The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 17:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Counties of England in fiction to Category:England in fiction by county

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Probably more in line with C2C. Requesting speedy renaming. NeoBatfreak (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support speedy rename - yes, this seems to fit speedy criteria, to fit in with standard "by county" holding categories. Sionk (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then, please rename it. I am sorry for my mistake and please help correcting it.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Tip: next time this happens, list your request in Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Speedy_renaming_and_merging instead of here. This is a clear case of C2E, and I support the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, I will remember next time.--NeoBatfreak (talk) 08:52, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I've participated in the discussion it would be churlism of me to rename it. Hopefully someone else will spot this soon! Sionk (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2015 (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) 23:25, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Physical infrastructure to Category:Infrastructure
• Propose merging Category:Physical infrastructure in the United States to Category:Infrastructure in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The contents are all physical infrastructure. This is an extensive hierarchy of infrastructure by country, by date etc, none of which uses "physical" in the name, and IMHO it would be unnecessarily wordy to insert that adjective into all the sub-categories. As for precedents, there was no consensus when this was proposed back on 2007 August 11, but two other countries' Physical infrastructure categories were upmerged at 2012 August 12. Even though the article Infrastructure states that the term encompasses soft stuff (e.g. systems, organisations and cultural standards), for the purposes of categorisation it is pretty clear that it only means hardware. – Fayenatic London 22:02, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, I find the distinction (or lack of) between the two very confusing. It may be a particular US definition that doesn't translate globally. The redirect Physical infrastructure was previously redirected to article Public capital despite the term not being used here. I recently discussed the issue with another editor (who had participated in the 2007 debate) and they agreed it was sensible to change the redirect to point towards Infastructure. The 2007 discussion seemed to get bogged down with strategy about how to organise the lower category tree, but I think we need to focus on whether there is actually a commonly understood difference between Physical infrastructure and Infastructure. Judging by the categories contained within, I'd suggest there isn't a significant difference. Sionk (talk) 23:56, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Hugo999 (talk) 04:04, 3 January 2015 (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 Category:Postal infrastructure in London to Category:Postal infrastructure in the United Kingdom. Create Category:Postal infrastructure as parent, and as as a subcat of Category:Postal system. - jc37 20:00, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Postal infrastructure in London to Category:Infrastructure in London

Nominator's rationale: Delete with selective upmerge to both parents. This category is too small to be valuable, containing one railway and two buildings. There are no other "postal infrastructure" categories elsewhere. The contents are already in some other suitable sibling categories, so the only merging currently needed would be to put Category:London Post Office Railway into Category:Postal system of the United Kingdom, and the two buildings into Category:Infrastructure in London. – Fayenatic London 17:51, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Very narrow intersection of concepts that cannot expect to be well-populated. The absence of Category:Postal infrastructure at the highest level (let alone by city) also suggests this is a problematic for navigation, rather than helpful. SFB 20:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support There are much clearer UK postal categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak support, though a Category:Postal infrastructure would be a useful addition to the category tree and a rename may be a better solution. I guess it all depends on one's definition of 'infrastructure' (see above discussion). Sionk (talk) 11:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: you have a point, Sionk, Category:Postal infrastructure could quite quickly be populated as a sub-category of Category:Postal system, with national sub-cats under including post box (and related articles), sorting office, mobile post office, railway post office (USA) and Travelling Post Offices (UK), as well as Category:Post office buildings and Category:Mailplanes. If we don't delete, perhaps renaming to a national category Category:Postal infrastructure in the United Kingdom would be better than keeping it at the city level. – Fayenatic London 19:54, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SFB, RevelationDirect: what do you think about the option of creating a hierarchy? Does it sound useful? – Fayenatic London 13:17, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: I think a top level postal infrastructure category is useful, but I'm less convinced of the usefulness of a (sub-)national level approach. I find the infrastructure categories are massively fragmented already, which makes for frustrating navigation. Any method of gathering significant, relevant contents at a high level gets my support (i.e. rather than the overused and fragmented location method, subdivide again by type – postal transportation, post offices, etc.). SFB 22:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• OK then, let's rename to Category:Postal infrastructure, as well as the specific merges mentioned in the nom. – Fayenatic London 07:58, 7 January 2015 (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) 23:27, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pitch and putt competitions in Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Pitch and putt competitions in Catalonia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are 3 articles in Category:Pitch and putt competitions in Catalonia, each of which

is also in Category:Pitch and putt competitions. Having geographical subdivisions for such a small topic is certainly overkill. Nigej (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Small topic area whose navigation is not helped by country and regional subdivision at this time. Perhaps a grouping under Category:Golf tournaments in Catalonia would be much more helpful. The parent Category:Pitch and putt is under golf so this should be a valid target. SFB 20:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems to me that it would be enough to direct the 3 articles to Category:Golf tournaments in Catalonia rather than Category:Pitch and putt competitions in Catalonia, since Pitch and putt is a type of golf. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigej (talk • contribs)

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: Opposed. And Speedily Renaming it to Category:Colonial American women per the discussion and other subcats of Category:American colonial people, and similarly its subcat Category:North American colonial women in warfare) to Category:Colonial American women in warfare. - jc37 20:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep with limitation Category:American colonial women
• Nominator's rationale This is really a debate on whether this is an occupational type cateogry, like Category:American women in politics or this is a women by former nation category like Category:Soviet women. If it is the former, than we would allow biographical articles to be placed directly in it. If it is the latter, than we would limit it to general articles on the topic, not biographies, and sub-categories. I think it is the latter and should be so limited. It is part of our attempts to categorize by nationality in historically accurate ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Former Nation It's a women by former nation category. I'm not totally clear on what that distinction means from a categorization perspective, but feel free to take my pronouncement and run with it. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Question where can we find this debate? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:36, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep without limitation, i.e. do not exclude biographies. Where is the precedent for the limitation suggested? The nominator gives the example of Category:Soviet women, but that contains only biographies and no general articles. – Fayenatic London 20:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• keep with no limit. This category is women in the area of the United States before the United States came into existence--known as Colonial American to all historians. This is part of an entire category tree about Colonial America. Nomination has no merit and goes against the purpose of categories: help users navigate to articles. Hmains (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Virtually all women by nationality categories have this disclaimer with them "This category exists only as a container category for other categories of women. Articles on individual women should not be added directly to this category, but may be added to an appropriate sub-category if it exists.

Please note that categorisation by gender is acceptable in Wikipedia only in limited circumstances which are set out in Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality. New categories by gender may be deleted if they do not meet the tests set out in that guideline." Soviet Women has that disclaimer. It primarily consists of a whole bunch of sub-categories. The issue was discussed in relations to such categories as Category:African-American women and the decision was that the category should be limited to sub-categories and non-biographical articles. This limit exists because we do not want to indiscriminately categorize all people by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The idea behind these categories is that they are meant to gather articles related to the subject, not articles that fall under the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:50, 17 January 2015 (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) 23:20, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:As Blood Runs Black (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Arsonists Get All the Girls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:The Contortionist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:I, The Breather (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Memphis May Fire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Category:Texas in July (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just albums and 1 image file for each. All related articles already subcategorized in the more appropriate and accepted scheme of Category:Albums by artist. The eponymous categorization is an unnecessary level for each of these groups at this time. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:17, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Eponymous band categories only make sense when there is extensive non-album/song coverage that benefits from such a grouping. That is not the case in any of these instances and the albums tree fulfils current navigational need. SFB 20:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. The volume of content isn't there to justify these. Bearcat (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2015 (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) 23:19, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Areas controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Rapidly changing situation. Control level varies. Promotion of terrorist claims. See these deletion decisions:

Related Closed Deletion Discussions

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_al-Dimashq_%28ISIL%29
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Barqah_(ISIL)
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Baghdad_(ISIL)
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Kirkuk_(ISIL)
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Hama_(ISIL)
6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wilayat_Nineveh_(ISIL)
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_24#Wilayat_Homs_.28ISIL.29
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_2#Template:Provinces_of_ISIL
9. Plus many speedy deletes under various criteria Legacypac (talk) 12:43, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per above, recentism and non-standard categorization pattern. Brandmeister^talk 13:20, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Categorisation is a terrible method of grouping this information. Prose is required to fully explain the situation of control on the ground and also the relevant dates of control. This is done much better in articles or lists rather than a category which will likely prove temporary (surely they will lose control at some point or that control will turn into a fully fledged state instead). SFB 20:33, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The applicability of this category to any specific place is likely to change dramatically with time. The fact that ISIL controls territory should be covered in relevant articles, but creating a category for this is messy because of all of the reasons listed by the nominator. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there are enough areas in Wikipedia where editors may war over content. This information can be presented well in informative and substantiated article form. GregKaye 15:33, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- unless and until there is a de facto cease fire and this becomes a frozen conflict, any category will be insufficiently stable to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete ill-defined, potentially "current" category unless we are going to add a cafe in Australia, too? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2015 (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) 23:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Princess Leonida Bagration of Mukhrani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OCEPON, only one image inside and negligible prospects for growth. Brandmeister^talk 11:27, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not enough diverse content to warrant navigational on a personal basis. SFB 20:33, 2 January 2015 (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) 23:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:National Heritage Houses of the Philippines to Category:Heritage Houses in the Philippines

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The same entries. Heritage Houses are declared by the National Historical Commission of the Philippines (NHCP), a national government agency. This declaration is specific only for those that are declared by NHCP --Carlojoseph14 (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Identical (or highly overlapping) scope that doesn't warrant two categories. SFB 20:34, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 20:38, 4 January 2015 (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) 23:17, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Buildings and structures known by their street address

Nominator's rationale: Per the WP:SHAREDNAME, WP:NON-DEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. This category groups buildings based on whether they are known by their street address which could lump together a wide variety of buildings with little in common. The street address as the name of the building is trivial as to why the building is notable and often changes over time as tenants come and go. For instance, 8 Canada Square is now known as the HSBC Tower and 11 Westferry Circus used to be the Readers Digest Building.RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Transport. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:03, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above, trivial arbitrary criterion. Brandmeister^talk 11:31, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete that would cover most of the worlds buildings. Legacypac (talk) 12:45, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 05:22, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete -- I can see why someone might think this a worthwhile category, but it is far too random to be useful. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete trivial [[Murgatroyd49 (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2015 (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--Ymblanter (talk) 07:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

• Category:Germany at the Winter Olympics and Category:Germany at the Summer Olympics to Category:Germany at the Olympics
• Category:East Germany at the Winter Olympics and Category:East Germany at the Summer Olympics to Category:East Germany at the Olympics
• Category:West Germany at the Winter Olympics and Category:West Germany at the Summer Olympics to Category:West Germany at the Olympics
• Category:Kosovo at the Summer Olympics to Category:Kosovo at the Olympics

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. The categories Category:Nations at the Winter Olympics and Category:Nations at the Summer Olympics are predominantly for “Nations by year” category not for Nations at the Olympics by nation categories, but "nation" categories just for Germany and Kosovo have crept in . But seperating Category:Germany at the Olympics etc into separate summer and winter categories does not serve any useful purpose, and is not done for most countries. Hugo999 (talk) 08:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per current structure. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Against Winter and Summer Olympic are two clearly distinct events, makes no sense to me just to lump them in all together. Can't follow logic of Hugo's arguement. DjlnDjln (talk) 13:09, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: other countries are currently organised with summer and winter combined, e.g. Category:Spain at the Olympics. However, it could well be useful for navigation to roll out further categories like those nominated. The Winter games categories by nation would be a valid sub-set within Category:Winter multi-sport events. – Fayenatic London 17:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose The Winter and Summer Games are separate events. While we could treat them together within the umbrella of "Olympics", the division makes sense as the two do not have many overlaps in events contested, athletes in attendance, or often the attendance by nations. Arguably the latter point is a good reason to keep the two together because many countries do not compete at the Winter Olympics and thus the primacy of using a mixed Olympics category is useful. However, I find this hard to square with the fact that we have already have a separate category for Category:Nations at the Youth Olympic Games, which have as much in common with the Summer Games as the Winter Games does. SFB 21:40, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Most countries are organised with the summer and winter Olympics combined, Germany being the only exception of the over 200 countries that are/were in the Olympics. Does having one category for say Category:Austria at the Olympics cause any problems? I cannot see any merit in having a by-country category for “winter multi-sport events” as it would mean checking two categories instead of one for a country. Many of the winter sports competitions eg Curling competitions are not multi-sport events, and Curling is already separated out in the “sports by country category” for curling nations, see Category:Curling by country. Similarly for skiing, ice hockey etc; there is already categories for ALL the articles for each sport in a country where justified. Note that there are only three or four nations in the Category:Winter sports by country category: Australia, United Kingdom/Scotland, and Bangladesh (!). The “winter sports” category is only for sports on ice or snow, and does not include say the various ball games (soccer, rugby union and rugby league, American and Canadian football) that are played in the winter season. The Youth Olympics and Paralympics are modelled on the Olympics, but are rather more informal and less competitive. Hugo999 (talk) 03:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I just went through all these, and it is just as the nom says. There are two separate standards for categorising. If others want these split, they should do so with a group nom. - jc37 05:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose - these are 2 separate events; and merging them will mean that once this group nomination passes, we will need to re-split them, which would mean lots of manual work. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as these are two separate events, with two distinct sets of articles included in the categories. Mamyles (talk) 21:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, it would make perfect sense - while there are also Youth Olympics and Paralympics categories per country - to also have a split between Winter and Summer Olympics. In total we will then have 4 different olympic categories next to each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:34, 29 March 2015 (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.