< February 2 February 4 >

February 3

Category:Trudeau family

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:Trudeau political family. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just want to be sure about this. Created by me several years ago, this has to date been a category for the Canadian political family -- which now includes two prime ministers, Pierre and Justin, along with siblings, spouses and grandparents. I've just had to remove unrelated bio articles for Zénon Trudeau and Edward Livingston Trudeau (great grand-father of the Doonesbury creator). I think some of disambiguation is in order to avoid this problem cropping up again, and I've used a sibling category Category:Cannon family of Canada as a guide. This look right to people, or do editors feel that a qualifier is not required, just a category description (which I've just added). Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The problem being that bad categorization ends up having to be cleaned up by somebody after the fact — and by definition, even that can only happen if somebody notices the bad categorization, meaning articles can be left sitting in inappropriate categories for months. Bearcat (talk) 21:50, 18 February 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.

Oil by country

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. No categories were tagged, no clear rationale was offered, and there is no sign of any consensus emerging from discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rephrased:

  • Question Why isn't petroleum sufficient in the category name? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Delete why? Per which guideline? (check WP:OCAT for valid reasons to have a category deleted) Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 4 February 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:Ukrainian writers by nationality

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) 02:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly constituted category tree of uncertain value. Firstly, and most importantly, this was created as a direct subcategory of Category:Ukrainian writers — but that category is for writers who are personally from Ukraine, and not for writers from other countries who had ancestors from Ukraine. So this doesn't belong there. Secondly, "X writers of Y descent" are permitted for broad groupings like Asian Americans or Jews or African Americans — but every individual country where a person might have ethnic roots does not constitute a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that writer in and of itself, especially as an intersection with the country they're actually from. And thirdly, most of the subcategories are WP:SMALLCATs. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 20:38, 3 February 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:Yale University alumni, 1971-1980

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. (The category creator also asked for the category to be deleted via a message left on the category page, declaring that it was just an "experiment"). Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:26, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not yet populated, I don't see us using by-decade groupings for alumni other major universities, nor is that how categories for people per organization really tend to work, here. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:32, 3 February 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:People associated with adoption

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. MER-C 07:35, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC. I see no reason why we shoul;d group Category:Adoptees‎ and Category:Adoption workers‎ in a single category like this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:48, 3 February 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:Video games on Steam

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Irrelevant category. This is simply going to be added to all PC & Mac games sold on the Steam (software) platform. Since almost every PC game released is released on Steam this category is a little like adding 'Books sold by Amazon' to most book related articles. Since technically Steam, in this instance, is referring to it as a store, it's the equivalent of putting categories for every store chain that sells video games and adding them to the games. E.g. Video games sold by EB Games, Video games sold by Gamestop, Video games sold by Best Buy etc. Canterbury Tail talk 12:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's rationale. Also, if this article by Forbes is to be believed, there are some 300 million played games on Steam. Categories such as "steam-only" games might be suitable, but the current naming suggests that's not how this category is being used. Jolly Ω Janner 12:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. -- ChamithN (talk) 13:08, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous Category:Steam games nomination. This is a list of storefront's products and not a defining feature. I think the intention here was to list it as game platform, but it is a distribution platform. We can have categories for games that have something special in relation to Steam, such as the Category:Steam Workshop games one. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 13:15, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:TRIVIALCAT and nominator. Just having been sold on Steam isn't that interesting. However I think an category for games that require Steam on PC would be fine. — Strongjam (talk) 13:19, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not even sure that games that require Steam is that interesting anymore. A large percentage of games now require Steam as the main running and distribution platform. Even many games sold in physical format are basically just codes and access to Steam to install there. Canterbury Tail talk 15:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nomination. Bertaut (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --The1337gamer (talk) 20:33, 3 February 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:Tavistock, Devon

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. MER-C 07:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: Article was recently moved as uncontroversial per rationale of ":Tavistock, Devon is the primary topic. Tavistock, Ontario is a village merged into East Zorra-Tavistock and Tavistock, New Jersey has a population of five people." Ineligible at speedy requests, since it was recently moved. Jolly Ω Janner 12:08, 3 February 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:Plymouth, Devon

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, kept by default. - Beland 15:09, 16 April 2016‎

Propose renaming:

Rationalle: This was originally requested at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy based on C2D "Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous article", however speedy cannot over rule the previous discussion on 2 December 2008. The previous discussion did not seem to acknowledge policy guidelines and was a collection of opinions on what is ambiguous, which ended in essentially a straw-poll-based consensus. I believe after reviewing our own policies, this should not have been moved back in 2008. Per Wikipedia:Categorization "Standard article naming conventions apply;" which suggests it should follow the naming of the article it is based on. Plymouth has retained its title since its creation in 2001 and there have been discussions about it, so this would suggest long-lasting stability. Unless Plymouth is moved or there is policy which suggests categories need the bar raised for what is a "primary topic", I see no policy-based grounds for this to differ from the article's title. Jolly Ω Janner 12:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Should the same be applied to Category:Bristol, Category:York and Category:London? These are of course just examples and shouldn't make the decision. But I'm wondering why you propose the presence of categories sharing the same name should be treated differently to articles sharing the same name. Jolly Ω Janner 22:43, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because categories will collect incorrect articles if given ambiguous names. Someone finding the wrong article will merely search again. Oculi (talk) 01:24, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This rarely happens in practice when a category is named in the same way as its article to reflect a primary meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, as you tell, I am not that experienced with category naming! I have amended this at the top. Thanks. Jolly Ω Janner 00:40, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Plymouth (disambiguation), if we wanted to go down that road, could be included as a DAB header on the category Category:Plymouth. I don't see very good reasons that categories should be treated the same as articles in this regard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Plymouth doesn't show it's particularly ambiguous. Category DABs are simply a very inconsistently applied concept. We could possibly have ten thousands of them, one for each ambiguos term without a clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. In this concrete case however Plymouth is primary topic. Look who created the Category DAB: it was comrade Good Olfactory, who in light of the current debate decided the category should be brought into line with the primary topic. --PanchoS (talk) 14:11, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can remember, the good comrade has always thought that Plymouth should correspond with Category:Plymouth. But I can walk and chew gum at the same time and have found it possible to work within systems that I think are messed up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the significance of the number of articles in the category? Jolly Ω Janner 18:13, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we're going down that line, which seems highly unproductive IMO, the Plymouth, Devon category as a little over 2,000 articles in it. Grutness...wha? 01:05, 25 February 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:People associated with Tiananmen Square protests of 1989

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:Tiananmen Square protesters of 1989 and purege. – Fayenatic London 15:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:People associated with Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 to Category:Protesters of Tiananmen Square protests of 1989
Nominator's rationale: Rename and purge - Mere association with a particular set of protests isn't a good grouping - see WP:OCASSOC. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:30, 3 February 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:Charlie Puth

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A bit premature for an eponymous category. Precedent and WP:OCEPON have determined that an individual requires more than just articles and categories about their works, which are already categorized by a specific topic under the individual's name. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:55, 3 February 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:Fictional United States Army Military Police Corps personnel

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Triple Upmerging Category:Fictional United States Army Military Police Corps personnel to all parent categories
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT
There is only one article in the category and the narrow scope seems unlikely to grow quickly. (No objection to recreating though if we can get up to 5 or so articles.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Omanyd as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Fictional characters. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:48, 3 February 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:American Chemical Society academic journals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The publishing arm of the American Chemical Society is called ACS Publications. The category should be renamed accordingly, similar to how we have Category:IOP Publishing academic journals for journals published by IOP Publishing, the publishing arm of the Institute of Physics. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 02:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That we don't have a dedicated article on ACS Publications is no argument for using the incorrect name of the publisher. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not incorrect, they are academic journals from the ACS, although it is a little less specific that what you propose. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 4 February 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