debate all the time, so unless you feel that there should never be any discussions of any subject, it is not a valid objection to discontinue. --Falcadore (talk) 04:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, I completely agree. It's just that dismissing "quiet consensus" that's established through normal editing over time as WP:OTHERSTUFF isn't cricket, either. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:52, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • That doesn't mean the merits individual to this case can't be dismissed because 'this is how we edit everywhere else' either. --Falcadore (talk) 09:02, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I think by-state subcategorization is valid and useful here. State of origin can be a defining characteristic, and it doesn't seem farfetched that readers might be looking for a list of racing drivers from a particular state. If readers instead want a list of all the American drivers in a particular series, I feel like lists (along the lines of List of Formula One drivers which is a featured list) are better suited. Camerafiend (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge State of origin can be a defining characteristic, but it almost always is not. The category can confuse birthplace and place of upbrining, and neither of those are relevant to the sport which is the parent category. There are a huge number of drivers but it is almost never useful to the reader to see who is a driver from which state. There ought to be a subcategorization systeml; I do not know what system is best, but this one has almost no utility. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Factories in New Zealand to Category:Industrial buildings in New Zealand

Nominator's rationale: to suit convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Brandmeister t 00:24, 18 January 2012 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:25, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Mediterranean port cities and towns in Libya to Category:Port cities and towns in Libya

Nominator's rationale: Merge up because ALL port cities and towns in Libya are in the Mediterranean, that is the only coast Libya has, so there is no way for a port to be Libyan and NOT be Mediterranean. Its a completely redundant category. Jeancey (talk) 00:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would the main category then become a subcat of Category:Port cities of the Mediterranean Sea? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:31, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  Reply That seems reasonable to me. Jeancey (talk) 03:27, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge. The only other water the country has is found in oases, and we'd better not start putting places such as al-Qatrun in a ports category. Nyttend (talk) 06:16, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. It appears that most of the subcategories of Category:Port cities of the Mediterranean Sea could be upmerged. Unless I'm mistaken, Albania, Algeria, Croatia, Cyprus (including Northern Cyprus), Greece, Italy, Lebanon, Libya, Malta, Montenegro, Syria and Tunisia have no non-Mediterranean port cities or towns. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 07:19, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You have to be careful to evaluate each of those countries individually. Libya has no rivers, but many of those countries do, so it would be easy for them to have riverine ports — in particular, I suspect that Syria has a substantial port or ports on the Euphrates. Nyttend (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  You're quite right: each country must be considered individually. In the case of Syria, in particular, Deir ez-Zor may be one. It was a significant trading post in the past and it may be a port city still. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• merge per nom I created this category to match the others in its parent, but this change alone is ok. Hmains (talk) 03:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• merge per nom Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:15, 22 January 2012 (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:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from open access publications. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:27, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Open Access attribution to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Most subcategories of the administration category Category:Wikipedia sources follow the form "Wikipedia articles incorporating text from ..." which suggest the title Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from open access publications or more precisely Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from uncategorized open access publications, as unwieldy as that sounds. Pnm (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Makes sense to me. I would go for the first, providing the journal as an argument, as in [[Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from open access publications|PLoS Biology]], as long as we are not talking about large numbers. -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 10:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I support the creation of Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from open access publications where any article can go, and then when there are a few articles which all come from the same journal do as Daniel says and make a specific category as a member of that higher category. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2012 (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:Open access (publishing). Timrollpickering (talk) 19:26, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Open access to Category:UNKNOWN

Nominator's rationale: Rename to make unambiguous. It's about open access to scholarly journals and other publications, not other meanings of open access. Rename to Category:Open access scholarship (most descriptive but may not be widely used), Category:Open access publishing, or Category:Open access (publishing). Pnm (talk) 00:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd go for Category:Open access (publishing). -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 10:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• I have no preference between Category:Open access publishing and Category:Open access (publishing). If there is a precedent then follow it, but most members of Category:Open access need to be moved to something like that. I am not for renaming category open access yet; it certainly cannot be replaced only with publishing categories at this point, can it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:14, 22 January 2012 (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.