Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 17

< February 16 February 18 >

February 17

Category:Wikipedians who are disabled

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who are disabled per WP:USERCAT#BROAD. See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/Topical_index#Wikipedians_by_medical_condition. - jc37 22:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as nom. - jc37 22:58, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 10:28, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The grouping reflects no particular ability, expertise or interest that would support collaborative editing and for which someone might need to browse the category. In addition, disability could be related to any one or combination of hundreds of distinct physiological and psychological conditions, meaning that this category fails to provide any specific information about a user. In other words, per the nom's reasoning of WP:USERCAT#BROAD. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. I've obviously been busy since I still haven't bothered to nominate this myself after that discussion :). VegaDark (talk) 09:07, 21 February 2012 (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:Prototype and development unmanned aerial vehicles of the United States

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. Mddkpp, please refrain from personal attacks on another editor.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Prototype and development unmanned aerial vehicles of the United States to Category:Unmanned aerial vehicles of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Recently created category that, while created in good faith, is downright confusing. At a glance the title appears to be of the "future"/"upcoming" type of title that is strongly discouraged these days, but upon investigation the fact that it includes all UAVs developed by the U.S. that didn't make it into production - or that were strictly experimental types - is apparent. This seems to me to be overcategorization and the category should be merged back to its parent by-country cat. The Bushranger One ping only 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's essentially what you say - UAV's that didn't make it into full production - ie UAVS that didn't make it past the experimental stage, or were only intended as prototypes. I can't see how this is "overcategorisation" or confusing - what is confusing is what existed before - which was one huge category containing every uav that ever existed including ones that where never even built. Perhaps a category for UAVS that did make it to series production should be made for clarity, or used instead. Or maybe the category could be renamed to better match the contents. Or perhaps a distinction should be made between those that were intended as "experiments" and those that never made it past the "prototype production stage". Oppose merge - would prefer suggestions for improvement not steps back to were it was before.Mddkpp (talk) 22:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also can someone else give Bushranger somefeedback on categorisation - they said in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#UAV_Cats that a category Category:Boeing helicopters might be over categorisation. ie "Helicopters by manufacturer" - as far as I am concerned this is a bat-shit-insane idea and it is no where near overcategorisation - I've no idea were this idea has come from. I think the "WikiProject_Aircraft" may have developed the wrong idea on what is acceptable categorisation - the cats are there to help find things after all... Thanks.
also note - obvious scope for growth, and already a populated category.Mddkpp (talk) 23:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Prototype aircraft shouldn't be categorised seperatly. Prototypes go in with the "normal" types; experimental types in the existing experimental aircraft categories. Lumping prototypes, cancelled projects, and experimental types all together seperatly causes nothing but confusion. (also, please mind WP:NPA.) - The Bushranger One ping only 01:00, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
also can you double check you understand categorisation - you immediately added Boeing X-50 Dragonfly and Boeing A160 Hummingbird to their parent category. It's not clear - I don't think these are any special case.Mddkpp (talk) 10:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand categorization quite clearly, and the inference that I do not is not appreciated. As Boeing aircraft, they should be in that category as well. The others should as well, but I decided to wait until further discussion took place before proposing the uavs-by-manufacturer categories for merging. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:03, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You clearly don't understand categorisation - there's no reason why pages should be in parent and child categories unless they are in the special case Wikipedia:Categorization#Non-diffusing_subcategoriesMddkpp (talk) 20:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are exceptions to the "no reason" you mention. But as those categories are likely to be remerged anyway, there was no reason to continue doing so. - The Bushranger One ping only 22:57, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as over and confusing categorisation as per nom. MilborneOne (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2012 (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:UN Contingents in Korea

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UN Contingents in Korea to Category:United Nations contingents in Korea
Nominator's rationale: A fairly simple un-abbreviation and capitalization, but I nevertheless thought this might be worth putting up for discussion in case anyone else had suggestions. Hemlock Martinis (talk) 21:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agree United Nations not UN should be the category title. But shouldn’t the content be national subcategories of Category:Military units and formations of the Korean War eg Category:Military units and formations of the United Kingdom in the Korean War which would include all the 30+ British units not just the one at present in the “UN” category? Effectively all countries except China & North Korea. Hugo999 (talk) 09:31, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I don't have a fantastic alternative name to propose. But the small change suggested is a step in the right direction. Pichpich (talk) 21:13, 23 February 2012 (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:Wikipedians by media interest

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: Nomination withdrawns. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Wikipedians by media interest to Category:Wikipedians by interest in visual arts.

We need to do "something" about the ambiguity of media being the plural of medium, and also being synonymous with mass media. We've been sidestepping this of late by using the word "works", but that doesn't really work in this case. And really, it's still too vague. I think Visual arts is a step in the right direction, but open to anything that's more clear. If we can figure this out, maybe we can tackle the rest of the media trees. - jc37 21:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename - as nom. - jc37 21:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I must have misunderstood you: are you suggesting we categorize subcat Category:Wikipedians interested in music‎ in Category:Wikipedians by interest in visual arts? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    rofl - nice catch. I'm looking for a better name than "media". If you have one, I'm all ears. Otherwise we can go with Visual arts, and recat (upmerge?) the music one... - jc37 18:49, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure User:johnbod would have a take on this, but I'm pretty sure he'd support Category:Wikipedians interested in the arts, retaining the nominated category in some form for "media" like newspapers.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Shawn in Montreal. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 16:40, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really sure - several are not usually in visual arts - games, literature, music, newspapers, comics. Actually nearly all of them. Film & tv are not always classified as visual arts - more performing arts. Most of these are "mass media" in fact, & the cat is not large as it is, & a further split seems pointless. "The arts" is better, but something retaining "media" might be best: Category:Wikipedians interested in media by type. Or leave as it is. Johnbod (talk) 01:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:Wikipedians interested in media by type - so when looking at the mainspace "media" categories, do you think it would be fair to say that we just replace all instances of "media" (used in this way as container cats) to "media by type"?
    And if not visual arts, how about fine arts? - jc37 18:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do these categories really serve any meaningful collaborative purpose? It seems to me that Category:Wikipedians interested in music‎ groups editors by such a common attribute that it is almost trivial, while its subcats under Category:Wikipedians by music genre‎ is little better: it groups editors by the "favorite music genres", not by whether they are interested in developing that areas of the encyclopedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that these could probably fall under WP:USERCAT#BROAD... - jc37 18:36, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note for the closer - My goal here, as noted, was a discussion of the topic. Based upon the discussion, I think I'll start a new nomination. Please feel free to close. - jc37 00:55, 26 February 2012 (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.

Fictional Swordsmen/Sword fighters

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional sword fighters
Category:Fictional Japanese swordsmen
See also my comments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_30#Category:Fictional_swordsmen.

Setting aside the constant back n forth about whether they should be swordsmen or sword fighters (see also Category:Swordsmen), these are just catchall categories for anyone who has used a sword in fiction. It's worth noting that Category:Fictional pirates and Category:Shinigami in Bleach‎ are subcats. And any number of other groups of characters could be as well, including various martial arts types (ninjas and samurai come immediately to mind). Not to mention entire genres of things like heroic fantasy and sword and sorcery. Just too broad to be useful for navigation. - jc37 20:59, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as nom. Listify if really wanted, I suppose. - jc37 20:59, 17 February 2012 (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:Comic book alternative futures

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 and delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comic book alternative futures - The category is simply vague. It could include any story in comics set in the future, as well as any dealing with Alternate history. At least as a list the situation for each could be more clearly explained. At the very least it needs renaming from using "comic book" per WP:NCC - jc37 20:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete - as nom. If the consensus is to rename, then I suggest: Category:Alternative futures in comics. - jc37 20:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete This is not a sufficiently well-defined category. Even currently, it's clear that many don't even involve an alternative future but simply the future. Pichpich (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2012 (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:2011 Syrian uprising

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 to Category:2011–2012 Syrian uprising. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:2011 Syrian uprising to Category:2011–2012 Syrian uprising
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the main article name. Cattus talk 19:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not simply Category:Syrian uprising? They don't happen that often. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There have been a few: see Syrian uprising. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better still Category:Syrian uprising from 2011. If it ends in 2012, we can change the name then. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match 2011–2012 Syrian uprising. There may be good reasons to use another name but that should be decided first for the article at its talk page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match 2011–2012 Syrian uprising although it will have to be renamed if it carries on until 2013 (lets hope that will not be the case for the sake of the Syrians). -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:42, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match lead article, unless the article name is really egregious, which it's not in this case. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2012 (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.

Albums produced by

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 matching article titles. The Norman Smith case is speediable and I'll process it now. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:24, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: A producer is a musician, so we don't need the "(musician)" at the end. ♫GoP♫TCN 16:14, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (Creator) I'm always in favor of categories matching the names of articles. For what it's worth, all of these nominations could (should?) be combined, as their rationales will be the same. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have just merged the 4 nominations, since the categories are similar and the rationales are identical. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename per Justin. The name in the category should match the name of the articles about the person; in this case they match, but the Norman Smith one should be Category:Albums produced by Norman Smith (record producer) since the article is at Norman Smith (record producer). Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:18, 20 February 2012 (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:Canadian sportspeople of British Isles descent

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. Deletion of the higher levels of the tree could be considered in a separate nomination. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Canadian sportspeople of British Isles descent to Category:Canadian sportspeople of European descent
Nominator's rationale: Pointless container category for one sub-cat Category:Canadian sportspeople of British descent. A long list of similar categories were deleted at CfD 2012 February 10, and this one appears to have been missed out from that group nomination.
Note that upmerger is required, because deletion would remove the subcategory from Category:Canadian sportspeople by ethnic or national origin. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:31, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom and cfd of 2012 February 10. Oculi (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- This is a pointless level of categorisation. "British Isles has not been a country since Irish independence 90 years ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:44, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, it wasn't a country even then, because the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man are part of the so-called "British" Isles, but have never been part of the UK. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete irrelevant characteristic. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Obvious follow-up to the nomination which I started. Really, I don't see much point to Category:Canadian sportspeople of European descent, either, but that's another story. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. 67.239.100.244 (talk) 17:18, 22 February 2012 (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:Cinema of the Ottoman Empire

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:25, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cinema of the Ottoman Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, or if you will, as a virtually empty category, at this time. The subcat for Ottoman film actors does contain a single bio article for Peruz, an Armenian who is described as an Ottoman actress, and did some film work. I suppose a model for this is Category:Cinema of the Soviet Union, another former entity that does merit its own cinema category tree, obviously. I've tried to find articles that could justify this category but they don't seem to exist, at this time. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just fyi: I also see that that User:Takabeg has been adding "Ottoman" to a number of bio articles on Turkish Armenian arts people to create and sparsely populate a Category:Arts in the Ottoman Empire tree. Though he has since been blocked for edit warring on Turkish/Armenian/Kurdish ethnic issues, the Ottoman bio edits seem to have been done without opposition, and I don't suggest there's anything wrong with it. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:24, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Category is just to small to bother about. Uhlan talk 03:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exception, as the category is part of a well-established category tree, Category:Cinema by country. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:19, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Bushranger is right that SMALLCAT explicitly exempts categories that are part of a wider scheme. The problem is that I believe this category should be empty. There's really one entry currently in the category: Peruz. Listing her as a film actress is a bit of a stretch. Listing her as an Ottoman film actress is a big stretch and I have yet to find a source describing her as such. Directors like Fuat Uzkınay or Muhsin Ertuğrul are typically considered as part of the history of Turkish cinema even though their careers technically began under the Ottoman Empire. Pichpich (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2012 (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:Post-normal scientists

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:37, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Post-normal scientists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not likely to be populated. Currently contains one entry and two user sandboxes. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:46, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator's concerns regarding WP:SMALLCAT, and becuase of the lack of neutral and objective inclusion criteria. Post-normal science is an important concept, but its concepts may be adopted in whole or in part, making it impossible to find inclusion criteria which are not WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:19, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only entry isn't even a member of the category, he's someone who writes about the category. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:22, 17 February 2012 (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:12 Lords Rebellion

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:12 Lords Rebellion (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only 12 Lords Rebellion and a template. The equivalent category on Vietnamese Wikipedia has several articles but they haven't been translated into English, so this category does have potential for recreation should that happen. Tim! (talk) 07:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, without prejudice to re-creation when there are more articles to populate the category. (Categories exist to navigate between articles, but a category containing only one article does not assist navigation. Even if the category relates to a major topic, it will be pointless unless and until the category serves a navigational function by grouping multiple articles). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:49, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and revisit down the road if more articles are created. Pichpich (talk) 21:37, 23 February 2012 (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:Wikipedia policy lists templates

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia policy lists templates to Category:Wikipedia policy list templates
Nominator's rationale: There is no need for double pluralisation. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 03:51, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to correct grammar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remember to clean up incoming links after this move and all others, please. Fences&Windows 00:48, 23 February 2012 (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:Inline hockey rules

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Inline hockey rules to Category:Inline hockey & Category:Sports rules and regulations by sport
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains one article and I don't the possibility of further articles to fill this category. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 03:08, 17 February 2012 (UTC)}}[reply]
Concur. --THE FOUNDERS INTENT PRAISE 02:00, 20 February 2012 (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:Glossaries on science

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Glossaries on science to Category:Glossaries of science
Nominator's rationale: Every article in the category uses the "Glossary of FOO" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:24, 17 February 2012 (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:Glossaries on religion

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Glossaries on religion to Category:Glossaries of religion
Nominator's rationale: Every article in the category uses the "Glossary of FOO" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:24, 17 February 2012 (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:Glossaries on the military

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Glossaries on the military to Category:Glossaries of the military
Nominator's rationale: Every article in the category uses the "Glossary of FOO" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:23, 17 February 2012 (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:Glossaries on sports

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:22, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Glossaries on sports to Category:Glossaries of sports
Nominator's rationale: Every article in the category uses the "Glossary of FOO" format. Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 02:21, 17 February 2012 (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:Abattoirs in India

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 either to delete or rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Abattoirs in India (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT and it is not part of a series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:27, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What is the minimum number of articles needed for a category. Can you share the reasons of your conclusion it is "Small category with no potential for growth".ThanksShyamsunder (talk) 19:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per WP:SMALLCAT it would be "a few members". the category current has two entries. That is small. With respect to "Small category with no potential for growth", given that countries such as the US and the UK (which have high numbers of WP articles) don't have categories for abattoirs I doubt that India will get many abattoirs articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess India, a country of over a billion people, would have many large abattoirs. The google search find many mentions, for example [1]. Before we create any category for India do we have to see/wait for similar UK and USA categories. Thanks. Shyamsunder (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. We wait until there is sufficient articles to justify a category. Category creation is related in part to what already exists (regardless of country) and the number of related articles (regardless of country). If there were hundreds of articles about abattoirs in India then a category is justified even if equivalent categories for other countries did not exist. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. WP:SMALLCAT under which you have nominated this category for deletion in fact supports small categories provided there is potential for growth.Can you please direct me to a policy that support your fresh assertion that hundreds of articles are needed for creation of category.Thanks Shyamsunder (talk) 18:08, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not say that hundreds of articles were needed before a category is created. I was merely trying to explain the matter and used as arbitary figure as an example. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying . Then it comes down to "category has no potential for growth', why do see that category has no growth potential or in other words why you think that India has no more than two abattoirs.Shyamsunder (talk) 20:07, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not imply, or even think that "that India has no more than two abattoirs". -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 06:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So you do see potential for growth afterall. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:52, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The articles are not otherwise well categorized. If deleted, it seems like we would need to merge the contents somewhere else—to something to do with the meat industry, perhaps. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have chanced across some meat processing by country categories. Am loathe to create Meat processing in India at this stage because of SMALLCAT. In the interim they can be put in the Agricultrue in India subcat? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Something like that. I didn't mean a new category is needed, I just meant if it's deleted we should put the articles in some other more general pre-existing category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:15, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname to Category:Meat processing in India. There are two or threee sibling categories for other countries. I do not think it would be desirable to upmerge to the (worldwise) Category:Meat industry, which is the only obvious altrernative. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We need a good category for these articles and I don't see how we'll get anything more meaningful than Category:Abattoirs in India. Clearly these are the defining characteristic. The only quibble I can see is the intersection of the nature of the place and the country. In which case I'd be ok with an upmerge to Category:Abattoirs or Category:Slaughterhouses (where we can add Mulaut Abattoir and Sheung Shui Slaughterhouse) and some appropriate India-specific category as GO'f suggests. Pichpich (talk) 21:57, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pichpich. The nominator has not given any convincing reason for deletion. Shyamsunder (talk) 19:35, 26 February 2012 (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:Maidans

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Maidans to Category:Maidans in India
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These exist outside of India as well, but this category has always been only for the ones in India. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:05, 17 February 2012 (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:Kosal

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Kosal to Category:Kosala
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These appear to me to be categorizing the same subject. Kosal is a disambiguation page. Kosala is about the region in Orissa. Category:Kosal states that it's about the region in Orissa. The subcategories will need to be renamed too if the rename of this category proceeds. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 17 February 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_February_17&oldid=1138396301"