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. – Fayenatic London 20:09, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Casinos in Alaska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category contains but one article, (also nominated for deletion) which is a list of places in Alaska that are not casinos by any reasonable definition of the term. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Premature pending deletion discussion since it will be kept, if the article is kept, as a part of a series. Full discusion not needed if the article is deleted since it would be a speedy under C1. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:11, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To be perfectly honest, I am fairly sure the article will be deleted and was worried I would forget to nom the empty cat afterward. As these CFD discussions usually sit here longer than 7 days this is basically insurance as there is no way that I am aware of to bundle a page that normally would be under CFD or MFD into an AFD. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has now been deleted and I have added a CSD nom. Beeblebrox (talk) 04:30, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Per WP:C1, empty category. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:00, 24 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.

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. I will start a new nomination with my later suggestion below. – Fayenatic London 22:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Lamps to Category:Lamps (lighting)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Lamp/Lamps is ambiguous, so the category needs some sort of disambiguation. There's not really a "main article" for this subject, as the category encompasses gas, oil, and electrical lights. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose as incorrect disambiguation. Category:Lamps (illumination) might be more accurate unless we are drawing a distinction between lamps used for lighting versus illumination as these are not the same. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Vegaswikian: The first reason I selected the disambiguation is because on Lamp, the section that groups these types is entitled "lighting". I frankly don't see much of a difference between "lighting" and "illumination". From a definitional stance, lighting illuminates and illumination comes from lighting. The second reason is that the relevant WP article is also at Lighting. FWIW, its lead sentence reads, "Lighting or illumination is the deliberate use of light to achieve a practical or aesthetic effect." Illumination is a disambiguation page, with the relevant meaning simply directing to Lighting. So I'm not sure what distinction you're getting at. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:54, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support it's devices for the provision of light. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as unnecessary. The disambiguation page Lamp doesn't seem to have any other meanings when written in lower case. Are we worried that Lamps is ambiguous because it may refer to Frank Lampard? It's only a nickname, which would not be used for a category. – Fayenatic London 18:33, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not worried about anything in particular; the nomination just followings the standard practice that if a category name corresponds in article space to a disambiguation page, we disambiguate the category name. We've pretty much given up on debating the possibilities or trying to estimate the percentage change that there will be confusion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:13, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's nothing at WP:CATNAME that says category names can't match a disambiguation page. IMHO this is a good example of such a case where there is no problem. The most notable members of the category are listed on the dab page. The only mismatch is that the dab page includes meanings of uppercase LAMP as well as types of lamp; however, as the category name is lowercase, it's not ambiguous. – Fayenatic London 17:30, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There's nothing written, but it's a practice that's become pretty universally applied. (In general, I find that WP:CATNAME is pretty hopelessly out of date in terms of reflecting general practice, because every time someone proposes changing it, there is a huge brou-ha-ha that's not worth the effort.) And if there was an article called Lamp (lighting) which discussed the generic concept, I doubt anyone would object to a rename. As it happens, no such article exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:54, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • It might be worth trying CATNAME again now, as so few people seem to be active here these days! It is part of WP:CFDAI that we should use it. – Fayenatic London 23:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure that I'm actually encouraged by what I read at CFD these days. Kind of the opposite—I think the lack of those who were once here regularly but have been away has brought its quality down somewhat. (Not that there's anything wrong with those who remain ...) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:25, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a surname, it can be used to collect articles on people named "Lamp" -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, not all forms of English capitalize every letter in a pronounceable acronym. For instance, in NZ-style English, it's typically "Nato", not "NATO"—so in that form of English, none of these acronyms would be written "LAMPS", they would be written "Lamps". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • But the abbreviations are all LAMP/Lamp, not Lamps, except for one: Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System, which is American, and seems only to have been written as LAMPS. – Fayenatic London 23:55, 17 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • You know, one thing that's often overlooked in ENGVAR issues, is that even if a "thing" is American, it can be written about in English by non-American sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:24, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose I think LAMPS should redirect to Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System and lamps should redirect to lamp. I can't imagine an all caps usage of lamps would be used for any other purpose. The shortening of Frank Lampard's name is frankly not worth addressing – someone who could mistake a category on lamps to be one concerning Frank Lampard probably will need greater mental help than a disambiguation handle. SFB 00:06, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's with Frank Lampard? there are people named "Lamp". What about Charles Lamp, Dennis Lamp, Jeff Lamp ? These are Lamps, so clearly can be categorized in a category called "Lamps" -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, they can't, that would be "People with the surname Lamp", but all such categories have been deleted. The existing list on the disambiguation page should be split to a separate page, see MOS:DABNAME. (For common names we do not even keep lists, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of people named Jacob.) – Fayenatic London 14:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think the point the user may have been making is that it could be interpreted as meaning that to readers/users who are not aware of what kinds of categories are usually kept vs. deleted on Wikipedia processes. We disambiguate in categories for such reasons all the time, as a matter of practice that is so well accepted most of them are processed speedily. In the normal course of events, the only time we disregard that possibility is when the ambiguous term is used as the name of the thing for the Wikipedia article. In this situation, that would be if Lamp or Lamps was about the lamps used for lighting. In this case, they are not—they are disambiguation pages. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:59, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • For info, I have redirected LAMPS as suggested by SFB, merged Lamps to Lamp, and split the list of people to Lamp (surname). – Fayenatic London 15:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Types of lamp, as a member of Category:Categories by type. This is a clear enough name to exclude acronyms or persons named Lamp. There are a few pages on individual lamps (Azelin chandelier, Barbarossa chandelier, Hezilo chandelier, Lamp of Brotherhood, Montastruc decorated stone (Palart 518)) which could be split into a new sibling category:Individual lamps within Category:Individual physical objects. Disclosure: I have moved a few articles out of this and into Category:Lighting brands, although I left in some brands which have become generic names for types of lamp. – Fayenatic London 15:46, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a possibility; if we went down this path, would there still be a need (or a desire by some users) to have a container category called "Lamps" (or a disambiguated form of it), which would contain Category:Types of lamp and Category:Individual lamps? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:39, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. I suggest that they could both go in the current head category, Category:Lighting. – Fayenatic London 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I support the above outcome. SFB 20:34, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Usually I defer to the article space but the so-called disambiguation page is silly and consists mostly of types of lamps, rather than clarifying confusion of what a lamp is.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disambiguation page contains just over 30 entries. Of these, 12 (less than half) are related to lamps that produce light. It looks like a pretty standard disambiguation page to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose -- With the exception of some acronym almost everything in the dab article is an illumination device. Purge of items that are not illumination devices and merely use the word "lamp" for some other reason. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing in the category right now that is not an illumination device. The non-illumination device "Lamps" are only listed on the DAB page in article space. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 26 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: no consensus. – Fayenatic London 11:39, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Bishops of Avellino to Category:Bishops in Campania
• Propose upmerging Category:Bishops of Caiazzo to Category:Bishops in Campania
• Propose upmerging Category:Bishops of Luni to Category:Bishops in Liguria
• Propose upmerging Category:Bishops of Sora to Category:Bishops in Lazio
• Propose upmerging Category:Bishops of Terracina to Category:Bishops in Lazio
• Propose upmerging Category:Bishops of Tortona to Category:Bishops in Piedmont
• Propose upmerging Category:Bishops of Troia to Category:Bishops in Apulia

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, there is only one bishop in each of these categories. Also, the bishops in Italy are not fully diffused by diocese anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:22, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support All This is confusing navigation. No objection to recreating if there at least 5 articles for a category. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge Such small categories do not help navigating similar articles. Agree with above that expansion of article base may merit re-creation. SFB 18:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT - "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Italy in this case. Bernardino López de Carvajal was Bishop of Avellino, his article doesn't even mention Campania - categories at the bottom of an article should follow in an obvious way from the article without needing detailed geographical knowledge. Oculi (talk) 21:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't consider this a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. No more than about a third of the Italian dioceses have their own Bishops category. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When all but a handful of the categories are well-populated but a few are small to complete the set, I'm on board. I don't think that is the case here.RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep (at least). The equivalent British categories (for Anglican bishops) are well-populated. I suspect the problem is that WP is weak on bio-articles on Italian prelates, probably because the primary articles will tend to be in Italian. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:31, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I suspect so too, but we have to live with that. There's no point in keeping very small categories just because we know that there is potential for more articles while we also know that these articles will not be written in any near future. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT 1 Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Foo to match with Category:Roman Catholic bishops by diocese in Italy (even though these are not dioceses). Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:23, 7 December 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 09:53, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Television shows based on songwriters to Category:Television series based on singers and musicians

Nominator's rationale: Not a needed sub. Only contains one article JDDJS (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support This subdivision does not seem to be the best way. I don't think subdivision is warranted in this category yet (the 50 or so similar articles are usefully grouped) but perhaps Category:Television shows based on musical groups would give greater benefit. SFB 18:40, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:27, 18 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 10:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Cygnus to Category:Cygnus (genus)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Cygnus is ambiguous; category needs some sort of disambiguation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• REname per nom -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 07:31, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Swans on the grounds that Cygnus (genus) redirects to Swan. No opposition to rename should the category be retained. SFB 18:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's two separate trees, Category:Birds by classification and Category:Birds by common name. Category:Swans is part of the latter. The nominated category is part of the former. The two category trees do intersect and overlap often. I've argued in the past (not too strenuously) that we should consolidate the two, to no avail. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Good Olfactory: I think that's a change worth pushing for, given that categories are designed to group like material and almost all the subject articles should be identical for common name and classification categories. SFB 00:13, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • That was kind of my thinking, but there are a number of users who are convinced that WP categories for organisms should be a taxonomic tree. In any case, to reform it would probably take more careful thought and planning than I'm willing to commit at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 17 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 10:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bishops in Poland to Category:Roman Catholic bishops in Poland

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other countries that are predominantly Roman Catholic, e.g. Belgium, France, Italy and the Philippines. These countries don't have a Bishops in... category but do have a Roman Catholic bishops in... category. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to match sister cats. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:28, 18 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.

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) 09:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Kashubian clergymen to Category:Kashubian clergy

Nominator's rationale: 'Clergy' is the common term used in Wikipedia, e.g. like in this category's parent Category:Polish Christian clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support to reflect the usual clergy term, which is shorter and more inclusive to the rare women clergy. SFB 18:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is no independent Kashubia, so this is purely an ethnic breakdown. Do ethnic Kashubian clergy do anything differently than non-Kashubian clergy? What reliable sources prove that? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:42, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weakly opposing delete, based on the articles it seems like quite a number of these clergy can be considered as Kashubian activists so in that respect they are different from Polish clergy. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:00, 15 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.

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) 01:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose upmerging Category:Gorizian Jesuits to Category:Italian Jesuits

Nominator's rationale: Merge WP:SMALLCAT, only one article in the category. (Note: if the merge would go ahead, Category:Gorizian Roman Catholic priests will become empty and can also be deleted.) Marcocapelle (talk) 03:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support There doesn't seem to be any special connection between Jesuits and County of Gorizia that would make this small category useful. SFB 18:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom; not enough of them to break out by national subdivision. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:27, 17 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.

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: upmerrge to Category:Pentaphylacaceae. Doing this without CfD is considered "out of process" and strongly discouraged. – Fayenatic London 12:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nominator's rationale: Delete? A user manually emptied this category and then immediately nominated it for speedy deletion as "empty". I restored the category and suggested that the user formally nominate it, which the user declined to do, so I'm bringing it here. The edit summary for nominating it for speedy deletion was, "bot-generated category; always too small (3 members only)". (The user has told me that he thinks genus categories should not exist unless there are at least 10 articles that can be placed in it.) I am neutral on the nomination; I just want to see if users agree or disagree with deletion. (There are some other categories like this that have been similarly emptied and speedily deleted by the same user, so this is the beginning of an attempt to see if those actions should be reversed or allowed to stand.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I know nothing of this subject, I would generally tend to support a WP:SMALLCAT delete nomination for a category with the eponymous article and two further articles. Still it should be nominated here and not manually emptied. And besides, requiring a minimum of as much as 10 articles for a category is something that I would definitely not support. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:32, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It depends – on whether this is "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". A bot created category suggests to me that it has been approved by several human beings, giving it more credibility than many categories. However the parent category Category:Pentaphylacaceae contains the 2 articles in sequence so I am not sure that this particular subcat is serving much purpose. (The user has in fact done a manual upmerge from Category:Balthasaria to Category:Pentaphylacaceae, which would be a reasonable nomination: upmerge from genus to family if 'small', which I would put at 3 or 4.) Oculi (talk) 10:13, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Contrary to Oculi, I would consider the fact that the category was created by Polbot (back in the day) to be a good reason why the category should be deleted, not retained; Polbot did a lot of ill-advised and oversimplistic categorisation. Category:Balthasaria is too small to make sense on its own (there are no obvious pages that could ever be added here, and 3–4 is way too low for a general threshold; 15–20 is nearer the mark), and – perhaps more importantly – the parent category would be modestly sized even if all its subcategories were to be upmerged (although I'm not necessarily advocating that). Manually emptying a category like this and speedying it as empty does not strictly fall under CSD#C1, but I think this is a superb situation for ignoring the rules (or bending them, at least). This category should be upmerged, as dozens before it have been, and dozens more should be. --Stemonitis (talk) 13:52, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You could appeal to a generalised 'delete by author' as I don't expect anyone other than Polbot + experts have edited or populated such categories. (At cfd something like 6 is nearly always considered a sufficient number.) Oculi (talk) 14:20, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed too that Polbot's creations were sometimes of questionable utility. I have no problem accepting this sort of practice if it's limited to Polbot creations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and upmerge members to Category:Pentaphylacaceae. I agree with the user that emptied the cat but I guess having this done via CfD won't hurt. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:31, 18 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.