< April 3	April 5 >

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 rename to Category:Super Rugby team navigational boxes. WP:C2C per convention of Category:Navigational boxes. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:36, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Super Rugby squads to Category:Super Rugby team templates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's a template category. I also propose using the word "team" to match the category Category:Super Rugby teams. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Super Rugby team navigational boxes per nominator and because the category only contains navigational boxes. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:57, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the naming convention, OK. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:16, 8 April 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.

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. Closing early per WP:SNOW. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Major gods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is not well defined or otherwise redundant with various categories that list gods by function. Category will see very limited growth outside of its one page by the same name, Major gods which is also up for deletion. Penitence (talk) 22:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• delete Same problem as with article: indiscriminate membership. Mangoe (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete requires original research to determine what is a "major" god. While the list article may prevaricate with various sources disputing each other, that won't work well for categories. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:08, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete subjective. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete The list article is entirely unsourced, and the definition unclear. Dimadick (talk) 07:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no method of defining inclusion. The one article is unsourced and gives us no guidance on how to limit inclusion. Considering how many deities there are in Hindusim I can see where this category might be deemed neccesary, but I think there are much better ways to cover it. Anyway, it is not clear we would have an article on a god who was not deemed major by someone.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hindu gods and its sub-categories have about 150 categories. However Vishnu is the Supreme God, and many Hindus only worship him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it Brahma? I've been told such before. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- The single list article will need to be reparented. That article is currently dealing only with the Greek and Aztec pantheons, and possibly that article should also be deleted, in favour of a list of list articles for each religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, only content is a likely snow delete, and the definition of "major" is not consistent across religions anyway.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:00, 7 April 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Sportspeople from Fingal

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary superfluous category for administrative counties who should not have these categoriesFinnegas (talk) 22:40, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As nom. I wish to withdraw the nomination to to centeralise the discussion at [1] Finnegas (talk) 00:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note. A discussion is usually closed as WP:Speedy keep when the nomination is withdrawn. However, that applies only when "no one other than the nominator recommends that the page be deleted" ... and in this case, Brocach has made a !vote to delete. So this discussion has to run its course, unless Brocach withdraws their !vote (there's no obligation to do so). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:35, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - in order to centralise discussion I am content to withdraw my vote here. Brocach (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep, unless the nominator can explain the difference between this county and the others in Category:Sportspeople_by_county_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland, and why such a difference should matter w.r.t. categorization. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, The difference is that their is 26 counties in Ireland. However, the county bondaries have been altered for administrative purposes and Fingal is a recent creation. The GAA and many others use the traditional 26 even car reg's. People address's still are Co Dublin not Fingal and they would self identify as being from Dublin not Fingal Finnegas (talk) 23:31, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I count 42 cats with fingal in the name, so unless you have a good argument to delete all of them, I don't see any good reason to delete this one. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 02:24, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The nominator is aware, or ought to be aware of the existence of a stable tree structure for certain traditional Irish counties, some of which have been abolished. That structure is that the old, traditional county largely serves a role as a container category with it's sole children being the modern counties into which it is now split. Occasionally, other categories appear with the modern counties. So "Foo in Fingal" / "Foo in South Dublin (county)" / "Foo in Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown" / "Foo in Dublin (city)" all have a reporting relationship, among others, to "Foo in County Dublin". Similarly, "Foo in North Tipperary" and "Foo in South Tipperary" all have a reporting relationship, among others, to "Foo in County Tipperary". Ditto for Waterford city, Galway city, Cork city and Limerick city.`
• Comment The nominator is aware, of the existence of a tree structure largely created by you Laurel Lodged where you created unnecessary admin county categories.Finnegas (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you objection is to the principle of categories for the admin counties, then nominate them all for merger. But so far you have offered no argument for why we you want to delete Category:Sportspeople from Fingal but not Category:People from Fingal or Category:Sport in Fingal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do object to the principle of categories for the admin counties but I wouldnt know how to nominate all for merging. Was going to nominate this one for deletion + use consensus to delete other categories one by one.
      • After what happened with the Tipperary hurlers category you should know not to try such underhanded tactics. Anyway, how hard would it have been to also nominate Category:People from Fingal?John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note the nominator emptied the category out of process. I was obliged to re-populate it. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:48, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as there are categories Category:People from Fingal and Category:Sportspeople from North Tipperary so appears to form a natural part of the category tree. Tim! (talk) 06:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. County Dublin is no longer an administrative county, and Fingal is one of the 4 sub-divisions which replaced it for administrative purposes. These new counties have clearly defined and stable boundaries, and form an excellent basis for sub-dividing Category:County Dublin. The population of County Dublin is about 25% of the population of the entire state, so subdividing it makes for more manageable categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:21, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Dublin was a county years before it had a county council and is still a county.County Dublin categories dont need to sub divided via admin counties. Just because it has 20% of the states population does not mean it will an unmanageable amount of individuals. Finnegas (talk) 12:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I quite agree that Dublin is still a county. The number of people in an undivided category might not be unmanageable, but it will still be more easily managed in smaller chunks. Note for example that Category:Sportspeople from Dublin (city) has over 200 articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fingal exists under the 1994 legislation solely and exclusively for the purposes of local government, i.e. housing, planning, rubbish collections, library services and the like. County Dublin under the same Act remains in existence and is the entity with which people actually identify. No-one in Ireland says that they are "from county Fingal"; anyone born within that sub-district of County Dublin is less than 20 years old (self corrected) and is therefore highly unlikely to merit a WP article. Brocach (talk) 02:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Broach is being disingenous in argument. The 2001 legislation revisred the 1994 legislation and made Fingal a county, whatever it was exactly in 1994. Anyway, since we have Category:People from Fingal, this is a broader issue than what is discussed. Fingal is a county, and the article on it clearly indicates this is an ancient and historic name. The 1994 act is neteither the first nor last word on the issue. Also, I am not sure how Brocach can claim that 1994 was less than 10-years ago. Lastly, from does not equal born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:28, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Brocach is not being disingenuous; he is being intentionally misleading. He knows perfectly well that Fingal was created by the Local Government (Dublin) Act 1993, because that has been pointed out to him in several recent discussions on related categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response: it is out of order to accuse me of "being intentionally misleading". A bit of civility, BHG. I do not dispute that Fingal came into being on 1 January 1994 as an administrative county under the 1993 Act. My point is that it was created only for local government purposes, and its creation does not mean that County Dublin ceased to exist on that date for anything other than local government purposes. County Dublin is the county that people are "from" because, as I suspect all Irish contributors here know, people just do not identify as being "from" Fingal or "from" Dún Laoghaire-Rathdown. I'm sorry for the typo where I referred to 1994 as 10 years ago, have corrected that above; do I need to say again that that was not "being intentionally misleading"? Brocach (talk) 18:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Response 2 Fingal is dissed because it "was created only for local government purposes", as opposed to County Dublin which was created for what purpose exactly? The storage of popcorn? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- WE probably need 5 categories, a continuing County Dublin one for pre-1994 entries and as a parent for the rest. In England, we frequently split people categories by district (a subdivision of county) or London Borough, so that I see no reason why the principle should not be applied to split Co Dublin categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Needed as a subcat of the County Dublin category. Also, no matter how many Brocach repeats that Fingal only exists for local government purposes only, he is still wrong, every time! Snappy (talk) 20:48, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• See also. Related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 12#Sportspeople_from_Irish_suburbs_and_towns, which includes several subcats of Category:Sportspeople from Fingal. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment can we close this? Any oppose votes have been withdrawn, including that of nom. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:58, 15 April 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.

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. If we are going to overturn the past discussions where it was decided (1) that these categories may exist, and (2) that they should be hidden and labelled as administrative categories, we need a consensus that amounts to more than the limited agreement below. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia categories named after festivals

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Festivals

If necessary, and if Festivals is considered too broad in scope, then create "Category:Individual festivals" or somesuch.

This category though has a name "Wikipedia categories named after ..." and is also tagged as an admin-only category. Both of these are superfluous, for what is still just a content category. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this category contains eponymous categories for festivals not festival articles. Tim! (talk) 21:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's little call to delete this, it's really a question of naming. Yes, there is clearly a need for a content category describing individual notable festivals. This can usefully be made distinct from festivals in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge per nom. Why do we need this administrative category? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:12, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • See for example Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_June_24#Category:Categories_named_after_universities_and_colleges, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_24#Categories_named_after_companies and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_3#Category:Eponymous_categories where it was decided such categories should be hidden and take the form "Wikipedia categories named after foo". Tim! (talk) 06:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That has to be one of WP's more half-baked ideas.

Clearly we desire a category to contain content on individual festivals – I think we agree that much. So Category:Individual festivals works fine for that. To refute the name as it is:

• Why should this be a "Wikipedia category"? (whatever that is) This is just a content category, same as nearly every other category. This isn't any sort of maintenance category.
• Why should this be a metacat, ie a category of categories only? MediaWiki has no such arbitrary distinction, why should we pretend there is one?
• Why is this thought to be a "maintenance" category?
• How are readers helped by isolating this category from other content categories?
• How are readers helped by a convoluted name of "Wikipedia categories about individual festivals" rather than merely "Individual festivals"? Why is the extra flim-flam helpful?

Andy Dingley (talk) 16:28, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am not that keen on the form and making the categories hidden, but no one seems to be able to agree quite how eponymous categories should themselves be categorised other than they should not be categorised the same as articles. Tim! (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nomination. The subcategories of Cat:Festivals should do the work. Also, I don't see the need of any "Cat:Wikipedia categories named after..." --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:15, 11 April 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.

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 all to "Queens, New York" form. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:21, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Propose renaming

• Rationalle: Per parent category, Category:Queens (borough); additionally, a few of these are ambiguous (History, Culture). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 20:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query: Is there any reason the main article and these categories aren't at Queens, New York City or Queens, New York? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:07, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category was renamed from Queens, New York City in this CFD. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 22:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to "Queens, New York City", since the usual format is to use the city name. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 03:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Queens (borough) per recent CfD; even if we go back to the old format, prefer "Queens, New York" over "Queens, New York City", as it's also accurate and non-ambiguous. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:23, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to something. I don't care which form is used, but whichever form is chosen should be applied consistently. If pushed for a preference, I'd prefer "Queens, New York" as the shortest natural-language form. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to the form of Category:Queens, New York.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep all, except those which are ambiguous (e.g. history, culture). We only need to add disambiguation when there is a chance of confusion - this nom throws out the baby with the bathwater. Most of these cats are just fine where they are - I'd say most should be renamed to Queens (again, except in cases where there might be ambiguity).--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. Consistency is a long-standing and well-accepted principle of category names, so much so that we have a speedy renaming criterion (WP:C2C) to achieve it. Obi offers no reason for treating Queens as an exception to C2C, so Obi's proposal really is a radical change to that principle. That would need a much wider consensus than can be achieved in one CFD; it would need an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think in this case, WP:IAR may apply. There are *so* many Queens categories, and anyone looking at them will find them totally unambiguous. There are only a very few that need (and already have) disambiguation - make those all the same (NY, borough, whatever), but wholesale cluttering just for the sake of a few seems to me like misapplication of the principal of consistency. As Emerson said, "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Consistency in category names is not foolish. On the contrary, it is the crucial property which allows editors to categorise articles without having to check the category tree for the name of every single category they apply. Without that consistency, fewer articles will be correctly categorised.
        Consistency also allows the use of classification templates, which help readers by adding an extra navigational model. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. What naming convention applies to boroughs? While these are in fact a part of NYC, they are also US counties. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename while Queens is on this subject, I think it is too ambiguous for a category name. I would go for Queens, New York. It might not be fully correct in all ways, but it would most reflect actual usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- I have no strong view as to what the target should be but Category:Queens would be highly misleading, because it might refer to queens regnant and queens consort. The article for Birmingham is there, but its categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands, to prevent things relating to Birmingham, AL appearing. Certainly as a bare (parent) category, Queens will need a disambiguator, but there is no reason why its subcategories for things "in Queens" should always have to, assuming there are no other significant places called Queens. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Oppose, although in some cases I'd say Strong Oppose - I don't see this gigantic renaming campaign happening with any other borough of New York City. In the case of categories like Category:New York City Subway stations in Queens, adding (borough) as a qualifier is extremely redundant. It's New York City. What other "Queens" could you possibly be referring to here? -------User:DanTD (talk) 18:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Any category with a title of "from Queens", "in Queens" or "of Queens" needs no disambiguation at all, and the number of categories that would be needlessly affected makes this ludicrous. Whatever would be gained from some foolish consistency would only cause infinitely more confusion on the part of editors and readers. Alansohn (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Oof Queens" is ambiguous - is Category:History of Queens about the history of queens (their rights, responsibilities etc., as they developed over time) or about Queens? Is Category:Culture of Queens about the culture related to being in the royal families (i.e of queens) or of Queens? These are, in fact, ambiguous - as would be the already disambiguated Category:Images of Queens, New York City - one wouldn't expect to find a picture of Queen Rania of Jordan or of Elizabeth I of England with the current name, but one might if it weren't disambiguated. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apparently you agree that all of the other categories are not ambiguous. There is no article about the "Culture of female monarchs" nor about the "History of female monarchs" that could create any confusion, nor will any such categories be created. You're grasping for excuses not to face the fact that there is no genuine ambiguity beyond the farfetched scenarios you have concocted. Disambiguate only where needed, no more, and none is needed here. Alansohn (talk) 01:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all using "Queens, New York City" except the subway stations, which are fine. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Except perhaps for "History of Queens" this is an absurd discussion. Ouroborosian (talk) 03:16, 19 May 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.

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 appropriate Category:XXXX in Romanian sport category or categories, then delete. As noted, this will have to be done manually, so these will be listed at WP:CFDWM for completion. (I have considered this discussion in conjunction with this related discussion and the other related discussions noted below.)

Propose upmerging:

• Category:1965–66 in Romanian rugby union (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) -- 0 pages

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, Merge all to the appropriate Category:YYYY in Romanian sport or merge the pre-2008–09 categories. (I have not listed the merge targets, because this will need to be done manually).
These malformed categories are part of a series which should be grouped under Category:Seasons in Romanian rugby union, but that categ doesn't exist and these categs are all a mess. They mostly contain only 1 page, and only two of them exceeds 5 pages; none of the pre-2009 categs exceeds 2 pages, which is why I suggest that editors may prefer to delete the pre-2009 categs.
In most cases, the category contains only "YYYY FIRA Trophy " (e.g. 1985–87 FIRA Trophy), and those articles already grouped in Category:FIRA tournaments.
There is no reasonable prospect that these categories will be expanded in the near future, and this huge number of categories simply impedes navigation by providing a useless extra layer.
If editors decide to keep the 2009-onwards categories (or indeed any of the categories), then they will need to fixed and parented under a new Category:Seasons in Romanian rugby union. But do we really need year-country-sport category series for every possible permutation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• See also related discussion at CFD 2013 April 3#Seasons_in_Spanish_rugby_union. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • And also CFD 2013 April 7: Seasons in Argentine rugby union. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:58, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Romania has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Rugby union has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To be closed to reflect the outcome of the Spanish category, please. Most of the articles relate to participation in an international competition, which feels to me far too like performance by performer. Hence Merge all together. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:51, 6 April 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.

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: there was a consensus to keep this category. But even if there had been a consensus to delete it, the discussion would still have closed as "keep" because this is a container category and there is reason to orphan its sub-categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:03, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Mystery films by country

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, contains several sub-categories with only one film each. In addition, the handful of sub-categories could all be upmerged to Category:Mystery films. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:33, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, films shouldn't be categorized this deep by country. --NaBUru38 (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As part of a bigger scheme of films by genre and country. Why delete just the parent category and not the child categories? What's the rational for keeping Category:American mystery films‎ and not Category:Brazilian mystery films‎? Populate the under-populated categories. If you meant that the under-populated categories should be deleted, you'll need to tag those categories too. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 18:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, they're just poorly populated. I added a few so all categories at least have more than one article now. Smetanahue (talk) 18:41, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll admit that I nominated this for deletion because of the under-populated sub-categories, so I officially withdraw my nomination. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:46, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note. Ordinarily, a withdrawn nomination is closed. But since there is already a !vote to delete, this one stays open. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be pragmatic. As the !vote hasn't actually cited a policy based reason for their comment, this should be closed, with no problem if that user (or anyone else) wishes to re-nominate it with a sound based rationale. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:58, 5 April 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.

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:United States proposed federal legislation and Category:113th United States Congress. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:34, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

Two options:

1. Propose renaming Category:United States proposed federal legislation of the 113th Congress to Category:Proposed legislation of the 113th United States Congress

Nominator's rationale: Much simpler name. —GoldRingChip 17:19, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Question -- All the artilces are labelled as "acts". Do they beceome acts until they have passed both houses and the president? In UK, they would be bills, and I tought US also sued the term. The present headnote tries to look back from 2016. I apprecate that WP ties to be timeless, but I would have thought the use of the futuree tense "will" would be more appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Answer — They are labelled as "acts" because even when proposed that's their names. Technically, they're just bills, but their name incorporates "Acts."—GoldRingChip 20:25, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2. Propose deleting Category:United States proposed federal legislation of the 113th Congress. I see no reason for this category.—GoldRingChip 17:47, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• rename per nom. useful cat, fits into the broader tree.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:59, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. If we have articles on things that have not become law, which we do, it is worth having a category to group these.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:United States proposed federal legislation. So many acts have been proposed in multiple congresses essentially intacked, that categoriziaing by congress will either lead to an incomplete set of articles or massive overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:08, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree. Good idea!—GoldRingChip 12:54, 25 April 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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Wikipedians who read Isaac Asimov (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overly-narrow Wikipedian category. Comes from these two userboxes. — Hex (❝?!❞) 16:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, having "Science fiction fans" is enough. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not useful in building an encyclopedia and how much Asimov must one have read to be in the category? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Doesn't hurt the project is benign. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we do not need a clutter of unhelpful user categories that do not aid in colaboration. If you keep this is will set bad precedents for other things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:50, 10 April 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sharia to Category:Sharia law

Nominator's rationale: The term sharia by itself is ambiguous. Sharia can mean street. It can mean dispensation. Furthermore, "sharia law" is used by notable academic publishers. This reame is to ensure categorization does not go off-topic. Pass a Method talk 14:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Article is at Sharia, and many discussions led to that. I suggest looking at those previous discussions to understand why the consensus ended up here.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Sharia law makes it clear what the scope of the category is meant to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- If nom is correct, it is the article that needs renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the article is fine as it is because there is no danger of the scope being misdirected at other articles. Pass a Method talk 21:52, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, while many of use are used to hearing "Sharia law", it appears that since Sharia is a noun, adding law is redundant (eg "china law"), thus the article should stay at Sharia, and the category as well. The word may mean other things, but this is the main usage from the encyclopedia's perspective. if we ever use different meanings for categories, we can call them Category:Sharia (street). We can also add a comment in the category header further explaining the use. I see we dont even have articles for the other uses of the word.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:05, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good explanation. The ambiguous argument doesn't fly here, as we don't have any categories for streets or dispensation in arabic.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• rename i just wanted to point out that i think Lambert put it eloquently. Pass a Method talk 22:01, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• comment I notified editors at Talk:Sharia and Talk:Sources of sharia. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 03:56, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I just notified the Islam wikipedia project of this discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• keep. the use of the word 'sharia' is not ambiguous as claimed, at least in an English language context.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 11:05, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Adding "law" to the end isn't extraneous nor does it cause the category to become too long; it does, however, provide some clarity, and in the news "sharia law" does seem to be more common than merely "sharia." MezzoMezzo (talk) 08:59, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The term is not ambiguous (Pass a Method previously argued this here but no one else agreed) in English usage, and as "sharia" is a noun that means Islamic law, its use as an adjective in "Sharia law" would be incorrect and redundant. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:44, 28 April 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.

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:Cruelty to animals to match the head article and to make it clearer who is being cruel to whom. There's no consensus for a greater change.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:30, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Animal cruelty (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be a clear example of POV, with people adding this template arbitrarily to a whole mix of articles. This seems to be a way of condemming certain practices whilst circumventing POV and and PROVEIT rules. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This is an encyclopedic topic, per the head article Cruelty to animals. The category includes numerous articles which definitely belong here, such as the Cruelty to Animals Act 1849/1835/1876 and California Proposition 6 (1998). It is needed as a grouping for those articles.
  However, the category is also used for articles such as Donkey-baiting, docking (dog), and other topics where there is (sadly) a POV that such things are no cruel. We may need to create a more neutrally-named sub-cat for that sort of topic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which case, if that's the grouping required, then the category should presumably be 'Animal cruelty legislation', which is much more descriptive, and does not fall foul of POV? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see 8 pieces of legislation, which could go into a Category:Animal cruelty legislation, but that should be a sub-cat of Category:Animal cruelty. However, that doesn't resolve the question of what to do with the rest. Deleting the category is not a solution, because most of these articles are clearly defined by their perception as cruel. There are plenty of reliable sources to describe cockfighting etc as cruel, but there are POVs which contest this. What we need is a sub-category with a less prescriptive term, one which respects both points of view. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • As you've quite rightly pointed out it is a 'perception' of cruel, which will vary from person to person. That makes it inherently POV (and its not just POVs that contest cock fighting being cruel - those who agree that is cruel also have a POV). Don't disagree that a category could be needed, and so a rename might be the right answer. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Animal protection as the topic concerns protection of animals - whether due to cruelty or greed or "development" and can include endangered species legislation, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This seems like a good compromise name. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Cruelty to animals to match article Cruelty to animals. Tim! (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still seems like POV. Someone needs to decide that there is cruelty, and that is a judgement and POV. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are there any articles in the category which you think may be inappropriate? Tim! (talk) 21:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or delete: But to a non-POV name, perhaps Category:Animal welfare controversies or something. Montanabw^(talk) 20:57, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• rename to Category:Animal welfare controversies, I like that one. Could also have a subcat for animal cruelty legislation, as the legislation is so named.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:18, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree that 'animal welfare controversies' sounds like a much better litle. I'd have thought though that the legislation wouldn't then sit comfortably as subcategory, and would be better in its own. Also wondering if that would need a different (neutral) lane like Category:Animal protection legislation - especially as not many countries enact legislation in order to be cruel to animals - they enact it to protect them. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename of delete - Agree that Category:Animal cruelty is subjective and culture-bound. Category:Animal welfare controversies is better. Star767 22:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Cruelty to animals or Keep Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The nominator's rational is that the category is "subjective", I agree with him, however don't we have Category:Superstitions? Now what is faith and what is superstition? For an atheist all faith is superstition, for a mono-theist, polytheism is superstition, for one who believes in rebirth, the concept of "eternal damnation" is superstition, for many "the fact that God created the world in 6 days and rested on the seventh" is superstition, for a non-believer "virgin birth" and "resurrection" is superstition. Another such subjective category that comes to mind is Category:Terrorism, were the acts of killing 200000 humans, children, women, non-combatants, doctors, the invalid: using two bombs, acts of terror? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 15:58, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • How can Bullfighting which is now categorised as Category:Animal cruelty be categorised by Category:Animal welfare legislation. I opine that a notice be put on all articles that are categorised as Category:Animal Cruelty so as to get an adequate response to this debate. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 16:15, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How can animal euthanasia be categorized as aminal cruelty, which it is, as in the subcat Category:Animal killing. Animal welfare is the neutral term and encompasses both things that may be beneficial to animals (protection of endangered species, say - but if we save the whales we also kill the plankton/fish/seals, whatever the whales eat, and animal euthanasia which may spare fido pain and save his owners' some cash...) and that which is clearly of no value to the animals (killing off termites to protect our property, animal sacrifice - assuming that religion is always false, and the like). Lots of POV, like "cruelty". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Saving whales isn't bad for its prey, particularly in waters where it is native, predators play a vital role in preserving ecological balance. There is an editor at talk:Fox hunting who claims that "foxes would suffer a slow death from disease or mange" and tearing them apart using hounds is kindness, predators play a role in controlling prey populations. If you feel that Animal euthanasia is mis-categorised as "Animal cruelty", discuss on the talk page to take that category label off, "don't throw baby with the bath water". Yogesh Khandke (talk) 05:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • In your argument on the Fox Hunting talk page where this started, you freely admitted that you wished to include this category because of your own POV that the subject of the article was cruel, and called other arguments of varying quality to support this position, and rejected those which did not match you view. This means that you are working to reinforce your POV through the Category structure. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • You're certainly right in saying it is my perception as formed from many RS that term it so, that tearing foxes to shreds in the name of culture is barbaric and not fit for the 21st century, you disagree with me, so what is so special about this with reference to Wikipedia? Isn't Wikipedia about consensus prevailing, if more Wikipedians opine that it is fine to torture and kill animals for human pleasure, that is what will reflect in how an article comes across and how we categorise articles etc. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Who said I disagreed with you? Of the articles tagged with the animal cruelty category (including ones under discussion), I personally disagree with many of them, and think that they should be outlawed and prosecuted, but that has no bearing on my belief in WP:NPOV, and reporting the controversy, not being prescriptive by using divisive and controversial category headings. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete an inherently subjective, Point-of-view pushing name. That we have others does not mean we should have this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The more I look at the superstition category, the more I think we should delete it. It shouts out "we are smarter than those dumb people in the past who believed people got sick from night air".John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:43, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or possibly Rename to Category:Animal welfare. Personally, I think the present title does quite well. I think that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is one of the oldest bodies (if not the oldest) devoted to the subject. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  So shouldn't we call it a more straight forward Category:Cruelty to Animals Yogesh Khandke (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Cruelty to Animals, to match article. article was moved from animal cruelty a while back, as that name was ambiguous (can animals be cruel to each other?), and this topic is about human cruelty to animals. I know it sounds like a POV category, but what is potentially POV (thus requiring discussion) is what should be included in it, like so many of our discussions about adding cats to articles. cruelty is defined (by our article) as "indifference to suffering, and even pleasure in inflicting it". Whether one feels the indifference is in certain cases nonexistent (do krill suffer if harvested for food?) necessary (hunting for survival?), problematic, or a complete moral failure is a separate debate. The fact of cruelty is well established, even if the boundaries are not, like with Category:Superstitions or Category:Pornography (remember the famous judge who said "I cant define pornography, but i know it when i see it"-thats pretty much true for these ideas in general). We have a parent cat, Category:Cruelty, which has the same problem of what belongs in it, but no problem with its validity as a concept. Any article where there is a significant expression by a recognized group that describes the subject as animal cruelty should be considered for inclusion. It doesnt mean the subject IS animal cruelty, it just means there is debate about it. Rancher Temple Grandin would argue that certain methods of animal slaughter are not cruel, as she obviously is not indifferent to animal suffering.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:30, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have already made an assumption that suffering is involved, regardless of indifference to it, or otherwise. That is inherently POV, as you cannot in most cases prove the suffering. Changing the category to 'Cruelty to animals' makes no substantive difference to the POV problem. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an insinuation that animals don't feel pain? Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Yogesh. This is not an inherently POV category, no different from Category:Torture. Animals may or may not be aware that they are suffering, they may only feel pain. in that case, the definition as given by us would imply that for animals, at the least, pain IS suffering. thus, the definition of animal cruelty is not about whether the animal is in pain (which it is, neuroscientists know this, there was doubt in western culture until quite recently aobut this, arguing that when an animal cries out when being injured, its an automatic response that doesnt show the animal is in "pain". we now understand this is pure BS, as the pain response is innate to all organisms). The definition instead lies in whether the inflicter may be considered at least indifferent to the pain, possibly taking pleasure in it. This will require sources to show that article subject X has been identified as an example of animal cruelty, just like we only place articles in Category:Torture if there is a source stating as such. We do NOT need to prove that animals suffer precisely as humans do, to allow this category. We only need to show that the concept of animal cruelty, regardless of how poorly defined, does in at least some cases clearly exist. the inclusion criteria are not as clear as we would like, but thats true for a wide range of categories. we dont delete categories that dont have precise, mathematical definitions, otherwise half our category tree would disappear. remember, the categories are not meant to perfectly define articles, but aid readers in finding and understanding information.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Attempt on consensus

Trying to make sense of all the responses, but it seems to me that the most popular response was to rename to something which maintains the category meaning, and ability to help people navigate, but which removes the insinuation of subjective POV through a different name. This seems to be the most sensible approach, and I would propose that something akin to Category:Animal welfare or Category:Animal welfare concerns would convey the sense of there being concern about animal welfare, cruelty and related subjects, but without creating the issue of real or perceived POV. This would recognise that at least some people see it as being of concern, without requiring a burden of proof to cruelty - think of articles like fishing, where there a minority view of cruelty, that is not reflected in mainstream culture, and so is unlikely to pass the burden of proof to cruelty. If we maintained cruelty, I think we would need to maintain a standard of proof the same as any other assertion - that of reliable sources such as academic journals and textbooks, a standard that 'welfare concern' does not require. Would there be general agreement for this approach? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:07, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just an addendum to this, the WP:CAT policy is very specific that categories should be both NPOV and uncontroversial when introduced to articles, and that each article must have cited majority evidence which points to the category - this would exclude a good number of articles which would be helpfully navigated through a category, as the evidence for them being cruel is WP:FRINGE. I think that the nature of the current naming is such that it will rarely be uncontroversial, so this would support the requirement to find an alternative name. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:29, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Owain is right to identify a desire to keep some grouping like this, but under a more neutral name.
However, Category:Animal welfare is a much broader topic than the current grouping. So far it seems to be the best option available, but if implemented it will require some juggling of category contents. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with that - whatever move we make will require some management of the category to make sure that the topics in it are appropriate. I've held off doing this pending result of this discussion, but happy to do it if we get a consensus. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:50, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And at the risk of going on a bit, Category:Animal welfare already exists as the parent to Animal Cruelty, and this might not be productive in making the category tree navigable, so this might need to be something more specific like Animal welfare concerns. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:16, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest perhaps Category:Animal welfare controversies, Category:Animal welfare issues. I have no particular attachment to either, but it's the general idea, something along these lines. Montanabw^(talk) 17:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, life isn't mathematical, as there is a category Category:Cruelty there is place for the category Category:Cruelty to animals. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 01:22, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And Wikipedia is the place for neither terrorists nor freedom fighters. You've made your position clear on here and other pages that you wish to apply the category in order to promote your view of cruelty, which is incompatible with WP:NPOV. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is the place for neither terrorists nor freedom fighters, isn't that stretching the truth?. Secondly insinuations have no place in debates. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

procedural note - 1) this category was not tagged before this nomination; I have just done so. 2) I have informed wikiproject animals of this discussion. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:18, 14 April 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.

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. Wizardman 19:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Geocaching in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category appears to contain articles about places where geocaching has taken place. Geocaching is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of most/all of those places. Categories like this could lead to a huge amount of category clutter. DexDor (talk) 10:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion per DexDor unless the category can be usefully repurposed. What I mean by this is that in its present form, as DexDor notes, it simply seems to be a list of places. I saw it because it had been added to Angel of the North, where it seems to be wholly without use or significant meaning. By the rationale that put it there, it should be everywhere that geocaching has ever taken place, which is essentially a significant proportion of every notable place in the UK, which means it is without use and is covered perfectly by the first paragraph of the Geocaching article where it says "outdoor recreational activity" then "anywhere in the world". At the moment the category has 10 articles - but it should probably have 10000 or 100000, or rather it should be deleted to avoid this ridiculous occurence. Also, if it exists then it would seem to constitute an argument for categories covering "places you can walk", "places where you can eat sandwiches", "places that have a grid reference", etc. It's a bad bad idea. And when I say "usefully repurposed" I mean, is there some way it can refer to geocaching topics (but not, please not a list of places) such as, I don't know, UK geocaching groups, or UK-specific practice, or something? Is there anything? If so then maybe - carefully described as to its limitations - then it might have some sort of a future; otherwise, I feel it should simply be deleted. Indeed deletion is the easier, more logical and more maintainable option. Best wishes to all DBaK (talk) 12:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (yeah, sorry, I'll shut up soon) - please compare with Category:Caving in the United Kingdom or even Category:British Orienteering Federation, both of which seem to me to be doing the topic-by-country-related job but which do not, thanks be, attempt to list locations at which the activity may be carried out. As I say above and Obi-Wan Kenobi says below, that sort of model could be used if there were anything to put in it ... DBaK (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. This is a recipe for horrendous category clutter. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, at least in it's current form (as a list of places). If there were a set of articles about geocaching in the UK I could see a cat, but I don't see such articles for now - so ice it.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. The articles in category don't even seem to mention Geocaching. What is the criteria for putting them in a category? Per Wikipedia:Categorization, the reason for the categorization should be noted in the article lead. Star767 15:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Tim! (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It seems to me this category is being used for places where geo-caching has occured. That is in the nature of a performance (geo-caching) by performer (location) category. Some months ago we had a discussion about snooker venues, many of which were places where a tournament had taken place. This raises similar issues. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Arguably this is a lot worse than snooker venues. At least with a snooker venue, the place itself is involved in the planning and holding the event, and generally it takes up the whole place at the time. geocaching can be done all sorts of places, with little effort and really says nothing about the place so used.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• snow is it snowing in here? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 06:19, 14 April 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.

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. I'll also Speedy-nominate the outliers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Australian transport-related lists to Category:Australia transport-related lists

Nominator's rationale: The convention of Category:Transport-related lists by country is "FOO transport-related lists", where FOO is the name of a country. This rename will also bring the category in line with Category:Australia communications-related lists. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 09:26, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. The category is of the form adjective noun which is correct. The others within the category group are of the form noun noun which is illiterate. Transport-related lists of... may be better, but as it stands the cat I created is correct and all the others are incorrect. We do not have a category Australia people nor, I trust, do we have a category Australia grammarians Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:13, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are other categories, one of which is mentioned by the nominator, of equal illiteracy. Most appear to come from the same source and will need dealing with, in due course Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:51, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and it gets worse Category:Transport in South America-related lists which would, one imagines, relate to all transport in lists related to South America, would it not? Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. The convention of Category:Transport-related lists by country, and of the wider Category:Lists by topic and country is "[country-noun] [topic]-related lists". This avoids all the variations, ambiguities and other problems of the adjectival format. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Avoid all the problems of the correct form by using an incorrect form? Are we really heading that far downmarket? If anyone can tell me what an Australia transport (to which the lists relate) is, then go right ahead. As an aside a New South Wales transport was a derogatory term once used in South Australia for a convict (great-great-grandad once ended up in court over that one, on the receiving end, even though he was one). Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. "Correct form"? That phrase usually refers to an old-fashioned type of English etiquette, which has long since gone out of fashion.
      A category title is not an essay, not even a sentence; it is a brief label for a collection of articles. Category names need consistency, and should also be brief; that sometimes requires compromises on grammatical perfection. Using the adjectival form is straightforward with Australia, but it creates a bundle of problems with other countries. If you want to change the convention, then make a group nomination of the hundreds of subcats of Category:Lists by topic and country ... but so far you have offered no reason why Australia should be an exception to an established convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:05, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply Precisely what I intend to do should this one be resolved the way I feel it should be. Illiteracy for the sake of convenience is not something that sits well with me. Crusoe8181 (talk) 08:00, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Reply. If you want to change the convention, then make a proper nomination to change the convention. But you make no case for treating this one as an exception.
          In the meantime, please try to remain civil, and stop claiming that the reasoned arguments of those you disagree with amount to "illiteracy". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:52, 6 April 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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:Former trade unions to Category:Defunct trade unions
  

Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Defunct trade unions. 'Former' implies that the organization ceased to be a union, but not necessarily having been dissolved. Soman (talk) 07:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom and per parent Category:Defunct organizations Tim! (talk) 20:01, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename we used defunct.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• REname per nom. We do not normally like "former" categories, but I think that a defunct category is still useful. They will frequently have disappeared due to merger into a wider trades union. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:53, 6 April 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.

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:Tram stops in the United Kingdom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom tram stops to Category:Tram stopsCategory:Tram stops in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: No parent Category:Tram stops yet, but Tram stops of foo would seem the more normal form. Tim! (talk) 06:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - there are tram stops in other countries as well. If you are renaming, at least put it as Tram stops in the United Kingdom and create the parent category as a separate one. Simply south...... eating shoes for just 7 years 14:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Why are stops in parking lots or at the top and bottom of mountains notable? Trams have many transportation related meanings. So the stops for an Aerial tramway are still tram stops. If this is needed, it should go up one level to a child of Category:Light rail, say Category:Light rail stops. This avoids the ambiguity as well as regional differences on what the vehicles are called. If that was done, then regional specific names could be used for the lower levels, like Category:Tram stops in the United Kingdom. Also for that one, if Category:United Kingdom metro stations is a valid parent, are these trams different then what I was thinking? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:43, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Not every tram stop is notable, but some are, or are connected to notable places. For instance you could legitimately put Nottingham railway station, Forest Recreation Ground, Nottingham Royal Theatre and Old Market Square in just for the Nottingham tram, even though they're not all just tram stops. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:02, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I actually messed up this nomination which should have been rename to Category:Tram stops in the United Kingdom. Tim! (talk) 19:50, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per (revised) nom. Nevertheless, I am very dubious of the value of the whole tree. A tram stop on a system running trams down the street differs little from a bus stop, but a tram route is rather more permanent than a bus route (where we have recently deleted a load of list articles). Other systems are running largely on reserved tracks and are more like railways. A tram stop outside (and named after) a theatre does not deserve an its own article, though the theatre will. A list article of tram stops could usefully link to the theatre article, but the converse of putting the theatre article in a tram stops category is bizarre. The trams stop near the door, not on the stage! Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories do not need to represent the entirety of an article. -mattbuck (Talk) 13:26, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per revised nom and delete any articles that are included solely because they are serviced by an otherwise unotable tram stop. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 11 April 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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose renaming Category:United Kingdom metro stations to Category:Metro stations in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: The country subcategories of Category:Rapid transit stations are not consistent but take the form Metro stations of foo or Rapid transit stations of foo, so this UK category should be renamed. Tim! (talk) 06:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Either keep or rename per nom -- It shoudl not become "rapid transit", which is a generic term, not used for any aprticular system in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 6 April 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.