< August 31 September 2 >

September 1

Category:Images replacing placeholders

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) 22:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Images replacing placeholders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Images of buildings replacing placeholders
  • Propose deleting Category:Reviewed images of buildings replacing placeholders
  • Propose deleting Category:Images of temples replacing placeholders
  • Propose deleting Category:Reviewed images of temples replacing placeholders
  • Propose deleting Category:Reviewed images replacing placeholders
Nominator's rationale: These (empty) categories were part of the infrastructure of Wikipedia:Image placeholders which has been inactive/deprecated since 2009. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 1 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:Black Women Oral History Project

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) 22:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is used solely to identify people interviewed by the Black Women Oral History Project, and in my opinion qualifies as overcategorization under WP:TRIVIALCAT. It could also be seen as unnecessary promotion for the project itself. Brian heim composer (talk) 15:47, 1 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:Bligh Cabinet

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) 22:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Someone created what was basically somebody's random set of orphan categories on state Cabinets that were in power four years ago; that they served under a particular Premier is not a defining feature and this content is much better handled by our prose articles. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:45, 1 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:River Downs

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has only one entry. The racetrack isn't called River Downs anymore either. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:51, 1 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:Thai Buddhist temples

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. – Fayenatic London 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following this discussion, the former Category:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand was upmerged into this category, and its other child, Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand, was removed, since Thailand is also home to Buddhist temples of other traditions. Thus currently all members of this category are overseas Thai Buddhist temples. Renaming the category as such would make it more descriptive of its contents. Paul_012 (talk) 09:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm. I thought overseas was a general term meaning relating to foreign countries, but it does appear some dictionaries do indeed give a definition of being literally across the sea. There's precedent with Category:Overseas Vietnamese Buddhist temples though.
Category:Buddhist temples of the Thai Forest Tradition (note the capitalisation) would be a reasonable category to have, but its scope would naturally be different from Category:Overseas Thai Buddhist temples. There are Thai Buddhist temples which are not of the Forest Tradition, you see, and there are also Forest Tradition temples which aren't located abroad.
I don't think the "overseas" term should be problematic, though. It's in keeping with the commonly used term for the region's ethnic groups. See for example Overseas Chinese, Overseas Vietnamese, Overseas Indonesian and Overseas Filipinos. Paul_012 (talk) 08:20, 7 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:Council of Independent 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a college is a member of this association is often/always a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. E.g. articles like Chowan University, Clarke University and College of Idaho don't mention it. This could be listified, but it would probably be better to create any such list directly from a RS. Example of previous similar discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_21#Category:National_Association_of_Schools_of_Music DexDor (talk) 05:36, 1 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:Commonwealth Games sports

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. The IP's suggestion is a good one; however, the category only contains half a dozen articles and categories, all of which are about current Commonwealth Games sports. Someone could create a list of all sports that have ever been at the Commonwealth Games, but this category doesn't really provide much of a basis for doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a particular sport (e.g. bowls, paintball or rugby sevens) is played at the Commonwealth Games is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the sport. There is Category:Sports at the Commonwealth Games for articles that do belong in Category:Commonwealth Games. Example of a (slightly) similar discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Category:ABC_Sport DexDor (talk) 05:27, 1 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:Ribat related names

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) 22:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These have nothing to do with one another just theoretical names. 2601:641:0:40F8:5AB:25A0:8CFA:3D55 (talk) 05:17, 1 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.

Christopher Wren buildings by location

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 the London category, upmerge the others into Category:Christopher Wren buildings. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Christopher Wren Cambridge buildings to Category:Christopher Wren buildings in Cambridge
  • Propose renaming Category:Christopher Wren London buildings to Category:Christopher Wren buildings in London
  • Propose renaming Category:Christopher Wren Oxford buildings to Category:Christopher Wren buildings in Oxford
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose clarifying this unusual format. "ARCHITECT buildings" is the usual way of categorizing buildings by architect, so the parent Category:Christopher Wren buildings is named in the usual way. But to add the city name before "buildings" reads quite awkwardly and creates unnecessary ambiguities, in my opinion. Better to use the form used by Category:Christopher Wren churches in London. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 1 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.

Rastafari categories

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: both  Relisted at 2015 SEP 15 CFD.

Two related discussions have been relisted here and grouped together for convenience. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rastafari movement[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Main article moved from Rastafari Movement to Rastafari through discussion, but basically that title and other previous titles (like Rastafarian and Rastafarianism) are reductive titles created by non-adherents. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rastafarians[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the above. This is complicated by the fact that the Religion Rastafari is also the term for the adherents in the singular or plural form. The term Rastafarian is considered reductive and offensive. My inclination is Category:Rastafari practitioners ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 1 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:Members of National Panhellenic Conference sororities

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) 22:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic of college sorority/fraternity membership per multiple past CfDs resulting in deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:12, 1 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:Certified singles

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: administrative close. It looks like this discussion was started mainly to get advice on how to proceed, and the nominator has commenced nominations to delete subcategories, so I'm assuming this can be closed now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ok, I'm not sure the right way to do this but this is basically a request to delete every subcategory and sub-subcategory here. The discussions for Australia single certifications and this discussion shows there is support that these designatations are WP:NON-DEFINING characteristics. However, this discussion was against the Canadian industry due to the failure to list every one of hundred of subcategories (and further subcategories) for all countries as an example of bias (same argument I received here). It seems like there's agreement that they should be deleted but anger that not listing them all (which no one really wants to do since you're talking hundreds and hundreds of categories which could derail any singular discussion). But then again, may that's the way to go. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. Like I said, I can't figure out which way to go. The last discussion was just so different than how it's usually done here. I want to figure out a way to deal with singles before the albums one as the previous discussions were all on single certifications I think. - -Ricky81682 (talk) 20:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As said in the previous discussion it would be a good move to add the US subcategories in the nomination, in order to get a sufficiently large audience involved in the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:24, 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.
More