Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 March 30

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:Gliese 581 planetary system to Category:Gliese 581 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Gliese 581 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The category only contains one article. MartinZ (talk) 19:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That's because someone decided to remove Gliese 581/Gliese 581b/Gliese 581c/Gliese 581d/Gliese 581e/Gliese 581f/Gliese 581g from it. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Or moved them to Category:Gliese_581_planetary_system? Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:39, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a category move would have been more appropriate. Regardless of the outcome, someone may want to edit Template:Gliese 581 to add the new category and perhaps rename the template after appropriate discussion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a move would have been more appropriate, but that's to late now—deletion (or perhaps redirection) is the only solution now. —MartinZ (talk) 20:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No. The category trees are now messed up. The new category should be deleted, not the old one. The new category is missing all the category trees. And it is missing the star, since the star is the central element of the planetary system, the new category was obviously not thought out properly. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:27, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The category trees are not messed up—it’s not missing the star, since the category of the star is a subcategory of the new category—and what does this sentence mean: “The new category is missing all the category trees.”?

• Keep and undo the out of process emptying. Delete the new category as it is a new category duplicating the content of an existing one. No reason for excessively long category names. -- 70.51.200.162 (talk) 09:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Category:Gliese 581 planetary system back to this category. The central star is appropriate as a name for the whole planetary system. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:42, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge - at the risk of putting words into the OP's mouth, the article Gliese 581 and the new Gliese 581 planetary system have been organised on the basis that Gliese 581 planetary system is the "parent" and both the star Gliese 581 and individual planets are subsidiary to it. Hence the similar organisation of the categories. Personally I don't like it. I think it is inconsistent with other similar cases where the star is considered the "parent". The reorganisation of the categories for Gliese 581 seems to have created some technical problems that I don't entirely follow. It seems that going back to the older hierarchy would solve a lot of problems and keep things cleaner. Lithopsian (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  @Lithopsian: What kind of “technical problems” are you talking about? —MartinZ (talk) 15:33, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomy#Unilateral_changes_for_this_project. Lithopsian (talk) 16:54, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@MartinZ: They haven't said anything about any “technical problems.” —MartinZ (talk) 20:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, put the planet articles back into this category, and Delete the new article. I agree everyone else; I think having the parent star's name as the category title is appropriate. Loooke (talk) 23:43, 4 April 2017 (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 to Category:Sports in Colorado. No need to merge to the other parent category, the one article is already in Category:Cricket leagues in the United States. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cricket in Colorado (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article and the scheme for cricket by state is empty otherwise. Article can be merged to any relevant categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Category:Cricket in United States. The "by state" cat-level is redundant, as there is not enough content to merit the split. The creator probably hoped that various clubs would be added, but I guiess they are all amateur and probably NN. Certainly all are either red-links (and should be delinked as NN) or external links. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 2 April 2017 (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 to Category:Sports in Minnesota (non-admin closure). @Koavf: Please mention merge targets explicitly in your nominations. It shouldn't be up to the closer to decide on the merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Bandy in Minnesota (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Only one article and the scheme for bandy by state is empty otherwise. Article can be merged to any relevant categories. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:38, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:Bandy clubs in the United States only has three articles, so that a by state split is not justified. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 2 April 2017 (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. ((non-admin closure)) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Recipients of the Military Merit Order (Bavaria), 4th class (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non defining category, as none of the people included are notable for having received this award. Created by Special:Contributions/Folks_at_137 who created many such categories. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:44, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Another NN military award: too low to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:51, 2 April 2017 (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. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:19, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Knights 2nd class of the Albert Order (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non defining category as none of the recipients are notable for having received this decoration (see WP:CATDEF). K.e.coffman (talk) 18:36, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Another NN award. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:50, 2 April 2017 (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) 16:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Brazilian people of Native Brazilian descent to Category:Brazilian people of indigenous peoples descent

Nominator's rationale: The difference between the two categories is entirely negligible, in fact many articles are included in both categories. However on the latter category is standard across the board while I've never seen any category titled like the former. Lastly the former category is also confusing. While both categories refer to people who are of indigenous descent, technically anyone born in Brazil could call themselves a "Native Brazilian". Yes we do have Category:American people of Native American descent (a category which I think sounds pretty ironic), but the difference here is that Native American is the most widely used term for the original people of the United States, while Indigenous is more widely used in Brazil. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would not be opposed if the former category was kept as a redirect to the latter. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:14, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support (but possibly leaving a cat-redirect). I doubt anyone called it Brazil until the Portuguese did so. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question: should the name be perhaps: Category:Brazilian people of indigenous descent ("people/peoples" looks awkward...) K.e.coffman (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• K.e.coffman I think the logic with the name of Category:Brazilian people of indigenous peoples descent is that since there is a great diversity of native peoples and tribes in Brazil hence the name, although I personally would not be opposed in moving or renaming that category Category:Brazilian people of indigenous descent. Ultimately that is another discussion though. Inter&anthro (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2017 (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) 16:21, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dallas Tennis Classic to Category:Irving Tennis Classic

Nominator's rationale: Tournament changed names. Even the tournament on the Dallas Tennis Classic redirects to Irving. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I agree. Adamtt9 (talk) 15:09, 13 April 2017 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Telengana articles missing geocoordinate data (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category name appears to be a misspelling of Telangana. Corresponding category with proper spelling already exists. Kevinsam2 (talk) 17:01, 30 March 2017 (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: relisted at CFD 2017-04-22. (non-admin closure) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Featured sounds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedia former featured sounds (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: The featured sounds process stopped in November 2011 and after that point it became impossible to add or remove featured sound status to an audio or video recording. There's no continued point in having a category for "current" or former status. The categories are added through {{Featured sound}} or {{Former featured sound}} which will remain on the file description pages, so "what links here" will work if anyone wants to find out what used to be a featured sound or a former featured sound (or the page history of Portal:Featured sounds). Bencherlite^Talk 13:33, 30 March 2017 (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: speedy deleted. The only contents were four subcategories which were all miscapitalized duplicates of existing categories, and have been speedied accordingly — which then left this category empty. Bearcat (talk) 16:22, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Brahmin Chief ministers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category is not relevant. A government official cannot be categorize by caste Arjunkmohan (talk) 07:55, 30 March 2017 (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: speedy redirected. Situations like this, where the correctly named category already exists, do not need to come to CFD for seven days of discussion, but can be handled through the speedy process. Bearcat (talk) 16:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chief ministers of Andhra Pradesh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category already exists Arjunkmohan (talk) 07:52, 30 March 2017 (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: speedy redirected. Situations like this, where the correctly named category already exists, do not need to come to CFD for seven days of discussion, but can be handled through the speedy process. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chief ministers of West Bengal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category already exist Arjunkmohan (talk) 07:51, 30 March 2017 (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: speedy redirected. Situations like this, where the correctly named category already exists, do not need to come to CFD for seven days of discussion, but can be handled through the speedy process. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chief ministers of Maharashtra (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category is alrady exist Arjunkmohan (talk) 07:50, 30 March 2017 (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: speedy redirected. Situations like this, where the correctly named category already exists, do not need to come to CFD for seven days of discussion, but can be handled through the speedy process. Bearcat (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Chief ministers of Karnataka (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category already exists category:chief Ministers of Karnataka Arjunkmohan (talk) 07:49, 30 March 2017 (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) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 12:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Ruthenian monarchs to Category:European kings and Category:Ruthenian people

Nominator's rationale: merge as it only contains a single child Category:Kings of Rus' and nothing else. Not really sure if it should also be merged to Category:Russian rulers, Category:Ukrainian rulers and Category:Belarusian rulers, the cultural center of this one kingdom was in the border region of current Ukraine and Poland. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- There is no room for getting any siblings to this. Merging to modern successor states is also inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2017 (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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pornographic films featuring Traci Lords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT: Specific performances by performer. Trivialist (talk) 01:24, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Precious bodily fluids} 06:45, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We do not categorize films by who appears in them, which would lead to extreme category bloat. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2017 (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.