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: Universally the members of this category are studying ancient Greek philosophy, not contemporary Greek philosophy. Greg Bard (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Question—are there schools of Greek philosophy that aren't ancient? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:40, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For all intents and purposes no. However, there do exist universities in Greece, with philosophy departments, and with currently living philosophers. So it really is best that we make the distinction. We do have French philosophy, and German philosophy, but there really are some strains of thought that hold those together which just can't be said for "Greek philosophy" (i.e. standing apart from "ancient Greek philosophy," which does hold together). Greg Bard (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So, no significant Greek contributions to mediaeval, enlightenment, or modern thought? (I can't see any on a superficial search, but I want to be sure.) If not, do we need the modifier "ancient" in the category name? Or, looking at it another way, is there any understanding of the term "Greek philosophy" that isn't "ancient"? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to say none. However, I am perfectly able to say none that require a Wikipedia category to house all of its scholars. There just aren't any scholars of Greek philosophy who aren't scholars of ancient Greek philosophy, and the "ancient" is required because there do exist Greek philosophers today.Greg Bard (talk) 14:27, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename We use ancient Greek to avoid confusion. This even applies where confusion is unlikely. It is needed on a global scale to avoid confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:14, 5 April 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.
Frazioni of Italy
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:Rename. An opposed speedy. These are the only subcategories of Category:Frazioni of Italy that use "Fractions" instead of "Frazioni". As far as I can tell, the user opposing the speedy rename did so on the grounds that since Italian and German are both official languages in these regions, we should default to using English for them. (I'm not clear if the user opposing was suggesting that the entire Category:Frazioni of Italy tree should use "Fractions"; I don't think that was what was meant.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. Autonomous region where German and Italian or equal, therefore use English for all naming. Gryffindor (talk) 09:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Consistency within the tree is the most important consideration here. Bearcat (talk) 01:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom for consistency. It's unclear whether this is the most common English usage, but no claim to the contrary has been raised. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:58, 7 April 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:Recurring events missing year of establishment
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 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:Works about The Godfather
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: Stefanomione is busy creating a whole spate of mob and Italian American crime org categories. I'd argue that this one is essentially empty. The Wikipedia book shouldn't be categorized here, as the parent Category:Wikipedia books (community books) aren't categorized under Category:Books, while The Freshman isn't really "about" The Godfather, over and above the casting and performance of Brando. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"Stefanomione is busy creating a whole spate of mob and Italian American crime org categories" - Make him an offer he can't refuse. And then delete per nominator. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 14:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've been tough on this editor in the past, but the majority of his categories seem fine to me, now. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:16, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I should also point out that Stefanomione has moved ahead with another category branch, Category:Works based on The Godfather, and added The Freshman there, perhaps in anticipation of this CfD outcome. So this would make this one an ever more empty and unneeded category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:10, 5 April 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:Chthonic
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:Rename. A stand-alone adjective, which is rather odd. Since the category also lists humans along with deities, "beings" may suit it well. Brandmeistertalk 16:20, 2 April 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:Microbreweries
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:Beer brewing companies in the United States by state with the articles being placed into the correct by state category" per User:Vegaswikian. While the commenters didn't specifically cite Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Subjective_inclusion_criterion, it would appear clear from their comments that that's what they were referring to. The arguement "we have an article on the topic" (as 2 noted) doesn't have policy/guideline support. Indeed, just because a topic has an article doesn't necessarily mean we should categorise by the topic. There's WP:CLN, etc. suggesting that this is something to be determined on a case-by-case basis. So in this case, arguements of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE held the weight in the discussion. I didn't see that refuted.- jc37 01:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Category:Microbreweries overlaps Category:Brewery companies. If we take the US situation for example: There are just 24 'big' brewers and ten times that number of small brewers. Big brewers are legally defined but small brewers are just that – small brewers. So this cat does not add any thing useful. Ref:Brewers Association. Even if the cat was split up into <15000 barrels, <30K, <45K, <60k or divided up into regions it would still be 'Categorization' and overlap. Likewise, the article List of microbreweries serves no useful purpose and should (I think) be deleted. This subject is adequately covered in Microbrewery --Aspro (talk) 15:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as long as we have the microbrewery article. Clearly companies and consumers are comfortable with this term, so to remove it and/or the list seems illogical. Now if you are raising the issue of a group of breweries between the large ones and the micro ones, that is a valid question that may need addressing. But then, are those simply in Category:Brewery companies? Is there some reason that being a micro brewery is not defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have no issue with Microbrewery As I said above:" This subject is adequately covered in Microbrewery".--Aspro (talk) 20:34, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the wisdom of nominating this category and the list for deletion. It seems that giving editors the option of a list might have bolstered your argument here. A list could be redesigned so as to be sortable by quantity of beer produced, providing a useful way to see how "micro" the brewery is. Anyway, that's a matter for the Afd, not here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:14, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is It is a well populated category with an article of the same name. It serves the purpose that categories are supposed to serve: aid the reader in navigating to related articles. The deletion argument is not relevant to this category Hmains (talk) 03:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Beer and breweries in the United States. Microbrewery is a subjective term. Microbreweries is a poorly defined term, which has now been overtaken by the term "craft brewery". The intention in both terms ("microbrewery" and "craft brewery") is to differentiate from a handful of multinational breweries. As such, brewery, microbrewery, and craft brewery are largely inter-changeable. More useful and helpful to differentiate the handful of multinational breweries. Though the microbrewery term originated in the UK, its not used there in the same way as it is used in the USA and Canada - the terms "local", "small" and "independent" are more frequently used, nor is it much used by other nations outside of North America - in Europe "artisan" is more frequently used. I haven't been through the cat, but I would be surprised if there were many/any non-North American breweries listed. Would be more helpful, useful and informative to more clearly identify the breweries as to where they are located, rather than use a vague, poorly understood, marketing generated, and now out-dated term that doesn't helpfully define what they are. SilkTork✔Tea time 14:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are making an argument to create national subcategories which reflect the local naming for these. If we create a US subcategory, then we can choose between micro and craft if needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that what readers of WP find unclear and confusing, is understanding what taxonomic 'class' Microbreweries fall into. Also, as SilkTork points out MB is a rapidly diminishing term (and as also together with 'craft' breweries, lacks an good agreed definition). Therefore, they are at present, a 'class' of value judgments, which by nature means different things to different people but one could consider them to rightfully be a class of production style/method. In the future, some codification might be agree upon. At the moment the class includes stuff that is no better than what the big boys churn out, cask conditioned ales, brewery conditioned beers (i.e., keg), those finned without isinglass (suitable for vegetarians and vegetarians), those that compromise with stainless steel tuns and aluminum casks and the true traditionalists that brew and distribute in wood etc., etc. These and their nomenclature is likely to differ by region. Should this time arise, then we will be quick to create new and suitable subcategories. The prefix 'Micro' has become a misleading superlative as 90% of US breweries fall below the legal definition a big breweries. Meaning they are the normal breweries – thus the prefix Micro' has become too misleading. To covert or split what most people understand by the taxonomic class brewery into a neologism was a mistake in the first place. Somewhere in the policy or style guidelines it says this should be avoided on WP. So the simplest way to bring clarity is to first merge as (as SilkTork suggests and now, so do I) into Category:Beer and breweries in the United States. Second, add Template:Category diffuse to defuse into regions. Editors with local knowledge can then create categories in the regional nomenclature, for the regional understood term for style/methods of production.... If such a category is found to be useful. But the first step is to merge. --Aspro (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If upmerged it should be to Category:Beer brewing companies in the United States by state with the articles being placed into the correct by state category. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, I think you're right.--Aspro (talk) 17:32, 6 April 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:Watch manufacturing companies of U.S.A.
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: Match existing convention for the watch cat, plus matches basically all the other US cats. Aboutmovies (talk) 14:45, 2 April 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:Award-winning Teacher
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:Delete. Recently-created category of small size and unclear yet potentially very broad scope. The only two members of this cat (Ron Clark (teacher) and Rafe Esquith) seem to be recipients of awards as varied as: the "Disney Teacher of the Year award"; the "Disney National Outstanding Teacher of the Year Award"; Oprah Winfrey’s $100,000 "Use Your Life Award"; Parents Magazine’s "As You Grow Award", which are more specific than the somewhat vague "Award-winning Teacher", but I still do not consider it to be a defining characteristic. Redrose64 (talk) 13:57, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do no categorize people by some generic occupation+some award (which may or may not have been related to the first, would a Pulitzer-prize winning teacher fit here?)John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We might have lists (articles) for those who have won each award and a category for the award articles. However, how many of the teachers are independently notable, apart from the award? We do not like lists or redlinks or stub-articles created to prevent them being redlinks. We have two articles, one on a tacher who won an award that is only a redlink and the other who founded an academy (no link), wrote books about it, and was featured by Oprah Winfrey (no clear mention of an award). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 6 April 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:New-Nollywood films
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.
Keep: the Nollywood article isn't up to date. the category is a very notable topic, readers may want to view films that belong to that category. you can check these links to prove that it is a worthy category.
It is not an Original research.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Then again, the term doesn't always refer to Nigerian films. So it can't be merged into the category.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It is definitely a notable category and would form a very essential arrangement. My only problem with it is the Wikipedian definition for it. There are some films that meets his defination that are not New-Nollywood films! Here are a few more links to showcase its notability 1, 2, 3. Darreg (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We categorize films by nation of production, and at times by language of production, this is a non-supported way of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. JPL is right, this steps outside the standardised form of catergorisation for this subject. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:I didn't see any part of WP:CAT that states that some categories shouldn't be created, or infact anything related to what y'all are trying to say. Where did you guys invent your "standard" from?--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:52, 11 April 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:City University Network
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.
Delete -- I assume that a Seattle university has established Czech and Slovak subsidiaries. I do not think this is enough to merit having a category. If I am right, the template should be OK. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 6 April 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:Power stations by condition
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 parent, Category:Buildings and structures by condition, includes sub-cats that don't pertain to those for power stations. The proposed name more accurately reflects the contents of this category, as well as being in accord with the naming of its sub-cat, Category:Nuclear power stations by status. (Notified Category creator using ((cfd-notify))) Cgingold (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Status is more accurate in this context. Beagel (talk) 14:07, 3 April 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.