< May 12 May 14 >

May 13

Category:Sherry vinegar

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) 00:28, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Upmerge single item to both parents per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 22:24, 13 May 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:Dunghutti 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. WP:SMALLCAT, only has one article Dunghutti. – Fayenatic London 20:13, 13 May 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:Wheelchair racers at the 2008 Summer Olympics

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: category was already deleted speedily under G7. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There were no wheelchair events at the 2008 Summer Olympics SFB 19:12, 13 May 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:Suborders of birds

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) 00:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I want to harmonize the members of Category:Bird taxonomy, but this isn't quite a C2C matter. It makes sense to use the "Bird taxa" syntax rather than "Taxa of birds" for conciseness, if nothing else. This does fit established naming in other categories, such as Category:Fish taxonomy and Category:Insect taxonomy. --BDD (talk) 18:57, 13 May 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:Cincinnati–Northern Kentucky metropolitan area geography stubs

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) 00:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This stub category is only for Ohio - and not, as the title seems to suggest, also for parts of Kentucky. The proposed name is based on Category:Greater Cincinnati school stubs, which applies to the same area, as well as the stub category's main tag (((GreaterCincinnatiOH-geo-stub)). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:04, 13 May 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:Scholars by subject

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) 00:17, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am failing to see any useful distinction between these two categories. In fact, the division of subcategories between these two seems to be essentially random. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:04, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
E.g. Category:Mathematicians and Category:Orientalists are under the latter; Category:Computer scientists and Category:Urdu scholars are under the former; Category:Theologians and Category:Legal scholars are under both. --Trɔpʏliʊm • blah 17:12, 13 May 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:Female accountants

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) 00:16, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since these are all adults. Also per [1] and [2] Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:50, 13 May 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:Female astronauts

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) 00:15, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are all adults, better to have women. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:42, 13 May 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:People descended from Joseph Loomis

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) 00:14, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Squillions of other categories-by descent have been deleted in the past, so I see no reason to keep this one. However, it may be appropriate to rename it to Category:Loomis family. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When I say "no sign of a family" I mean that I see no evidence that this grouping of people is of any importance as a group. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Their importance will become apparent through the large number of noted people descended from this one man. Perhaps I could make that point better in the introductory paragraph of the category itself? -dav4is (talk) 22:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hi Dav4isl, a great many people are descended from other famous people but we can't use category trees for genealogy. This is the essence of a non-defining trait - in the lede of these people's articles does it state they came from Loomis? When reliable sources talk about them do they say so and so, whose 5th great grandfather was Loomis, did X? We can't use categories in this way for geneological decent and it would add a huge amount of clutter. I'm quite sure that there are at least 10 articles of people Obama can be shown to be a descendent of, which would add 10 more categories to his article...--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:24, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
hi; It is fairly common for biographies and articles about people to mention their antecedents, e.g. here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisha_Scott_Loomis#Ancestry_and_early_life This is hardly a "genealogy"! But it does bring out a (potentially) defining characteristic: That people descended from certain others are (or may be) predisposed to greatness. I can certainly make this point explicitly in the category article itself. -dav4is (talk) 10:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
More: Since you mention "genealogy" twice in your last append, I assume that this is your chief objection. What I am doing is nothing like a genealogy. It is not my intent to create articles for each of the descendants, but simply to note in extant articles where appropriate that someone is descended from Joseph Loomis. -dav4is (talk) 10:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Then note it in the article. There are oodles of facts that we note in biographies that we would never create as categories - this is a prime example of such.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:35, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The same can be said for almost any category: it's an oddity of fact. This is contrary to the intended purpose behind categories: i.e. to "help readers find other articles about [or related to] the same topic as the one they were reading". I assume that you are not against all categories per se? Simply noting what you call an oddity of fact in an article does not help the reader find others like it. -dav4is (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, whether a particular category has any likelihood of being of use to you has no bearing on the matter. Utility is relative: Others may find it very useful. (Pardon the pun.) -dav4is (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Joseph Loomis was an immigrant is one of those "oddities of fact" mentioned by Obiwan, above and is not the reason for the category, nor has place of residence any bearing. -dav4is (talk) 18:47, 20 May 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:Wikipedians who like Orphan Black

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) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: most similar categories were deleted at Wikipedia:User categories for discussion/Archive/March 2008#Category:Wikipedians_interested_in_talk_television_and_subcats. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the one that created this category, if the consensus of Wikipedia users is that we are not to have these kinds of categories anymore, then I would be ok if it was deleted. --Devin Murphy (talk) 03:14, 13 May 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:Villages below Hronov

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) 00:12, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "below a town" is a rather vague way of describing the scope of a category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:57, 13 May 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:15th-century Jewish physicians of Portugal

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) 00:29, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The proposed name is in line with the other subcategories of Category:Medieval Jewish physicians and the sole member of the category would also be placed in Category:15th-century Portuguese physicians and Category:15th-century Jews. Hugo999 (talk) 01:28, 13 May 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:Walker Films - ASL

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 (category was empty at time of close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:11, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. 1-article category for the company Walker Films - ASL, whose head article is being discussed at AFD. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Walker Films was deleted at AfD for non-notability. --Finngall talk 20:08, 19 May 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:Slave owner

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedy delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:37, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Re-creation (with spelling variation) of Category:Slave owners, deleted at CFD 2007 April 28. Meets speedy deletion criterion WP:G4. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:09, 13 May 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:Deaf film production companies of the United States

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 (category was empty at time of close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:10, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Deaf film production companies of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Currently contains only one page: Walker Films - ASL, which is being considered for deletion at AFD.
The category text lists two other companies, neither of which appears to have an article. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Walker Films was deleted at AfD for non-notability. --Finngall talk 20:08, 19 May 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:Millennium Entertainment films

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; there seems to be quite good arguments here why we should not categorize a film by its distributor(s). Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I initially categorised this under Category:Films by studio, but then realised that Millennium Entertainment is a distribution company rather than a studio.
I don't know if there are other categories of films-by-distributor, but it seems like a recipe for category clutter, because films are presumably distributed by different companies in different markets. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:15, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Film has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But there are many other categories with distributors, Category:Relativity Media films is an example, it's a production as well as distribution company but we always add categories to those which are only distributed by co. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Assassin!: According to the article Relativity Media, that company does actually produce some material, as well as distributing. Are there other distributor-only categories? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Category:A24 films, Category:FilmDistrict films, Category:IFC Films films, Category:FilmNation Entertainment films‎ are there, if there would be a problem someone already had a issue on them. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 01:27, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Assassin!: OK, the last 2 of those (IFC Films and FilmNation Entertainment) do no production. It seems that odd to me that Category:Millennium Entertainment films is categorised as if it was a studio, which it isn't. But it's clearly not alone. Is a ctegory split in order? Or should be parent be renamed to Category:Films by studio or distributor? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:03, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Parent should be renamed to Category:Films by studio or distributor, split will not work. --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl: I just created Category:Films by studio or distributor and then redirect Category:Films by studio to it, it's the best way or should it be moved? --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Captain Assassin!: A move would require a consensus here, and so far all we have is us 2 throwing ideas around :)
Let;s wait for more input. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's what I never thought :). --Captain Assassin! «T ♦ C ♦ G» 02:33, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaving the defining issue aside, it's utterly unworkable. As the Variety article states, Millennium bought "U.S. distribution" only. And I suspect, based on what the announcement says, they may have well bought U.S. theatrical distribution rights only. Films get distributed in countries around the world. There are theatrical, home consumer, television, educational, and now, online (VOD/DTO) distributors. Should the U.S. theatrical distributor merit a category -- but no one else? It won't work, and there's very good reasons why we haven't walked off this particular cliff, to date. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:14, 14 May 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:Ceirano

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) 00:08, 21 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was uncategorised when I found it, so for now I put in Category:Italian families. It is an oddly heterogeneous mixture: 4 brothers, one son, several companies they founded or were influential in, and some products thereof ... but no apparent head article.
I don't see how such diverse set fits in the category tree, so I suggest renaming this as a family category for the people ... and doing something with the other articles, tho I don't know what. Any ideas? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I created the cat although I am profoundly unaware of the niceties of hieracrchy etc. I also created several of the articles and am still in the process of expanding the articles. What is a Head article? Should I create one? Will this solve the problem or merely ameliorate it? I have no opinion about what should be done with the cat. Thanks. Chienlit (talk) 09:09, 13 May 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