< February 15 February 17 >

February 16

Category:Mexican Institute of Technology

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 Category:Technical universities and colleges in Mexico. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These only have a WP:SHAREDNAME and therefore this is over-categorization. No merge is needed as the pages are all categorised as universities in specific states of Mexico. – Fayenatic London 21:37, 16 February 2016 (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:Pakistani skeptics

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:14, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Sceptic" is generally the preferred spelling in Pakistan. AusLondonder (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed it did. That was ridiculous. The Indian category has already been renamed via a separate discussion. Some of the users at the first discussion demonstrated an extraordinary lack of competence. AusLondonder (talk) 16:35, 17 February 2016 (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:Theatres in the Palestinian National Authority

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 Category:Theatres in the State of Palestine. (Given the change in terminology which is developing internationally, it might be a good idea to rename a lot of the categories that use "Palestinian National Authority" or "Palestinian territories" to "State of Palestine".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:08, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Theatres in the Palestinian National Authority to Category:Theatres in Palestine
Nominator's rationale: Is in the category tree Category:Tourist attractions in Palestine. AusLondonder (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about ambiguity, I struck my support there. But the alternative State of Palestine isn't ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: That's true, but all three articles say these are in the Palestinian territories (two in the West Bank) and not the State of Palestine. Armbrust The Homunculus 15:23, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Palestinian territories" is a UN acronym for "Palestinian National Authority territories". More importantly however is that in 2013 UN changed "Palestinian Territories" to "State of Palestine" in definition.GreyShark (dibra) 22:32, 18 February 2016 (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:Star Wars conflicts

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 contents are already appropriately categorized in other subcategories of Category:Star Wars. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In-universe and unnecessary; its three articles would be fine within Category:Star Wars (though they are undersourced and potentially in-universe themselves). — TAnthonyTalk 17:38, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By "merge" I assume you mean move the three articles to Category:Star Wars and delete this category?— TAnthonyTalk 16:24, 22 February 2016 (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.

Organizations designated as terrorist by designator

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) 05:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Part of the category tree Category:Organizations designated as terrorist by designator. Match other categories in tree. AusLondonder (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2016 (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:Railway stations located underground

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; no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Rationalle: Not clear that this is defining; and some railway stations are underground only in part (such as Porter (MBTA station), where the Red Line is underground but the Fitchburg Line isn't; Clark/Lake (CTA station), where the Blue Line is and the other L lines aren't; as well as some planned stations on the Bay Area Rapid Transit expansion, where underground stations are planned at some current on-ground station locations); and the list is extremely partial - I'm quite sure that there are many railway stations located underground outside of Scandinavia, other than in Boston and the Merseyrail system. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • You're right about this if it concerns the station building. That's why the alternative rename Category:Railway stations with underground tracks or Category:Railway stations with underground platforms would be much more appropriate. Having the tracks and platforms underground requires a lot of construction effort, and therefore it's pretty exceptional. E.g. the new Tottenham Court Road Crossrail station in London will cost £ 1 bn [1]. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Category:Railway stations with underground platforms. Useddenim (talk) 01:40, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's common to have part of the building underground. This doesn't seem defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't make sense, subway stations are too often underground to separately categorize them as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, as long as the categories in the tree don't say otherwise, you can certainly expect this to happen. Until Marcocapelle said they shouldn't be in this tree, it seemed obvious to me that they should as long as it exists. (FYI, the Boston subway isn't underground the entire root - each line has a section which isn't.) עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:38, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies if that wasn't clear from the beginning, it seemed just too obvious for me. There are two guidelines relevant here. 1) Although subway stations may be a type of railway station, their immediate defining characteristic is subway station, not railway station. 2) As mentioned before, WP:OVERLAPCAT would apply, even if not all subway stations are underground, there would still be a very big overlap between underground stations and subway stations. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed subway stations would be included. I'm still concerned about the the train stations that have an above ground lobby/ticket agents and underground track/concourses which is a common configuration in the US. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • While this may be true for large U.S. metropolitan central stations, it's clearly not a common configuration for suburban or rural stations in the U.S., and in most other countries of the world it is a generally quite uncommon configuration, so clearly a defining characteristic. --PanchoS (talk) 05:12, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems obvious to me that the station is primarily the location where passengers get on or off the train (platorm); while the word "station" includes the entire structure around it (including the ticket booths, information, entrance area, etc), a sttion which is underground means that the platform is underground. How stations where some platforms are above ground and others are below ground is a different question. And it also seems obvious to me that this should be inclusive of anything which would be called a railway, including subways. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:17, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree on the former, that's why I proposed to rename. Question about the latter, would a subway station ever be called a railway station? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The definitions at railway station and rail transport clearly include subways; Rapid transit says that "rapid transit systems are electric railways that ..."; and Category:Rapid transit stations is a subcategory of Category:Railway stations. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I'm willing to go along with the possibility that entire subway station categories being parented into this tree. But I don't think that subway station articles should be directly placed in a railway station category. By the way, this part of the discussion doesn't really influence the keep or delete decision for the closer of the discussion, does it? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing I'm seeing is that it would then be natural to put the light/heavy rail stations as a subcategory of an overall "underground platforms" category, but for many transit systems most of the stations would fall in this "unusual" category. Also, the natural further subdivision would not be geographic, but by system (e.g. underground stations in the MBTA subway system, and not in Boston; whereas for intercity rail there probably aren't enough stations in the US to justify a split. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW I would tend to prefer the "underground platforms" as opposed to a "totally underground" version. Mangoe (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2016 (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:Food markets

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose splitting:
Nominator's rationale: While farmers' markets are a distinct type of Food retailing, I wonder how "food markets" are to be differentiated from one or the other. In most cases, this seems to be synonymous of a farmers' market, while less concise. PanchoS (talk) 09:34, 16 February 2016 (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:Indian films certified as "A" by CBFC

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) 04:47, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This list may extend to absurdly infinite status. Kailash29792 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale ambiguous What is "absurdly infinite status" ? Will it exceed the "absurdly infinite status" of "Category:Indian Films" ?? Or you mean to say that an infinite number of Indian films are certified as "A" ??Sarvagyana guru (talk) 06:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is "non-defining". The title clearly defines and explains the category. You can get a clear concept Indian film certification process by looking to the relevant page - Central Board of Film Certification. 'A' stands for 'Adults only'. Regards Sarvagyana guru (talk) 03:37, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's a long standing consensus not to categorise a film by it's certification. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:59, 17 February 2016 (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:Works based on Middle-earth

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Middle-earth music to Category:Music based on works by J. R. R. Tolkien
Category:Middle-earth parodies to Category:Parodies of works by J. R. R. Tolkien
Category:Games based on Middle-earth to Category:Games based on works by J. R. R. Tolkien
Category:Radio programmes based on Middle-earth to Category:Radio programmes based on works by J. R. R. Tolkien
Category:Middle-earth theatre to Category:Plays based on works by J. R. R. Tolkien
Category:Miniatures games based on Middle-earth to [[Category:Miniatures games based on works by J. R. R. Tolkien
Category:Role-playing games based on Middle-earth to Category:Role-playing games based on works by J. R. R. Tolkien
Category:Video games based on Middle-earth to Category:Video games based on works by J. R. R. Tolkien
Category:Board games based on Middle-earth to Category:Board games based on works by J. R. R. Tolkien
Nominator's rationale: I'm not aware of any significant contingent that refers to Tolkien's Silm, Lord of the Rings, and Hobbit as his "Middle-earth series." Where these are already subcategorized under "X based on works by J.R.R. Tolkien", they should be upmerged - otherwise, renamed. I'm not aware of any productive disambiguation from Sir Gawain, Farmer Giles, etc. achieved by the current weird naming convention. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 01:52, 16 February 2016 (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.