< July 7 July 9 >

July 8

Category:Breakup albums

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. – Fayenatic London 17:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Something of interest to incorporate into each of the articles for these albums (with reliable sources, of course) but not a defining characteristic for any of them. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:53, 8 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.

Female economists

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. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 8 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.

Category:David Crowther

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. – Fayenatic London 17:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person who doesn't have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one; all that's filed here is his own biographical article and one book he wrote. Delete as an WP:OC#EPONYMOUS violation. Bearcat (talk) 07:51, 8 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.

Merge Category:Concepts by field and Category: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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This proposal is my attempt to deal with the mess illustrated by the individual case discussed at #Merge_Category:Biological_concepts_and_Category:Biology_terminology. This is a problem with numerous categories from Category:Concepts by field and Category:Terminology, both of which are rather problematic as they are containers for articles that people just wanted to remove from the parent categories but couldn't figure out where they should go. To be honest, I'd probably support deleting both categories (as a sociologist and Wikipedian, I don't really see why all articles from Category:Sociological terminology shouldn't be in Category:Sociology, pending a more meaningful categorization). But for now, instead of proposing the nuclear option, let's at least deal with a mess of having two container categories for "stuff people don't know how to categorize and thus call foo-ian concepts or terminology". A number overlap in a similar way to the Biology example discussed, consider for example Category:Philosophical terminology and Philosophical concepts‎ Category:Philosophical concepts - is just one of several. Another problem is illustrated bt arbitrary choices: why do we have Category:Engineering concepts‎ but no Category:Engineering terminology? Or Category:Sociological terminology‎ but no Category:Sociological concepts? For a perfect illustration of the arbitrary system, consider the prior sociology example - and the reverse in psychology: we have Category:Psychological concepts‎ but no Category:Psychological terminology. I hope I make a clear case that those categories are about the same type/level of concepts. Let's merge them - probably to terminology as it is more popular. Once that happens we can have another discussion about the merits of keeping or deleting the resulting category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:50, 8 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.

Merge Category:Biological concepts and Category:Biology 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: no consensus, and DexDor has provided strong reasons for not deleting this category alone while it has "terminology" sub-categories. I will add "see also" links between these two, and this close is of course no bar to cleaning up the contents. – Fayenatic London 12:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no significant difference between concept and terminology in those cases, articles are added to one or the other - or both - more or less at random. I am not sure which direction we should merge things, but I am leaning towards terminology and Category:Terminology is more widely used than Category:Concepts by field. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DexDor: I have trouble seeing how anything but articles clearly labelled "foo-ian terminology" belong in that category; and for those articles I see an AfD as they appear to be a hybrid of "OR" and "move to Wiktionary". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
These categories contain articles like Synonym (taxonomy), Homonym (biology) and International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. If you think articles like that shouldn't exist then delete them by AfD and then take the category to CFD. As long as Category:Ecology terminology (for example) exists then it should have a terminology parent category. This CFD proposes deleting a mid-level terminology category - a CFD to delete lowest-level terminology categories would probably get my support. DexDor (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 07:53, 8 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.

Category:Rail transport book citation templates

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. It's not a categorisation of books, but of templates. – Fayenatic London 13:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to Ship book citation templates, it is an odd categorization to call it "rail-related transport books." This isn't so much of a category for "rail transport-related books" but a category for "templates for rail transport-related books that are used on Wikipedia rail transport articles" to me. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a subject matter categorization. It's a categorization not of books regarding rail transport but of books regarding rail transport 'used in Wikipedia articles' that 'we have templates'. We don't categorize the sources of articles by the article topic, categorizing the templates used for the sources of articles seems like a strange organizational scheme. It would be an upmerge to the main single-source category. I guess I could list all the subtemplates categories if that makes my view clearer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow your argument. Please keep in mind I'm not a CfD regular so if you're using CfD short-hand I'm going to need it spelled out. It says right at the top of the category page that the category is "...part of Wikipedia's administration and not part of the encyclopedia." That's the purpose of the parent category as well. What's the proposed benefit of an upmerge, besides making it more difficult to find similar subject-matter templates, when both parents are also administration/maintenance categories? Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 10 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.

Category:Bands with numbers in their name

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. – Fayenatic London 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is an example of overcategorization by a non-defining, trivial characteristic: WP:OC#TRIVIAL. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:59, 8 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.

Category:Yueju opera

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. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only former category member, Zhejiang Yueju Troupe, refers to the opera of Shaoxing, Zhejiang, which was last moved to Yue opera (Zhejiang). TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 01:08, 8 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.

USU Eastern Golden Eagles baseball

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 to Category:Utah State Eastern Golden Eagles baseball. – Fayenatic London 12:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Eastern Utah Golden Eagles baseball to Category:USU Eastern Golden Eagles baseball
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The College of Eastern Utah became Utah State University Eastern in 2010; athletics at the school compete as "USU Eastern" [1]. Same should go for subcategories category:Eastern Utah Golden Eagles baseball players & category:Eastern Utah Golden Eagles baseball coaches Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:21, 8 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.
More