< December 29 December 31 >

December 30

Category:American Idol episodes

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:SMALL category with no reasonable chance of expansion. Individual episodes of the show don't appear to become independently notable and the one article purportedly about an episode is really about a charitable campaign the show ran over the course of two episodes. These articles can live comfortably in the parent. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (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 from Ocean Shores, Washington

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 to Category:People from Grays Harbor County, Washington. I am minded to say this could have been done as a bold single edit, followed by a formal speedy. -Splash - tk 22:24, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 1 entry. ...William 14:22, 30 December 2013 (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:Chapter 9 bankruptcies

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. But we cannot delete both here, since the latter was not nominated, tagged, etc. As an editorial matter, I am going to make the original nomination a soft redirect, because I see a high probability of recreation otherwise - let's be honest the target category name is way to verbose to be most normal persons' first attempt! -Splash - tk 22:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories cover substantially the same issues. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 09:24, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William 12:42, 30 December 2013 (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:Geography of West Java

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 to both parents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think most landforms (mountain ranges, rivers, etc) would make sense to categorize by island not by administrative units that are subject to change. Larger mountain ranges and rivers might fall within several administrative divisions. It is also much easier to search by island, than seven or so less well known subcategories, with only a few articles in each of them. ELEKHHT 04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the sundanese/west java cultural boundary has been there for over 200 years in one sense, 1,000 years plus in another, and the provincial boundary has not been subject to any vagaries... West Java is also mountainous, and quite full of features that could fill the category and make a java category as hard to negotiate. One way or the other the arguments can go both ways.. 3 main sub cats (not 7) hardly seems difficult to negotiate satusuro 05:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with 3 sub cats? Currently West Java is a subcat of Provinces of Indonesia, so no doubt sooner or later people will pop-up to create a subcat for each province, that is 6 for Java and 10 for Sumatra per current status (sorry for my previous lack of precision). If you mean a parallel categorization by geographical region (west-central-east) than that needs to be clarified in the category description. --ELEKHHT 06:28, 30 December 2013 (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:Animal impersonators

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Akin to such deleted categories as Actors who have played serial killers, Actors who have played gay characters, Actors who played HIV-positive characters, Actors who have played the President of the United States and Category:Actors who have played Doctor Who and thus fails WP:OC#PERF. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:06, 30 December 2013 (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:Wikipedians who support one world wide race

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:12, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think we try to avoid race based categories, and this one is odd, as there already is one race, at least from a biological perspective, and supporting it would imply opposition, which would of course be used as an attack category Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2013 (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:Wild cats

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 to Category:Felis. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: unnecessary layer below Category:Felis, where the only nonwild cat is the housecat. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:45, 30 December 2013 (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:Unique locomotives

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. The discussion was marred by the out-of-process depopulation of the category before nomination, and by some confusion over the distinction between individual and unique. This was clarified (unique locos are by definition individual, but individual locos are not necessarily unique), but the discussion did not reach a consensus on whether the concept of uniqueness fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Just what degree of differentiation from other locos makes a loco unique?
In the course of the discussion, an explanatory text was added to the category page which defined it as being for "One-of-a-kind locomotives, as opposed to those produced as part of class", but this discussion did not consider whether "one-of-a-kind" might be a more appropriate name for the category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty, duplicate of Category:Individual locomotives Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be the case that unique locomotives would also by nature be individual locomotives, so yes, one would be a subclass of the other. And yes, it would take some work to sort it all back out again. However looking at the American individual class my guess is that probably no more than 15% would fall into the "unique" class, since the claim to fame for virtually all of them is that they still exist. The long-winded explanation of why we have articles on individual locomotives isn't germane. Mangoe (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: And yes, it would take some work to sort it all back out again.. Sort it all back out again? The contribution history indicate that I removed only 11 articles from Category:Unique locomotives before it was emptied. And all of this is already restored. Your 15% estimation would indicate that, based on the contents of the individual locomotive (sub)categories, there should be around 60 unique locomotives. That leaves me to the conclusion that the creation of the unique loco category (and subsequent populating of its desired content) was left unfinished shortly after its creation on 20 November 2013‎.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My 15% number comes under the heading of "wild-assed guesses". Mangoe (talk) 13:07, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing the problem here - the Category:Individual locomotives is entirely national subcats, plus this. Unique locos should be in this global category, and a national subcat, unless someone wants to divide this one by nation too. Johnbod (talk) 10:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I did redo the introduction to remove famous and the odd wording with where the or was placed. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I do not follow the logic here, particularly as it applies to ships. Yes, ships are usually not identical, and locomotives tend not to be identical either. But locomotives were and are mass-produced, and naval ships are generally built in large classes and rarely as one-offs. In the case of the naval ships they have individual articles because they have individual histories, not because they are physically unique; maybe a third of the American locomotives are there because of their specific history (e.g. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 or Union Pacific No. 119), and probably half of those are early one-off designs, but at least half of the individuals are there simply because they still exist. In short, the reasons we have articles on individuals differ from one class of object to another, so the fact that this distinction doesn't obtain elsewhere isn't compelling. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your logic; it appears to be mainly about whether something is an individual item which is a separate characteristic for categorization. In particular you haven't shown that "the reasons we have articles on individuals differ from one class of object to another"; we should have an item about an individual item when that item is sufficiently notable and there is enough information about it to make a separate (from an article about a wider topic) article appropriate. Let me try to explain why the "unique" characteristic is a bit subjective: Presumably if the only difference between 2 locos (for example) was the serial number stamped on them you would not consider them unique, but what if they were painted a different colour, had different air filters, had different engines ... ? What if items were identical when they left the factory, but one was later modified ? DexDor (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uniqueness as the category definition gives it isn't subjective, except to the extent that one quibbles about whether any two things are identical. As far as distinguishing "only survivor" from "one-off", perhaps you could suggest a better name. Your comments indicate that you yourself see a difference which is pretty clear-cut. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 15 January 2014 (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 with nocturnal enuresis

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unencyclopedic. Also, almost everyone had nocturnal enuresis at some point in his/her lifetime, and the category is not well-qualified to list criteria for being in the category. --Nlu (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2013 (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:Petoleum in Yemen

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty category Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2013 (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:2013 disestablishments in the Palestinian territories

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 per WP:CSD#C1. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:2013 disestablishments in the Palestinian territories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: empty category Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:37, 30 December 2013 (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:130s establishments in Israel

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 C1. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty category Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:36, 30 December 2013 (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:131 establishments in Israel

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 C1. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty category Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2013 (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:320s disestablishments in Israel

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 C1. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: empty category Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:35, 30 December 2013 (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