Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 3

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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fastening tool manufacturers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not likely to be populated. Only one article in it at present. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and populate fasteners are not going away and neither are their current or former manufacturers. A minor seach found 4 other companies. Hmains (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as the category groups by a common defining characteristic as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 04:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Underpopulated at present, but a reasonable category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:08, 9 November 2010 (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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 11. Dana boomer (talk) 13:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Battery electric vehicle components (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Some of the contents of this category do not match the title and those that do are best served by an article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• keep and cleanup. A category is a perfectly fine way of organizing this material for navigation, the purpose of categories, regardless of any article that anyone may choose to write. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Some months ago, we had an editor who created vast number of categories for "green" energy, transport, etc. Is this another of his SPAM categories? I observe that some one has removed wire from this category (and rightly). Many of the items listed here can be components of a wide range of electrical equipemnt, so why delect out those needed for battery operated vehicles? If kept, irrlevant and mundane items should be removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 7 November 2010 (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) 02:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rainy places in Africa (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: An excessively vague category. Magog the Ogre (talk) 21:14, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – excessively vague, indeed. Occuli (talk) 21:44, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an arbitrary distinction with little possibility of a clear definition. Alansohn (talk) 04:02, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Needs a parent article first. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:42, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Far too vague: how great a rainfall is needed to make a place "rainy"? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too vague to be useful. Jafeluv (talk) 01:39, 7 November 2010 (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) 02:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Children of God to Category:Family International

Nominator's rationale: We renamed the Main Article on this group to there current name several months ago, I would just move it myself as uncontroversial but its a bit out my leauge to replace it across several dozen Pages. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:22, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename, if only to avoid misconstrual as a statement of fact. ―cobaltcigs 19:56, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• REname -- It is many years since this fringe Christian group ("cult") adopted the name that is now the target. It may be useful to keep the present name as a category redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per main article. Jafeluv (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:24, 9 November 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hornblower ships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category redundant to merge of all pages to Horatio Hornblower Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – the merge should be done so that each article redirects to a few sentences about the ship, and the redirects should be categorised as they are at present (cf WP:Categorizing redirects). (I must say I disagree with the decision to merge, although there is a clear consensus to do so.) Occuli (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it's sometimes useful to make categories that only contain redirects, I don't think it would make much sense in this case if all pages are just redirects to the same article. Jafeluv (talk) 01:44, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Delete. Already sufficiently covered by the Hornblower category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, articles are to be merged. I agree with Jafeluv that categories of redirects can be useful, but not so much when they all redirect to the same article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:47, 11 November 2010 (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 (contents already merged). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Recipients of the King's Police Medal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category:Recipients of the Queen's Police Medal already covers this. Since it's the same award, but simply changes name depending on who's on the throne, it makes no sense to have separate categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, we don't have Category:King's Counsel, just Category:Queen's Counsel, for the same reason. It's also empty - I see it was used (along with the QPM category) on Arthur Young but can't immediately whether there's been anyone else in the category, even when it was originally created (creator's contribs from Sept 2010 don't immediately reveal it was in use). Bencherlite^Talk 13:43, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per C1, empty category. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:29, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Plain deletion may lose useful information, but the KC/QC rationale applies, just as for alumni categories, the aliumni of a college that merged or changed its name are treated as having attended the successor institution. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:07, 7 November 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Former Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand MPs to Category:Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand MPs

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Just like most categories for politicians, New Zealand MPs are not categorized by current/former status. Suggest upmerging. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 20:30, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not so sure about upmerging. Surely Category:Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand MPs should only be for sitting MPs to avoid reader confusion. Alternatively there should be an explanation in the category that it is for current and former MPs only. However, former MPs can be listed in the main article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:42, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, categories like this categorize all MPs for the party in question, past and present. That's what the definition says, which I changed (before you made your comment, incidentally). Such categories are never limited only to current MPs of the party, otherwise certain categories like Category:New Zealand Reform Party MPs and Category:Social Credit Party (New Zealand) MPs would not even exist, since the parties are defunct. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:16, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Categories do not usually distinguish between serving and former members of an organisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Regiments of the United States in World War I into Category:United States regiments of World War I to remove duplication of category – or vice versa. Note that US usage favours United States regiments etc, eg Category:United States divisions of World War I. Though two other countries have the reverse format Regiments of Britain/Germany in World War I; see Category:Military units and formations of World War I. Hugo999 (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• comment looking around, I can find no particular naming pattern. Maybe a pattern can be agreed upon and implemented. Hmains (talk) 02:58, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or reverse merge -- We do not need duplicates, but no view on which way. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:09, 7 November 2010 (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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Musical groups founded by married couples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Trivia, non-defining characteristic. ―cobaltcigs 07:16, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not an appropriate category, as the nom says. What next, a whole structure of ".... done / built / founded / written by married couples"? Bencherlite^Talk 09:48, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, it also may leave the door open to categories for the accomplishments of civil-unioned people, etc. ―cobaltcigs 19:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivial intersection. Can't see how there would be a significant difference from those founded by unmarried couples, for example. Jafeluv (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as trivial–as Jafeluv says, how is this any different than groups founded by non-married couples? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:19, 9 November 2010 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:School districts in Virginia to Category:School divisions in Virginia

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The legal term for these entities, as found in § 22.1-25 of the Code of Virginia, is "school division". While they function almost exactly as do "school districts" in other states, they differ in one key respect—no school division has independent taxing authority. They are instead divisions of their associated local government(s), whether a city, town, or county. They can still be categorized under "school districts in the United States" for convenience, but I believe the legal terminology should be used. — Dale Arnett (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• rename This seems reasonable, but articles within this category need to be corrected to show 'division', not 'district'. Currently, they are all mixed up. Hmains (talk) 03:01, 5 November 2010 (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.