< October 24 October 26 >

October 25

[edit]

Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games by host country

[edit]
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) 21:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Commonwealth Games has been known by a variety of monikers (British Empire Games, British Empire and Commonwealth Games, British Commonwealth Games, and finally Commonwealth Games). It is the same competition with a continued history, so we should use the most up-to-date description to categorise it by. SFB 20:36, 25 October 2015 (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:Languages of Murcia

[edit]
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) 21:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose upmerging Category:Languages of Murcia‎ to Category:Murcian culture
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, one article in the category with no room for expansion. Please note that upmerging in the language tree is not needed, the article is already in Category:Spanish variants of Spain (which is btw a pretty confusing category name). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2015 (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:Singles certified by the Recording Industry Association of America

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Singles certified by the Recording Industry Association of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Singles certified diamond by the Recording Industry Association of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Singles certified nonuple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Singles certified octucuple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Singles certified septuple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Singles certified sextuple platinum by the Recording Industry Association of America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The remainder of Category:Certified singles by certifying authority is empty and will soon be deleted following the singles by certification CFD but these categories weren't connected there for some reason. Suggesting deletion as these are WP:NON-DEFINING characteristics for the singles based on the reasoning from the Australia single certifications, this discussion, Musiikkituottajat Albums by gold certification and the albums and singles certifications discussions above. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was missed. Unfortunately there's no option for speedy deletion based on prior discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (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.

Medieval Transylvania

[edit]
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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 29. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split since quite a number of the articles in these categories are biographies. After keeping apart the biographies, too little content remains to justify a split between the two time periods. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Side note, Early Modern is a longer period than Late Medieval while it contains a lot more articles per century, so enforcing a Late Medieval distinction everywhere would lead to a pretty skewed distribution of category sizes. On another side note, content wise there is not an amazing difference between the political history of High and Late Middle Ages (there is a difference in social history but there aren't too many articles about medieval social history anyway). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2015 (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:States

[edit]
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 22:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is essentially a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. The various meanings of "state" can be found at State, which is a disambiguation page. This category is essentially mixing and matching the various meanings of that term within the "law and politics" header. "State" can mean a sovereign country; or a country subdivision; or a country that belongs to an intergovernmental organization, whether it is sovereign or not; and several other things. It's not a useful term to categorize by because it is ambiguous; the category page should be a category disambiguation page. The contents are adequately categorized otherwise, so there is no need to merge anywhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Alternative: rename to Category:Federated states since all current content seems to be about federated states. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC) (stricken after discussion below)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Federated states, per Federated state and above. Otherwise, something would be missing from Category:Types of country subdivisions  : ) - `jc37
    • Four of the five articles in the category are not specifically about federated states—but OK, if we want to convert the category in this way. It will require some clean up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree. But as it currently stands, it is as you said in the nom. But if we follow the Catmain of federated states, then it's just some (hopefully) simple cleanup. All that said, I don't mind keep-ing as a parent cat, if Category:Federated states is created as a subcat to diffuse to. But with the varying definition of "States" in political science, it probably would be better as a cat redirect. - jc37 19:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support redefining and clean up of categories as above. Coverage of federated states is clearly warranted. SFB 20:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete shared name; nothing to show that states, provinces, governorates, or other first level subdivisions differ substantially from one another and that all those denoted "states" share something which those denoted "provinces, etc." don't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • They share the fact that the federal government can't unilaterally decide to overtake (part of) the federate states' power. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • At second sight I'm starting to doubt whether you may be right after all. While a federate state may be legally different from a province of a unified state, it would rather make sense to have a legal topic category (if sufficient content is available, which is doubtful) rather than a geographical set category (as currently is the case). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, Delete -- However, I do wonder whether we do not need a category for the top-level country subdivision, which in some countries are states; in Germany lander; in France departments; in others, provinces; in yet others a vernacular term, which gets translated into English in different ways. There may thus be a case for a merge to something. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The denominating of subdivisions of a country as states does not always imply the same division of power between center and periphery. At the same time there are several countries that do not use the term state where it might well apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 18 November 2015 (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:Intelligence activities in India

[edit]
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) 21:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarity of the scope. Shyamsunder (talk) 05:34, 25 October 2015 (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:IIIT

[edit]
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) 21:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category . Shyamsunder (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2015 (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:Afaka script

[edit]
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. I have upmerged the article to all parent categories, one of which was Category:Artificial scripts. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge Only contains one article and a redirect to the same article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 25 October 2015 (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 Hunger Project

[edit]
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) 21:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:The Hunger Project
Nominator's rationale: Per People associated with...
This category sounds perfectly reasonable but it's a semi-random collection of biography articles, many of which don't mention The Hunger Project. Queen Noor probably gave a donation or gave a speech for them but, whatever the connection, it's not in the article. The hatnote on the category reads "People/Organizations involved with The Hunger Project, individuals/media groups who have written about The Hunger Project in detail." If you're looking for a textbook example of WP:OCASSOC, this is it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note:Notified Rj as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2015 (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