< January 24 January 26 >

January 25

Category:Postal history 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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:44, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge and redirect. This appears to have been partially set up and then abandoned in favour of the fuller topic. Most sub-cats have only one member and are already nominated for upmerging to all parents. Many more articles "Postage stamps and postal history of Foo" are already in Category:Philately by country. I suggest we leave a category redirect to guide future editors against re-creating this cat. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 25 January 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.

Metro Vancouver

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 overturn rename of Category:Greater Vancouver.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:34, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article of these categories is Metro Vancouver and the main category of this entity is Category:Metro Vancouver. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
copy of discussion from WP:CFDS
Oppose Metro Vancouver lead starts "is the brand name[3] of the political body", whereas Greater Vancouver lead is a geographic region "roughly coterminous" with GVRD, which is one of the "corporate entities" composing Metro vancouver. It is not clear to me that a brand name for a local governing body, is appropriate as a name for geography or 'in' or 'people from' categories. Also quoting the Metro article: "The name of the physical area governed by the organization remains the Greater Vancouver Regional District." --Qetuth (talk) 02:29, 25 January 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:Important Plant Areas in the United Kingdom

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Important Plant Areas in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Important Plant Areas in England
  • Propose deleting Category:Important Plant Areas in Northern Ireland
  • Propose deleting Category:Important Plant Areas in Scotland
  • Propose deleting Category:Important Plant Areas in Wales
Nominator's rationale: That an organisation thinks an area is important is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that area. This could be listified to the article at Important Plant Areas, but there may be little point as the linked EL has the full list. DexDor (talk) 07:15, 25 January 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:Electronics terminology

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, but purge of articles which are not actually about terminology, even if this leads to the category being emptied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:44, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is currently under Category:Language, but the articles in it are not about language - they're about electronic components, electronic circuit theory etc. Some of the articles may include a bit of etymology or have a poorly worded lead, but very few, if any, of the articles in the category are about a subject with language as a defining characteristic. In effect the category is being used as a miscellaneous category for articles whose titles are terms used in electronics (the category has recently been renamed from "Electronics terms"). I've previously removed several articles (whose titles are terms used in electronics and other areas) from this category as electronics wasn't a defining characteristic. Similar subjects (Category:Optics, Category:Hydraulics etc) don't have a terms/terminology/miscellaneous category (there is Category:Computing terminology, but I think there may be a few articles in that category that are about language). Note: After the upmerge any redundant "Category:Electronics" tags should be removed. DexDor (talk) 06:58, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Electronics terminology isn't for articles that are about subjects at the intersection of electronics and language (if there are any such articles) then what is the category for ? It looks rather like a miscellaneous category. DexDor (talk) 23:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are there actually any terminology articles in this category ? There are no articles whose title indicates that they're about terminology (e.g. by ending in "(term)") and many that are obviously not about language (Quarter-wave impedance transformer for example). In my experience, "terminology" categories tend to become de facto miscellaneous categories and are used instead of creating new subject-based categories. I examined every one of the 600+ articles in the "Aviation terminology" category and didn't find any about language. DexDor (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My random checking of articles before I voted found at least one I thought would qualify as a terminology article, and several borderline cases. But no idea what it was now. I'll go through tonight now a bit more thorough (and actually write down what I find this time), but another issue of course is that there is no clearly defined metric for what is and isn't a terminology article, at least not that I've seen people agree on. --Qetuth (talk) 03:38, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, quickly checking some browser history indicates the source of my "some terminology articles exist" claim were likely Magic smoke, Quasi-peak, Dropout (electronics). TRIA and Upright position (electronics) could qualify as well, but the articles don't say enough to be clear either way. Rereading these now and checking more, I think it is obvious that a more restrictive definition of what is terminology would eliminate all, and also that articles with any argument to being terminology articles are a distinct minority. Considering the tendency of terminology categories to collect misc junk, I am striking my keep unless someone can demonstrate that there are a reasonable number of articles that are unambiguously "Electronics terminology" or that there is a reliable and sensible definition of what articles do and do not fit --Qetuth (talk) 04:04, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tidied up the TRIA article - it's now at Transmit and receive integrated assembly and not in this category. Some of the others in your list may need similar treatment. DexDor (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "terminology" category could be removed manually from all the (approx 190) articles in the category that aren't about language and then when that's done (and the category has approx 0 articles) submit another CFD. That will take time - especially if there is resistance from an editor who thinks it is wrong to empty a category without going through CfD (e.g. "Please do not remove any more. You will pretty nearly empty the category if you carry on...", possibly based on an interpretation of "do not remove the category from pages before the community has made a decision" and "out of process deletions" at WP:CFD), an editor for whom the existence of the category makes them think that articles should be in it ("Terminology categories are used for terms associated with any particular topic. Reverting your edits ..." - i.e. not understanding the use-mention distinction) or an editor who objects to moving articles up from a de facto miscellaneous category as the articles "don't belong at that level of prominence". Some terminology categories have many hundreds of articles in them and it would take much longer to manually edit every article than to check a large enough sample to be pretty sure that there are very few (if any) language articles in the category. Doing it the slow way may mean that these categories are created faster than we can kill them - for example the "Aviation terminology" category was cleaned out circa January 2012, recreated and deleted in November 2012, recreated and deleted in January 2013.
Even if there are a few articles that could legitimately be in the "Electronics terminology" category I'm still in favour of deleting the category because it's such a magnet for articles being categorized by article authors who don't understand categories (and sometimes even by categorizers who don't seem to read beyond a badly worded lead like "Foo is a term used in electronics. It refers to ..."). Hence, (IMO) this (and many other terminology categories) is a "generally bad idea" (a term used in WP:CFD) mainly because of articles being placed in it instead of in the appropriate category. DexDor (talk) 19:55, 5 February 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:Aviation terminology

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 G4, and WP:SALT this time as suggested at the previous CFD. I have checked the contents that were recently added by the the editor who re-created the category,[1] and they are are all otherwise categorised within Aviation. – Fayenatic London 18:09, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (this category is currently empty) While there are many articles about aviation whose title is a term I've never yet seen an article about a subject that is at the intersection of aviation and language. This category has previously been deleted. DexDor (talk) 06:42, 25 January 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:Snooker venues

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. WP:SNOW. The Bushranger One ping only 01:13, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#VENUES. DexDor (talk) 06:37, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Nominator did not notify Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Snooker; I have since done so. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:19, 26 January 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:Commonwealth Games venues

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: relisted at CfD 2013 February 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:09, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominators rationale: per WP:OC#VENUES. DexDor (talk) 06:30, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It would be fair if you nominate cats in Category:Summer Olympic venues too for deletion at the same time for wider discussion. Shyamsunder (talk) 16:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Too late, and should be separate anyway because the scope is different (not a specific multi-day event in one year, but a seasonal series of such events for a long period of time (88 years - the Summer and Winter Olympic Games were first split in 1924). — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 19:47, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
How scope of say Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues is different from Category:2010 Commonwealth Games venues. Can you please elaborate your reply.Shyamsunder (talk) 22:54, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say they were different. I indicated that Category:Summer Olympic venues and, to adopt your example, Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues have different scopes, the latter subject to WP:OC#VENUES clearly, the former not so clearly if at all. (I'm inclined to argue that Category:Summer Olympic venues is not subject to OC#VENUES, but it's a different argument than those, pro or con, for Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues, so it should be a separate nomination if someone wants to make it one). Now that you point out that Category:2012 Summer Olympic venues exists, it and other dated categories like it c;early violate OC#VENUES and should be deleted after upmerging to Category:Summer Olympic venues. — SMcCandlish  Talk⇒ ɖ⊝כ⊙þ Contrib. 13:19, 28 January 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 with synesthesia

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: relisted at CfD 2013 February 1. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a defining trait for the most part. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:59, 25 January 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:Images of Olivia Newton-John

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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty container. (Formerly contained Category:Olivia Newton-John album covers.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:05, 25 January 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:Sneaky Sound System

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: relisted at CfD 2013 February 1. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:47, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two categories of content (which are interlinked) and one for non-free media--too little content for an eponymous category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:01, 25 January 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:Indian skeptics

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. I will create Category:category redirects for the alternative spellings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:56, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. India and Pakistan generally use UK-English spellings as opposed to US-English spellings. I suggest category redirects on the US spellings to assist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comparative spelling is an example where the WP:GOOGLETEST can be misleading. While statistics can be suggestive of one option or another, they require additional types of evidence for interpretation. For example, the Google test will oftentimes favour the American spelling, when more reliable sources (newspapers, academic papers, etc.) may not.
I think here we need to accept the evidence of etymological studies over and above the Google test. --Andrewaskew (talk) 02:45, 29 January 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