< November 8 November 10 >

November 9

Category:Professional valuation organisations based in Chicago, Illinois

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Professional valuation organisations based in Chicago, Illinois to Category:Professional associations based in Chicago, Illinois
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge the single article per WP:SMALLCAT - little prospect for growth. (The article is already categorized in one of the two parent cats.) There are only 7 articles in Category:Professional valuation organisations so there is no need to further subcategorize. Tassedethe (talk) 22:20, 9 November 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:Presidents of the Romanian Union of Plastic Artists

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) 19:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Presidents of the Romanian Union of Plastic Artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no article on the Romanian Union of Plastic Artists. Of the two articles one (Ion Irimescu) states he was president of this society, although it is unreferenced, the second (Ion Jalea) makes no mention of it. This category as is serves no purpose and a normal listify !vote is impractical with no main article or sourced information. Tassedethe (talk) 22:08, 9 November 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:Pseudonymous musicians

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) 19:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the pseudonymous rappers discussion - not a defining characteristic. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:56, 9 November 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:Korea Baseball Organization

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need for an eponymous category just for the main article. Upmerge to parent. (The article is already categorized in the other two parent cats.) Tassedethe (talk) 21:17, 9 November 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:Fright Night

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) 19:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category for film franchise which is unlikely ever to expand beyond the current entries. The articles are all linked together through text. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:54, 9 November 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:Naval museums in Saint Petersburg

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:Maritime museums in Saint Petersburg. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Naval museums in Saint Petersburg to Category:Naval museums in Russia
Nominator's rationale: Merge to keep Naval parenting. Duplicate of Category:Maritime museums in Saint Petersburg. This does not mean I support keeping Category:Maritime museums in Saint Petersburg. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the reverse merge could make more sense or even an upmerge of both to the appropriate parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 9 November 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:Music museums in Saint Petersburg

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) 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A single entry follow up to this nomination. From the text, I'm not even sure if this is music museum. Only article has ample categories. At some point there may be need for a country level category, but any city level categories should wait for that to be created and well populated. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 9 November 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:John C. Stennis Space Center

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need for an eponymous category just for the main article. Upmerge to the parent per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 20:11, 9 November 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:Jeungpyeong

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) 19:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for a category to hold a single article. Article (Jeungpyeong County) already categorized in the parent cat. Tassedethe (talk) 19:50, 9 November 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:Museums for children in Saint Petersburg

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) 19:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for such an overly-specific category. Article already categorized in Category:Museums in Saint Petersburg. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 18:15, 9 November 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:Royal lovers

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: Move to Category:Male lovers of royalty. Reasons given below. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick summary of what people "voted" for:

Well for starters there were no "Keep" opinions, so that's off the table. So is "Delete" with one advocate. There was one advocate for "Split" and one for "Merge" but four for "Rename" so let's rename. But to what? Well, two advocates for "Male lovers of royal personages", one for "Male lovers of monarchs" and one for "Male lovers of royalty" (with that also being one editor's second choice; "Male paramours of royalty" also came up, but only as the second choice of one editor).

"Monarch" and "Royalty" are not the same, since "Royalty" means (or can be taken to mean) "Members of a royal family" ("A royal family is the immediate family of a king or queen regnant, and sometimes his or her extended family.") Using "Monarch" would narrow the category and require that John Conroy be expelled, for instance, and removing articles from the category was not really envisioned or addressed I don't think. So let's not do that as it's a more major change.

So then we have:

Not enough for headcount to much matter. (Also N.B. and FWIW: the two in favor of "Male lovers of royal personages" were the first two commentators and they didn't come back. So they didn't benefit from the later discussion where terms like "paramour" and "royalty" were brought up.)

So let's look at the rules. At Wikipedia:Category names the first general prescription is "Standard article naming conventions apply" pointing to WP:AT. Most all of the rest of Wikipedia:Category names doesn't militate for one over the other, I don't think.

So looking at WP:AT, it presents a five-point list, which I'll give and score below. The five prescribed virtues of a title are:

So... 3-1-1 in favor of "Royalty". Well there you have it. WP:AT is a policy and an important one and Wikipedia:Category names invokes it. We have to settle on something and so, with headcount not much of a factor, even a 3-1 advantage at WP:AT is sufficient to do so, it says here. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose re-naming Category:Royal lovers to Category:Male lovers of royal personages
Nominator's rationale: Both "lovers" and "royal" are gender neutral. Apparently there is a need for a category to complement Category:Royal mistresses, in which case this category presumably caters for the male of the species. As the object of the males lover's devotions / services could be either male or female, "royal personages" allows for both. Either this or delete the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ooooh matron! Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal favourite seems to be a rather broader concept, which may or may not involve a sexual relationship. This may not be a bad thing, because proving the existence of a sexual relationship may be difficult. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And only women sleeping with men, in normal usage. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, mistress is also used as the female equivalent of master in a lot of cases that have no direct relation to sex. However that is not really related to this discussion. I am pretty usre that people would not speak of "Queen Sophia's mistress", just to throw out a random case. I think the female sexual partners of a female monarch are most likely to be referered to as "lovers", but whatever the term there, I doubt it would be mistress. Although I am not sure we have any articles on such people, so such discussion might not be relevant. Could we conflate the whole category into "Royal Paramours" though, at least as a gender neutral parent category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 26 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:Pseudonymous rappers

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) 19:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Meets all three points of WP:NOTDEFINING: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having", sources do not discuss that rappers perform under stage names. "If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining:" aside from stating what their stage name is, no article goes into depth of why or the importance of them using a stage name, rather then their real name. For the third point, it is clearly overcategorization. No where close to a defining characteristic, considering that 98% of rappers perform under a stage name rather than their real name. I have seen this included on almost every rapper's page, and I see it as clearly unnecessary. STATic message me! 16:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Well it might be a defining characteristic for certain pop stars, or rock musicians since they do not perform under stage names 9.8/10 times. However, rappers almost always perform under pseudonymous so it would be pointless to categorize them under "pseudonymous rappers" or "pseudonymous musicians". STATic message me! 19:08, 9 November 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.

Logs

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. These are good and useful categories; it's simply the name that's a problem. The names of these categories are architectural style names, comparable to Category:Italianate architecture, Category:Vernacular architecture, etc. However, there is no such style as "log house architecture"; these are simply log buildings. You'll note that many of the buildings in these categories are not houses, such as Rehoboth Church, and there's a separate Category:Log houses for the houses themselves. Since these categories are meant to contain buildings of various types, rather than being just buildings used for residential purposes, we should have a name that reflects the intended contents. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 9 November 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:The Karate Kid characters

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:31, 9 November 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.

Adam Green/Hatchet

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; article placed in Category:Hatchet (film series). Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two categories which house the same article, neither of which is needed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:30, 9 November 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:House of 1000 Corpses characters

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) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with no likelihood of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:26, 9 November 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.

Banksia redirect 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each category contains redirects pointing to a single page. Editors should use WhatLinksHere instead of maintaining a category of redirects to each page. Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_28#Category:I_Am_Weasel_redirects. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:17, 9 November 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:Egyptian American directors

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:American people of Egyptian descent and Category:American directors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow intersection of categorisation, based on non-critically defining characteristics, and of the kind that WP:CATEGRS typically advises against. Cf. the most recent CfD for Category:Italian-American actors. SuperMarioMan 01:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google search for either "Egyptian American director" or "Egyptian American film director" (and their hyphenated variations) brings up only a few tens of results, for me anyway. Of the two people categorised, only one (Noujaim) seems to have directed more than once, and still then none of her work (at least as far as I can see) relates to Egyptian or Egyptian-American issues specifically, as opposed to issues concerning the Middle East of which Egypt happens to be a part, or the state of Middle Eastern-United States relations generally. While the validity of some of the sub-categories, such as American film directors of Italian descent, is clear from the legacy of select individuals (in this example, I suspect, chiefly Coppola and Scorsese) I see no hard evidence as yet that Egyptian-American film is a phenomenon comparable to Italian-American or African-American film. SuperMarioMan 00:37, 12 November 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:Parks in Canada by by province or territory

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: already renamed/merged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I accidentally wrote "by" twice. Thanks. MTLskyline (talk) 00:19, 9 November 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