< August 21 August 23 >

August 22

Category:Test container kittycatty

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. Category appears to have been deleted already. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: appears to be a test Mduvekot (talk) 23:32, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have a test category to experiment with at Category:X1. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peerages of the United Kingdom

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:39, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a container for the 5 different national peerage systems which exist within what is now the United Kingdom: Category:Peerage of England (to 1707), Category:Peerage of Ireland (to 1707), Category:Peerage of Scotland (to 1800), Category:Peerage of Great Britain (1707–1800, and Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom (1801–present).
The current title is unhelpfully similar to the sub-cat Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom, and this renaming clarifies its role as a container. It also aligns the category with the head article Peerages in the United Kingdom ... which oddly, was not the head article until I added it a few minutes ago (so this doesn't qualify as a WP:C2D speedy), but is a perfect fit as an overview of this set of 5 national peerage systems. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PS Note that this proposal arises out of the discussion below on Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom. That proposal was kindly withdrawn by the nominator @Alekksandr: after discussion, when this emerged as a better solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Whacked Out Media

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) 03:32, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no obvious scope for this category, and the whole thing stinks of an effort to promote Whacked Out Media. Note that Barney83Stinson (the creator of this category as well as the Whacked Out Media article) was confirmed by CU to be using multiple accounts in a questionable way, and I'm not confident the user was telling me the truth when he denied at Talk:Whacked Out Media having a conflict of interest.
But back to the merits of the deletion nomination, Whacked Out Media appears to be some sort of marketing/brand-management company, so I don't really see how the category is going to help us. By indicating which films were promoted by their company? By indicating who their actor clients are? Seems gratuitously self-promotional.
Further, per WP:CAT, there has to be an obvious reason why a category is added to an article, shall we expect to see prose to the effect of:
The promotions for ____ were managed by Whacked Out Media[1]
So unless we're going to start polluting film articles and BLPs with content about the company that promotes them, I don't see the benefit of the category. Is there a logical precedent? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:16, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peerage of the United Kingdom

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 keep. Proposal withdrawn by nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:33, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are five peerages in the UK - those of England (to 1707), Scotland (to 1707) Great Britain (1707-1800), the United Kingdom (since 1800) and Ireland. Alekksandr (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian Brothers school alumni

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) 03:28, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining category. The schools may well be defined and categorized as Category:Christian Brothers schools, but their students should only be categorized as students of the school in question. We could as well have a category Women whose husbands have won the Stanley Cup (or some vice versa variant, no gender discrimination intended). Categorization is not "contageous". HandsomeFella (talk) 18:27, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, maybe. It seems to me that the creator, using the category system, has gone through students from all these schools and added this category in addition to the category for the school in question. HandsomeFella (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the best of my knowledge, parent/child category conflicts have been avoided or removed. Gjs238 (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't favor directly categorizing loose biography articles by type school they attended. Too much room for error and not as helpful for navigation as by school. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:42, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I indicated above, I could accept keeping it, if all BLP articles are diffused (de-categorized). Question: is my theory that you have gone through the individual [school name] alumni categories, and then added this category to all those BLP articles correct? If so, I think you should go through them again, and remove the category. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No objection to speedy renaming the whole tree if/when those RMs pass. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

* Diffusion has been occurring when the information is known. Over time as more information becomes known diffusion is likely to continue. Some examples:

Gjs238 (talk) 00:41, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. @Gjs238: if the name of the school is unknown, how on earth do we know it's a Christian Brothers school??? HandsomeFella (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That was an error due to a redirect and has been corrected. Gjs238 (talk) 13:21, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Correction to/clarification of my above examples:

Gjs238 (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The problem is that few of those categories exist, and that the only basis for placing articles in this category is a poorly sourced list article, which is why the best solution is to delete, at least until the list article is well referenced, and the various school alumni categories are created. HandsomeFella (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • RE: "the only basis for placing articles in this category is a poorly sourced list article:" That is not correct and I thought that had been clarified earlier. As I wrote above: Some of the individual articles do indeed mention education in specific Christian Brother schools. As I'm going through these pages, I'm finding that they are referenced either in the article itself or in the article for one or more of the schools listed for the person's education. For example, the Kareem Abdul-Jabbar article shows that he attended Power Memorial Academy where he is listed (and referenced from, the New York Times) as an alumni. Gjs238 (talk) 20:58, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, "some" are sourced, but that means does not mean that they should be in this category. They should be in the school-specific category, such as for instance Category:Power Memorial Academy alumni, which apparently does not exist. And the overwhelming majority is unsourced, and the only basis for categorizing them was the list article. I went through a few samples, and a) there's no source for the school belonging to Christian Brothers, and b) there's no source for the person being an alumnus of that school. Summing up, there's a lot of unsupported categorizations, and the best thing is remove the category altogether. HandsomeFella (talk) 09:28, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment So, we'll categorize by sources that say someone wen to some "Christian Brothers" school and trust that vague background to identify the right "Christian Brothers" denomination? That seems like an obscure use case to allow loose articles in this category. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:48, 4 September 2016 (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.

China Olympic medalists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This structure doesn't exist for any other country or Olympic Games. Really needs discussion at WT:OLY if it needs to be created. And it's poorly worded to boot. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:24, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Toponymy

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: purge to begin with, with no objection to renomination if purging might not resolve the objections raised. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Toponymy is both the study of place names and a collection of place names, therefore toponymy is ambiguous with regard to the target intended, between the object of study and the academic discipline. fgnievinski (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2016 (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.

Las Vegas sports categories

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 for now. If the "Las Vegas, Nevada" categories are renamed to "Las Vegas" per the 2016 Sep 6 CFD, then these categories could be speedily renamed to match that format.
Nominator's rationale: A quick look at "Category:Sports in the United States by city" and you'll see that every other category for a city is named "Sports in (city), (state)," regardless of whether or not they actually play in that city. Why Las Vegas is the exception I have no idea...nobody calls it the "Las Vegas Valley" in general conversation, so per WP:COMMONNAME, that should automatically disqualify the name. A rename to "Sports in Las Vegas, Nevada" is in order, as it will make it named like every US sports city category. Tom Danson (talk) 12:55, 22 August 2016 (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.

Redundant topical interests userbox categories

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 Category:Health-related user templates into Category:Health user templates, and Category:Favourite subject user templates (without pictures) into Category:Favourite subject user templates, as the nominator has made a solid case for those; purge Category:Favourite subject user templates of items not related to subjects studied at school/college. IMHO (i) the nomination to merge the latter should not be taken as approved without more participation here, and (ii) it is currently a valid intersection of Category:Interest user templates and Category:Education user templates (which is part of Category:Life user templates). – Fayenatic London 09:02, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Health-related user templates into Category:Health user templates
Nominator's rationale: WP:REDUNDANTFORK. We should use the more concise name in this case (there's no need for a "-related" disambiguator, and very few child cats. of Category:Userboxes have it). There is no distinction at all between the categories, content-wise.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  10:23, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Favourite subject user templates into Category:Interest user templates or subcats thereof
  • Propose merging Category:Favourite subject user templates (without pictures) into Category:Interest user templates or subcats thereof
Nominator's rationale: WP:REDUNDANTFORK categories. The the first serves the same purpose as the merge-to category. If there were some way to strictly limit the scope to, literally, favo[u]rite-topic userboxes, then maybe, kinda-sorta, there could be a some sort of rationale for this, but in fact people just randomly dump stuff into here because they're not aware of Category:Interest user templates. For example, the entire Category:Mathematics user templates category was subcatted under "favourite subject" not "interest" and thus seemed to be missing. People don't seem to interpret these templates as "favo[u]rite" topic boxes; while some include the word in their output, none have it in their names (those that have a consistent name at all are just "Template:User Topic-name-here Subject"), and many users have more than one of these on their page. They're also just generally inconsistent; some are specifically about academic majors, for example. The second nominated category has no reason to exist at all, since categorizing userboxes by whether they have a picture or text on the left serves no purpose, and users are not looking for "userboxes I can add that don't have pictures", but for userboxes that are relevant to them and express their interests, etc., to other editors. Ideally these categories would actually be upmerged not directly into Category:Interest user templates, but topically into its subcats. (and, depending on their content, sometimes into another category, e.g. a subcat. of the sister cats. Category:Education user templates or Category:Life user templates or subcats. thereof (e.g. Category:Profession user templates)  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  07:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Time zone user templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More accurately descriptive of the actual contents: some display the time, some the date, and some the time zone (and some a mixture of 2 or all 3 of these).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  04:12, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Unsorted userboxes

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a failed and disused maintenance category, redundant with the parent Category:Userboxes which is already labeled with ((Containercat)), and thus serves the exact same purpose. That latter category, BTW, does badly need cleanup. There are three classes of individual templates categorized in it: A) Those already categorized more specifically, in which case this redundant parent cat. can simply be removed; B) Those that, like the few in the cat. nominated for deletion here, need to be topically categorized; and C) some pointless junk templates that should be taken to TfD because they don't serve any useful purpose. (Category:Wikipedia-related user templates is in a similar state, and badly needs subcategorized diffusing, mostly being a pile of hundreds of undifferentiated templates, many of which are redundant. Diffusing these big categories will help us identify and TfD the chaff.) (PS: This might be viewed as an upmerge request, since the handful of templates in it still need to be dealt with, but the amount of work required to recat. them into the parent cat. is the same as that needed to recat. them correctly in the first place.) Never mind; I took care of that already, and it is now empty.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:57, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User templates with gender support

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless and disused. We do not categorize templates by how they're coded. All it takes to make any template with gendered wording be gender-neutral and gender-flexible is something like (({gender|they))}, and all userboxes should be coded that way (or avoid pronoun constructions). It serves no maintenance or other purpose to categorize those that do so already. An argument could be made for a maintenance category for those that do not, but maintenance of userboxes – other than getting rid of redundant or disruptive ones and pointless categories for them – is probably wasted editorial time. Of the small number of templates in this category, some are even miscategorized (e.g. separately gendered Mythbusters fandom userboxes). See also CfD below, about not redundantly categorizing topical templates by an irrelevant criterion; the rationale there applies here, too.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  03:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Support user templates

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Everything in here is topical and can simply be properly categorized under the numerous topical categories for userboxes. This is a pointless catch-all into which just about any infobox could be put if it seems to "support" something, and it would encourage someone to create a "Category:Oppose user templates" for the negative kind. The name is also confusingly ambiguous; I thought it had something to do with support groups. No purpose is served by the category, since no editors are looking for things to decide to oppose or support, and WP:CANVASSING militates against us categorizing this way, anyway. Wikiprojects, for example, that have been formed for the purpose of what amounts to topical lobbying on Wikipedia have routinely been deleted at MfD.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  02:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Nineteen Eighty-Four locations

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. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT
I don't have any conceptual problem with this category but it was created 8 years ago and it still only has the one article (plus an unused image file). The growth potential here is limited since the locations in 1984 are probably not individually notable. No objection to recreating if 5 or so articles ever materialize. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Goustien as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Novels. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:34, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More