< February 17 February 19 >

February 18

Category:International Panel on Climate Change lead authors

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 rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:48, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The panel itself is not called the "International Panel on Climate Change," but rather the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change," so the category should reflect this. Jinkinson talk to me 22:31, 18 February 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:Audio engineering schools 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The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:24, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This appears to be an attempt to create a list of colleges in the UK at which one can study audio engineering. That's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a college (most of which, e.g. Brunel University, teach many subjects). Incidentally, at least one of the articles in this category isn't in the UK - possibly someone's populated this category from a list without even looking at the content of the articles. DexDor (talk) 20:27, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the comments above I would like to withdraw this CFD in favour of a more general CFD at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_20#Category:Audio_engineering_schools_in_Canada_etc. DexDor (talk) 06:14, 20 February 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:County Wildlife Site

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) 02:04, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:County Wildlife Site to Category:County Wildlife Sites
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be for articles on individual County Wildlife Sites which is a good idea, but the current singular name implies that is merely about the designation itself (of which there is only one article). Hence I recommend it should be renamed to County Wildlife Sites. :) Acather96 (click here to contact me) 16:59, 18 February 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:Businesswomen from California

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) 23:44, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another triple intersection that violates the last rung rule of WP:EGRS. The parent category is small, and there is no need to separate out women business people from California - putting them in the larger Category:American women in business is better, I don't think we need to divide by state. There aren't any other subdivisions of Category:Businesspeople from California that would support a top-level female non-diffusing split as well. We did away with the "Women writer by state" categories a while ago, and this one is in need of similar pruning. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:39, 18 February 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:African-American women academics

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) 23:41, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another triple intersection, that violates the last rung rule. There are no other categories that American women academics or businesspeople can be placed into, so this needlessly divides that category and risks to ghettoize them. Rather than the triple intersection of gender + ethnicity + job, we should upmerge to all parents which contain the binary intersections. To avoid ghettoization, every single member of this category should be in all 3 parents IN ANY CASE (which, it turns out, they're not - thus proving that these cats aid in ghettoization), thus the deletion of this category will ultimately serve to just remove a redundant category that doesn't need to exist in the first place. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:30, 18 February 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:Surnames derived from patronyms

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. There is no consensus on whether or not to delete, but if kept, the arguments to rename are strong. This is without prejudice to a deletion nomination for the new category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't want to create a separate category for surnames which are patronyms. This would be an unnecessry and difficult to prove hair-splitting for some cultures, e.g., Russian language. Not to say that "patronymic surname" is a valid linguistical term. - Altenmann >t 16:57, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We blend when we can't make a clear distinction. In some countries, a given name may act as a patronymic, while the same name in a different family may not. Additionally, this has changed over time, so a name that was once a patronymic is now mostly used as just a surname. As such, since we don't usually have categories of things like "Names that were once patronyms but since the early 19th century are simply surnames", blending them together makes more sense.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:27, 19 February 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:Independent colleges

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) 23:39, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Independent colleges to Category:Independent colleges in the United States
Nominator's rationale: To clarify that the scope of the category relates only to the United States.
I am not sure whether the category is worth keeping (it has only 4 articles, and I dunno if it could expanded), but if kept it should be renamed. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 18 February 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:Recipients of the Médaille Militaire

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) 01:53, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Médaille Militaire to Category:Recipients of the Médaille militaire
Nominator's rationale: The correct name has a lowercase m. The previous CfD Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_30#Military_awards probably did not realize the error in capitalization Werieth (talk) 20:54, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The Order is the highest decoration in France and is divided into five degrees: Chevalier (Knight), Officier (Officer), Commandeur (Commander), Grand Officier (Grand Officer) and Grand Croix (Grand Cross)."
Alright, now let's look at Médaille militaire:
"An interesting feature of the médaille is that it is also the supreme award for leadership, being awarded to generals and admirals who had been commanders-in-chief. This particular médaille is considered superior even to the grand cross of the Légion d'honneur."
...therefore it's clear that this is, in fact, an extremely defining award. - The Bushranger One ping only 01:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 18 February 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:Auctions and trading

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 and more the real estate to Category:Trade. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see much connection between auctions and trading. For example, current category entry Real estate trading has nothing to do with auctions. All the others are strictly auction topics. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:55, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ah I didn't realize Trade already existed. I don't think we need to differentiate, Trade is sufficient. Changed my !vote.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 18 February 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:Western Australian History

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) 23:38, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I've move the 3 pages that were in it to the far more populous Category:History of Western Australia Mitch Ames (talk) 11:28, 18 February 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:Zotero

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) 23:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Useless single-entry category. Its purpose can be achieved by putting a ((main article)) on top of Wikipedians who use Zotero. By doing so, we avoid the confusion caused by unnecessarily mingling userboxes with articles. Codename Lisa (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Keep the category, either is ok with me. Djembayz (talk) 02:44, 18 February 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.
More