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.

• Propose moving Category:Fictional obstetricians to Category:Fictional obstetricians and gynaecologists

Nominator's rationale: Inclusiveness is better then creating more categories. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Category:Fictional obgyns ? Shorter... -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 04:46, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

abbreviation of category names would get tagged for speedy deletion within an hour. --173.51.221.24 (talk) 02:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, many category names carry abbreviations. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:40, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not typically, and only if the article space page uses the abbreviation, like Category:NATO. We even have Category:Singles certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America, which is hilariously long. Plus OB/GYN is a term not everyone might be familiar with (I personally didn't know exactly what it referred to, even though I'd heard the term before). --Prosperosity (talk) 13:47, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Move per nom. --71.107.35.42 (talk) 18:26, 21 June 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: moved. --BDD (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cannibalism in the Pacific to Category:Cannibalism in Oceania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Wikipedia categories tend to use "Oceania" rather than "the Pacific". I'm not sure that all of the articles in the category are appropriate for this category, but I think there may be enough that are to justify the category. If anyone wants to argue in favour of deletion, I would at least consider the argument. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• rename this should just be a standard continental sub-grouping.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is this meant to include Australia and Australasia? (that change just happened [1]) Perhaps supercategorization at the Oceania level would be better. And would it include the Antarctic/Antarctica (as some definitions of Oceania include it) -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we have instances of antarctic cannibalism do we? Normally oceania here at wikipedia does not include antarctica in my experience.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:05, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Oceania" includes Australia but so too can "the Pacific". "Australasia" is generally used as a term to refer to Oceania with the exception that Australasia often bleeds into the Indonesian side of New Guinea. Apart from that, there's not a huge difference between any of these terms. Like Obi, I don't think we need to worry about the Antarctica issue in relation to this category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:27, 22 May 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: rename to Category:Ant subfamilies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Subfamilies of the Formicidae to Category:Formicidae subfamilies

Nominator's rationale: As I've argued elsewhere, "Foo taxa" is more concise than "Taxa of Foo" without sacrificing recognizability or clarity. BDD (talk) 23:19, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support removal of the "of the". Either Category:Formicidae subfamilies or Category:Ant subfamilies. "Ant xzy" and "Xzy ants" is the current category standard in Category:Ants; I created Category:Ant genera last year and I think the genera and subfamilies categories should have matching names. jonkerz ♠talk 06:19, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Excellent point. Category:Ant subfamilies would be best, to match the genera category. --BDD (talk) 16:13, 23 May 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 01:03, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Self-covers albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I wouldn't call this a defined concept just a commonality among a few albums. Perhaps just upmerge to Category:Covers albums. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 21:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Self-cover is a Japan-made English wasei-eigo term, and is quite common among Japanese singer-songwriters. Albums of this nature are consistently referred to as such (picking a few listed at the セルフカバー article, セルフカバー集 他アーティストへ提供した楽曲のセルフ･カバーをはじめとする セルフカバー集 主人公が男性のものをセルフ・カヴァー). These are distinct from cover albums, as they're not exactly making tributes to themselves, just re-using compositions given to other musicians.

While what happens at other Wikipedias is irrelevant to what happens here, if you look at the Kazumasa Oda discography page and the Ringo Sheena page, the people who made those felt that self-cover albums were conceptually different enough to be in their own sections and not lumped-in with the other tribute/cover albums they'd done. --Prosperosity (talk) 09:39, 20 May 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: merge all. – Fayenatic London 01:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Insects of Andorra to Category:Insects of Europe

Nominator's rationale: Many insects are found across a large part of Europe so being found in any particular European country is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a species. Many of the articles are categorised for countries that aren't even mentioned in the text (example). An example of a previous similar CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_18#Category:Moths_of_Metropolitan_France. Note: If this results in merge then a note should be added to Category:Insects by country like there is at Category:Moths by country. For info currently the categories for some countries have just a few articles (e.g. England 1, Switzerland 2) and categories for other countries contain several thousand articles. DexDor (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "Europe" itself is pretty arbitrary in places, too. There's no barrier for insects to stop existing at the imaginary line between Eastern Europe and Western Asia. Perhaps landmasses with some commonality in insects would be better, such as Category:Insects of the Scandinavian Peninsula, Category:Insects of the Iberian Peninsula and Category:Insects of the Central Europe (depending on where separate insects tend to live). In that regard, Category:Insects of Sicily would be a perfectly good category as it's a distinct island with endemic insects (and Category:Insects of the United Kingdom could be changed to Category:Insects of Great Britain). --Prosperosity (talk) 11:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This CFD is because this categorization scheme would, if complete, put many articles about insect species in dozens of categories for European countries that are not even mentioned in the article (many articles say something like "found throughout southern Europe and ..."). I.e. it's because European countries are small (on a global scale) that being found in such a country is not generally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the species - not because borders are arbitrary.

Categorizing by regions would be better than categorizing by countries ("Mammals of San Marino" etc), but IMO Europe (approx 7% World's land area) is about the right level for this categorization. Note: Many articles (some examples) are not currently categorized by country. DexDor (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per proposal. Categorization by subcontinental regions (e.g., Scandinavia) might have merit, but insects don't pay attention to political boundaries, making this excessive and non-meaningful categorization. --Orlady (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all. Same as the other similar categories that were recently merged (Moths of.., Mammals of...), these categories are useless. Instead, list articles should be used. --Sander Säde 10:03, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I think we recently allowed an Iberian category, on the basis that the Pyrannees were a sufficient barrier. I believe that we have allowed UK and Ireland categories, on the basis that they are isands. For the rest fauna do not respect borders and merger is appropriate. The most common insects would have dozens of categories, which is not appropriate. This suffers from the same objection as performance (country of occurrence) by performer (species) categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose. I think you're going about this the wrong way. It's not the size or area of a country that matters (and nominator has clearly determined that size matters), but species richness. You haven't considered just how many species there are that have small distributions (a few small countries -- avoiding category clutter). Azerbaijan, for example, is about the same size as Austria or Serbia and has well over 100 endemic plants. I notice that you almost always title these discussions with one of the smaller countries to emphasize your point. Yes, the smallest country categories (Andorra, Monaco, San Marino) may not end up having very many articles in them because regional categories would suffice and so their fate isn't clear, but most of the European country categories could contain many species with restricted distributions or endemics. And because Wikipedia is a work in progress, these categories have not been correctly applied. The point is that while we may not have an article for every species yet, when we do these categories will be viable if they aren't right now. So I suggest you consider the list above and ask yourself how many of these categories, when circumscribed correctly to endemics and species with restricted distributions, wouldn't violate WP:SMALLCAT. That's the only question here. I stress that point so much because I know in past discussions that the impulse is to reply with examples that make your case for you so I repeat that the examples you might cite would likely not be included in that category while others have not yet been categorized or written. But then, I suppose, it's easier to nominate categories for consolidation than to go about fixing, sorting, and writing -- the basic tasks of building the encyclopedia. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I tend to choose one of the smaller countries for the CFD title; some (especially non-European) editors may be unaware that there are such small countries in Europe and hence that there are so many countries in Europe (especially when places like Guernsey are included). These categories do not (currently) say that they are "circumscribed ... to endemics and species with restricted distributions" so an article can be placed in many categories (example[2]) for which it is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Being endemic to a particular region is defining for a species, but we have other categories for that. DexDor (talk) 05:12, 3 June 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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Damselflies of Metropolitan France to Category:Damselflies of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Dragonflies of Metropolitan France to Category:Dragonflies of Europe

Nominator's rationale: That some of a species have been found in France is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that species. For info see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_18#Category:Moths_of_Metropolitan_France and other similar CFDs. DexDor (talk) 18:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: Not defining. --Kkmurray (talk) 04:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge both per proposal. Categorization by subcontinental regions (e.g., Scandinavia) might have merit, but insects don't pay attention to political boundaries, making this excessive and non-meaningful categorization. --Orlady (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:30, 25 May 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: no consensus. Deletion was suggested but that would be undesirable, removing some articles e.g. Windows 2.0 from the Microsoft hierarchy altogether. There was a slight majority for renaming but not sufficient consensus for moving away from a wider pattern of category names. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Post-closure note: see subsequent CFD at June 23, for merger, which was not suggested below. 18:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

• Propose renaming Category:Discontinued versions of Microsoft Windows to Category:Unsupported versions of Windows

Nominator's rationale: Items in this category are not discontinued at all. "Discontinued" means not having continued to the next version; all of these have next versions. They are unsupported. Codename Lisa (talk) 16:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Wiktionary defines "discontinued" as "Permanently no longer available or in production.". Note: The proposed rename would leave this category under a "discontinued" category. DexDor (talk) 19:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, try looking up discontinued software of a software engineering dictionary instead, although you are going to have a hard time proving Windows is no longer in production. Note: We can edit the category and put it under whatever suitable. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 23:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some versions of Windows (e.g. Windows 1.0) are no longer in production. If the renamed/repurposed category would need to be reparented this should be in the nomination. DexDor (talk) 05:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @DexDor: None of the released versions of Windows are in production anymore, including Windows 8.1. By your definition, anything that comes out the door is discontinued. So, if it has an article, it must be in this category. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per MOS:COMPUTING#Collocation. In English, not every words can be replaced by its synonyms because collocation matters. (Example of collocation: "Red-blooded" is correct, "scarlet-blooded" is not. "Scarlet letter" and "red letter" have different meanings.) In this case, "discontinued" is never used with a single version of a computer program. A program is said to be discontinued when it is no longer maintained; meaning that no new versions are released. In that sense, even Windows 1.0 is not discontinued because its ultimate successor, Windows 8.1 is in production. Furthermore, during the days when my Wikipedia activity was at its peak, I learned that editors looking to add tags, categories or infobox parameters try their best to shove as many as they can into the affected page. (Modesty was never their trait.) This category seems to be the result of that. Be that as it may, it is wrong. Fleet Command (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: If Microsoft is no longer selling new licenses/providing support, yes, one could argue that "Discontinued" would be the proper term. And yes, they did not continue to the next version, because version in this context could refer to patches or service packs. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose this is part of a much broader discountinued software tree. No need to rename just this branch.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, it isn't. I just severed it. Codename Lisa (talk) 15:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, just delete the category, we don't need a special category just to track which older versions of software are unsupported.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Both courses of action stop propagation of wrong info. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You know guys, it just occurred to me to write how meaningless and subjective this category is. If the word "discontinued" was to be applied to a version of a software product, it would be discontinued as soon as it came out of the door: The developer always works on the next version, which would be released either in the form of a patch or full package. It seems someone just made this category to put Windows versions that he deemed unworthy, outfashioned or vintage. The lack of support that I initially saw was just a pattern. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:31, 27 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:45, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Major National Criminal Organizations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. How big does a grouop have to be before it is "major"? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:36, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep - In each of the articles contained within the category, the organization is unambiguously stated as "major" (sourced to RS). There is no subjectivity, as inclusion in the category is based on an objective criteria, namely, does the article refer to the organization with a "major" descriptor (e.g. "the largest," etc.). Issues as to the subjectivity of descriptors need to be raised in the articles themselves and won't be resolved by deleting the category. BlueSalix (talk) 23:56, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. The fact that the sources use of terms such as "major" does need mean that they are using them in the same way. Without some sort of objective criteria, this category merely notes the subjectivity of others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I disagree. I've reviewed each of the articles in this category and, in each case, the descriptors of import used are identifying the preeminent criminal organization in the nation in question, which - by a reasonable reading - clearly is synonymous with "major national criminal organizations." Whether or not they are, in fact, "major" is certainly open to debate within the articles themselves. However, the only thing we will discuss in a category deletion discussion is the black/white issue of whether the category descriptor is contained in the article. That is the criteria and it is, in fact, the absolute definition of objectivity. BlueSalix (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. No clear criterion for inclusion since both "Major" and "National" are very ambiguous terms. We already have Category:Organized crime by country and I don't see a need to clutter articles with a second categorization. Pichpich (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reply The criterion, as with all categories, is if the articles within the category use the category descriptor in their body text. If an article says someone was born in 1920, we include them in the category "People born in 1920." If an article says someone was a lover of broccoli, we include them in the category "People Who Love Broccoli." If we don't think someone listed in a category is being accurately represented as lover of broccoli, we address that issue within the article itself. We do not try to determine, in category deletion discussion, if a criminal organization is "major" (a subjective approach, as you are advocating) - we only attempt to determine if the article describes it as "major" (an objective approach). This is a very, very simple, straightforward process. BlueSalix (talk) 17:44, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this isn't the case. Take a look at WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and you'll see that categorization is not handled in this way. Category:Major National Criminal Organizations and Category:Cult actors fail for the same reason. Pichpich (talk) 18:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Kennethaw88 • talk 03:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• If not deleted, Rename to Category:Major national criminal organizations because it's not a proper noun, or some organisation you sign your crime syndicate up to. --Prosperosity (talk) 04:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. No clear way to determine that a given cartel is "major" or "minor", especially as this characterization may change over time. Do we mark mafia groups that are big today, that were once big, or that will be big in the future? There is a rich tree at Category:Organized crime into which all of the contents here can fit (fwiw, the category isn't being correctly applied in the first place, it's being used as a list it seems).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:20, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is a list article sitting in category space. The items listed should be in Category:Organized crime and the one article properly categorised already is there. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:33, 25 May 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: merge this and Category:Manitoba Military Units, Category:New Brunswick Military Units, Category:Ontario Military Units, Category:Quebec Military Units, Category:Saskatchewan Military Units to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Military history of Canada by province or territory. I believe the contents are already in appropriate categories for military units of Canada by type. Category:British Columbia Military Units was separately nominated on May 22, and I have closed that to match. – Fayenatic London 16:11, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Alberta Military Units (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: These are military units of Canada. Alberta does not have its own armed forces BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (assuming these are all in an appropriate Canada category). DexDor (talk) 19:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

These are units that were raised in or have a significant connection to the province of Alberta. There are, or will be, categories for military units that were raised in or have a significant connection to all of the provinces and territories. This is of particular importance when looking at CEF battalions that are not named or units that do not have a "geographic" name. The a South Alberta Light Horse and the Loyal Edmonton Regiment are clearly Alberta units based on the name. Where is the 20th Field Artillery Regiment from? Or the 9th Battalion, CEF? Both are Alberta-raised units. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.53.211 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and Rename to Military Units from Alberta. BlueSalix (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My initial preference was to delete, but I do see we have a similar structure at Category:Military units and formations of the United States by state. Also note related Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_22#Category:British_Columbia_Military_Units.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- It might be legitimate to have a category by the province in which the unit is raised. However, unless the association with a province is permanent, I am not sure even this would work. Being stationed there at present (or in the past) should not be sufficient. I am not formally voting as I am the otherside of the Atlantic and do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:22, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. But to keep the connection to Alberta, we should merge these to Category:Military history of Alberta. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:15, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I note that we also now have Category:British Columbia Military Units, Category:Manitoba Military Units, Category:New Brunswick Military Units, Category:Ontario Military Units, Category:Quebec Military Units, and Category:Saskatchewan Military Units. Each of these should just be merged to the appropriate subcategory of Category:Military history of Canada by province or territory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:17, 28 May 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: delete; category has remained empty. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1975 Commercial Union Assurance Grand Prix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty category, duplicate of Category:1975 Grand Prix (tennis) Wolbo (talk) 12:13, 19 May 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:Lua-scripted video games, which is also in Category:Video games by game engine. – Fayenatic London 08:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Category containing only articles, categorized by their use of a game engine that doesn't even have its own article. If renamed, the article ResidualVM could fit in here, but it would still be overcategorizing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:39, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge with Category:Lua-scripted video games, as all GrimE games are Lua-scripted. --Prosperosity (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with merging articles in the category into Lua-scripted video games. --Izno (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption; this is part of an established category tree at Category:Video games by game engine. The fact there is no article for the engine is irrelevant. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:35, 27 May 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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:19, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Governors-General to Category:Governors-general

Nominator's rationale: Rename. as for kings and queens as regal, the vice-regal in the plural are common nouns; this nomination when successful will apply to all sub-categories and articles similarly misnamed Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Given that you accepted the failure of your nomination on April 4 for Governors-General of Australia, initimating that this new nomination is a test and would thereby apply to all sub-categories is disingenuous. Leave as is because the capitalisation of this category matches that of the underlying article Governor-General and there has been no suggestion that the article needs moving. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:39, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The present capitalisation is correct. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:35, 25 May 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: procedural close as the page is still not tagged. The new category linked below will be deleted as empty. – Fayenatic London 01:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not deep enough. I created the correct Category:CS Universitatea Politehnica Timişoara handball players.--Mycomp (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, and reverse manual rename. We have a name of a team, CS Universitatea Politehnica Timişoara, which refers to a handball team. All we need to do is append "players" to the club name. We don't need to add the word "handball" into the category name, because it creates a redundancy, since (I assume) CS Universitatea Politehnica Timişoara is only a handball team. We have, e.g., Category:FC Grenoble players, not Category:FC Grenoble rugby union players. (In any case, the category has not been tagged.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:15, 10 June 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: merge; if desired, Category:Trade union leaders can be nominated for renaming. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Labor leaders to Category:Trade union leaders

Nominator's rationale: Both categories seem substantively the same, except "labo[u]r" is more common in North America and "trade union" is more common in the UK and Australia. Graham11 (talk) 07:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename at the very least it should be Category:Organized labour leaders/Category:Organized labor leaders instead of the current ambiguous title, as there are Labo[u]r Parties in the world. The scope of "trad union leaders" is somewhat smaller, as labour organizers also occur outside of unions. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I don't mind the merge, but given the different forms in different places, it might make sense to do a combined title, like "Category:Trade union and labor leaders". --Lquilter (talk) 00:44, 30 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Populated places in the United States with Native American majority populations

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per numerous precedents: 2013 March 7, 2013 March 20, 2013 April 29, 2013 November 12, 2014 January 23. Kennethaw88 • talk 02:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the others are not precedents as they relate to non-indigenous populations. It seems likely to me that Chief Lake, Wisconsin, say, has always had a Native American majority population and will continue to do so in a stable and defining manner. (The last three in the list are French-American, German-American and Italian-American to which the precedents do apply, and which should be deleted.) Oculi (talk) 11:11, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I always thought wikipedia was for "everyone" but mass nominations like this, explained simply as "numerous precedents" (let's not even bother trying to explain why it makes sense here, that would be too hard) show clearly that not all editors would have it that way, see also WP:BIAS 71.246.159.247 (talk) 14:22, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I was a little bit lazy, but all of the previous discussions cover it pretty well. 50% is an Wikipedia:OC#ARBITRARY threshold; There is no fundamental difference between having 49.9% Native American population versus 50.1%. Plurality populations are even more arbitrary, as it is different for different communities. Sometimes 20% could be a plurality, sometime 49% is. Furthermore, this is a quality that can change over time. It doesn't make sense to categorize everything that at one time had a majority, if these are happening at different census counts. This is especially true for Native Americans, who have been moved around a lot in the country's history. Populations are very fluid, so this isn't an ideal categorization scheme. Kennethaw88 • talk 22:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this sort of thing should be done as a list ("List of populated places with a <ethnicity> majority population in the <year> census"). In some places the percentage of different ethnicities varies over time. An example of a previous CFD (albeit for a non-indigenous population) is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 23#Category:Counties and county equivalents of the United States with African American majority populations. DexDor (talk) 19:46, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The majority of people living on US "Indian Reservations" are not Native Americans, the majority of Native Americans do not live on Indian reservations, and more so than some other groups, this will varry if we include just those who report being native American and those who report being Native American and some other race. Beyond this, since any place that ever has fit this description can be so categorized, we would have to categorize places in Michigan and Wisconsin (such as Green Bay), that once had a majority Metis population, although few residents in those places today claim Native American ancestry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete the majority population of an area changes over time, and we normally don't do categories that change over time. If it is defining for a place, it should be defining for all time. By that argument, every place in the Americas once had a majority indigenous population - that some places still do in 2014 is not defining, since by 2015 that may change.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:42, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename to Category:Places in the United States with a Native American majority, as it is too lengthy. Unpopulated places don't generally have majorities, and ethnic majorities tend to be populations anyway. --Prosperosity (talk) 14:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is one such precedent, I'd say: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 3#Category:Quebec communities with significant anglophone populations. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:28, 22 May 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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:43, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Perennial candidates from Washington state (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete although I'm willing to be persuaded otherwise. I do find the category interesting and potentially valuable but on the other hand "perennial candidate" is really too subjective as the criterion of inclusion. Pichpich (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep The nominator's rationale is only that the decision to place these articles in this category is subjective, so I can only address that argument. No subjectivity has been applied in placing these articles into this category. In each case, the articles themselves refer to the subject as a "perennial candidate" and, in each of those cases, the "perennial candidate" label has been sourced to (usually multiple) RS. Feel free to review each of the articles in this category, and the sourcing references. BlueSalix (talk) 02:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You don't create objectivity by simply finding a few sources that make the same subjective assessment. For instance it's trivial to find tons of sources that describe Barack Obama as a communist. When does a candidate become perennial? After this second try? the fourth? Does it have to be for the same office? Are you still a perennial candidate if you run a few times in your 20s and run again for another office when you're 60? Everyone has their definition. Pichpich (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I'm unaware of "tons of" RS sources that describe Barack Obama as a communist. However, RS sources have identified the candidates in question as "perennial" and, as a result, they have been included in the category "Perennial candidates from Washington state." As to your question When does a candidate become perennial? I have no idea. This is the description the overwhelming majority of RS sources reporting on these candidates have used and is, as a result, the description that has been included in their entries on Wikipedia. I neither know, nor have interest in knowing, what criteria they've used. Thanks, Pichpich! BlueSalix (talk) 03:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (possibly listify) per previous CFDs (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_12#Category:Perennial_candidates). DexDor (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was a poor discussion that was based on the same specious claim that "we can't evaluate if someone is a perennial candidate or not." We're not. The articles themselves refer to these individuals as perennial candidates, and the only people listed in the category are people identified as perennial candidates in the opening sentence of their article. So, the objection then is not with the existence of a category but whether or not these individuals should be referred to as perennial candidates in their articles - an issue that needs to be addressed in the individual articles listed in this category, and can't be resolved by simply deleting the category. BlueSalix (talk) 23:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important to note that all these first sentences using the "perennial candidate" label are all sentences that you wrote. Also, when you list sources that use a specific subjective label, you are wilfully ignoring the other sources (possibly more numerous) that did not use the label and this can create a lot of distortion. For instance, you will have no trouble finding a dozen serious film critics that say that American Hustle was the best American film of 2013, yet you wouldn't use this info to categorize the film. Categories are very black-and-white whereas articles can let the reader make up his own mind by giving him the facts of someone's political career. Pichpich (talk) 02:56, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you're having difficulty understanding the situation and I want to work with you to enhance your understanding, however, I need to ask you please read and review what I've previously written. Again, the articles source RS that describe them as perennial candidates, e.g.:

Westneat, Danny (25 August 1995). "Perennial Candidate No Stranger To Rejection". Seattle Times. Retrieved 14 May 2014. ((cite news)): Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

For the third time, you need to raise your concerns about whether someone should be identified a "perennial candidate" within the articles themselves. The issues you've explained you have will not be resolved by purging the category. These people are described in their articles as (a) perennial candidates, (b) from Washington state, therefore they are listed in a category called "perennial candidates from Washington state." This is, in fact, the absolute definition of objectivity. Your subjective argument - while I disagree with it - could be a valid argument within the articles themselves. It is not germane or appropriate to a category deletion discussion. Your argument, as it currently stands, would demand we also go through and delete established categories such as "American anti-communists", "Cold War leaders", etc., as 'anti-communist' and 'leader' are both subjective terms, unlike "People born in 1928." Do you feel a little bit better at all now? BlueSalix (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. The category you're defending faces the same problems as Category:Obese people or Category:Cult actors. On the other hand Category:Cold War leaders makes sense because the Cold War has relatively precise start/stop dates. The term "leader" should probably be defined in a hatnote but it clearly refers to heads of states and there's little ambiguity there. In the case of American anti-communists, the hatnote explains that the cat is for articles on Americans who profess (or professed) to be anti-communists. This self-identification gives an objective criterion for inclusion. Pichpich (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The top example of a perrenial candidate in Utah is Merrill Cook, except he was actually elected to Congress for 2 terms, so not really. I am not convinced there is a workable definition that can deal with the problem some of these people do on occasion win big time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Johnpacklambert, this is not a discussion about perennial candidates generally. This is a delete discussion for a Wikipedia category called "Perennial candidates from Washington state." Merrill Cook is not listed in the category "Perennial candidates from Washington state" which is the subject of this discussion. Your comments in this discussion should pertain to the category "Perennial candidates from Washington state," not your general observations, feelings, or thoughts about perennial candidates. Thank you. BlueSalix (talk) 17:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If perenial candidate is a problematic or unworkable category, than any subcategory of it is unworkable. Perennial candidate is not a workable concept, and so no sub-grouping of it can work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for all the reasons why Category:Perennial candidates was deleted. --Orlady (talk) 21:08, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The parent category was already deleted twice at Cfd. That BlueSalix has added mentions of this to articles is immaterial. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:46, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• LIstify and delete -- It is a matter of POV how often a candidate has to stand to be a perennial candidate. I would remind others that failed candidates for political office are generally NN, as failing WP:POLITICIAN. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:38, 25 May 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: already deleted per G7. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:42, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete there's no reason to believe that this category can grow much beyond the main article in the near future. Pichpich (talk) 01:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Sorry, I now realize it won't be useful. SAH (T) 01:53, 19 May 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.