Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 8 November 10 >

November 9[edit]

Category:Professional valuation organisations based in Chicago, Illinois[edit]

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) 19:51, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge the single article per WP:SMALLCAT - little prospect for growth. (The article is already categorized in one of the two parent cats.) There are only 7 articles in Category:Professional valuation organisations so there is no need to further subcategorize. Tassedethe (talk) 22:20, 9 November 2013 (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:Presidents of the Romanian Union of Plastic Artists[edit]

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) 19:50, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no article on the Romanian Union of Plastic Artists. Of the two articles one (Ion Irimescu) states he was president of this society, although it is unreferenced, the second (Ion Jalea) makes no mention of it. This category as is serves no purpose and a normal listify !vote is impractical with no main article or sourced information. Tassedethe (talk) 22:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- For the moment create the article as a redirect to the president. This may encourage someone to produce a substantive article. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2013 (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:Pseudonymous musicians[edit]

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) 19:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the pseudonymous rappers discussion - not a defining characteristic. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 21:56, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per my comments in the pseudonymous rappers discussion. STATic message me! 22:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not a defining characteristic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Jerry Pepsi. Also, where does one draw the line between a pseudonym and a stage name, or people who legally change their names in order to perform? Is "Cher" a pseudonym? Is "Englebert Humperdink"? Not a category of much value, and of little necessity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep actually, this *is* defining - the definition of DEFINING is that it is something that would be regularly mentioned by reliable sources and mentioned in the lede. the fact that these musicians use a stage name (which is basically the same thing as pseudonym) is indeed mentioned in reliable 3rd sources; read any in-depth article about Deadmau5 and you'll see they mention his "real" name. To answer Beyond my Ken's question, if someone changes their legal name, then it is, obviously, no longer a pseudonym - it is their name. Not all artists do this however. Cher, for example, apparently legally changed her name to "Cher", so this can't really be said to be a pseudonym or stage name anymore. We have lists of pseudonyms, but I think categories are useful, esp of musicians since not all musicians use such stage names.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:38, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it's worth, these subcats were created to diffuse Category:Pseudonyms which was filled with articles like George Orwell (born Eric Arthur Blair, wrote under a pen name). It was decided that the main category only contain articles about the concept of pseudonymity and that individuals who used them would be in subcats. @Taylor Trescott:, if you want to nominate one of these for deletion, why not all of them? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Whether people sing under their birth name, a pseudonym, or a name that they have legally changed their name to, has no relevance to how they sing and no real influence on their career. Not everything that is mentioned in a short bio is worth categorizing by, and this is an example of categorizing by a trivial fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, agreed, not relevant to a singer's career. It's a hard line to draw — for instance, is Toby Keith pseudonymous since his real name is Toby Keith Covel? What about Troyal Garth Brooks? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:51, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete musicians seem to change names, or do various things under names other than their own (side projects), Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I think y'all are thinking way too much about pop culture here. We have several thousand American musicians alone, but the whole category of Pseudonymous musicians only has around 400 - so in the broad sense for musicians, going by a pseudonym is not as common as you're making it out to be. It's not about whether it's relevant to a singer's career - I agree they don't sing differently - but it does fit the definition of DEFINING, in that this is mentioned in the lede for almost every pseudonymous artist.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agree with Obi-Wan. For some of these, the notoriety and creativity of the pseudonym makes them more famous for the name, than their music. Trackinfo (talk) 18:30, 13 November 2013 (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:Korea Baseball Organization[edit]

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) 19:49, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need for an eponymous category just for the main article. Upmerge to parent. (The article is already categorized in the other two parent cats.) Tassedethe (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2013 (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:Fright Night[edit]

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) 19:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category for film franchise which is unlikely ever to expand beyond the current entries. The articles are all linked together through text. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 20:54, 9 November 2013 (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:Naval museums in Saint Petersburg[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge to Category:Maritime museums in Saint Petersburg. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to keep Naval parenting. Duplicate of Category:Maritime museums in Saint Petersburg. This does not mean I support keeping Category:Maritime museums in Saint Petersburg. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the reverse merge could make more sense or even an upmerge of both to the appropriate parents. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge unless someone will tell us that there are Russian Museums elsewhere. Alternatively upmerge to both parents. The articles in both subject and target are the same, but we need to ensure that the articles retain a local category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to both parents. Categories with under 5 contents are not generally useful (although I just described most categories).John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2013 (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:Music museums in Saint Petersburg[edit]

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) 19:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A single entry follow up to this nomination. From the text, I'm not even sure if this is music museum. Only article has ample categories. At some point there may be need for a country level category, but any city level categories should wait for that to be created and well populated. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- the one article is adequately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 12 November 2013 (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:John C. Stennis Space Center[edit]

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) 19:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. No need for an eponymous category just for the main article. Upmerge to the parent per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2013 (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:Jeungpyeong[edit]

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) 19:44, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for a category to hold a single article. Article (Jeungpyeong County) already categorized in the parent cat. Tassedethe (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2013 (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:Museums for children in Saint Petersburg[edit]

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) 19:42, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for such an overly-specific category. Article already categorized in Category:Museums in Saint Petersburg. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2013 (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:Royal lovers[edit]

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: Move to Category:Male lovers of royalty. Reasons given below. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Quick summary of what people "voted" for:

Well for starters there were no "Keep" opinions, so that's off the table. So is "Delete" with one advocate. There was one advocate for "Split" and one for "Merge" but four for "Rename" so let's rename. But to what? Well, two advocates for "Male lovers of royal personages", one for "Male lovers of monarchs" and one for "Male lovers of royalty" (with that also being one editor's second choice; "Male paramours of royalty" also came up, but only as the second choice of one editor).

"Monarch" and "Royalty" are not the same, since "Royalty" means (or can be taken to mean) "Members of a royal family" ("A royal family is the immediate family of a king or queen regnant, and sometimes his or her extended family.") Using "Monarch" would narrow the category and require that John Conroy be expelled, for instance, and removing articles from the category was not really envisioned or addressed I don't think. So let's not do that as it's a more major change.

So then we have:

  • Two in favor of "Male lovers of royal personages"
  • One in favor of "Male lovers of royalty", but that was also one person's second choice, so call it one-and-a-half.

Not enough for headcount to much matter. (Also N.B. and FWIW: the two in favor of "Male lovers of royal personages" were the first two commentators and they didn't come back. So they didn't benefit from the later discussion where terms like "paramour" and "royalty" were brought up.)

So let's look at the rules. At Wikipedia:Category names the first general prescription is "Standard article naming conventions apply" pointing to WP:AT. Most all of the rest of Wikipedia:Category names doesn't militate for one over the other, I don't think.

So looking at WP:AT, it presents a five-point list, which I'll give and score below. The five prescribed virtues of a title are:

  • Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject will recognize. -- Point in favor of "Royalty" over "Royal personage" IMO. "Personage" is a somewhat archaic and uncommon word and might be a head-scratcher for some ESL readers, I think, while "Royalty" is fairly common.
  • Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for... -- Point in favor of "Royalty" over "Royal personage" IMO.
  • Precision – The title is sufficiently precise to unambiguously identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. -- Point in favor of "Royal personage" over "Royalty" IMO, since "Lover of royalty" could be taken to mean "people who spend all day reading People magazine for its articles on Prince Harry." as Nyttend cogently points out. (So could "Lover of royal personages" I suppose but maybe a bit less so.)
  • Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects. -- Point in favor of "Royalty" over the more verbose "Royal personage" IMO.
  • Consistency – The... title is consistent with the pattern of similar... titles... No point either way IMO. Looking at Category:Spouses of politicians for instance I don't see anything that really matches our situation closely enough to be taken as a standard. (I suppose you could stretch it to point out that it's Category:Spouses of politicians and not Category:Spouses of political personages but I haven't done that since there are complicating factors, one being that there's no term "a royalty" as there is "a politician" (there is an equivalent term "a royal" but 1) that's informal I think and 2) "Male lovers of royals" was not brought up and is not on the table).)

So... 3-1-1 in favor of "Royalty". Well there you have it. WP:AT is a policy and an important one and Wikipedia:Category names invokes it. We have to settle on something and so, with headcount not much of a factor, even a 3-1 advantage at WP:AT is sufficient to do so, it says here. Herostratus (talk) 19:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Both "lovers" and "royal" are gender neutral. Apparently there is a need for a category to complement Category:Royal mistresses, in which case this category presumably caters for the male of the species. As the object of the males lover's devotions / services could be either male or female, "royal personages" allows for both. Either this or delete the category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 17:53, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
ooooh matron! Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Royal favourite tends to be used for this sort of thing. It is gender neutral (but the nomination suggests this is a problem) and also includes homosexual lovers. And, oh, we have a category Category:Royal favourites. I'm going to keep out of this because I suspect all sorts of LGBT issues could be raised. Thincat (talk) 12:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Royal favourite seems to be a rather broader concept, which may or may not involve a sexual relationship. This may not be a bad thing, because proving the existence of a sexual relationship may be difficult. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:46, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The article on royal favourite makes it clear that the term covers a-people who had no sexual relationship with royalty, and b-people whose sexual relationship was with the spouse of a royal person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Male lovers of royalty or better split to Category:Male lovers of monarchs and Category:Male lovers of queens. We needn't worry about categorizing the lovers of princes and princesses I think. Keep Favourites right out of it. Johnbod (talk) 04:35, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Male lovers of royalty or Category:Male paramours of royalty. I do not think we need a split. Homosexual lovers of kings tend to be euphomystically called "favourates". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename; don't bother splitting by the sex of the royals whom they loved. "Royal mistresses" works well for men and women, and this category will work equally well as long as we use "Male lovers of monarchs". "Lovers of royalty" sounds like the people who spend all day reading People magazine for its articles on Prince Harry. Nyttend (talk) 22:42, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wait, what do you mean "royal mistress works well for men and women", mistress is a term that only applies to women, ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And only women sleeping with men, in normal usage. Johnbod (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, mistress is also used as the female equivalent of master in a lot of cases that have no direct relation to sex. However that is not really related to this discussion. I am pretty usre that people would not speak of "Queen Sophia's mistress", just to throw out a random case. I think the female sexual partners of a female monarch are most likely to be referered to as "lovers", but whatever the term there, I doubt it would be mistress. Although I am not sure we have any articles on such people, so such discussion might not be relevant. Could we conflate the whole category into "Royal Paramours" though, at least as a gender neutral parent category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment For what it is worth, Category:Mistresses of British royalty, the sister cat to this one, contains articles on multiple women who were mistresses of people who were not monarchs, including the former mistress and current wife of the present Prince of Wales (the fact he is likely to become king does not negate the fact that he is not yet king).John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 8 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, possibly rename - As this is apparently the male counterpart to Category:Royal mistresses, has anyone checked to see if there is an actual term which has the same denotation and connotation that mistress in this sense does? So far of the above choices, I think "paramour" might be the closest. Lovers is just too vague a word. Is loving someone (or likely more the intent of this category, is having sex with someone) defining? So I prefer deletion, but merging this with Category:Royal mistresses and renaming the whole thing Category:Royal paramours might not be bad, presuming the question of defining is resolved. - jc37 07:38, 15 January 2014 (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:Pseudonymous rappers[edit]

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) 19:41, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Meets all three points of WP:NOTDEFINING: "A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having", sources do not discuss that rappers perform under stage names. "If the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining:" aside from stating what their stage name is, no article goes into depth of why or the importance of them using a stage name, rather then their real name. For the third point, it is clearly overcategorization. No where close to a defining characteristic, considering that 98% of rappers perform under a stage name rather than their real name. I have seen this included on almost every rapper's page, and I see it as clearly unnecessary. STATic message me! 16:14, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@Koavf: Well it might be a defining characteristic for certain pop stars, or rock musicians since they do not perform under stage names 9.8/10 times. However, rappers almost always perform under pseudonymous so it would be pointless to categorize them under "pseudonymous rappers" or "pseudonymous musicians". STATic message me! 19:08, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not defining, and categorizing by trivial shared naming characteristic. The parent musician category should also be deleted. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Jerry Pepsi. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:19, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge They are still musicians, so a merge makes more sense (provided the category is kept) - even if this is admittedly common for rappers - but not *all* rappers have stage names. But I just don't see a reason to exclude them, unless we call the parent category pseudonymous non-hip-hop musicians --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:43, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is so ubiquitous it is almost the same as being a rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2013 (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.

Logs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. These are good and useful categories; it's simply the name that's a problem. The names of these categories are architectural style names, comparable to Category:Italianate architecture, Category:Vernacular architecture, etc. However, there is no such style as "log house architecture"; these are simply log buildings. You'll note that many of the buildings in these categories are not houses, such as Rehoboth Church, and there's a separate Category:Log houses for the houses themselves. Since these categories are meant to contain buildings of various types, rather than being just buildings used for residential purposes, we should have a name that reflects the intended contents. Nyttend (talk) 12:52, 9 November 2013 (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:The Karate Kid characters[edit]

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) 19:38, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 03:31, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The two articles are already otherwise appropriately categorized to maintain connection to film categories. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The list will certainly be best in the parent. I am not clear if the other article is about a real or fictional person, but it can go there too. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 12 November 2013 (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.

Adam Green/Hatchet[edit]

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; article placed in Category:Hatchet (film series). Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two categories which house the same article, neither of which is needed. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:30, 9 November 2013 (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:House of 1000 Corpses characters[edit]

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) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Small category with no likelihood of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:26, 9 November 2013 (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.

Banksia redirect categories[edit]

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) 19:34, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each category contains redirects pointing to a single page. Editors should use WhatLinksHere instead of maintaining a category of redirects to each page. Per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_28#Category:I_Am_Weasel_redirects. — This, that and the other (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created these categories many years ago, and I am okay with them being deleted. Hesperian 02:15, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete all per nom.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:25, 9 November 2013 (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:Egyptian American directors[edit]

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 Category:American people of Egyptian descent and Category:American directors. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Narrow intersection of categorisation, based on non-critically defining characteristics, and of the kind that WP:CATEGRS typically advises against. Cf. the most recent CfD for Category:Italian-American actors. SuperMarioMan 01:16, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Google search for either "Egyptian American director" or "Egyptian American film director" (and their hyphenated variations) brings up only a few tens of results, for me anyway. Of the two people categorised, only one (Noujaim) seems to have directed more than once, and still then none of her work (at least as far as I can see) relates to Egyptian or Egyptian-American issues specifically, as opposed to issues concerning the Middle East of which Egypt happens to be a part, or the state of Middle Eastern-United States relations generally. While the validity of some of the sub-categories, such as American film directors of Italian descent, is clear from the legacy of select individuals (in this example, I suspect, chiefly Coppola and Scorsese) I see no hard evidence as yet that Egyptian-American film is a phenomenon comparable to Italian-American or African-American film. SuperMarioMan 00:37, 12 November 2013 (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:Parks in Canada by by province or territory[edit]

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: already renamed/merged. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I accidentally wrote "by" twice. Thanks. MTLskyline (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename - C2A. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:07, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy - you can do these as speedy noms next time, no need to bring to cfd.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • or just delete by author ie "db-author" inside {} Hugo999 (talk) 05:52, 11 November 2013 (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/2013_November_9&oldid=1138398599"