August 5
Category:Telugu film actors
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:44, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: We have Category:Telugu actors which is apparently intended for actors of the Telugu ethno-linguistic group and we have Category:Telugu film actors for people acting in Telugu cinema. It is possible to be in the latter without being in the former but the cat names seem to be causing confusion, with numerous articles mixing up one with the other (and often also showing overcats). Renaming this should make the differentiation more apparent. The same probably applies to Tamil and the other ethno-linguistic groups of India that have a cinema industry. Bit of a nightmare, really. Sitush (talk) 20:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- In addition, all of the above categories have equivalent "actress" counterparts. They, too, would require renaming - unless, of course, we are now treating actor as a gender-neutral word, in which case they'll need merging. - Sitush (talk) 21:12, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per nom, plus all the actress categories as well. The fact that these are for people by medium performed in, and not by ethnicity/sub-nationality has always been a confusing thing. We maybe could consider creating similar categories like Category:Actors in American cinema and Category:Actors in Italian cinema, but I am not sure we want to go down that course. Here, we already have.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- rename per nom (and the actress categories - speedy on close?). I could support ethno-linguistic categories, but purely regional ones cannot be approipriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:20, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Per nom, and do the same for actress.--Dwaipayan (talk) 22:46, 10 August 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:1960 establishments in Upper Volta
- 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! I don't know what everyone wants. By rights I should have renamed this to match every other category in this area. But clearly there was no consensus to do that. So what does everyone want? Renaming every other category to this name? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. First, this was proposed as a speedy, to match the other categories in 1950s, 60s and 70s. That was opposed so that we could discuss moving all those to Upper Volta, but the resulting CFD June 4 was closed as "no consensus". So let's make this match its successors after all. – Fayenatic London 17:44, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- rename. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:34, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note the open RFC on this general topic. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose I still think Upper Volta is specific enough for all the categories. The resulting CFD mentioned above was flawed since it did not actually propose to rename Category:1959 establishments in the Republic of Upper Volta to Category:1959 establishments in Upper Volta. So it really did not discuss what we should do, which is that. We have since seen, for example that people fully believe in Category:1891 establishments in Finland and not a more specific name. Since there is only ever one Upper Volta at a time, we do not need to disambiguate. The place was commonly called Upper Volta, and we should use the contemporary common name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- We use "United Kingdom" and "France" not "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" and "Republic of France". "Upper Volta" is a convenient short name for the country, even if it was not the offficial one. No need to disambiguate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. - The Bushranger One ping only 16:46, 10 August 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.
Parasites by host
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: As mentioned in this CfD, the current "Y X" format is easily misinterpreted as being "parasites that are X", not the intended "parasites of Y". Therefore, I'm proposing moving the rest of the tree to the "parasites of X" format that was decided there. Category:Rat parasites is nominated for merging instead per WP:SMALLCAT and the fact that rat/rodent will have a significant overlap. - The Bushranger One ping only 09:51, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename/merge per nom; I agree that this clarification is needed. postdlf (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. --Orlady (talk) 15:25, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support these are not about "parasites that are X" they are "parasites of X" -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 06:06, 6 August 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:Band 1 Schools of Hong Kong
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: No source. As other users have commented on the talk page, students are divided into allocation bands in the placement system, not schools. [1] tOMG 03:48, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete at least until the category can provide us with a link to an article (or section of an article) which tells us what these schools are. (Chiu Lut Sau Memorial Secondary School is said to be one - not sourced - but is not in the category.) Oculi (talk) 07:28, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete: University of Michigan is still hosting a page Tracking in a student project "A Comparison of Hong Kong and United States Schools" apparently from 2006, which states that there were 3 bands, but the HK background page refers to reforms which were expected to eliminate the banding of schools. There is another website with reviews & feedback scores on the schools that were formerly Band 1, but this seems now to be unofficial. – Fayenatic London 22:46, 11 August 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:User:Wabba The I/2013 Wabba Games
- 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: speedy delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 17:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete appears to be a "draft category" since it's used to group together a bunch of userspace drafts. However, we do not keep draft categories and it's not even clear that these drafts are about an event (the 2013 Wabba Games) that exists beyond the imagination of Wabba The I (talk · contribs). Pichpich (talk) 02:32, 5 August 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:Most-active volcanoes
- 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 per G7 (creator request). Note that in the future you can just say "go ahead and delete it" and the bot will handle it. The Bushranger One ping only 09:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete absurdly non-scientific classification. It should also be quite clear that every active volcano is somewhere down the list of most active volcanoes so there can never be a distinction between this and Category:Active volcanoes. Pichpich (talk) 02:10, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify the list can be used to specify what parameters are used to determine activity -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:15, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I created it; and, while there's no requirement for categories to be "scientific", agree that it's a suboptimal organizing scheme rather than embellishing Volcano#Active (which I've been participating in). So, I'll unspool it myself shortly.--Froglich (talk) 07:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- All individual articles have been cleaned, and the category zeroed; go ahead and delete it.--Froglich (talk) 08:05, 5 August 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:Intel International Science and Engineering Fair
- 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. A lists exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#SMALL ; only content is parent article and four articles about asteroids that are only tangentially related. postdlf (talk) 01:54, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. The one relevant article is amply categorized. --Orlady (talk) 16:55, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep it is brand new and needs time to populate. Fotaun (talk) 23:21, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- ...with what? postdlf (talk) 01:03, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Other than the article for the Intel International Science and Engineering Fair itself, the other four articles are for asteroids named in honor of top honorees at one year's fair, a characteristic that is not defining. All that's left that might belong here is the eponymous article, and that's not enough to merit a category. Alansohn (talk) 03:49, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify the asteroids
(discovered during the fair) within the main article, and delete. – Fayenatic London 08:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Fayenatic: that is by far the best solution. The only further potential population would be attendees, but that would make it a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 10 August 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.