Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 August 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

August 14

[edit]

Years in the Republic of Upper Volta

[edit]
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. While this nomination may have been the result of my suggestion at the end of one of the failed discussions below, I did not take sides. In the discussion here, I think there is a clear consensus for this result, especially when considering the comments in the previous discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 21 August 2013 (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:Women's football leagues in Norway

[edit]
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. The discussion raises bigger questions about the related categories. So maybe a border nomination to address border issues would be the best way forward. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:59, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are two notable football leagues for women in Norway, Toppserien and Norwegian First Division (women). That means that this category will most probably won't be any bigger, so I propose we merge it with the parent Category:Women's football competitions in Norway per WP:SMALLCAT. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Mentoz86 (talk) 15:07, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you wish to proceed further, I suggest you resubmit the proposal covering all the categories that you propose to upmerge or delete, so that creators of other sub categories apart from the ones I invited can join the discussion. Hugo999 (talk) 00:39, 21 August 2013 (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:1920 Iraqi Revolt

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:53, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Iraqi revolt against the British. The requested move to rename the article was unsuccessful. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:08, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename. Given that the rename attempt failed for the article, I can't see that there's any good reason to not have the category name match the article name at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:46, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I still think the current article title and proposed category names are too long, and that an RM this time to match the current category title – as suggested at the last one – would be preferable. However, I have no great objection to a move for now, provided that the current categories should be redirected rather than deleted. – Fayenatic London 22:35, 15 August 2013 (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:Puerto Rican ingredients

[edit]
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) 00:37, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I've checked several articles in this category (e.g. Banana and Cabbage) and they don't even mention Puerto Rico so it isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic (in these cases at least). For info: The category does not explain what it's inclusion criteria are (e.g. is it intended for foodstuffs used as ingrediants in Puerto Rico?) and is not part of a wider category tree for ingrediants. DexDor (talk) 05:47, 14 August 2013 (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:Nominated for NASA Exceptional Technology Achievement Medal

[edit]
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) 00:36, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize people by what awards they have received (see WP:OC#AWARD) so we shouldn't categorize by awards that people have been nominated for - it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 05:28, 14 August 2013 (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:BAI Basket

[edit]
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) 00:35, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT - The only article currently in the category is the eponymous article which is also in the parent categories. DexDor (talk) 05:12, 14 August 2013 (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:Gadgets

[edit]
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) 00:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category currently contains 2 articles like User:Beetstra/MediaWiki:Gadget-SBHandler.js, but the category name suggests that it's for articles about (real life) gadgets. If not deleted this should be renamed to something like "Wikipedia user gadgets". DexDor (talk) 05:05, 14 August 2013 (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:Current European Parliament party groups

[edit]
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We normally avoid categorizing things by whether they are current as that is (by definition) a non-permanent characteristic (example of a previous CFD). Note: This category was part of a previous CFD discussion. DexDor (talk) 04:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In principle, I support this, but the groups are made up of parties from different countries. These change periodically, so that it may possibly be useful to have a category for obsolete party groups. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We do: see Category:Former European Parliament party groups. Neutralitytalk 00:57, 15 August 2013 (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:49-Mile Scenic Drive

[edit]
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) 00:33, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For most (probably all except the eponymous article) of the articles currently in this category (e.g. Alcatraz Island) the scenic drive is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Alcatraz may be important to the scenic drive, but the reverse probably does not apply (the article about the island does not mention the drive). For info: A similar category (possibly created by the same editor) was deleted by a previous CFD. DexDor (talk) 04:33, 14 August 2013 (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:British architecture by period

[edit]
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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 12. Dana boomer (talk) 22:21, 12 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 9 of 26 entries are actually periods, of which some are defined or named after a style, like "Gothic", and some by monarchs etc, like "Elizabethan". The rest are styles that overlapped within their period with other styles, mostly from the 19th & 20th centuries. I see no point in splitting the two types of category; better to rename it correctly. On a quick look most other national subcats of Category:Architecture by period are the same, but in none is the problem so acute. This might be viewed as a test-case for the lot, which I would support changing. Johnbod (talk) 02:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - On the whole this proposal seems to make pretty good sense. I'm just wondering whether it's entirely necessary to include the word "period" in the name of the category, since in this context it is construed as equivalent to "style" in any event. Which is to say, it might suffice to simply rename to Category:British architecture by style. Just throwin' that out for consideration. :) Cgingold (talk) 11:11, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Why? This is in fact impractical and undesirable. 7/26 of these categories are already "neo-" or "revival" ones, rightly so. Johnbod (talk) 18:02, 21 August 2013 (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.