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: reverse merge. – Fayenatic London 08:35, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Players of Basque pelota to Category:Pelotaris

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge As far as I understand, a pelotari is a player of Basque pelota. If we do decide to upmerge, we might want to keep the redirect around since the term is not so well-known. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment note that there is an issue with distinguishing pelotaris (players of Valencian pilota) from pelotaris (players of Basque Pelota). If any thinks a player category is required for the Valencian version of the sport, then it makes more sense to avoid usage of the pelotaris handle and go for the "players of" version (c.f. Category:Players of American football). SFB 22:00, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support SFB -- I think the an asnswer is to purge the category of the Valencian sport (into a new category) and reverse merge and then reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• So should we have e.g. "Category:French players of Basque pelota" and "Category:French players of Valencian pelota"? -- Beland (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support original and redirect; also, move the Valencian category out of the hierarchy – use "see also" links instead. Players of Valencian pilota are pilotaris, not pelotaris. – Fayenatic London 18:55, 22 November 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:Stanford University student organizations and purge out non-student orgs. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Stanford culture to Category:Stanford University culture

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Category names should not be ambiguous. The main article is Stanford University. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 20:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Alternate Rename/Partial Upmerge to Category:Stanford University student organizations and upmerge anything that doesn't fit to Category:Stanford University. The Category:Student organizations in the United States category tree is very established and "culture" by university seems too vague. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, rename per nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, I think a simple rename would be fine. -- Beland (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the alternate rename option and purge/upmerge to Category:Stanford University. The purge rename can follow the bot operation. Leave a talk message if you need help doing. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 9 November 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bundeswehr military athletes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Previous consensus at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_22#Category:Military_athletes was to delete the military sports club member categories. This category, possibly the largest of its type, was missed out from that discussion SFB 19:29, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed. -- Beland (talk) 21:24, 3 November 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: Manual cleanup and merging to various categories. -- Beland (talk) 21:21, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gastronomy to Category:Food and drink

Nominator's rationale: The difference between "food" and "gastronomy", which is defined by its main article as "the study of food and culture", seems non-existent or at least not helpful for category navigation. All of the subcategories of "Category:Gastronomy" are in fact already descendants of "Category:Food and drink". -- Beland (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support merge Contents of the former sit well with the latter and need to divide is not obvious. We already have the food-specific Category:Foods while the food and drink is covering the sharing cultural aspects of both food and drink. SFB 22:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is a perfectly good, well-defined article at Gastronomy. The contents of Category:Gastronomy would seem obvious, except that many are located inside Category:Food and drink. The latter is much more broad, has not parent article, and contains many things that do not belong in Category:Gastronomy. Category:Gastronomy belongs under Category:Food and drink, with no common members. Some of the membership of Category:Food and drink should be categorised under Category:Gastronomy. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:10, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per SmokeyJoe and any clear indication that this is going to fix anything. Endorse cleaning up of all of the trees in this discussion to make sure the contents belong and are located in the point of the trees. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I switched the parenting so that "Category:Food and drink" is now the parent of Category:Gastronomy. Gastronomy is the study of food, and everything in "Category:Food and drink" concerns food, so I don't see anything in there that couldn't also be in Category:Gastronomy. Would User:SmokeyJoe or User:Vegaswikian care to give some examples or jump in and sort things? -- Beland (talk) 21:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quick looks shows that Category:Gastronomy includes Category:Kitchen and Category:Food and drink includes Category:Animal products‎. I'm not really convinced that those belong in the current parents. This is going to take some work to cleanup. Does anyone think that a Shofar belongs in Category:Gastronomy or Category:Food and drink? At this time the best option in my mind would be for this to close as no consensus with a suggestion to cleanup contents to reflect the topics. Even doing that I'm not sure how to cleanup Category:Food and drink. That probably needs to start with the intro since it currently is too broad. That may require a discussion someplace, but not on the talk page since that may not get the best visibility. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Update: I cleaned these category trees as best I could, eliminating redundant categorizations. The only things left in Category:Gastronomy are Gastronomy and Category:Gastronomical societies‎. The latter is also already under Category:Food-related organizations‎. It looks like both could be moved to Category:Food culture, which would eliminate the need for Category:Gastronomy. -- Beland (talk) 21:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Beland (talk) 21:21, 3 November 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: Manually empty and delete. -- Beland (talk) 17:50, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Gastronomy occupation to Category:People in food and agriculture occupations

Nominator's rationale: The difference between "food" and "gastronomy", which is defined by its main article as "the study of food and culture", seems non-existent or at least not helpful for category navigation. I certainly don't see any subcategories of either that couldn't be in both. -- Beland (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No confidence in the proposal. Category:People in food and agriculture occupations is itself a problem. My guess is that the category is intended for agriculture and food production. Since there is no introduction, we really don't know for sure. Given this analysis, I don't see the misnamed Category:Gastronomy occupation properly being included there. I guess we could just rename to Category:Gastronomy occupations to fix the big error. Once the fate of the proposed target is decided on, then maybe a different solution could be proposed. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• ditto. There is a big difference between the production, and consumption of food. Perhaps rename Category:People in food and agriculture occupations to Category:People in food and agriculture production. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:45, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Update - I added an intro to Category:People in food and agriculture occupations to say "This category includes occupations related to the production, consumption, and culture of food." It already has food writers, nutritionists, and bartenders in addition to farmers etc. so I don't think it's a producer-only category. If the name implies that it is, I think it would be better to rename it. I don't see any need to try to split up producers vs. preparers vs. interdisciplinary experts, especially since those roles overlap (like with chefs who write cookbooks). -- Beland (talk) 21:35, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have had a closer look at the tree. The top item is Category:Food and drink – the headnote there is clear that it is about the consumption of food, not its production, so your new headnote for Category:People in food and agriculture occupations conflicts with the top category. It is that I was trying to get across. I don’t mind a global category covering every aspect of food but since it is likely to be very big it may be better to separate production from consumption. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:03, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The header on Category:Food and drink didn't say anything at all about consumption. Looking at the contents, of the category, I see production-related subcategories like Agriculture and Food industry, consumption things like Gustation and Meals, and things that don't break down easily, like Beverages and Food politics and History of food and drink. I changed the header to read: "This category is for food and drinks, including production, consumption, food cultures, and social aspects." to reflect the contents. Does that make sense? I don't see how it could be usefully split. -- Beland (talk) 14:45, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which I just changed to production. The other is too broad and in effect has no focus. Consumption has nothing in connection with production. Agriculture is the key term in that title. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The header on Category:Food and drink has ‘Food is any substance normally eaten or drunk by living organisms.’ To me that is about consumption. I think we may be talking at cross purposes over the word ‘production’. To me that means the production of the raw materials; I think you are using it to mean the preparation of those raw materials (for later consumption). Eg I would not have Beekeepers in with Chefs. The first is producing Honey and the second is preparing it ready for consumption. I just worry about ending up with a category that is so extensive it becomes unworkable. Although I do have to concede that there will be a lot of grey areas in the middle. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:18, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you're worried about that a category that combines production, preparation, consumption, and culture, Category:Food and drink already is that category, and it does not seem unworkable to me. It only has 40 subcategories, and neatly contains anything you might want to know about the whole end-to-end process of where food comes from and where it goes and how people feel about that. If you think Category:People in food and agriculture occupations should be narrowed to include only food production, then I agree it would need a name change. But we would also need to create another category for chefs and food writers and sommeliers and bartenders, Category:People in food distribution, preparation, and culture? Or make smaller categories for people in food distribution, people in food preparation, and people in food culture? The existing Category:People in food and agriculture occupations only has 31 subcategories, and after cleaning will have no articles. I don't really see the need to split it up; it seems like that would just make things harder to find, and I like how you get an overview of occupations for the whole industry at once right now, rather than small slices of it. -- Beland (talk) 15:35, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
            • Part of the problem with the badly named categories here is that some of the content already has better options, like Category:People in hospitality occupations‎. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 17:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Look categories per WP:CAT should be focused, and not so broad they include unfocused areas. Also having a category that covers a food writer, author, chief and how knows what else are not the way to go. Each of those should have a category and those would be used for the people. It is normal to have multiple categories for a person. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, can we agree to merge Category:Gastronomy occupation into Category:People in food and agriculture occupations, and then split the latter as y'all see fit? -- Beland (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am happy to agree with that. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support deletion of Category:Gastronomy occupation, and re-categorisation of the three(!) members, more or less per above, and because Gastronomy occupation is odd-looking and red-linked. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:15, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll support that option as it cleanups up this mess. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:18, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger -- I suspect (with SmokeyJoe) that the answer is manually empty, recategorising the members and then delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Category:Gastronomy occupation is now empty. I manually moved the three items there as requested. -- Beland (talk) 21:37, 29 September 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:Stanford University. The only member Shorenstein Prize is also in Category:Awards by Harvard University which is also in the other parent, Category:Awards by universities and colleges in the United States. – Fayenatic London 17:22, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Awards by Stanford University (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Besides being oddly named, the only article here is about an award jointly awarded by a group at each of two universities. Not sure that qualifies as being awarded by the school. An alternative to deletion would be to upmerge to Category:Stanford University. The rest of the subcategories in the awards parent probably need to be checked to see if they have the same flaws.Vegaswikian1 (talk) 09:15, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Dual Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:57, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to category:Stanford University.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Full upmerge to both parents - unless there are a lot more awards that ought to be added to this category, which I doubt. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 20 September 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. Now has 4 members, and is a valid member of Category:Electrical engineers by nationality. – Fayenatic London 17:20, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Ugandan electric engineers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Neither of the two articles (currently) in this category is about someone who is notable as an electrical engineer - one is an academic administrator (and might also belong in Category:Electrical engineering academics) and the other is a politician. If kept should be renamed to "Ugandan electrical engineers" and placed under Category:Electrical engineers by nationality. DexDor (talk) 05:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the renaming part. If it is agreeable, will replace with "Category:Ugandan electrical engineers". Thanks.Fsmatovu (talk) 13:44, 15 September 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) 01:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Textile mills in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: this category contains an article about a Pakistani sugar mill and an article about a Pakistani manufacturing conglomerate. Pakistan has a many articles on its textile industry but none about a specific mill. No objection to recreating later. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Mills. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:38, 15 September 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• Delete - Both entries are about companies, not indvidual textile mills. Category can always be recreated if there is a need for it. Mjroots (talk) 06:38, 15 September 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.