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/Upmerge all 3 Subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Festivals on the Isle of Man to Category:Festivals in the Isle of Man
• Propose renaming Category:Cultural festivals on the Isle of Man to Category:Cultural festivals in the Isle of Man
• Propose renaming Category:Folk festivals on the Isle of Man to Category:Folk festivals in the Isle of Man
• Propose renaming Category:Music festivals on the Isle of Man to Category:Music festivals in the Isle of Man

Nominator's rationale: An opposed speedy. Suggest changing "on" to "in" to correspond with (1) the article List of festivals in the Isle of Man, (2) the parent categories, Entertainment events in the Isle of Man and Tourist attractions in the Isle of Man, (3) every other subcategory of Festivals in Europe by country. I understand that some users have a tendency to want to use "on" for certain islands, but the convention is overwhelmingly to use "in" in all cases, even for those that relate to islands. (Strangely, the tendency to want to use "on" seems to apply to an extra degree when the name of the place includes the word "Isle". We have Festivals in Jersey and Festivals in Taiwan, not "on".) Cf. to this old similar Isle of Man discussion; I thought this issue was settled there, but it has been awhile. I think this differs from the Isle of Wight case because the Isle of Man is a geographical place as well as a country, whereas the Isle of Wight is not. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:19, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename/Upmerge all 3 Subcategories I agree that the rename clearly follows the rest of the tree. As long as we're here though, I don' think the three 1 article subcategories are aiding navigation. I'm fine with giving each national-esque entity a pass on getting a small "festivals" category, but do we really need underpopulated "folk festival" categories, for instance? RevelationDirect (talk) 08:53, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be OK with that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 23 March 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.

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) 07:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Novelists from Shanghai to Category:Writers from Shanghai

Nominator's rationale: Per the discussion in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 28#Category:People's Republic of China novelists from Beijing, since there are Category:Writers by city but no Category:Novelists by city. Timmyshin (talk) 22:39, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominate merging the following:

• Category:Novelists from Beijing to Category:Writers from Beijing
• Category:Novelists from Tianjin to Category:Writers from Tianjin
• Category:Novelists from Chongqing to Category:Writers from Chongqing
• Merge Novelists is too specific for this level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Writers from is a sufficient enough of a category. No further breakdown is needed....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:32, 27 March 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.

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) 05:47, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Rob Ford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Underpopulated and no potential to be otherwise. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 19:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's got (at this moment) eight articles. Is that not enough? DS (talk) 22:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Stefanomione (talk) 22:18, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The two family members should be purged but that leaves 6 solid articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment there was only one article listed when I proposed deletion. 192.235.252.195 (talk) 00:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It does not violate WP:CDD, its sits on solid articles. Kyle1278-2 (talk) 09:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment it could be renamed to the Category:Douglas Ford political family as father, and two sons, and related issues -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 03:52, 24 March 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.

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 and delete. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 00:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Turkish airstrikes during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Israeli airstrikes during the Syrian Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The categories of Turkish and Israeli airstrikes in the Syrian Civil War have no parallel articles and contain only one page in first case and two pages in the second (both of which are not confirmed airstrikes to be involving Israel). Considering that tens of thousands of airstrikes have been carried in Syria by the air forces of US and Russia and an additional significant number by Jordan, Canada and others, but except Syrian Ba'athist government category (with 4 articles) we have only Syrian Civil War airstrikes categories for Turkey and Israel which had marginal role in the war in first case and unconfirmed role in the second, i find it to be a result of extreme POV - trying to promote the WP:FRINGE idea that Turkish and Israeli airstrikes are much more notable that US and Russian airstrikes. The current situation is making it look that the main airforce players in the war in Syria are Ba'ath government, Turkey and Israel (which is ridiculous, considering US and Russian air domination). Until US and Russian airstrike articles and categories are sufficiently created to make a balanced presentation of airstrikes in this conflict (list of Russian airstrikes at least?), there is no justification to create categories for marginal or unconfirmed actors.GreyShark (dibra) 18:31, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and expand the tree with Category:Russian airstrikes during the Syrian Civil War, Category:American airstrikes during the Syrian Civil War and Category:French airstrikes during the Syrian Civil War. Stefanomione (talk) 22:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since you created the above afd-proposed categories, but missed to create categories for Russian and US airstrikes, it implies WP:FALSEBALANCE - trying to emphasize non-notable one or two Turkish airstrikes in Syria and unconfirmed events possibly involving IAF, but dismissing the US-led 2-year long air campaign and 200 days of Russian air hammering in Syria (altogether tens of thousands of airstrikes). This creates a severe distortion of reality (false balance), which should be avoided in Wikipedia per WP:WEIGHT and WP:N.GreyShark (dibra) 10:12, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. No doubt these air strikes have happened so having articles on them (and hence categories) is fine. It is true that the Russians/Syrian government/US have engaged in far more air strikes than Israel or Turkey. But, I agree with Stefanomione, the way to restore balance is to write more about Russian/Syrian/US/etc strikes, not less about Israeli and Turkish ones. SJK (talk) 06:52, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is not certainty at all - January 2014 Turkish attack in Syria was not an airstrike (probably an attack by Turkey, but likely by artillery and not airforce), while May 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrikes and January 2013 Rif Dimashq airstrike are not confirmed events as Syrian Arab Republic denied most of those reports and Israel didn't comment any official response - all speculations.GreyShark (dibra) 09:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all to Category:Airstrikes during the Syrian Civil War per WP:SMALLCAT, this applies just as well to the other siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - i can now notice that there is also a duplicate category category:Turkish Air Force involvement in the Syrian Civil War with two articles. Those categories seems to grow like mushrooms after the rain.GreyShark (dibra) 17:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Multiple merge as WP:SMALLCAT to Category:Airstrikes during the Syrian Civil War and also to (i) Category:Turkish Air Force involvement in the Syrian Civil War & Category:Airstrikes conducted by the Turkish Air Force or (ii) Category:Airstrikes conducted by Israel & Category:Israeli involvement in the Syrian Civil War. – Fayenatic London 13:14, 13 May 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.

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: listify where supported by a citation, and delete. – Fayenatic London 22:44, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose Deleting Category:Kentucky colonels

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:V and WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)

The Kentucky colonel is a non-military award issued by the Governor of Kentucky, and they give them out a lot. How often?: it's hard to say since I can't find anyone whose even tried to tabulate all the winners into a central list. According to an official of the organization, there are perhaps 100,000 living recipients (source), which means over 2% of the state's entire population has received the award.

Other than for Colonel Sanders, this award doesn't seem defining. Two thirds of the current articles in the category mention the award only in passing, the other third not at all. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Nobunaga24 as the apparent category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Kentucky. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 22 Marc#Category:Kentucky colonelsh 2016 (UTC)

• Background This category previously came before CfD in 2006, again in 2006 and in in 2009. - RevelationDirect (talk) 10:45, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. This category is probably #1 on my list of categories that should have been deleted a long time ago, but somehow have survived repeated no consensus discussions. It's not defining for the vast majority of recipients—perhaps it might be only for The Colonel himself, and even in that case I'm not sure. The only reason this hasn't been treated like most other categories for minorish awards given by a sub-national level of government is that it comes with a title that makes it sound more important, prestigious, and life-changing than it actually is. Either that, or overwhelming support from proud Kentuckians. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:36, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to List of honorary Kentucky colonels or List of honorary colonels of Kentucky -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify to List of Kentucky colonels. While I think my 2009 CfD reasoning remains mostly sound, I have since realized how common this award is, even while remaining a high honor in the state. It deserves a list, but categorization isn't necessary. But since the list could be extraordinarily long, it should be confined to entries with articles or citations to reliable sources. I will also expect to see a "See also" link to this list from the articles that mention that the person is a colonel. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 11:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Stevietheman: I created a list section in the main article and redirected your proposed list article there. There weren't too many of the articles with valid citations though so this is more of a nucleus for a future article. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. It's kind of surprising we wouldn't have a significantly longer list. Perhaps with a little research... Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 10:33, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete non-defining award category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Listify and Delete per normal outcome in WP:OC#AWARD cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:07, 26 March 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.