< September 25 September 27 >

September 26

Category:Former Cleveland Companies

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 10:34, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:Former Cleveland Companies to Category:Defunct companies based in Cleveland, Ohio
Nominator's rationale: It's a useful category (29 member articles, and comparable categories like Defunct companies based in Cincinnati, Ohio also exist), but a very unusual name. Let's just make this follow the normal pattern. I couldn't quite see this being a CFDS situation, since aside from Cincinnati, the parent category doesn't have any other geography-based subcategories; we really don't have enough categories in this specific situation to say that it's an established style, but it's definitely normal, and I don't see a reason to deviate. Nyttend (talk) 22:11, 26 September 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:Television channels in Brazil

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 10:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fuddle (talk) 20:06, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuddle: what is your rationale? —烏Γ (kaw), 23:50, 26 September 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:Kenyan television programmes

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. – Fayenatic London 10:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fuddle (talk) 19:56, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Fuddle: what is your rationale? —烏Γ (kaw), 23:50, 26 September 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:Article in rhyme

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) 06:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparent nonsense category. This is in articlespace as a top-level subcategory of Category:Articles, but its only content is a single internal projectspace "requested articles" list — so I don't even have any conception of what the category name even has to do with its contents. And even if there is a rational explanation for it that's eluding me, I still don't see how it could ever be anything more than a one-item WP:SMALLCAT. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 26 September 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:I-Taukei Fijian people by religion

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) 06:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: we rarely organize people by ethnicity and religion and it looks pretty irrelevant here. Fiji is a highly sectarian state with most native Fijians being Christian and most Indo-Fijians being Hindus or Muslims. Such a category doesn't seem necessary at all (see Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality). Inter&anthro (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also nominating these related Categories for deletion as well
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:Filmed deaths to do with law enforcement officers

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) 06:38, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary over-categorization of Category:Filmed deaths/Category:People shot dead by law enforcement officers in the United States, and does not comply with Wikipedia:Category names. -- Chamith (talk) 13:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Lagoset as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Law Enforcement. -- Chamith (talk) 13:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm positive. Category creator renamed parent category in some articles to this one. But they can be reverted. -- Chamith (talk) 08:14, 30 September 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:MoonScoop

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) 02:07, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete, or rename to 'Television series distributed by MoonScoop' or change to a list, or ... Fuddle (talk) 12:06, 26 September 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:Indian folk fashion designers

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 (sole article is category was already in Category:Indian fashion designers). Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. Category:Indian fashion designers is sufficent. Mabalu (talk) 11:56, 26 September 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:Sporty fashion designers

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:Fashion designers. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unencyclopaedic and subjective category. At best, if renamed to "Sportswear designers," it should focus solely on designers who specialise in sportswear. And the other question is - designers of Sportswear (activewear) or of Sportswear (fashion)? Clearly the call as to what makes a designer a sportswear (fashion) designer is very subjective and open to interpretation, particularly as so many American designers would be considered sportswear (fashion) designers due to that being an American design signature. Mabalu (talk) 11:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above makes very little sense. I am not sure what you are trying to say, but it doesn't seem you have read (or understood) my rationale. "Sporty" is not encyclopaedic. It is unclear what you mean by "sporty" either - do you mean sportswear as in clothing following the American design principle, or sportswear as in clothing made for sport? Or just designers who you think look "sporty" - whatever that is supposed to mean... Mabalu (talk) 23:44, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dimadick - there are Sportswear (fashion) and Sportswear (activewear). Mabalu (talk) 18:02, 30 September 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:Fashion designers for males

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:Fashion designers. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorisation by user creating category spam. This category and all subcats are redundant, as most of the thousands of designers on Wikipedia design for both men and women. While there is an argument for a category for designers who focus principally on menswear, this doesn't mean that every designer who's licensed a menswear line should be dumped here. Mabalu (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that there are really not that many designers who solely design for men. Someone like Tommy Nutter, who certainly focused on menswear, also designed suits for women, which muddies the water. Andrew Fezza and Sal Cesarani both certainly came to mind, but again, both did dabble in womenswear and unisex clothing too. There are certainly enough designers known for their focus on menswear to populate such a category, (the menswear award sections on the Coty Award page would be a good place to find articles for a properly renamed category) but it should only focus on designers with an established reputation for menswear, where it is their primary focus, or given equal (or greater) importance to their womenswear (such as Pierre Cardin or Hardy Amies or Gianni Versace or Paul Smith (fashion designer)). I would suggest that such a category be named Category:Menswear designers. Mabalu (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note my "if" statement. I have no idea whether this idea is practical. Nyttend (talk) 00:47, 27 September 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:Fashion designers for kids

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:Fashion designers. – Fayenatic London 10:30, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At best this should be Category:Children's clothing designers, and reserved solely for designers with an explicit specialisation in children's clothing. There certainly are not enough designers of children's clothing to subcategorise by nationality either, even if most of the names on here already were actually focused on childrenswear which I'm not seeing that they are. Children's clothing is just a tiny part of say, Ralph Lauren's or Robert Cavalli's output and doesn't really make them children's clothing designers even if they actually did kidswear designing themselves which I doubt. Mabalu (talk) 11:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only category which MIGHT make sense to rename - certainly the name you have given it is unencyclopaedic crap - it should be "Children's clothing designers" and should only be populated by designers who were particularly renowned for designing children's clothing - such as Bobby Hillson, or Helen Lee (designer). I am not sure there are sufficient childrenswear-specific designers on the site (at the moment) to justify such a category at the moment. Mabalu (talk) 22:54, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
* Joan Calabrese
* Bobby Hillson
* Jeanne Lanvin (launched her career making little girl's dresses; was famous for mother-and-child ensembles)
* Helen Lee (designer)
I'm not sure that this is quite enough for a category, but it would certainly be a starting point should a rename be agreed on for this category. There are some other potential articles, such as Marie-Chantal, Crown Princess of Greece and Myleene Klass (both of whom have designed baby clothing lines) but I think Calabrese, Hillson, Lanvin and Lee are the only three fourobvious candiates for Category:Children's clothing designers - is that enough? Mabalu (talk) 00:11, 27 September 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:Fashion designers for females

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:Fashion designers. – Fayenatic London 10:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorisation by user creating category spam. This category and all subcats are redundant, as most of the thousands of designers on Wikipedia design for females already. Should be deleted. Mabalu (talk) 11:34, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It would essentially be almost exactly the same category as the general fashion designer categories, with only a few names different between the two. Womenswear is the primary product of the vast majority of fashion designers on here. I think this is a redundant category, although menswear and childrenswear are arguably distinct enough for specific categories dedicated to designers notably focusing on those particular fields. Mabalu (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Primary product, yes, but I'm asking for women's fashion to be the only product. If you do men's and women's, or (men's or women's) and children's, you should be excluded from all three categories. Nyttend (talk) 23:11, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but how would you determine that a designer only produced womenswear without doing original research to confirm? This is particularly thorny given that so many designers, even when catering principally to women, did make clothes for other audiences. For example, Thea Porter is known as a womenswear designer, but produced men's suits too. I think trying to populate or maintain such a category would cause far more trouble than it's worth as it is not something that could easily be checked on in the same way that menswear or childrenswear design would be Mabalu (talk) 23:58, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know; this subject is very far from my area of interest. That's why I said "if" in my men's proposal and refer to it here: I don't know whether this can be done. I have no objection to deletion if we can't sufficiently repurpose it toward a nature of "only", since aside from that possibility, I don't see this (or the other two) as particularly useful. Nyttend (talk) 00:49, 27 September 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:Foods producing flatulence

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) 02:31, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Foods producing flatulence
  • Propose Deleting Category:Foods requiring detoxification
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING
I don't see how producing intestinal gas or potential toxicity in processing are defining for food goods. (If kept, the second category should be heavily purged to remove almonds, onions, etc.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Lagoset as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:19, 26 September 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:Allergenic foods

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, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Allergenic foods
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:OVERLAPCAT.
This category groups foods "known to produce allergic reactions in some individuals". In many cases, this includes foods with uncommon allergies where the articles contain only a sentence or so on the topic. In other cases, specific food allergy articles like Milk allergy, Peanut allergy, Wheat allergy are grouped in Category:Food allergies while the more general food articles like Milk, Peanuts, and Wheat are also grouped in this category. So, this category is either non-defining or redundant, depending on the food. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Lagoset as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 26 September 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