From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 31 September 2 >

September 1

Category:Images replacing placeholders

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) 22:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These (empty) categories were part of the infrastructure of Wikipedia:Image placeholders which has been inactive/deprecated since 2009. DexDor (talk) 20:09, 1 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:Black Women Oral History Project

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) 22:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is used solely to identify people interviewed by the Black Women Oral History Project, and in my opinion qualifies as overcategorization under WP:TRIVIALCAT. It could also be seen as unnecessary promotion for the project itself. Brian heim composer ( talk) 15:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Having taken part in the project is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of, for example, Dorothy Height. This might be suitable for a list. DexDor (talk) 20:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete This is non-defining to the people involved. It might be useful as a list, but is not useful as a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:05, 7 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:Bligh Cabinet

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) 22:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Someone created what was basically somebody's random set of orphan categories on state Cabinets that were in power four years ago; that they served under a particular Premier is not a defining feature and this content is much better handled by our prose articles. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 11:45, 1 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:River Downs

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) 21:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Category has only one entry. The racetrack isn't called River Downs anymore either. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete single article doesn't aid navigation. (Rename if kept.). RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:10, 2 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:Thai Buddhist temples

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 L ondon 23:14, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Following this discussion, the former Category:Thai Buddhist temples outside of Thailand was upmerged into this category, and its other child, Category:Buddhist temples in Thailand, was removed, since Thailand is also home to Buddhist temples of other traditions. Thus currently all members of this category are overseas Thai Buddhist temples. Renaming the category as such would make it more descriptive of its contents. Paul_012 ( talk) 09:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Alternative rename to Category:Theravada Buddhist temples per defining characteristic of the articles. Secondarily the adjective Thai is pretty confusing since it is outside Thailand. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:46, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Having origins related to Thailand is a distinctive and defining property of these temples, though. This would be lost if the category was merged to Category:Theravada Buddhist temples (though having it as a parent should be fine). Qualifying "Thai" with "overseas" should address the confusion issue. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 02:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • That's a bit questionable, some articles mention 'Thai', some others 'Theravada' and finally some others just 'Buddhist'. To what extent can it be established that a building links to Thailand and not to Cambodia, for instance? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Are you looking at the right category? All articles in Category:Thai Buddhist temples mention either Thailand or the Thai Forest Tradition (except Hádegismóar Temple, which sources reveal is being sponsored by the Thai tourism industry). At any rate, many of these temples (including many which still lack Wikipedia articles) serve distinct roles as cultural centres of overseas Thai communities, and their association with Thailand is quite clear. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 01:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Category:Buddhist Temples of the Thai Forest tradition. This will be much more clear and also avoid inacuracies like "overseas". I mean, would that exclude articles on temples in India and China? Technically you can get from Thailand to France by land, so is France even overseas? John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Hmm. I thought overseas was a general term meaning relating to foreign countries, but it does appear some dictionaries do indeed give a definition of being literally across the sea. There's precedent with Category:Overseas Vietnamese Buddhist temples though.
Category:Buddhist temples of the Thai Forest Tradition (note the capitalisation) would be a reasonable category to have, but its scope would naturally be different from Category:Overseas Thai Buddhist temples. There are Thai Buddhist temples which are not of the Forest Tradition, you see, and there are also Forest Tradition temples which aren't located abroad.
I don't think the "overseas" term should be problematic, though. It's in keeping with the commonly used term for the region's ethnic groups. See for example Overseas Chinese, Overseas Vietnamese, Overseas Indonesian and Overseas Filipinos. Paul_012 ( talk) 08:20, 7 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:Council of Independent Colleges

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) 22:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: That a college is a member of this association is often/always a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. E.g. articles like Chowan University, Clarke University and College of Idaho don't mention it. This could be listified, but it would probably be better to create any such list directly from a RS. Example of previous similar discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_August_21#Category:National_Association_of_Schools_of_Music DexDor (talk) 05:36, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Being a member of such a council is not defining for the colleges involved. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:11, 7 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:Commonwealth Games sports

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. The IP's suggestion is a good one; however, the category only contains half a dozen articles and categories, all of which are about current Commonwealth Games sports. Someone could create a list of all sports that have ever been at the Commonwealth Games, but this category doesn't really provide much of a basis for doing so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: That a particular sport (e.g. bowls, paintball or rugby sevens) is played at the Commonwealth Games is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the sport. There is Category:Sports at the Commonwealth Games for articles that do belong in Category:Commonwealth Games. Example of a (slightly) similar discussion: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_June_5#Category:ABC_Sport DexDor (talk) 05:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Listify the main article doesn't contain a list of all sports, rather, just a list of current sports. So a list is missing. Listification can create the start of a list. -- 70.51.202.113 ( talk) 05:38, 2 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:Ribat related names

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) 22:05, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These have nothing to do with one another just theoretical names. 2601:641:0:40F8:5AB:25A0:8CFA:3D55 ( talk) 05:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Categories are intended to group articles about similar topics, but the articles in this category include a ship, a chocolate brand, a species of moth... DexDor (talk) 20:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: There is zero connection between the entries in this category, other than the belief of one editor in some kind of shared etymology. I nominated the parallel category on Commons (which contains 31 files and 26 subcats!) at Commons:Commons:Categories for discussion/2015/09/Category:Ribat related names. Rupert Clayton ( talk) 19:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I think this category takes the award for most unrealted and random set of contents. It is by shared trait of the name, although how they all share a trait is not at all clear, and it is even less clear how that would link a city in the Gambia, an organizatiojn in Morocco, a river in Spain and the other random things here. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:15, 7 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.

Christopher Wren buildings by location

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 London category, upmerge the others into Category:Christopher Wren buildings. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:23, 8 October 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose clarifying this unusual format. "ARCHITECT buildings" is the usual way of categorizing buildings by architect, so the parent Category:Christopher Wren buildings is named in the usual way. But to add the city name before "buildings" reads quite awkwardly and creates unnecessary ambiguities, in my opinion. Better to use the form used by Category:Christopher Wren churches in London. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge All to Category:Christopher Wren buildings. There aren't enough articles to justify this breakdown. (If kept, I'm in favor of the rename though.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 14:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Definitely support the Rename. Not wholly in favor of the proposed upmerge. Wren is so strongly identified with London that there's value to a WP user in finding Wren's buildings outside the capital, and they'll be lost otherwise. I would support upmerging Oxford and Cambridge to Category:Christopher Wren buildings outside London. This cat could contain the two from Oxford and three from Cambridge plus four others from around England currently in Category:Christopher Wren buildings. As for Wren Building, that's probably out of place in this tree. Rupert Clayton ( talk) 19:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge all to Category:Christopher Wren buildings. There are only 16 besides the Churches in London specific cat. The fate of that cat should be considered seperately. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge -- There is not enough content to need any splits, other than the Wren churches in London, where the present subcat should be kept. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:20, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Partial upmerge. No need for the Oxbridge categories, but London with eleven buildings and a subcategory could stand to be kept. But of course, we need to rename the category per nom; it looks like these are buildings in whatever location that were designed by someone called Christopher Wren London. Nyttend ( talk) 23:16, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge Cambridge and Oxford, rename London, per Nyttend and Rupert. — 烏Γ ( kaw), 08:20, 18 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.

Rastafari categories

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: both  Relisted at 2015 SEP 15 CFD.

Two related discussions have been relisted here and grouped together for convenience. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Category:Rastafari movement
Nominator's rationale: Main article moved from Rastafari Movement to Rastafari through discussion, but basically that title and other previous titles (like Rastafarian and Rastafarianism) are reductive titles created by non-adherents. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Category:Rastafarians
Nominator's rationale: Similar to the above. This is complicated by the fact that the Religion Rastafari is also the term for the adherents in the singular or plural form. The term Rastafarian is considered reductive and offensive. My inclination is Category:Rastafari practitioners ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 21:42, 3 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 1 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:Members of National Panhellenic Conference sororities

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) 22:02, 10 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining characteristic of college sorority/fraternity membership per multiple past CfDs resulting in deletion. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:12, 1 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:Certified singles

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: administrative close. It looks like this discussion was started mainly to get advice on how to proceed, and the nominator has commenced nominations to delete subcategories, so I'm assuming this can be closed now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Ok, I'm not sure the right way to do this but this is basically a request to delete every subcategory and sub-subcategory here. The discussions for Australia single certifications and this discussion shows there is support that these designatations are WP:NON-DEFINING characteristics. However, this discussion was against the Canadian industry due to the failure to list every one of hundred of subcategories (and further subcategories) for all countries as an example of bias (same argument I received here). It seems like there's agreement that they should be deleted but anger that not listing them all (which no one really wants to do since you're talking hundreds and hundreds of categories which could derail any singular discussion). But then again, may that's the way to go. Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: it would be better practice to draw attention by nominating at least the next layer and some important members of the layer below that. Also, what about the sibling Category:Certified albums? – Fayenatic L ondon 13:30, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
Maybe. Like I said, I can't figure out which way to go. The last discussion was just so different than how it's usually done here. I want to figure out a way to deal with singles before the albums one as the previous discussions were all on single certifications I think. - - Ricky81682 ( talk) 20:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply
As said in the previous discussion it would be a good move to add the US subcategories in the nomination, in order to get a sufficiently large audience involved in the discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I nominated the bulk of all Albums by certification three years ago. Consensus was leaning to delete then, although many wanted some sort of alternative, so the result was no consensus. I believe there is an increasing agreement that this particular categorization scheme is not defining to the individual albums or songs, with the reasoning being similar to that of WP:OC#AWARD for award recipients. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 16:30, 3 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_September_1&oldid=1138409383"