< May 8	May 10 >

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) 02:46, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Orders, decorations and medals of South Africa to Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of South Africa

Nominator's rationale: for consistency with the whole parent tree.
Doesn't qualify for WP:CFD/S as it has recently been moved and moved back, so seems to be controversial. I don't personally care about the outcome, and from what I know both forms are equally correct, but feel free to come to another conclusion.
@closing admin: please note that the more relevant edit history is at Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of South Africa. PanchoS (talk) 23:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm quite happy with the suggestion, but I don't understand why this particular category tree is so overburdened with commas. Do they help? And, if not, should we not remove them all, for the sake of consistency with the encyclopaedia more generally?Rathfelder (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. Having a comma preceding "and" in this title would be incorrect in all versions of English, be it British, Australian, Canadian, South African, even American. I can't speak for German, but it's also wrong in Afrikaans. I fail to see why this issue is even being raised here. Changing the title (again!) from correct punctuation to incorrect punctuation merely to be in conformity with the incorrectness of a horde of others in the category tree, is plain silly and most definitely contrary to the high quality standards which Wikipedians should strive to maintain. Rather spend your energy on correcting the errors in the rest, if you must. I said this before: In this case, Mommy would have been quite right to say "Look, my Johnny is the only one marching in pace..." -- André Kritzinger (talk) 14:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- Placing a comma at this point is known as an "Oxford Comma". It is recommended by some (presumably including Oxford University Press, but its appearance is neither correct nor incorrect. Both versions appear to exist. One should be a redirect to the other. I prefer having the Oxford comma, but this is not a real ENGVAR issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Per WP:C2C, bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree. I really have no opinion on the Oxford comma but this subcategory is the odd one out in this tree. (If there is a larger nomination to rename the whole tree, I'll be neutral.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now, for consistency, but I would rather prefer to remove the comma from all country categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:50, 20 May 2016 (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: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Architecture in Hyderabad, Sindh (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only contains one sub-category which is adequately parented without this one. – Fayenatic London 22:33, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, at this point this is WP:OVERCAT. --PanchoS (talk) 01:18, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- We have been eliminating architecture categories in favour of buildings and structures ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 10 May 2016 (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: delete (I have made sure that all of the articles are in the appropriate esports category). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:51, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:American professional video gamers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Seems entirely redundant to Category:American esports players.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We avoid the term "professional" in category names except on very rare occasions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question shouldn't it be merged instead of deleted? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 18 May 2016 (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. The other similar categories could also be nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Melbourne City FC W-League players to Category:Melbourne City FC (W-League) players

Nominator's rationale: page name is Melbourne City FC (W-League) Joeykai (talk) 21:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the change/no change should be consistent for all 9 clubs in the category (Adelaide United, Brisbane Roar, CC Mariners, Melbourne Victory, Newcastle Jets, Perth Glory, Sydney FC and WS Wanderers) --SuperJew (talk) 22:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. --BDD (talk) 01:59, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Change all - having 'Melbourne City FC W-League' implies that is the name of the club, whereas it being in brackets makes it clear it is a disambiguator. Agree that this should be consistent throughout. Giant Snowman 07:10, 12 May 2016 (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 Category:Astronomical works to Category:Works about astronomy. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Works about astronomy to Category:Astronomical works

Nominator's rationale: Merge or reverse merge Stefanomione created both categories the same day. This one has the subcat Astronomy magazines. The other, larger, category has Astronomy journals. Once again, all of this is just mucking about with his own private logic for these things: it's confusing to readers, makes little or no sense. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. Category:Astronomy journals bring progress in the discipline and are categorized up the tree in Category:Works by discipline. Category:Astronomy magazines, popular in nature, present some information about astronomers, projects, events and are categorized up the tree in Category:Works about disciplines. Maybe renaming to Category:Astronomical journals and Category:Magazines about astronomy. Stefanomione (talk) 18:35, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Anyone with a modicum of understanding of how categories are used in Wikipedia should realise that the distinction (if there is one) between these two topics is far too subtle for editors to place articles in the correct one. If Stefanomione thinks that such similar categories are needed then xe really needs to be putting an explanation (including a link to the other category) in the category text. DexDor^(talk) 19:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge, the works aren't astronomical, but they are about astronomy. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REverse merge for preference. We do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, a related nomination is about economic works. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:15, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - <SIGH!> Stefanomione, please, please, PLEASE... stop creating these duplicative, hair-splitting, category-pairs. They are NOT helpful. Cgingold (talk) 08:47, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Category:Works about astronomy contains
- - Category:Astronomy education works : an eductional approach, not an astronomical one.
  - and Category:Works about the history of astronomy : a historical, philosophical, epistemiological approach, not an astronomical one (e.g. with Thomas Kuhn's philosophy of science-book The Copernican Revolution, which is clearly not an astronomical work at all. Moreover, a simple Google search on "Astronomical works" OR "Works about astronomy" give us results/works completely different in scope. We are still an encyclopedia, no ? Stefanomione (talk) 10:15, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppet of Stefanomione. Mike V • Talk 16:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both I don't understand why there is a debate on this topic at all! There is a very simple logical distinction. As an example: the famous Pythagorean theorem is one of the most famous works in mathematics, and the theorem with it's entirety is accomplished purely using the definitions, axioms, theorems,...of Mathematics and nothing else. This is "Mathematical works". However, a novel about fantasizing what kind of emotions went through Pythagoras when he proved the famous theorem. The author of the novel might not even know the theorem itself but only know that the Theorem had a significant impact on mankind! This is "Works about mathematics". And this can be generalized to any disciple, not just Mathematics! Astronomical works, works about Astronomy; Biotechnological works, Works about biotechnology; Political works, Works about Politics; Psychopharmacological works, Works about Psychopharmacology,... Again, as an example, a new anti psychotic is in the stage of testing, this is Psycho pharmacological work. A journal published about criticizing the psychopharmacology industry, this is Work about psychopharmacology! Again, I am not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend! Tpetrosi (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppet of Stefanomione. Mike V • Talk 16:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both I don't understand why there is a debate on this topic at all! There is a very simple logical distinction. As an example: the famous Pythagorean theorem is one of the most famous works in mathematics, and the theorem with it's entirety is accomplished purely using the definitions, axioms, theorems,...of Mathematics and nothing else. This is "Mathematical works". However, a novel about fantasizing what kind of emotions went through Pythagoras when he proved the famous theorem. The author of the novel might not even know the theorem itself but only know that the Theorem had a significant impact on mankind! This is "Works about mathematics". And this can be generalized to any disciple, not just Mathematics! Astronomical works, works about Astronomy; Biotechnological works, Works about biotechnology; Political works, Works about Politics; Psychopharmacological works, Works about Psychopharmacology,... Again, as an example, a new anti psychotic is in the stage of testing, this is Psycho pharmacological work. A journal published about criticizing the psychopharmacology industry, this is Work about psychopharmacology! Again, I am not sure why this is so difficult to comprehend! Tpetrosi (talk) 21:46, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia! The Pythagorean theorem article is about "a fundamental relation in Euclidean geometry among the three sides of a right triangle" - not about a specific work. So it's categorized in Category:Theorems in plane geometry (amongst other things) rather than in any "works" category. What do you think of the category descriptions that Stefanomione has now added? - I'm not sure they align with your distinction between the categories. DexDor^(talk) 22:16, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We are keeping fictional and non-fictional books in separate categories anyway, see Category:Novels by topic, so I'm not sure what additional distinction you are aiming for. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is about separating astronomical and non-astronomical works : Category:Works about the history of astronomy : non-fictional, non-astronomical = a journalistic, historical, philosophical or epistemiological approach, not an astronomical one. Stefanomione (talk) 09:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The only astronomical work I can think of is a falling star. But that's definitely OR. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppet of Stefanomione. Mike V • Talk 16:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in favor of Keep Both . DexDor, first, thank you for welcoming me! First and foremost, I should mention that I am a Pure Mathematician by profession. As logic is fundamental to all of mathematics, I will try to make yet again another argument without rigorous logical prove as understanding it limits only to Mathematicians. The example that I gave with the Pythagorean Theorem is in a category of Euclidean Plane Geometry, which is a subcategory of Elementary Geometry which is a subcategory of Geometry which is a subcategory of Mathematics. Of course, in itself is a theorem with a simple proof given by Pythagoras more than 2000 years ago, now there is hundreds of proofs. At the time this was an absolute breakthrough in mathematics. But the semantics of categorizing it in Mathematical Works is irrefutable. Now, again with very simple logic “Mathematics Works” and “Work about Mathematics” are in NO way equivalent statements. In fact, there is a one way implication, EVERY Mathematical Work is also a Work about Mathematics, however NOT every Work about Mathematics is a Mathematical Work! As an example, for simplicity, a Calculus book is a Mathematical work but it is ALSO Work about Mathematics but a biography of Leibniz and Newton with the famous debate of who invented Calculus, whose notation was better, was it completely independent work or is there a conspiracy theory,… is a Work about Mathematics but NOT Mathematical Work! Mathematical Work MUST be Professional in it’s field but Work about Mathematics does NOT have to be NECESSARILY professional in it’s field!! This generalizes to any fied not just Mathematics as the logic is identical. So if the two are merged reasoning “there is little difference if any” is absolutely unacceptable!!! With that logic "apple" and "fruit" are one and the same!!!=) Tpetrosi (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Confirmed sockpuppet of Stefanomione. Mike V • Talk 16:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in favor of Keep Both . DexDor, first, thank you for welcoming me! First and foremost, I should mention that I am a Pure Mathematician by profession. As logic is fundamental to all of mathematics, I will try to make yet again another argument without rigorous logical prove as understanding it limits only to Mathematicians. The example that I gave with the Pythagorean Theorem is in a category of Euclidean Plane Geometry, which is a subcategory of Elementary Geometry which is a subcategory of Geometry which is a subcategory of Mathematics. Of course, in itself is a theorem with a simple proof given by Pythagoras more than 2000 years ago, now there is hundreds of proofs. At the time this was an absolute breakthrough in mathematics. But the semantics of categorizing it in Mathematical Works is irrefutable. Now, again with very simple logic “Mathematics Works” and “Work about Mathematics” are in NO way equivalent statements. In fact, there is a one way implication, EVERY Mathematical Work is also a Work about Mathematics, however NOT every Work about Mathematics is a Mathematical Work! As an example, for simplicity, a Calculus book is a Mathematical work but it is ALSO Work about Mathematics but a biography of Leibniz and Newton with the famous debate of who invented Calculus, whose notation was better, was it completely independent work or is there a conspiracy theory,… is a Work about Mathematics but NOT Mathematical Work! Mathematical Work MUST be Professional in it’s field but Work about Mathematics does NOT have to be NECESSARILY professional in it’s field!! This generalizes to any fied not just Mathematics as the logic is identical. So if the two are merged reasoning “there is little difference if any” is absolutely unacceptable!!! With that logic "apple" and "fruit" are one and the same!!!=) Tpetrosi (talk) 23:51, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad we agree that all works under discussion are "Works about". So then it just becomes a matter of how we cleverly subdivide the "Works about" categories, and the question is in particular do we need subcategories such as Category:Astronomical works. I would say no, titles like these are too ambiguous (as I was joking before about falling stars) and the subcategories of Category:Astronomical works can just as well be put directly under Category:Works about astronomy. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:01, 13 May 2016 (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 to Category:Student organisations in Bangladesh to change capital O into lowercase o. It's not entirely clear whether s should be changed to z but if it should be changed it is recommendable to come up with a wider nomination regarding the whole tree of Category:Organisations based in Bangladesh. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:42, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Student Organizations in Bangladesh to Category:Student organizations in Bangladesh

Nominator's rationale: All other similar categories for other countries do not capitalize "organizations". Naraht (talk) 16:38, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Speedy rename~~ per WP:C2A and WP:C2C. --PanchoS (talk) 16:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Student organisations in Bangladesh. (Bangladesh uses Brit Eng, eg Category:Organisations based in Bangladesh.) 92.4.101.67 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

True, this is an WP:ENGVAR fork, so merge. --PanchoS (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

rename first. --Kayser Ahmad (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kayser Ahmad No, we won't fix a category that shouldn't have ever existed as a duplicate. But as someone from Bangladesh, help us come up with the most widely used spelling in English-language sources of Bangladesh. --PanchoS (talk) 01:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

PanchoS most widely used spelling for organization in Bangladesh is organization see some government website link National Legal Aid Services Organization National Grassroot Disability Organization Food and Agriculture Organization Water Resources Planning Organization Organizations in Bangladesh --Kayser Ahmad (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Reverse Merge/Neutral on Name with Category:Student organisations in Bangladesh. I'm reluctant to particpate in WP:ENGVAR discussions. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 11 May 2016 (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. (As suggested, I have changed the S.A. one to the "s" spelling, since the parent category is Category:Organisations based in South Africa. I have assumed that this is non-controversial.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Business and employers' organisations in Australia‎ to Category:Business organisations in Australia‎
Category:Business and industry organizations based in Bangladesh‎ to Category:Business organisations in Bangladesh‎
Category:Business and industry organizations based in Brazil‎ to Category:Business organizations in Brazil‎
Category:Business and industry organizations based in Canada to Category:Business organizations in Canada
Category:Business and industry organizations based in Croatia‎ to Category:Business organizations in Croatia‎
Category:Business and industry organizations based in Denmark‎ to Category:Business organizations in Denmark‎
Category:Business and employer associations of France‎ to Category:Business organizations in France‎
Category:Business and industry organizations based in Germany‎ to Category:Business organizations in Germany‎
Category:Business and industry organisations based in India‎ to Category:Business organisations in India‎
Category:Business and employers' organisations in Italy‎ to Category:Business organisations in Italy‎
Category:Trade and business organisations based in Norway‎ to Category:Business organisations in Norway‎
Category:Business and employer associations of Pakistan‎ to Category:Business organisations in Pakistan‎
Category:Business and industry organizations in South Africa‎ to Category:Business organizations in South Africa
Category:Business and employers' organisations in Switzerland‎ to Category:Business organisations in Switzerland‎
Category:Business and industry organizations based in Thailand‎ to Category:Business organizations in Thailand‎
Category:Business and employer associations of Turkey‎ to Category:Business organizations in Turkey‎
Category:Business and industry organizations based in Ukraine‎ to Category:Business organizations in Ukraine‎
Category:Business and industry organisations based in the United Arab Emirates‎ to Category:Business organisations in the United Arab Emirates
Category:Business and employer associations of the United Kingdom‎ to Category:Business organisations in the United Kingdom
Category:Business and industry organizations based in the United States‎ to Category:Business organizations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Trying to introduce a little bit of consistency to this patchwork scheme, I think we need a reasonable default that catches all kinds of business organizations we're not (yet) able to categorize as Category:Employer associations (holding a specific role in collective bargaining), Category:Industry trade groups by country (restricted to specific industries) or other categories.
Sure somebody could say we need the word "industry", "trade" or "employer" at least for one country. And then somebody would add, we need that other term in the category title for that other country. Quickly we would be at a point where we can only decide to stick with the current chaos or go for something like Category:Business, industry, trade, and/or employer organizations based in Australia. Feel free to object, but then I'm kindly asking you to come up with a better proposal for the whole category scheme, i.e. for all countries. And remember, this is just the umbrella category. We can and should be more specific in subcategories. --PanchoS (talk) 16:11, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support for consistency, and the words "industry", "employer" and "trade" are not really needed, they are implied by "business" anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support. What are we going to do with the "Industry trade groups in Foo" categories? Many of the same arguments apply.Rathfelder (talk) 22:07, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be true, but "many of the same arguments" may or may not be enough to arrive at the same conclusion. Let's proceed step by step, and see what is the most sensible solution for that case. --PanchoS (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support except South Africa should be 's' per Category:Organisations based in South Africa. Oculi (talk) 00:20, 10 May 2016 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry to Category:Chambers of commerce in Pakistan

Nominator's rationale: Not established enough to qualify for WP:CfD/S. Still I propose bringing this into line with the other categories in Category:Chambers of commerce by country. Sure we could also go by what looks like the main article Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce & Industry. However, we don't know enough about the federation's role and relevancy, or if it organizes all or just some of the Chambers of Commerce in Pakistan, so by default we should choose a generic title. The merits of capitalizing "C" in "Commerce" should be first discussed in article mainspace at Talk:Chamber of commerce. PanchoS (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2016 (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: do not rename, but purge contents so that the contents are Word of the year, Un-word of the year, Word of the year (Germany), Word of the year (Norway), Word of the year (Russia), and Word of the year (Ukraine). Do not include articles on the actual words that were awarded the designations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Word of the year to Category:Words of the year

Nominator's rationale: The category's scope note makes clear that words named "word of the year" by various sources belong here, so let's use the plural typical for categories here. BDD (talk) 14:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - IMO it would be better for this category to be restricted to articles about the topic of Word of the year (designation) rather than articles about words (e.g. Metrosexual) (or the concept referred to by a word). See also WP:OC#AWARD - list(s) are more appropriate for such things. As such, the existing category name is more appropriate. DexDor^(talk) 19:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Purge This group is clearly defining for the "Word of the Year..." pages. I don't believe grouping the actual words is defining. (No opinion on the category rename proposal.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "Word of the Year..." pages? DexDor^(talk) 05:49, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Purge. It would be acceptable for the individual words to be listed in the appropriate articles, and this is acceptable as a category for the articles about the designations — but it's not useful as a category for the words that happened to get named "word of the year" by some WOTY-conferring organization, because it is not a WP:DEFINING point of commonality between metrosexual and w00t. So this needs to be purged of the individual words. Bearcat (talk) 23:54, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Purge per Bearcat, just keep the first 6 articles, 5 of which have the title starting with "Word of the year" and Un-word of the year as the 6th. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being so selected is not a characteristic of the thing described by the word. Articles are on things not words.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:43, 14 May 2016 (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: triple upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Industry trade groups based in Rajasthan to Category:Industry trade groups based in India

Nominator's rationale: merge up to all three parent categories, per WP:SMALLCAT PanchoS (talk) 13:41, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rajasthan is State in India.. so it may be better to have Rajasthan to provide more specific info. otherwise it may be confusingAjayDAta 15:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajaydata (talk • contribs)

Sure it is a state in India. I'm however failing to see that this singular and almost empty spin-off category helps us better categorize our Business in Rajasthan related content. --PanchoS (talk) 15:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean that Rajasthan needs a Rajasthan-specific subcategory of every "Business in India" category, even if there's only one article to file in it. If there were five or six or ten such groups, then a state-specific subcategory might be warranted — but it's not helpful or useful as a category of one. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. No prejudice against recreation if and when there are at least five articles to file in it. Bearcat (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2016 (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, since the target is older and also conforms to the article name. But if users want to change the article name or propose that the category be renamed, they can do so. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Trade organizations based in the United States to Category:Industry trade groups based in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Merge redundant, all too vague, and almost empty category to its established counterpart. PanchoS (talk) 12:40, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps reverse -- Though I am not an American, I would have thought that the subject was the better choice, though the main article may also need renaming. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 10 May 2016 (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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 19:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Presidents of organizations to Category:Chairmen

Nominator's rationale: Category:Presidents of organizations is currently subcat to Category:Members of organizations and Category:Presidents. There is no article nor redirect for president of organization. The article on President is about "the leader of a country or a division or part of a country", and outside of a lead disammbig-like mention that "The title "president" is sometimes used by extension for leaders of other groups, including corporate entities." it does not discuss such usage. Category:Presidents is subcat to several political subcategories, as well as Category:Management occupations. Now, Category:Chairmen is subcat only to Category:People by occupation and Category:Members of organizations (I have just added it to Category:Management occupations). The article on Chairmen notes that "The chairman is the highest officer of an organized group", has later on a reference sentence "Other terms sometimes used for the office and its holder include chair, chairperson, chairwoman, presiding officer, president, moderator, facilitator, and convenor" and is categorized under a number of categories that probably should be copied to Category:Chairmen. Leaving aside the mess in related subcategories, I think it is clear that the "president of organization" = "chairman" as far as the logic and usage is concerned, and we should only have one related category. If anyone disagrees, please be kind enough to provide a workable definition for "president of organization" that is distinguishable from that for "chairman". PS. There is the issue of a gender-neutrality in related terms to consider, but I'd suggest it is discussed separately, through a RM/RfC at Talk:Chairman, while we here just take care of the technical merger of two categories about the same concept. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You also need to consider Chief executive officer. Category:Presidents of organizations should be removed from Category:Presidents as that should be kept for its political use. The President of an organisation is often a figurehead and probably needs to be kept separate from the Chairman; who is usually the chairman of the Directors/trustees etc, and not the same as the CEO. Not simple! Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Category:Chairmen is definitely the dominant category tree but I would prefer a gender neutral term that didn't have a shared name issue like Category:Leaders of organizations/organisations. This would be a much broader nomination though. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with RevelationDirect and like the proposal Category:Leaders of organi(z/s)ations. In the end, you will find organizations with figurehead presidents as well as those where the president really is the organization's leader, and you'll find lots of organizations from non-English language contexts, where the native language's title is interchangably translated as "president", "chairman" or "leader". Organizations are rather free to define title and impact of their leadership, so I seriously doubt that it is possible to categorize by one or the other, except for some specific cases, where titles and role of the leadership are legally defined within a jurisdiction, or follow tradition and common-sense. In the more general case, all we can do is decide on a per-article basis whether someone has a leadership role in an organization. --PanchoS (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with PanchoS. these titles are used differently in different contexts. They vary with history geography and language.Rathfelder (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Some organisations have Presidents; others have chairmen; some have both, with the president normally being a figurehead. CEO is certainly neither of these. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative Category:Leaders of organizations, but as a rename-only proposal, not as a merge&rename. So I would rather keep Category:Chairmen to become a child category of Category:Leaders of organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever its called it needs to be a Container category. Putting the president/Chairman of Goldman Sacks in a category with the president of Penzance pigeon fanciers club is not very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)

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: delete; merge contents to Category:Organizations by subject. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Organizations by activity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category has only one parents: Category:Organizations. There is no Category:Categories by activity parent. It is an ill-defined category fork of Category:Organizations by subject/Category:Organizations by type. PS. If someone asks "why is this nominated for deletion, instead of upmerge", it is because instructions at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion do not even contain the word "upmerge". This category should be deleted, at which point it subcategories should revert back to the Category:Organizations. If this is what is meant by upmerge, someone should clarify this on said page, because while Wikipedia:Upmerge is part of the wiki-lingo, it is not clear to me or anybody else who only occasionally visits CfD which template this concepts relates to. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:46, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: the instructions at CFD do contain the word "merge" and a template for doing so. "Upmerge" is our local CfD shorthand for merging to a parent category. Do you wish to change the nomination to "merge"? Alternatively, there is a template to "split", e.g. to Category:Organizations by subject/Category:Organizations by type. Either way, it will be easier to reparent the contents at the time of closure, rather than to trace them after deletion. – Fayenatic London 13:36, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tend to agree I can see your point that the definition is very unclear. While I can see a point in categorizing by activity, if these specific "activities" however are so heterogenous and unrepresentative of organizations as a whole, then the categorization scheme indeed seems to be non-viable, at least at this point. I'd rather not rush into deleting it, so hope for additional input by other editors.
Note that while you're right that the word "upmerge" isn't to be found on Wikipedia:CfD, it should be clear to anyone, and is obviously clear to you, that it is a special (or rather the most usual) case of a "merge". A little bit of nitpicking is fine, but c'mon, you know better than complaining about our imperfection, don't you? ;-) --PanchoS (talk) 15:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
agree. Not a useful division. The notion of "activity" is rather vague in this context. Subject seems a better concept. Rathfelder (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree but we appear to have two targets: I cannot quite work out how they differ. I suspect that all three need to be reorganised manually. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Peterkingiron has an excellent comment, the two sibling categories Category:Organizations by subject and Category:Organizations by type are equally messy. Here is an alternative merge proposal: merge Category:Organizations by activity to Category:Organizations by subject and move the larger part of Category:Organizations by type also to that same category. I would propose to only keep the ".... by type" categories in Category:Organizations by type such as Category:Companies by type. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 15 May 2016 (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. I'll add redirects to the various possible versions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian liturgy by denomination to Category:Christian worship and liturgy by denomination

Nominator's rationale: rename, different denominations use a different term (either "worship" or "liturgy") for a similar concept, let's use both terms in the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak support I created this category but can support this nomination. It's a wee bit long but can live with it. As long as the name does not in future extend to "practices" or the LDS ~"ordinances, rituals, and symbolism". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. By the way, if you don't like "practices" you may consider supporting this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest -- Category:Christian worship by denomination: liturgy is worship generally by following a set form of words. Worship may be more extempore or varying from one service to another. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this wouldn't be NPOV enough, since some major denominations prefer the term "liturgy". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2016 (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) 03:04, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Basic financial concepts to Category:Finance

Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:ARBITRARYCAT, it's not clear what "basic" means, nor is it meaningful to separately categorize "concepts". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, "basic" is not an objective term. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:20, 9 May 2016 (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: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:32, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Tertiary fictional works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: this category doesnt make sense, the items mostly dont belong in it anyway if its "fictional" works, and a similar discussion occurred at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 26. tertiary is not a definable characteristic of a work, usually. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:01, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep cause primary, secondary and tertiary sources/works are scientific and encyclopaedial terms (possibly rename to 'Tertiary fictional sources') - Weapon X (talk, contribs) 10:12, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A database or encyclopedia of art or comics may be tertiary, but it isn't fictional. It is a fact what year a comic was introduced, it is a fact who painted what building, etc. RevelationDirect (talk)`
- But Who's Who in Metropolis featuring Lex Luthor, Superman, Perry White and other notable figures would be if written in a style to present them as factual. Also SHIELD: The Complete Biographical Dictionary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom and RevelationDirect: a work may be used as a tertiary source, but it isn't a tertiary source by itself. In another context, the same work may be a primary or secondary source, as "tertiary" is a role, not a characteristic. --PanchoS (talk) 15:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DElete -- I do not think we need this, essentially an oxymoron. If kept it should be "tertiary works about fiction". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What should be in here is something like The Biographical Dictionary of the Shire, or Firnagon's Guide to the Peerage of Numenor. Also I guess The Patricians of Ankh-Morpork, A Biographical Dictionary or Men are Myths: The complete guide to myth for the dweller of Narnia. They would be works of fiction written in the style of encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, etc. The closest to a real such work I can think of is J. K. Rowling's guide to magical creatures and where to find them. However this is not what is here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 14 May 2016 (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 to Category:Individual cannons. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:29, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Notable cannon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: category already exists at Category:Individual cannons, which has a better name Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, rather than delete (which would remove articles from this category hierarchy). – Fayenatic London 08:21, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge All content on Wikipedia should be "notable" so this term isn't useful for a category. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:19, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per RevelationDirect. --PanchoS (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Up to you!. I wrote the Seri Rambai article (it's about a cannon in Penang) and figured I needed to add it to some categories. I created Notable Cannon before noticing that a similar category, Individual Cannons, was already in use. If it's of any interest, I intend one day soon to re-write that article about the Pattani cannon, Phaya Tani. If you guys are interested in cannon, please let me know as I'd like to submit the Seri Rambai article to FAC and would welcome feedback from people who know about these things. Singora (talk) 06:16, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously merge -- We will not have articles on NN cannon. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 10 May 2016 (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.

May 9

Category:Orders, decorations and medals of South Africa

Category:Architecture in Hyderabad, Sindh

Category:American professional video gamers

Category:Melbourne City FC W-League players

Category:Works about astronomy

Category:Student Organizations in Bangladesh

Business organisations by country

Category:Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry

Category:Word of the year

Category:Industry trade groups based in Rajasthan

Category:Trade organizations based in the United States

Category:Presidents of organizations

Category:Organizations by activity

Category:Christian liturgy by denomination

Category:Basic financial concepts

Category:Tertiary fictional works

Category:Notable cannon