< March 6 March 8 >

March 7

Category:Harlow Wilcox songs

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Zero chance that this will ever contain more than the one song. It was Wilcox's only single. He was a session musician and only had two albums, all of instrumental music I think. Herostratus (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, so it does. Well, people will write anything I guess. But so? It's patently ridiculous to have single-entity categories and is not helpful to the reader and will only send her on a wild goose chase. So let's not do it. If anyone can come up with argument better than "Well, somebody wrote a requirement that we do silly things, so let's" that'll be different. Herostratus (talk) 20:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do and did, here: Wikipedia talk:Categorization#RfC: Forever Alone?. It's not something I feel that strongly about, but it's worthwhile considering things like this from time to time I think. Herostratus (talk) 15:01, 9 March 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.

Later Liang (Five Dynasties)

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 processed at WP:CFDS. ([1]) – Fayenatic London 16:08, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Later Liang Dynasty" has been renamed to "Later Liang (Five Dynasties)". Timmyshin (talk) 17:06, 7 March 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.

Mt. SAC athletics

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:41, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both This junior college uses "Mt. SAC" in an athletic context, not Mt. San Antonio. See their official website for example. If you Google "Mt. SAC athletics", a website for the Mt. SAC Relays along with many other hits pop up. It's more commonly used than Mt. San Antonio, thus its common name is Mt. SAC. Jrcla2 (talk) 14:45, 7 March 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:Fellows of the Royal Society by year

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:40, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Fellows of the Royal Society by year to Category:Lists of Fellows of the Royal Society by year
Nominator's rationale: To match the contents which are all lists, as opposed to subcats of people. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:00, 7 March 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:Thailand alpine skiers

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:23, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories seem redundant. I'm not sure if the distinction was deliberate, but I don't see it done for any other category. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created Category:Thailand alpine skiers, along with Category:Olympic alpine skiers of Thailand and Category:Alpine skiers at the 2014 Winter Olympics, in January; at that time Category:Thai alpine skiers did not yet exist. Category:Thai alpine skiers was created a week or so later. If the naming was incorrect, Category:Thailand alpine skiers probably should have been moved to Category:Thai alpine skiers, rather than a new category created, but I assume the creator of Category:Thai alpine skiers was unaware of the existing Category:Thailand alpine skiers.
If merger is done, the new cat should, at this time, be empty other than Category:Olympic alpine skiers of Thailand; and Category:Olympic alpine skiers of Thailand should be categorized in the surviving category. At present, we have no articles for any Thai[land] alpine skiers who are not also Olympic alpine skiers of Thailand. TJRC (talk) 17:53, 7 March 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:Latin adjectives in current use

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:22, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia categorization should be on characteristics of the topic of the article, not on characteristics of the word used to refer to that topic. Most/all of the pages in this category are disambiguation pages which (by definition) don't have a topic. We also generally avoid the word “current” in category names. DexDor (talk) 07:55, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hebrides: what is the inclusion criteria? What is meant by 'in current use'? How do we determine if something is currently used or not? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Hebrides. The nomination is not to merge this category; it's to delete it. Category:Latin words and phrases should consist of articles about words/phrases (e.g. this, this and this). Dab pages (and articles about concepts) should not be in that category. It's fundamental to (non-administrative) categorization that it's by characteristics of the article topic, not by characteristics of article title - e.g. the Apple article belongs in Category:Fruit, but not in Category:English words and phrases. Categories like the one under consideration here make things less clear and have little/no purpose. DexDor (talk) 07:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite; An article about a Catholic doctrine should be in Category:Catholic doctrines and not categorized based on the language used in a/the name used to refer to it. DexDor (talk) 06:31, 11 March 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:American-Canadian novels

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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:20, 15 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Subcategory of Category:American novels by ethnic background, which apparently exists solely to contain a single novel by William Gibson — however, the novel is also in Category:Novels by William Gibson, which itself is already filed in both Category:Canadian novels by writer and Category:American novels by writer, and thus the novel is already adequately categorized for its relevance to both Canadian and American literature without needing this category on top. Seems like a classic WP:OCAT to me; while certainly there are writers from Canada who live in the United States and vice versa, being American-Canadian or the obverse is hardly a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the writer in anything like the same way that being an African-American writer is. Bearcat (talk) 04:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably true. I do understand what the idea was attempting to get at — novels by writers of a particular ethnic background, rather than the novels necessarily having an ethnicity of their own per se — but it's ambiguously named for exactly that reason, and in most cases that intersection is trivial information anyway. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 7 March 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