Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< August 26 August 28 >

August 27

Deaf universities and colleges

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 Category:Deaf universities and colleges in the United Kingdom; no consensus to delete Category:Deaf universities and colleges or Category:Deaf universities and colleges in the United States. A re-nomination to rename the categories and/or to upmerge the U.S. category should be permitted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale::
delete Category:Deaf universities and colleges in the United Kingdom. The only university in the category isn't a university for deaf people.
delete
WP:SMALLCAT
. Note that the two articles are already contained in the parent categories, there is no need to upmerge.
delete Category:Deaf universities and colleges, after the previous deletes this category becomes empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Delete/Upmerge Keep parent category for the two American articles and the two one Filipino ones I added and there may be some room for growth based on List of schools for the deaf. Delete the UK category which is effectively empty. Upmerge the American category per smalllcat.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment for the both Filipino articles it is a bit questionable if they belong in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Took another look at Miriam College and I was mistaken so I removed it; De La Salle–College of Saint Benilde seems like a stronger candidate though. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I don't know if this is a defining trait, but the categories are way too small to be useful. Dimadick (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep This is a very defining trait for both of the American institutions. This is part of a general practice of categorize institutions of higher learning with specific ethnic or language focus as having such. The American institutions included are defined by this trait.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep US category which has two legitimate articles, but it should be Category:Universities and colleges for the deaf in the United States, as the college is not itself deaf. Delete the rest: The one Phillipines institution appears to have a department training teachers for the deaf: that is a performance-type category: we do not categorise a university according to whether it has a chemistry department. University of Bristol (the only UK item) is not a deaf institution: most of its students hear normally. There are (or have been) deaf colleges in UK, but they are training colleges (or schools) not degree-awarding institutions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2015 (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:Deaf lists

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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/delete per
WP:SMALLCAT, there's actually only one list in this category. Please note that the entire contents of the nominated category is already in the parent category, so an upmerge and a delete is practically speaking the same in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2015 (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:Scottish auto racing teams

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's not enough distinctly Scottish, as opposed to simply British, motor racing teams to warrant a category. QueenCake (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question shouldn't it be merged to all three parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No to Category:Motorsport in Scotland as no other category in the tree contains teams (they're included in one of the Category:Auto racing teams by country subcats). I had thought that Category:Sports teams in Scotland was for teams that represented Scotland only, but if not then merge away. QueenCake (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, this seems very reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to all 3 parent categories per Marcocapelle. DH85868993 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to all 3 parent categories per Marcocapelle. Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge somehow. The one team identified itself as Scottish, but it was not necessarily representing Scotland. A category with one article is pretty useless, so that merger is the right solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 9 September 2015 (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:Humangeographic territorial entities

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. After
WP:SMALLCAT
. 22:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
  • That's a different kind of question, not really related to
    WP:SMALLCAT. I would say that it has to do with human geography in so far that it describes where humans are absent. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • At least the two of us have consensus on the fact that this category does not need to stay. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Apart from main articles and one list there is virtually no content. They are much better included in a wider category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2015 (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:County Commissioners in York County, Maine

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 to both parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. Also upmerge into other appropriate categories. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:53, 27 August 2015 (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:Mozart in fiction

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: Closed by nominator and moved to article talk page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pretty much the same content and the new category is in line with similar
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in fiction (which should then be renamed to match). The Evil IP address (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2015 (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:User page

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There're already Category:Wikipedians. GZWDer (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not actually being used as a category, but just an extra user page link for one user. kennethaw88 • talk 01:27, 3 September 2015 (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:Born

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ill-defined category. GZWDer (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2015 (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:Brunch foods

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a food/drink (e.g.
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. See previous discussions, for example, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_14#Category:Thanksgiving_food or Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_15#Category:Delicacies. For info: there is a list of brunch foods (that should be upmerged to Category:Brunch). DexDor (talk) 05:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete – same case as the deletion of Category:Breakfast foods, except that this is even more culturally subjective, since brunch is less common across cultures. Not clear, though, on what's being called for with regard to List of brunch foods. By upmerge to Category:Brunch, do you mean to recategorize the list under that parent category, or do you mean merge the list into the category, adding every item on the list to the category, and then deleting the list? Ibadibam (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete cold pizza would qualify in most college dorms... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining trait. And I agree that pizza is probably covered by the criteria. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Anything I eat at brunch is a brunch food, and I could eat anything for brunch. Absolutely pointless category (and descriptiom, come to that). Emeraude (talk) 14:14, 3 September 2015 (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:Dry places in New Jersey

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. There's no clear consensus regarding renaming the category either so that may require a WP:RM discussion. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Was CfDed
p 04:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Comment if this isn't delete, it must be renamed since it isn't about arid places in New Jersey, places suffering from drought, places without watersources, etc. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's part of a larger "dry" tree, although dry county is probably clearer, at least to American readers. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's probably a good idea to nominate the entire tree for a rename in a different nomination. While 'dry' may be clear to Americans it is less so to an international audience. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose rename. I do have to admit I actually think "cities" and "townships" make it more clear this is about alcohol regulation. With dry counties being mentioned at times in country music, I think it is well known to the majority of Americans. Still, I do agree that it is too ambiguous of a category name. I also still think it should be listified instead of being in categories. I do think we should rename, but that should be done for the whole tree, not just New Jersey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Some years ago there was a mass rename of categories for cities, towns, villages, etc to "populated places", because of difficulties in determining robustly which class of settlement places belonged to. We should not allow that principle to be reversed for one US State. The fact that this is about alcohol prohibition, not aridness, can be covered in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose any split and renaming.
    talk) 00:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Rename to Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey. I closed the previous discussion and simply commented that I thought that the current name was ambiguous since on its face it suggests that we are categorizing arid places in NJ. I wasn't suggesting that the category be split. I think Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey is clear, since it uses a legal term for "place" and so implies that "dry" is being used in the legal sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose splitting/Support Rename Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey. I see no need for this to be based by the type of jurisdiction. Besides the various in-between places mentioned, it increases overall upkeep of the category. Avicennasis @ 07:02, 2 Tishrei 5776 / 07:02, 15 September 2015 (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:Underground rapid transit in Australia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no functional difference between this category and Category:Rapid transit in Australia. Mqst north (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Repeat question With the right username) @Mqst north: Was there anything in this category prior to nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Marcocapelle:. The category looks to have been empty when Mqst nominated it for deletion or at least if it was emptied Mqst wasn't the one to do it. I looked at their recent edit history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for sorting out. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2015 (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/2015_August_27&oldid=1078424785"