< August 28 August 30 >

August 29

Category:MotoGP race reports

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) 03:27, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: More correct name. Maybe with subcategories? Parent category named Category:Motorcycle Grands Prix. NickSt (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sasanian people

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 per nomination. – Fayenatic London 13:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: During the 4th, 5th and 6th century the Sasanian Empire was the name of the Iranian Empire, and Sasanian people (rather: people of the Sasanian Empire) were just Iranian people. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English WP, not the Iranian one: we should be categorising people by the usual English name for their country. Thus we have German people, not Deutsch people. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, though Iranian people is correct English, in contrast to Deutsch people. In addition, Iranian peoples have lived on the Iranian plateau since late 2nd millennium BCE to early 1st millennium BCE. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Coulson Norman Mitchell nomination #3

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: Closed. We currently have two discussions already open that need to be combined. No reason to add a third. If this really is a valid option, it can be included with the consolidated discussion below (once that happens). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ROC This category should be merged into Category:Victoria Cross. This is very relevant content to the background of this Victoria Cross recipient that are several historical organisations and groups relevant to this high ranking notable British Canadian nobleman Lieutenant-Colonel Coulson Norman Mitchell VC MC CME RME. I will attest that many informative topics are currently being added to this category. Wikipedia will benefit by the merging of these categories.Gleeson.ThomasR (talk) 20:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Grammar notes

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 as empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Grammar notes to Category:Wikipedia grammar notes
Nominator's rationale: Make clearer that this is a Wikipedia administration category - not a content category. Consistency with other Wikipedia administration categories. DexDor (talk) 20:38, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - the category is now empty so I'm withdrawing this CFD and will tag the cat for CSD. DexDor (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Reptiles of Metropolitan France

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, taking care to keep lists and sub-cats in suitable national parent categories. – Fayenatic London 15:09, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a reptile species (e.g. European pond turtle) is found in a particular European country is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that species. Note: we only have categories like this for 3 of the approx 50 countries in Europe. For info: Previous related discussions include Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_19#Category:Insects_of_Andorra. Note: Each of these categories has a list article (123) that should be placed in a by-country category. DexDor (talk) 20:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re "we may have made an exception": you may be thinking of Category:Fauna of the Iberian Peninsula. I've amended the nom to also merge to that category. Categorizing by geographical areas (as long as they are sufficiently large) is ok, but categorizing by (smallish) countries isn't (for one thing it leads to a plethora of categories for mini-states - e.g. see 3rd Sept. CFD). DexDor (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Who determines what is "sufficiently large" and by consequence, what is too small? If you recall, several of the "fish of X" categories that you determined to be insufficiently large could have survived on their own merits if even just restricted to endemics (Greece had 22 endemic freshwater fish). Rkitko (talk) 02:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We determine what is sufficiently large by avoiding categorization by such small (on a global scale) areas that an article would (e.g. if the by-country tree was completed) be in a large number of categories (e.g. the European pond turtle, according to the map in that article, would also belong in categories for Portugal, Denmark, Ukraine, Liechenstein etc if such categories existed). Being endemic to a particular area (country or otherwise) is WP:DEFINING - this nom isn't proposing deleting any endemic categories. DexDor (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If Category:Reptiles of Europe becomes excessively large then subcats can be created for turtles, snakes etc (like Category:Mammals of Europe has subcats for bats, rodents etc). That avoids an article being in dozens of by-country categories (especially countries that often aren't mentioned specifically in an article that says something like "found throughout southern Europe"). Note: When creating such categories it can be efficient to use category intersection to identify those articles that belong in the new subcat. DexDor (talk) 05:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC) (updated DexDor (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2014 (UTC))[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Birds of Suriname

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Birds of Suriname to Category:Birds of the Guianas
  • Propose merging Category:Birds of Guyana to Category:Birds of the Guianas
  • Propose merging Category:Birds of French Guiana to Category:Birds of the Guianas
Nominator's rationale: That a bird species is found in a particular (smallish) country is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that species. This sort of categorization causes some articles (example) to be in many categories. See related discussions at WikiProject Birds and at CFD. Note: List articles (e.g. List of birds of Suriname) should also be placed in the appropriate country categories. DexDor (talk) 19:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note -- I have cleaned up the categories at spectacled owl to be closer to the ideal. Here's a permalink to the edit before mine for reference. Rkitko (talk) 01:20, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way these categories have been used (which you call misapplication without linking to a page that defines inclusion criteria) means that most articles that are in one of these 3 categories are also in the other 2 (there are currently 187 articles in all 3). Another example - Barred antshrike is currently in 28 "Birds of ..." categories - they can not all be WP:DEFINING characteristics. DexDor (talk) 06:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And Volga River is in a dozen "Rivers of X" categories, but last I checked you had no problem with that. You already know this, but I'll repeat it for the closing admin -- we fundamentally disagree on whether a species' distribution is defining. I contend it is defining and given the varying range of species from endemic to small regions to distributions that cover several continents, the category hierarchy must allow for both to be appropriately categorized. So, just as in the "Rivers of X" example, it doesn't matter that the distribution of a species or course of a river is broken down by political boundaries -- the fact that a river flows through different countries is defining for that river and the fact that a species is native to several countries is defining, because the course of a river or species' distribution at large is defining. The small country categories is just how we manage overpopulated continent or larger regional categories. Rkitko (talk) 02:09, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The way we categorize an individual fixed object (a river, a lake, a bridge etc) should be (and afaik is) suitable for such objects which are permanently located - either in a single country (most such objects) or several countries. Thus, categorizing them by the country/ies in which they are located makes sense. A closer analogy to species might be religions - and we don't have categories such as "Religions practiced in Italy". However, this is offtopic.
For a species (consisting of thousands/millions of individual animals) where it may not be clear exactly what the range is (e.g. if an article says a species is found throughout southern Europe then does that mean the article belongs in a San Marino category if such a category exists?) then categorizing by small (on a global scale) areas doesn't make sense. If a species is endemic to a particular area then that is a suitable characteristic to categorise by - and we have separate categories for that.
The distribution of a species is not generally a single binary piece of information - typically it is described using a map and may need extra information ("also occasionally seen in X", "now extinct in Y", "in Z only because of escapes from captivity" ...). The overall distribution may be a defining characteristic (but unsuitable for a category because it's not binary) and if the distribution is described using small areas (e.g. Suriname, Guyana, French Guiana) then they are not each individually a defining characteristic. As I've explained in the CFD above, there is a better way to subcategorize any categories that become overpopulated. DexDor (talk) 06:22, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you fundamentally don't understand the inclusion criteria for these categories. They include taxa that are extant and native to that region; extirpated populations are excluded, as are introductions outside of the native range. For our purposes, the native range of a species is as fixed as a river and in no way is a species' distribution more like "religions practiced in X" than "rivers of X". I don't follow your argument about the categories not being binary; as far as I know, there is no requirement that categories represent binary inclusion criteria. As for your last point, I'll explain above, but again I fundamentally disagree with subcategorization by taxon. First of all, reptile is paraphyletic doesn't make sense in taxonomy. I'd much rather see subcategorization by region or country for all fauna or flora than having it broken down by taxon. Rkitko (talk) 20:11, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "there is no requirement that categories represent binary inclusion criteria": either a page belongs in a category or it does not belong in that category - that's 2 options. For info: I've invited editors at WT:BIRDS to join this discussion. DexDor (talk) 20:56, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Novels based on Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

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 as empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only three articles in this category, unlikely to be more. Two of the three existing items are redirects to the game the novels are based upon. Mikeblas (talk) 14:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Coulson Norman Mitchell nomination #2

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: Closed as a duplicate discussion of #Category:Coulson Norman Mitchell. All comments to be considered in the close of that discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON there are not enough topic associated with the eponymous subject to warrant a category. The articles to which it has been applied are linked to in the main article anyway. Nthep (talk) 13:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose waiting for more information and possible merging NOT deleting Category:Coulson Norman Mitchell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
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:Coulson Norman Mitchell

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) 02:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON David Biddulph (talk) 13:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gathering more information still in process of discussion possibly merging with distinguished Victoria Cross recipients since the subjected individual Lietenant-colonel Coulson Norman Mitchell VC MC RCE MCE is indeed royal nobility and this individual royal subject should be categorized in his own category or merged with royal nobility category or Victoria Cross category and not swept away for deletion without proper critical study of the matter as above. . . Gleeson.ThomasR (talk) 15:29, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This sentence makes no sense whatsoever. And why on earth was this man "royal nobility"? Is this some sort of joke? -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Joy Formidable

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) 03:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Category doesn't add to what The Joy Formidable article already does. Articles on the band's songs and albums are already in more appropriate subject categories, which also link to one another. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More