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. – Fayenatic London 20:10, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:Indian women architects to Category:Women architects
• Nominator's rationale This is at present the only sub-division for biographical articles of Category:Indian architects, it is also the only by nationality subdivision of Category:Women architects. I made sure both articles were already in the gender-neutral category for Indian architects, so we just have to upmerge to the women architects category. This is a very clear violation of last-rung rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 25 July 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.

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 for obvious reasons, starting with BLP. Bencherlite^Talk 21:43, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Closeted Gay actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:CAT/EGRS, "Categories that make allegations about sexuality – such as "closeted homosexuals" or "people suspected of being gay" – are not acceptable under any circumstances." Need I say more? Tom Danson (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We categorize people by publicly acknowledge traits. This is the antithesis of how we use categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:32, 23 July 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.

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. I see that Category:Economy of Kosala is empty and has been tagged for deletion. If you want e.g. Category:Education in Kosala to be upmerged or deleted, then tag the pages and list them for discussion at WP:CFD. Note: the India noticeboard discussion has been archived to here. – Fayenatic London 20:17, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Kosala (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As discussed in Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics#Request_to_remove.2Fdelete_Category:Kosala_and_its_sub-categories., the category does not have any articles related to Kosala, but all to modern Odisha. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 20:08, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose While the category is being misused with modern topics, there do appear to be some relevant articles to justify a category for the ancient region (e.g. Dakshina Kosala Kingdom, Kaikeyi, Sravasti). I recommend cleaning up the category instead. Some of the non-relevant subcategories (e.g. Category:Districts in Kosala) should be nominated for deletion separately. SFB 20:13, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• We had discussed the same thing here. Cleaned up as per your suggestion. Category:People from Kosala also cleaned up. Request to delete other sub categories those filled with modern articles. --Shiti (talk) 13:48, 27 July 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.

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: narrow the scope and rename to Category:Potato stubs. – Fayenatic London 21:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Solanaceae stubs to Category:Solanum stubs

Nominator's rationale: The associated template is called "Potato-stub" and all stubs currently within this category are related to potatoes. The category is populated solely by that template, which also sorts them into Category:Vegetable stubs

This leads to several problems:

• Potatoes certainly fall under Solanaceae, but they're not synonymous: Solanaceae is the nightshade family of flowering plants and also includes tomatoes, eggplants, tobacco, petunias, daturas, mandrakes and chili peppers, amongst others.
• Because of the difference between the template and the category's name, a lot of Solanaceae-related articles (that is, everything not potato-related, and even some potato-related articles) remain in its parent Category:Solanales stubs
  
• While many plants in the Solanaceae family are or produce vegetables, this cannot quite be said for all of them. Beyond the whole "tomato as fruit or vegetable"-issue (where it basically depends on if one is speaking from a biological or culinary perspective), there also are matters to consider like Datura and Tobacco.

As a result, this categorization is a bit of a mess. I personally see a few options:

• Narrow the scope to potatoes, tomatoes and eggplants, each of which is part of the genus Solanum. Rename to Solanum stubs and recategorize the appropriate stubs from Category:Solanales stubs into it. Either change the stub-sorting template to reflect this or add two more templates, one for tomato and one for eggplant.
• Narrow the scope to potato-related stubs, which seems to be the de-facto usage of the category. This would include renaming to Potato stubs or similar.
  
• Keep the stub category as is, but specifically include all Solanaceae-related stubs into it. De jure this would be keeping things as-is, but de facto this would be a broadening of the scope. In this case, at the very least a more general template should be added which does not also feed the stub into vegetable-stubs. Template:Potato-stub would then basically degrade to upmerged template and it probably would be useful to have some upmerged templates for other similar groups. (The latter part of that is more of an issue for the stub-sorting project, though)
• Merge the articles in here back into Category:Solanales stubs and Category: Solanaceae and delete the current category.

This outcome would be the least preferable in my opinion. It is a stub-category that certainly could be useful. It is currently under-populated, but that seems to be mostly the case because no matter which definition one holds, a fair few (if defining scope as "potato-related") to a lot (if defining scope as "Solanum-related" or "Solanaceae-related") of articles are miscategorized into its parent. Beyond that, even choosing the most narrow scope ("potato-related") there are a lot of stubs that lack stub-sorting altogether or are only stub-sorted into a different sorting-tree (generally, "agriculture" or "vegetable"). AddWittyNameHere (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Narrow Scope to Potato That's clearly the current usage/intent of the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support narrowing of scope to Potato and rename to Category:Potato stubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 25 July 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.

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 merge C2C. – Fayenatic London 23:05, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:People born in Jammu & Kashmir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We don't categorise by place of birth on the English Wikipedia, but rather where a person is from. Since we already have Category:People from Jammu and Kashmir, I propose that this category should be deleted. Jared Preston (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete We categorize by where people are from, not by specifically where they are born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:People from Jammu and Kashmir. It has been policy not to try to define this too precisely. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per Peterkingiron – defining this more narrowly than "from" often limits navigation benefits, as many people are born in unrelated nearby areas due to logistics/infrastruture, rather than association or living arrangement. SFB 21:08, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Plus, there are certain numbers of people who are born far away while their parents are on vacation, temporarily serving in a military force, or diplomats among other things. We have multiple articles in Wikipedia on people who are by every possible definition American who were born in Germany while their fathers were serving as part of the 50-plus year American occupation of that country.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 26 July 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.

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 C2D and WP:G6. – Fayenatic London 23:00, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bishops of Stockport Borough to Category:Bishops of Stockport

Nominator's rationale: Unintended consequence of a mass discussion about Greater Manchester boroughs - per Bishop of Stockport, the bishops hold the position of "Bishop of Stockport", not "Bishop of Stockport Borough". Bencherlite^Talk 12:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom - the area assigned to a diocesan bishop is a diocese, the boundaries of which bear no relation to local government boundaries. The Bishop of Stockport is a suffragan bishop, i.e. he doesn't have an assigned area, and certainly not the Metropolitan Borough of Stockport. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:39, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nomination for renaming upon Redrose's arguments. Jared Preston (talk) 19:31, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• rename as it's the title of a position, not a name inherited by location. Mangoe (talk) 12:12, 25 July 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.

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:Mayors of places in the Republic of Ireland. Although these were not mentioned, it is also necessary to upmerge to the other parents: Category:People from Sligo (town)/Category:Politicians from County Sligo and Category:Local councillors in County Kilkenny/Category:People from Kilkenny (city). – Fayenatic London 22:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Sligo to Category:Mayors of Sligo (town)
• Propose renaming Category:Mayors of Kilkenny to Category:Mayors of Kilkenny (city)

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy nominations. These are sub-categories of Category:Sligo (town) and Category:Kilkenny (city) respectively, and therefore should use those names instead of the ambiguous Sligo (as can be seen at Category:Sligo) and Kilkenny (as can be seen at Category:Kilkenny). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:37, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Should we have these categories at all? Are they Executive mayors or merely chairman of the council. In England, such mayors would fail WP:POLITICIAN and the articles would be deleted unless they were notable for other reasons, which would apply to two of the 3 articles in the Sligo category now. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all three of the people in the Sligo category do have more substantive claims of notability than just the mayoralty; two of the three served as Teachta Dála, and the other one is a former national chairperson of one of the country's major political parties. So they all pass NPOL on those positions — but you're correct that a mayor of Sligo wouldn't qualify for an article just for being mayor of Sligo. Bearcat (talk) 16:30, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Relisting comment: Refactored slightly to combine into one discussion. Category talk pages have now been tagged with WikiProjects Politics and Ireland, so that this should appear on the Alerts for those projects.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 10:38, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Both/Don't Rename if Kept Per WP:SMALLCAT. Both of these have less than 5 articles (my arbitrary cutoff) and I don't see the Category:Mayors of places in the Republic of Ireland as requiring every municipality to have this cat./If kept, I give deference to the main article, not the other cats.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge is fine. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:45, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Probable delete/rename if kept - these are rather small categories; and the name of the town/city should be the same in all categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative to delete: upmerge to Category:Mayors of places in the Republic of Ireland. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternative to delete: upmerge to Category:Mayors of places in the Republic of Ireland per above Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the upmerge proposal -- I still doubt being chariman of the city council, probably for one year, is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Given the small number of people in either category, upmerging is probably the better solution here. Three people can be enough to start a mayors category with, if there's a realistic prospect of further expansion because the city is large enough that its mayors would pass WP:NPOL for being mayors — but neither of these cities (which both have populations in the 20K range) pass that test. All six people here have more substantive claims of notability (Teachta Dála, mostly) than just being smalltown mayors alone — a person for whom the mayoralty of either Sligo or Kilkenny was the main or sole claim of notability would not qualify for an article on that basis. So these categories are essentially stuck at a permanent population of three apiece, and have only a theoretical, not actual, prospect of gaining any additional entries in the future — so WP:SMALLCAT applies here. Upmerge to Category:Mayors of places in the Republic of Ireland. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 1 August 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.