The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, clearly main topic. --Qetuth (talk) 02:06, 12 November 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.
Category:Method (computer science)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:27, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article. —Ruud 22:47, 8 November 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.
Category:Polygamy in Nigeria
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:38, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a unnecessary category to me. There is only one page in it (with the same name) and it is not part of a larger series. In fact, Polygamy in 'country' are all articles, not categories. Jennes83 (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no reason to have a one article category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as the article currently only has this category. Recreate if a set of 'by state' articles eventuate, but that doesn't look to be coming any time soon with only a redirect to a single paragraph each. --Qetuth (talk) 02:11, 12 November 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.
More People's Republic of China categories
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 except those struck out. The key sentence here is from BrownHairedGirl: The question of whether PRC=China has been resolved with the renaming of the head article. Therefore, I am following the "rename to match the article name" rule. We can debate specific objections, but if they are only "China is more than the PRC," they will be passed over in favor of more substantiative arguments.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:31, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reanme all following the move of the head article from People's Republic of China to China. These do meet speedy criterion C2D, but I have listed them here to facilitate scrutiny. Note that have omittred some categories which I think need separate consideration. If editors believe that any of the categories in this list merit special consideration, please feel free to strike them out using <s>text-to-be-struck-out</s> and I will re-list them separately. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and merge Fairly uncontroversial cleanup consider how many of these have duplicates at their shorter name. Gigs (talk) 20:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support most, but strongly Oppose some. Caution is in order with these mass merges. Most of these moves make sense per WP:COMMONNAME, but not all. Case in point: Category:History of the People's Republic of China and Category:History of China are different things, and one is a subcategory of the other. "China" is an ancient civilization with a history spanning millennia. The PRC has a history of just over 60 years. History of the PRC should remain a subcategory of History of China, not be merged into it. Merging has no benefit; the only thing that it would accomplish is to complicate the task of finding pages related to the history of the PRC. Similar concerns apply to Category:Treaties of the People's Republic of China / Category:Treaties of China, etc. Homunculus (duihua) 21:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Category:History of the People's Republic of China is a sub-category of Category:History of China shows that the PRC category is not in fact a different, thing; it is a sub-set of it. However, it is not a discrete subset, because the "hisory of the PRC" is a title which includes both the history of the period and the history of the PRC's territory before 1949. Merger achieves several very important functions:
a) it avoids a clash in the categorisation of topics such as those in Category:Histories of provinces of the People's Republic of China. The history of those provinces (and of any cities etc) didn't start in 1949, so if we a keep a separate PRC category, the privincial categories need to be in both. The same applies to many other history topics
It avoids creating the impression that the PRC is something other than the successor state to the Republic of China (1912–1949), an issue which has been settled since the 1970s.
If editors want a category which relates solely to the history of China since 1949, then the solution is to create a Category:History of China since 1949. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Category:History of the PRC is indeed a distinct subcategory of Category:History of China, and they are not the same thing. There should be no articles within the PRC category predating 1949 (at most, some might go back to the civil war era in the 1920s when the CCP was formed). Don't merge these. All merging would do in this case is introduce imprecision and make life harder for editors who edit in this area. Most of these proposed merges are fine, but there are instances where specifying People's Republic of China is still necessary, and this is one of them. The Treaties category is the same. I edit sometimes on topics related to Chinese foreign relations, and I use separate subcategories to navigate foreign relations, ambassadors, and treaties of the Qing dynasty, the Republic of China, and the People's Republic of China, because these are all different things with unique qualities. Per your invitation above, I am striking these ones. Please nominate them separately (and if you don't mind, let me know when you do). Homunculus (duihua) 00:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The ambassador categories have already been merged, per CFD Nov 1.
Anyway, fine if you want a separate discussion on some the categories; it's easier to separate out the controversial ones and discuss them individually.
Support most -- There may be a few cases where it is desirable to keep a PRC category within a wider China category that also covers Imperial China and RoC (1912-49). The 21st century executions category should be merged to the "people executed one", becasue we do not allow current/former splits in most cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Again, this is introducing ambiguity where ambiguity should be avoided. PRC is the correct name and is clear. History of the PRC is not the same as 'History of China', China is far older than the PRC. Most of these nominations all have this ambiguity problem. Benkenobi18 (talk) 20:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The question of whether PRC=China has been resolved with the renaming of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:58, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support except for the Protests and student protests cats. Those contain many articles predating the creation of the PRC and merging the two cats would needless merge things together that are essentially different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose. China is a country with thousands of years of history. The People's Republic of China is a state founded in 1949. It has its own political and social history, distinct from China under Imperial and Kuomintang rule (1912-1949). An editor interested in articles dealing with the People's Republic of China may not be interested in articles dealing with ancient China, the Kuomintang era, or Hong Kong (under British rule until 1997). All of these categories should be retained as subcategories for China, especially because so many of them are directly related to the PRC's political history. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 11:40, 13 November 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.
Category:Gay-themed musical groups
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) 03:26, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Yet another gendered splinter category. I don't really understand what "gay-themed" even means as it relates to a gathering of human beings performing music. Must the members be gay? Must they have a certain number of gay members? Would Erasure go here? Andy Bell is gayer than Christmas but Vince Clarke is not. What about R.E.M. or The B-52's? Would a group with no gay members but a strong gay following be included? Lack of any reasonable inclusion criteria means the category needs to go. I am skeptical about the parent as well but in looking at its history it's been discussed before. Buck Winston (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's been up for discussion before without really seeing resolution — "themed" is quite problematic, for the reasons you point out, but nobody's really come up with an alternative yet that's garnered any real consensus. For the record, the intended inclusion criterion is that the band fits into some kind of LGBT-specific cultural context beyond the mere fact of happening to have LGBT members: Pansy Division would be included, because many or most of their songs are specifically about gay topics, and The B-52's, Erasure and Scissor Sisters would be included because even though they perform at least as many (or more) songs that aren't specifically LGBT-themed as ones that are, they still have an identifiably queer musical and/or visual aesthetic and do specifically link their identity as bands to the LGBTness of some of their members — but bands like R.E.M., Ocean Colour Scene or Bloc Party, which happen to have gay members but which don't really have any particularly LGBT-specific context besides that fact alone, would not be. To be honest, I'm increasingly inclined to suggest that we ditch the category and make do with a list of LGBT musical groups instead, but that's a separate question from this one.
At any rate, regardless of the utility or non-utility of the unified "LGBT" parent category, we definitely don't need to diffuse into separate subcategories for each individual quadrant. Upmerge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. I am not sure why we have these "themed" categories at all, but we do not need overly narrow themes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 12 November 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.
Category:Gay men's choruses in the United States
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) 03:25, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. With one exception, all of the choruses in the parent category are in the United States. In the absence of articles on choruses from more countries, the sub-category is not needed. It looks like MaybeMaybeMaybe created this category and started populating it but stopped partway through. Buck Winston (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge by nationality splitting not justified at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 12 November 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.
Category:Male glamour models
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) 03:24, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm finding no evidence that the term "glamour model" is applied to male models outside Wikipedia and mirror sites. "Glamour model" is a nebulous term to begin with and in the absence of reliable sources that there even is such a thing as a "male glamour model" no one should be categorized as such. Another MaybeMaybeMaybe special. All articles are in at least one stable male models category. Buck Winston (talk) 19:41, 8 November 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.
Category:Mammals in heraldry
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.
Nominator's rationale: The category is oddly named and superfluous. All the articles may be comfortably categorised in its parent - heraldic beasts - which is a well-recognised description for these devices and is nowhere near oversized. Bermicourt (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cant see it working very well I mean would or wouldn't mermaids or griffins go in here?MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 22:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Do you mean recategorize the articles into their parent category Category:Heraldic beasts? If so, I assumed that would happen on deletion of the category. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:56, 9 November 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.
Category:Lists of television channels by company
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) 03:22, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Lists of television channels by company (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete - AFD of the indicated articles show that we will never have articles to fill this category. --MASEM (t) 19:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deletion Actions to clean up the project so as to remove violations of NOTDIR mean this category is redundent doktorbwordsdeeds 19:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or repurpose Lists of channels by corporate ownership would be appropriate, and I wouldn't mind having a category for those lists. Articles like List_of_MTV_channels could be added. Gigs (talk) 20:48, 8 November 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.
Category:People who influenced The Beatles
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) 03:21, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:People who influenced The Beatles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded category, members of category subject to differing opinions relative to influence, no citations shown. The influences should be cited and discussed in the article about the Beatles, not categorized. Binksternet (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too subjective to be an appropriate basis for classifcation and it would spawn a whole series of cluttering categories at the base of nearly every other group, band, singer or composer, since I doubt that any musicians go through their career uninfluenced by others. BencherliteTalk 16:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment could we please listify by adding them to the musical artist infobox like we have done with the writer infobox?Hoops gza (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a section already at The Beatles#Influences. If you think that there's a way of improving this featured article, e.g. by adding to the infobox, please start a discussion at Talk:The Beatles. There are 30 archives of talk page discussion, so it wouldn't surprise me if the question of the contents of the infobox has been discussed in the past. BencherliteTalk 18:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteWP:OR as a category does not work, in fact, OR does not work, fullstop. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete could turn into pretty much any music they ever listened to or any books they read.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:36, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a defining characteristic for people. Hekerui (talk) 23:26, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Who should be in is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not categorize people by who they influenced, taught etc. While we have some categories to group students of famous people in the arts, we do not do it the other way around. This would be like creating a category Category:Educational institutions Barack Obama was edcuated at (or any other particularly notable person) and then putting various universities in it. This is not a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually my hypothetical example is not as bad as this, because in it there would be a clear connection. In this case it seems the imfluence was made by the Beattles hearing the work of others, with the influencers in no way aware that they were doing so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. - Influence is subjective and difficult to measure/verify in many cases. One could argue that they were influenced at least a little by just about every notable rock/pop musician from 1954-1970. We should not not categorise people by who they influenced. ~ GabeMc(talk|contribs) 01:10, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete influence is as subjective as "related"; time to delete this. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:18, 13 November 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.
Category:Voom HD Networks
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) 03:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Not notable and only a few articles, several of which are being proposed for deletion. 0pen$0urce (talk) 14:09, 8 November 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.
Category:LGBT musicians by nationality
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. The proposal would have had more integrity if the nominator had followed the recommendation to also nominate the sub-cats for upmerging to their respective multiple parents; but as Bearcat pointed out, location is an acceptable way to diffuse a large category. – FayenaticLondon 21:01, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is another questionable triple intersection (or collection of them). I have no problem with categorising people as LGBT musicians, but is it really necessary to subdivide by nationality as well? Can anyone demonstrate that 'LGBT musicians from Denmark' or 'LGBT musicians from Hong Kong' are really distinct topics needing their own subcategories? Robofish (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, for several reasons:
The nominator proposes deletion. That would simply leave the contents unparented, which is silly. Unwarranted intserction categories should be upmerged, rather than deleted
The nominated category is a ((container category)); the pages are categorised in its sub-categories. So deleting or upmerging this category will not recategorise any content pages. If the nominator want to pursue this approach, there should be a group nomination to upmerge all the sub-categories (Category:LGBT musicians from Australia, Category:LGBT musicians from Israel, Category:LGBT musicians from the United States, etc). Simply deleting or upmerging the container category is pointless.
Even if the actions were proposed correctly, the nomination needs more evidence to support it. The nominator's rationale makes a plausible case, but a similar rationale by the same nominator at lower down this page turned out to be mistaken when I did a little research. Per WP:BEFORE, what research has the nominator done here? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fair comments. I admit, I haven't done any research to see if these are notable intersections, as I hadn't on the previous nomination. Yes, I know about WP:BEFORE, but I thought that only applies to AFDs; categories are less significant, so my impression was that it's legitimate to nominate a category for deletion and put the burden of proof on others to show why it's necessary. But for what it's worth, I recognise I have been a bit hasty with these nominations, so I won't nominate any more similar ones any time soon. Robofish (talk) 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment: yes, this should be an upmerge and a multiple nomination. If it's necessary to go through and add all the subcategories, I will, but I thought it went without saying that they would be included, and that the contents would be recategorised as appropriate. Robofish (talk) 15:04, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I you don't want to withdraw this nom, then it should be fixed to specify an upmerge, and the subcats should be tagged and listed here. Unless they are tagged and listed here, editors interested in those are unlikely to be aware that the discussion is taking place. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep' people by country is a good wa to go once categories get big.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge When and if the parent cat gets big, we can break it down to this level. Right now it's just a handful of articles. Gigs (talk) 20:51, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I meant upmerge all the subcats too. Gigs (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not listed in this discussion, and not tagged. So they cannot be upmerged per this discussion. --00:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
Upmerge category and all subcats. This is a case of categorizing by trivial intersection. We do musicians by nationality, but any subcats of that are trivial intersections unless there is something notable about the intersection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Far from being a mere "handful" of articles, we're talking about 750 articles that would need to be upmerged here. That, to me, is more than large enough to merit the subcategorization -- and WP:OCAT specifically allows for by-location categorization as a way of diffusing an overly large category into smaller ones even if the intersection isn't "notable" on its own. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the intersection may not be encyclopedic, nationality is an accepted means of subcategorizing very large categories such as this one, with hundreds of articles that would be difficult to navigate together. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:55, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep LGBT needs more diffusion, not less. per bearcat, this is an entirely appropriate sub categorization, as would be Category:LGBT people from the United States by state. if there were fewer articles to consider, it would make sense to delete. its only going to get larger and thus less manageable.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. First, as has been pointed out, this nomination is flawed in that it does not include the subordinate categories. Removing this category would merely take away a navigational, intermediary level category. But this sub-hierarchy is justified and should not be deleted, even if it had been properly nominated. When navigating categories it would be rather a usual thing to move from one characteristic to another within a country's denizens, just as moving from LGBT musicians to wanting to see what notable LGBT musicians come from different countries. There are many vectors one could be traversing when navigating categories thusly. This is a useful and relevant (as by prior community discussions and consensus) characterstic. __meco (talk) 11:46, 14 November 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.
Category:Noah's Ark replicas
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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Are there really so many notable Noah's Ark replicas that this splinter category is ever going to be useful? Buck Winston (talk) 06:21, 8 November 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.
Category:Gay-related music
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. The target category may be considered for deletion in a separate future nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:12, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Another splinter category. Which articles are included and not included appears to be completely arbitrary based on the use of the word "gay" in the title or text. Buck Winston (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as covers things such as cher being an icon to gay men and disco which owes much to gay mens nightclubs etc.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 06:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Being a gay icon is not bound by sex. There were plenty of lesbians into disco. Buck Winston (talk) 08:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Much too arbitrary and open for personal interpretation, especially when reading the creator's explanation above (which made it even more confusing). Does Lady Gaga go in any of these categories? Nymfhideliho! 09:46, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, but remove Disco; and add the sub-cat Category:Gay-related songs into the other parent Category:Gay culture. Despite the titles, articles on a "X as a gay icon" and "Gay anthem" refer to the LGBT community rather than just gays. However, disco is far to broad to be categorised here, and this suggests that the category attracts inappropriate articles and should therefore be upmerged rather than kept. Nevertheless, the sub-cat for gay-related songs, while it exists, belongs under gay culture too. – FayenaticLondon 15:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the category is also a container category for categories like gay musicians gay mens choruses etcMaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many of which you created and are of dubious value; others of which you're adding to the category despite their being in no way limited to gay men (e.g. Category:Homo hop). Buck Winston (talk) 19:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not creat gay musicians or gay mens chorusesMaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 21:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We don't need detailed subcats when the parent cats aren't even very well populated. Gigs (talk) 20:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge these categories overlap anyway. Hekerui (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge trying to create a category that is more narrow than source material will really allow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another "related" category - what's gay related music? Music made by gays, played at gay clubs, that is bought by gay people...perhaps indistinguishable from any other "genre" of music. I would venture that gays make, play, and buy: rock, country, show tunes, classical, hip hop, Latino, "standards", Christmas music and everything else - just like straight people. Imagine that! Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:20, 13 November 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.
Category:Central-owned enterprises of China
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. The issue of the target's name is best dealt with separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. The split between these two categories is not clear. The guidelines for this categories says "Enterprises owned by the central government of the People's Republic of China." while guidelines for the upper category says "State-owned enterprises in the People's Republic of China." That is true that this is a broader category and includes also companies owned by e.g. governments of provinces. However, if to look these categories, it is clear that this is not always followed and Category:Government-owned companies of China consist of also some companies owned by the central government. If kept separately, both categories needs more detailed guidelines and extensive cleanup. Beagel (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Unless there's some important distinction that we are missing. Gigs (talk) 20:54, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- There is probably a distinction between central-owned and provincial-owned companies. Government-owned covers both and ought to end off as a container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this is part of the problem with this 'bold' bright change. Rename to Category:Central owned enterprises of the PRC and merge.
Merge while there may at some level be a difference at study of the parent category will show that most of those entities are owned by the central government, so this is a dinstinction that is too precise and does not conform to actual use of terms.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - dear nominator, could you please clarify why the proposal is not to rename as "state-owned enterprises of China"? This term is synonymous with government-owned corporations, but SOE seems to be the common name, at least with reference to China. Homunculus (duihua) 17:05, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my intention was to merge two categories and in this context I did not considered renaming options. However, your proposal has some justification although at the same time the parent category for state-owned companies is Category:Government-owned companies by country and the naming principle probably should be followed also in the case of country-specific categories. Beagel (talk) 18:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Government owned is used for every country. We should be consistent in using the same terminology.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 10 November 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.
Category:Gay-related films about Christianity
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) 03:06, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Gay-related films about Christianity to Category:LGBT-related films about Christianity
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Another MaybeMaybeMaybe special, taking an already small parent category and fragmenting it along gender lines. There is no indication as expected under WP:CATGRS that films about Christianity treat or portray gay males and gay females in any significantly different way. Buck Winston (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per nom. I would like to say delete both, though, as this is bordering on overcategorization. Is this supposed to be about homosexual priests? Nymfhideliho! 09:48, 8 November 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.
Category:Conventional hydroelectric power stations
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) 03:04, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Upmerge single entry category to parent. The fact the the category has no articles is telling. Is being convention defining? What are the not conventional types? Maybe those that already have special categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 03:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment alternatively, one could read the article on [[:hydroelectric power stations)) and find this is the main type that exists. Other types are categorized in sibling categories in Category:Hydroelectric power stations (easy to look upward in category trees). Is there any reason why this particlular sibling should not be populated and kept? It ought to be easy work for an editor. Hmains (talk) 04:06, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well it was created two years ago and only has one article. That would say that the category has not received support for keeping. We normally categorize by defining exceptions and not the common characteristics. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, conventional sources can be themselves divided, so there's no need for an intermediate division. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 05:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- The category only contains a list article. The target is tagged as a container category, but already contains several list articles, which nevertheless seems appropriate. Would it be possible to amend the tag to allow list articles? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The category tag could be changed to ((category diffuse)), but I'm not sure it is needed. As to the lists, three were just moved to the subcategories they should have been in but where not. Penstock is the only article and probably could just be removed from this category. That would leave two general lists. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. The contents of this category can fit in a container category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 14 November 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.
Category:Hydroelectric power stations in Africa
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. An unnecessary level of categorization. I recommending a delete over a merge since I believe that all of these are already in Category:Hydroelectric power stations by country. If consensus is to merge to be sure, I have no objection. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep no argument provided on why this particular category should be deleted when it is part of an entire category tree: Category:Power stations in Africa with lots of siblings. Hmains (talk) 03:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but Category:Power stations in Africa has sibling cats: Coal-fired power stations in Africa; Geothermal power stations in Africa; Natural gas-fired power stations in Africa; Nuclear power stations in Africa; Oil-fired power stations in Africa; and Solar power stations in Africa. Seems like User:Hugo999 has done some work in populating his Category:Power stations by continent, then stopped. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, this was the only one in the hydro category. I suppose that, if there are no objections, this could be withdrawn and the nomination moved higher up the tree. A plant being in Africa is not defining. So the issue is with that entire tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that you can use by continent categorization for geographic types of classifying. Power generation is not really based on geography. While geography may influence the types of generation that you use, it is not defining in this. What may be more defining is 'isolated' locations, say the Hawaiian Islands. It does not matter what continent they are classified with, if any, but their situation is unique. Being in Europe or Asia or Africa for this purpose is not defining as there are or could be interconnections between the continents for transferring power. So why is this a defining aspect? I know you are not saying it is, but these are some of the questions about the appropriateness for these. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw it as possibly a useful way to navigate and browse the country categories, for the most part. BTW, I didn't realize how extensive Hugo's Category:Energy infrastructure by continent was, but I don't work in categories as much anymore, and certainly not as much as you.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Countries by continent makes sense. Lower level categories need to be judged on a case by case basis. Some should say and some should not exist. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by region categories make sense, it makes navigation easier. -- 65.92.181.190 (talk) 07:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Do we ship power from Egypt to South Africa? It makes sense to group by power grid. But what is the logic of grouping by continent? Is it one grid? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There are few enough countries in the world that we can group all things by country into one by country cat. By continent cats lead to needless problems of deciding what continent a particular place is in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:52, 18 November 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.
Category:African-American female lawyers
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.
Nominator's rationale: As a triple intersection (ethnicity+gender+occupation), this seems like overcategorisation to me. That page notes that such categories should not be created unless the intersection is a unique topic in its own right. Robofish (talk) 01:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My inclination was support upmerger of this triple intersction, but per WP:BEFORE I did a little research first. WP:CATGRS says that "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created. Please note that this does not mean that the head article must already exist before a category can be created, but that it must at least be possible to create one."
So I went looking for sources, and quickly found enough to make a good start:
Dawson, April Gordon, Missing in Action: The Absence of Potential African American Female Supreme Court Justice Nominees - Why This Is and What Can Be Done About It (August 16, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1659607
Blair-Loy, Mary. "Family and Career Trajectories Among African American Female Attorneys." Journal of Family Studies 24, no. 7 (2003): 908-933. Available at: http://mith.umd.edu/crge/ird/pdf_entry.php?id=86
Clemons, Natasha. "African American Female Lawyers and the Concept of Being the "Colored-Gender" within the Field of Law" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the 33rd Annual National Council for Black Studies, Renaissance Atlanta Hotel Downtown, Atlanta, GA, <Not Available>. 2012-06-21 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p302386_index.html
It wouldn't take much more such material to persuade me that this catregory was a definite keep. I'll look on Google Books tomorrow --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:17, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could have collected even more, but didn't want to spend more time on this. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:41, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Where exactly in the WP rules on categorization is something said about the evils of 'triple intersection', which is mentioned all the time here in these discussions. Hmains (talk) 03:49, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the sources that I found a listed above, it's clear that this category meets the test in WP:CATGRS says that "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". A total of about 30 minutes of searching found more than enough sources to establish that this is a "distinct and unique cultural topic", which has been the subject of a lot of popular and scholarly work. There are enough sources to make a very good start on a head article, and I don't think it would be hard to find a few more to build an article to at least good article standard. Would the nominator like to withdraw this nomination? I am sure that this category was nominated in good faith, but I think I have established that the rationale does not actually apply. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll withdraw it. Thanks for drawing my attention to this, and congrats on some impressive source-finding work. Robofish (talk) 13:51, 8 November 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.
Category:Ancient Roman forums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT. The "forum" of the categories are Latin squares/marketplaces, so that forum here can be considered a Latin word. The Latin plural nominative of 'forum' is 'fora'. Moreover, as is specified above, the academic sources (not only in English) in this context use fora as plural. Due to that, I support the consistent change of Forums to Fora. Alex2006 (talk) 06:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The nom is technically correct in terms of Latin grammar, but I would suggest that it is pedantic in terms of English grammar, where "forums" seems to me to be the normal plural. I would prefer the "fora" articles to be renamed to forums. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is the English wikipedia, and in English usage the plural of forum is forums.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment My point here is not that the English Wikipedia ought to obey Latin grammar. A number of dictionaries, including our own Wiktionary, recognise fora as a less common English plural form of forum. In this particular case, reliable sources use fora more often. This is not a reversal of the general policy on language use, it is an unusual case. Andrewaskew (talk) 22:24, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In Italian the plural of "Foro" is "Fori", but in our academic sources "Fora" is predominantly used. Alex2006 (talk) 14:20, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Looking at the uses of 'Forum' via its disambiguation page, the different articles (and the sources of those) seem to show that 'Fora' is a correct and more common plural (even in English) for this type of Forum (Roman) but not necessarily others. I know of no rule of grammar which says homonyms must use the same plural forms. --Qetuth (talk) 14:41, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Whatever the arguments, this is much more likely to confuse readers. Category names are often the wrong place to get pedantic. Johnbod (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would support the renaming of all categories to use "forums". That is the standard plural form in English. I have been to enough forums to know this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Forums" is entirely appropriate in contemporary English, and this is the English-language Wikipedia. Many readers are unfamiliar with the Latin second declension neuter plural endings. Categories should be clear and readily understandable for the widest range of readers and editors. (I would support renaming the other categories that use "fora" rather than "forums.") Dezastru (talk) 23:14, 25 November 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.
Category:CHP plants by country
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 03:03, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:CHP plants by country to Category:Combined heat and power plants by country
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Expand acronym. I was going to propose this as a speedy, but either I missed the acceptable reason or this is not a speedy criteria. If approved, the subcategories should follow as speedies. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Uncontroversial Looks fine. Gigs (talk) 20:55, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename as also its subcategories. Beagel (talk) 16:49, 10 November 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.