Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 10

< May 9 May 11 >

May 10

Category:Articles about multiple people

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 for now, please renominate if a concrete renaming proposition emerges. MER-C 09:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Articles about multiple people (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining. If it was properly populated it would contain hundreds of sub-categories - sports teams, families, gangs, lists of people etc. Rathfelder (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Objection in search of a problem. – Fayenatic London 06:54, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I can't see how multiple people would not be defining for duos, trios, quartets etc. By the way, I would not object to renaming the category simply to Category:Multiple people. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The category serves a valid purpose by grouping together all of those subcategories. It's not the most elegant name, so I'm open to renaming it if a better name can be found. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to see it renamed Category:Multiple people. That's less all-embracing. Rathfelder (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Dropping the word "Articles" is not helpful, imo. When I said it wasn't "elegant" I was referring to the term "Multiple people", which is rather puzzling, until you look at the contents. Perhaps something along the lines of Category:Specified groups of people, or something to that effect? Anomalous+0 (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably Category:Specified groups of people is equally puzzling and editors need to have a look at the contents anyway. But don't count this as an oppose, because it is at least better than "Articles about". Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or rename, clarify and purge) but possibly, after discussion, create a more precisely defined (and more appropriately named) category instead. Looking at the mix of articles in the category it's clear that there are thousands more articles that would fit (e.g. NASA Astronaut Group 2, The Beatles, Category:Brothers). In fact, many (perhaps most) wp articles mention multiple people - for example an article about a crime such as murder is likely to mention the victim and the perpetrator (with some biographical details of each) - do all such articles belong in this category?
The category may be intended to be for articles that discuss multiple people each of whom may be notable in their own right, but who "for convenience" are covered in a single article. If so, I don't see how that's useful to readers (or editors). It also doesn't conform to normal categorization practices - for example, the Natascha Kampusch article is in this category presumably because it contains biographical details of her kidnapper, if those details (e.g. DoB) were removed from the NK article (either by splitting to an article specifically about the kidnapper or because they are considered excessive detail) then the NK article would no longer belong in the category even though the topic hasn't changed. DexDor (talk) 17:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The main reason for keeping the category is that the subcategories are a more or less coherent collection. Containerizing the category could be an option. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but it should be containerised as far as possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Container category for articles covering more than one topic, and could be split at some point. I have been using it for years. Dimadick (talk) 16:01, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Containerizing would certainly help. But I think the name needs to be clearer if it is not to attract inappropriate stuff. I've added a few more subcategories by number. I'm inclined to think that strategy might help. Articles about a specific number of people seem to fit better than articles about families and amorphous groups. But I'm not sure what I'm going to do about The missing 54. Rathfelder (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just reverted an category entry to "Nonets", a very strange category with only a few articles. --Janke | Talk 07:38, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to keep the category if its renamed and restructured. Rathfelder (talk) 08:16, 13 May 2019 (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:Buildings and structures in Carora

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 21#Category:Buildings and structures in Carora

Category:Buildings and structures in Calabozo

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 21#Category:Buildings and structures in Calabozo

Category:Screenplays by writer

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 16#Category:Screenplays by writer

Category:LFP template with deprecated parameters

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. MER-C 10:26, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:LFP template with deprecated parameters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category code removed from Template:LFP at this revision making this category unused and obsolete. Gonnym (talk) 13:46, 10 May 2019 (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.

Presidential candidates

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 the ALT2 proposal. Timrollpickering (Talk) 08:19, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Sri Lankan presidential candidates, 1982 to Category:1982 Sri Lankan presidential candidates
  • Propose renaming Category:Sri Lankan presidential candidates, 1994 to Category:1994 Sri Lankan presidential candidates
  • Propose renaming Category:Sri Lankan 2010 presidential candidates to Category:2010 Sri Lankan presidential candidates
  • Propose renaming Category:Sri Lankan 2015 presidential candidates to Category:2015 Sri Lankan presidential candidates
  • Propose renaming Category:Candidates for President of Croatia, 1992 to Category:1992 Croatian presidential candidates
  • Propose renaming Category:Candidates for President of Belarus, 2010 to Category:2010 Belarusian presidential candidates
  • Propose renaming Category:Candidates for President of Egypt, 2005 to Category:2005 Egyptian presidential candidates
  • Propose renaming Category:Candidates for President of Indonesia, 2009 to Category:2009 Indonesian presidential candidates
  • Propose renaming Category:Polish presidential candidates, 2010 to Category:2010 Polish presidential candidates
  • Propose renaming Category:Polish presidential candidates, 2015 to Category:2015 Polish presidential candidates
  • Propose renaming Category:Candidates in the 1979 Nigerian presidential election to Category:1979 Nigerian presidential candidates
Several more similar categories
Nominator's rationale: Rename to be consistent and concise. Category:Presidential candidates contains a few countries that have sub-categories by year; IMHO, the sub-cats of Category:United States presidential candidates by year have the best naming format, which I have copied here. – Fayenatic London 11:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose ALT2 I think that the format "Candidates in the YYYY Fooian election" is clearer and more precise, not least because it keeps the title of the election article intact, and just prefixes the election title with "Candidates in the".
So the model to follow is the existing Category:Candidates in the 2018 Czech presidential election, Category:Candidates in the 1979 Nigerian presidential election, etc. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here is ALT2
ALT2: rename to "Candidates in the YYYY Fooian election"
  • Agree that a rename is needed. BHG's suggestion also avoids the slight ambiguity of 'Iranian presidential candidates'. Oculi (talk) 14:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT2 suggested names. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ALT2 suggested names, which also aligns with articles like Candidates in the 2018 Russian presidential election. Number 57 21:37, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • For presidential candidates, the ALT-2 rename is to 7 words instead of 4. I have now created a hierarchy for Category:Vice-presidential candidates. I see that the long-form name for some of its contents was initiated by BrownHairedGirl in Dec 2018, renaming e.g. Philippine vice-presidential candidates, 2004 to Vice-presidential candidates in the 2004 Philippine presidential election. That change is from 4 words to 8, including repetition of "presidential". A "(vice-)presidential candidate" is always "in the presidential election", so the long wording seems cumbersome and unnecessary to me. If there really is consensus to use so many words, let the remaining concise V-P categories for US & Philippines be added to the ALT-2 nomination. – Fayenatic London 07:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly standardize, with a weak preference for the original nomination with more concise category names. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support both, also with a weak preference for the original nomination with more concise category names.   ~ Tom.Reding (talk ⋅dgaf)  00:31, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original nomination, weaker support for option ALT2. The original format is more concise, and seems to be what the majority of articles use. Place Clichy (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (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:Julio Cortázar

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. MER-C 09:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 09:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Keep, because this categories for people are very important and necessary. They significantly improve the navigation in the field of speculative fiction and play a unifying role for all topics related to these writers.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. The works are already categorised appropriately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category contains 1 subcategory and 2 articles, in my opinion this is quite enough and the reader can see them together in this category.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not enough to satisfy WP:OCEPON, which states "even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively". --woodensuperman 13:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think having nearly twenty articles and four categories is enough to have a category for the person. I think this meets the nebulous threshold established by WP:OCEPON. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:16, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EPCATPERS. DexDor (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Works subcategory appears to be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough content about the individual besides the already present works subcategory. Place Clichy (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (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:Hal Clement

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. MER-C 09:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Hal Clement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 09:52, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Keep, because this categories for people are very important and necessary. They significantly improve the navigation in the field of speculative fiction and play a unifying role for all topics related to these writers.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. The works are already categorised appropriately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not having enough articles or categories to support an eponymous category. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:15, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Works subcategory appears to be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2019 (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:Leigh Brackett

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. MER-C 09:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Leigh Brackett (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 09:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Keep, because this categories for people are very important and necessary. They significantly improve the navigation in the field of speculative fiction and play a unifying role for all topics related to these writers.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. The works are already categorised appropriately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category contains 1 subcategory and 3 articles, in my opinion this is quite enough and the reader can see them together in this category.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not enough to satisfy WP:OCEPON, which states "even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively". --woodensuperman 13:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, insufficient content to justify category. The contents are now sufficiently linked to each other for navigation. – Fayenatic London 14:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think having nearly twenty articles and three categories is enough to have a category for the person. I think this meets the nebulous threshold established by WP:OCEPON. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:14, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Works subcategory appears to be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough content about the individual besides the already present works subcategory. Place Clichy (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (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:Caitlín Kiernan

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. MER-C 09:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Caitlín Kiernan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 08:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Keep, because this categories for people are very important and necessary. They significantly improve the navigation in the field of speculative fiction and play a unifying role for all topics related to these writers.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. The works are already categorised appropriately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category contains 1 subcategory and 2 articles, in my opinion this is quite enough and the reader can see them together in this category.--Yasnodark (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not enough to satisfy WP:OCEPON, which states "even most notable people lack enough directly related articles or subcategories to populate eponymous categories effectively". --woodensuperman 13:41, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the contents are sufficiently linked to each other for navigation. – Fayenatic London 14:07, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think having twelve articles is just enough to have a category for the person. I think this meets the nebulous threshold established by WP:OCEPON. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Works subcategory appears to be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough content about the individual besides the already present works subcategory. Place Clichy (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (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:Robert Bloch

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 23#Category:Robert Bloch

Category:Philip Wylie

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Category:Philip Wylie

Category:David Zindell

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. MER-C 09:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:David Zindell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 08:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, Keep, because this categories for people are very important and necessary. They significantly improve the navigation in the field of speculative fiction and play a unifying role for all topics related to these writers.--Yasnodark (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. The works are already categorised appropriately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not having enough articles and categories to support an eponymous category. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this is indeed insufficient. Oculi (talk) 21:01, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Works subcategory appears to be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2019 (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:Lewis Mumford

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. MER-C 09:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Lewis Mumford (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 08:33, 10 May 2019 (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:Donna Haraway

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. MER-C 09:08, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Donna Haraway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 08:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCEPON. The works are already categorised appropriately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The sub-cat has a link to the main article, and the article has a template with links to the works. – Fayenatic London 13:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not having enough articles and categories to support an eponymous category. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Works subcategory appears to be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:01, 11 May 2019 (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:William Goldman

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 23#Category:William Goldman

Category:Religion in Switzerland by city

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. MER-C 09:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Religion in Switzerland by city (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete and move Category:Religion in Geneva to Category:Geneva, Category:Religion in Switzerland and Category:Religion in Europe by city. Only Geneva has a full "religion in" category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:35, 10 May 2019 (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:Mesoamerican historical documents

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. MER-C 09:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, the Mesoamerican documents are obviously historical, no need to add that in the category name. See also this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 10 May 2019 (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:African motivational speakers

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. – Fayenatic London 18:24, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate category. Very few articles about African motivational speakers. Large majority are American. Rathfelder (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - they are all already in Category:Motivational speakers by nationality. Oculi (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Good grief. Describing this as nothing more than an "intermediate category" completely misses the actual purpose of the category, because it totally ignores the other parent cat. Have a look at Category:African people by occupation and you'll see there are 32 other, sister categories for other occupations that all serve the same function as this one. Far from being a pointless waste, they in fact make it possible to navigate through a large array of occupation categories for the African continent. (And, yes, there are equivalent umbrella categories for each of the other continents.) In short, there is no good reason to single out this particular category for deletion. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:33, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Category:African people by occupation is only a container category of container categories, and I do not see any value for this in the case of motivational speakers. Place Clichy (talk) 13:09, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, there is sometimes certainly a case for categories by continent, namely when biographies can't be diffused by (modern) countries and articles have to be placed directly in the continent category. But when (like now) the continent category is just the sum of the nationality categories of that continent it does not add any value. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> You've completely ignored what I explained above. As I pointed out, there are 32 other, sister categories that all serve the same function as this one: they all facilitate navigation for readers who are looking for articles about particular occupations in different African countries. Why single out this one? Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:44, 21 May 2019 (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:Bridges named after Queen Victoria

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. – Fayenatic London 18:16, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: following the suggestion by user:Place Clichy, I confirm that the ones named "Victoria" are all listed at Victoria Bridge. On the list page I tried to add a link for the "Queen's Bridge" names, but this was rejected.[1] – Fayenatic London 22:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Bridges named after Queen Victoria
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT and WP:SHAREDNAME
For the vast majority of these bridges, they were namved for either the reigning Queen (or the recently deceased one) with no other connection. At least Queen Victoria was actually at the opening ceremony of the Queen's Bridge in Belfast. Whether articles are in this category because of a shared name or a due to a one-time performance, this category seems non-defining. The main article, Victoria Bridge, is a disambiguation page that could be converted to a more formal list article if anyone is interested. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly WP:SHAREDNAME doesn't apply. These bridges are named after a specific person, not random Victorias. WP:PERFCAT might apply if the category was "Bridges opened by Queen Victoria". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 07:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly WP:SHAREDNAME does apply. The name of a bridge is chosen more or less at random and has nothing to do with the actual bridge (except if named after the architect, which would be defining, or 'Roman', or even 'Victorian'). Oculi (talk) 10:20, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • : "More or less at random?" I am sure there is considerable thought put into these matters, which is why I have no bridges named after me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete - Clearly WP:SHAREDNAME does apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, for the reasons outlined by Rich Farmbrough. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in many/most cases the connection with the queen is non-defining for the bridge (e.g. the Grosvenor Bridge and Traffic Bridge articles don't even mention the queen). Other categories do a much better job of grouping articles about similar bridges. DexDor (talk) 20:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, WP:SHAREDNAME also applies when things are named after one specific person. The guideline provides Category:Churches named for St. Dunstan as an example. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    And that is a particularly bad example. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:36, 11 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • We apparently disagree on that. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the parent category should also be purged but will still have plenty of actual memorial/statue articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2019 (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:Facilities named after David Attenborough

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Facilities named after David Attenborough
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
David Attenborough is the prominent host of natural history TV shows on BBC. The only article in this category is a ship, RRS Sir David Attenborough, whose only connection to Sir Attenborough is being named in his honor. This category isn't defining and doesn't aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point that there is only one article so far. I think there would be scope for more pages, as Cambridge University has named the building which houses its Zoology Museum after Sir David.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Thoughtfortheday: I would actually suggest a list article rather than a category if more examples can be found, whether they have an article yet or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:18, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I will look for more examples in due course.--Thoughtfortheday (talk) 09:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (even if more things are found with this characteristic). This is the sort of thing that should be in article text and doesn't also need to be a category (it doesn't do a good job of grouping similar subjects and it doesn't provide a comprehensive categorization scheme). DexDor (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME does apply. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not having enough articles to support a separate category. Overcategorized. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:20, 10 May 2019 (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/2019_May_10&oldid=906447713"