Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 August 23

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) 04:58, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Late Late Show (U.S. TV series) hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT Rob Sinden (talk) 15:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Object -- Appearing on the show (as a guest) would fail PERFCAT, but being a main host for a show is probably close tom being a man's fulltime job. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PERFCAT. The defining feature is being American television talk show hosts, where they are already categorized. kennethaw88 • talk 02:39, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. The only other television talk show in existence (not just in the US but in any other country either) that has a dedicated eponymous category for its hosts is The View — and that's not going to last long, as its CFD discussion just closed delete too. kennethaw88 is correct; the defining feature is the general state of being an Category:American television talk show hosts, while it is indeed WP:PERFCAT to subcategorize them further by which individual show they happened to be hosts of. Bearcat (talk) 01:17, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per Bearcat. Not much different than not categorising leads of shows. - jc37 15:46, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom & Bearcat; WP:PERFCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Objection withdrawn Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]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.

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) 03:41, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Applied sociology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. Only Gerontology makes a reference to Sociology (not to Applied sociology though). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. A legitimate subfield of sociology. DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• That is not the issue here. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The claims that these are applied sociology is not supported by our coverage of the actual topics so categorized.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:05, 11 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.

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) 03:40, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Community action (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: In the category header, "community action" is presented as an area of Applied sociology but it isn't mentioned as such in the article Public sociology#Applied sociology and neither of the two articles in this category make a reference to Sociology. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Too small a category to be justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 11 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.

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) 05:01, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Sparkman, Arkansas into Category:People from Dallas County, Arkansas

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one-county community with just three entries. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:14, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge With no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 06:46, 26 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.

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) 05:05, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Rosston, Arkansas into Category:People from Nevada County, Arkansas
• Also propose merging Category:People from Bodcaw, Arkansas into Category:People from Nevada County, Arkansas
  

Also propose merging Category:People from Willisville, Arkansas into Category:People from Nevada County, Arkansas

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories have just one or two entries. These are all one-county communities....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Both With no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 06:46, 26 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.

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: result. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:People from Mount Holly, Arkansas into Category:People from Union County, Arkansas

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small one county community with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:02, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge With no objection to recreating if we ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:52, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 06:46, 26 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.

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) 05:12, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: POV subcategory of Category:Physical attractiveness – Gilliam (talk) 05:28, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• UpMerge to Category:Physical attractiveness. The 3 members aren't "quite" POV, but this cat name just asks for miscategorisation and adding pages which would be. - jc37 15:44, 25 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.

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) 03:39, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional principals to Category:Fictional principals and headteachers

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with parent category. --Atvica (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for now. In fact this category and its parent should better be nominated for rename to head teachers only, per WP:C2D, see Head teacher. Principals at universities have their own categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support As it seems more inclusive. Dimadick (talk) 15:30, 17 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.