From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 13 September 15 >

September 14

Category:Baton Rouge mayoral elections

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The category's one entry is a redirect. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - This category is the legacy of User:Futurewiki, a prolific sockpuppet who made a mountain of cleanup. Magnolia677 ( talk) 23:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. No relevant articles. Even the lone redirect in the category is of questionable value. The category is unlikely to grow. • Gene93k ( talk) 23:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category. RevelationDirect ( talk) 22:59, 16 September 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.

Category:GJ 1214

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:00, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm nominating this per WP:SMALLCAT: it contains only two articles with no (current) possibility for expansion. Praemonitus ( talk) 21:49, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Delete -- This covers a star and its planet(s). Since we are unlikely ever to know much about the planet (except that it exists), it can all be adequately linked by a template. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:06, 18 September 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.

Category:Albums produced by Cardiak

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 24#Category:Albums produced by Cardiak

Category:Boats designed by E.N. Maryanov

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:04, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Unlikely to ever have more than one entry; subject does not have an article. — swpb T 18:04, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I've no objection Rathfelder ( talk) 11:40, 20 September 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.

Category:Biota of Turkestan

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 to Category:Biota of Central Asia and merge to Category:Flora of Central Asia ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:08, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Biota and flora of a non-existent country, which overlaps existing countries for which "biota" and "flora" categories exist — swpb T 18:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
I have combined two related noms. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:47, 18 September 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.

Category:Ohloh templates

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: upmerged. ( non-admin closure) SST flyer 15:44, 24 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only two entries, unlikely to be more. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:10, 14 September 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.

Category:Fruits by colour

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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:22, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Apart from the difficulty of deciding what colour fruit is ( Banana was placed in the yellow fruits category, but only some kinds of banana are yellow, others are red or green, even when ripe; what colour are plums or apples?), are we to have a category for every colour of fruit and every combination of colours? These seem pointless categories to me. Peter coxhead ( talk) 16:13, 14 September 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.

Category:American military personnel by state

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 to option B. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Option A:
Category:Military personnel from Connecticut to Category:American military personnel from Connecticut
Category:Military personnel from New York to Category:American military personnel from New York
Category:Military personnel from New York City to Category:American military personnel from New York City
Category:Military personnel from Oregon to Category:American military personnel from Oregon
Category:Military personnel from Minneapolis, Minnesota to Category:American military personnel from Minneapolis, Minnesota
Category:California military personnel to Category:American military personnel from California
Category:Montana military personnel to Category:American military personnel from Montana
Category:United States military veterans from Indiana to Category:American military personnel from Indiana
Propose renaming Option B:
Category:American military personnel from Maryland‎ to Category:Military personnel from Maryland
Category:American military personnel from Michigan‎ to Category:Military personnel from Michigan
Category:American military personnel from Minnesota‎ to Category:Military personnel from Minnesota
Category:American military personnel from West Virginia‎ to Category:Military personnel from West Virginia
Category:American military personnel from Wisconsin‎ to Category:Military personnel from Wisconsin
Category:California military personnel to Category:Military personnel from California
Category:Montana military personnel to Category:Military personnel from Montana
Category:United States military veterans from Indiana to Category:Military personnel from Indiana
Nominator's rationale: This is a renomination of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 25#Category:American military personnel by state. That discussion got a fair amount of opposition, so I figured it'd be best to reformat to give an "Option A" and "B" so we can achieve consistency one way or the other. "Option A" would rename most so that all categories include American. "Option B" would rename most to not include American. I think I'm leaning towards Option B since it's more concise and American is unnecessary in this context. If someone is from a certain state, it would already imply they're American. -- Tavix ( talk) 15:52, 14 September 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.

Category:Mayors of Sulphur, Louisiana

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: dual upmerge ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Only has one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:06, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Upmerge, both to Category:People from Sulphur, Louisiana and to Category:Mayors of places in Louisiana. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:40, 15 September 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.

Category:Fictional Los Angeles Police Department police 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: rename ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:29, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Fictional American police officers categories; x2 police is redundant. -- Omanyd ( talk) 07:53, 14 September 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.

Category:Blade (comics) television series

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; upmerge contents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:09, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There has been only one actual Blade tv series. JDDJS ( talk) 23:41, 27 August 2016 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:06, 14 September 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.

Category:São Paulo (city)

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 top category and Sport sub-category. Some of those opting for "keep" relied on precedents rather than the merits of the case, but the force of such precedents is reduced following a recent shift in consensus to remove state names where city names were a clear primary topic, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_6#Major_US_cities, some of which had previously been justified on grounds of ambiguity (as well as consistency within US placenames).
Procedural note: the other sub-categories have not been tagged, so these should now be tagged and listed for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:NCCAT, the article titled " São Paulo" is about the city, so the categories about the city should have the same name. Prisencolin ( talk) 02:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC) reply
Then these should be renamed too. WP:NCCAT applies to all types of categories.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename - if the title is unambiguous enough for the article, it's unambiguous enough for the categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • If the article name is ambiguous then it is no good for a category. This is an obvious point. If you get to the wrong article you will re-navigate: not important. If you put an article in the wrong category, then you are making a false assertion on wikipedia: vital. Oculi ( talk) 18:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Primary topic does not carry the same importance in categories as it does in articles. The function of categories is to assist navigation. A greater degree of precision and disambiguation is therefore necessary. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 10:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • A reader going to the wrong page wastes time and adding the category wastes time. Each incident of the wrong category would waste more time but many more readers would make that mistake. I don't think we should care about clarity when it comes to editors and throw our readers to the wind with vague article titles. RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I entirely agree. That's why the current cat name makes such errors less likely. It would be obvious that you were going to the city and not the region. Your argument rather supports "Keep". Laurel Lodged ( talk) 21:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Hopefully my RM passes and I'll gladly switch my vote on this nomination! RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename CFD should not poach discussions that belong at the article level in a requested move. Rightly or wrongly, the main article is São Paulo so the categories should follow. (I *would* favor renaming the article though.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Requested Move The main article, São Paulo, has been nominated for a Requested Move (RM) here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:25, 16 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- It is the capital of São Paulo (state). Sometimes, categories not disambiguators where articles do not. The classic case is Birmingham where the categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands - to keep out categories for Birmingham, AL. That is a slightly different case, but all the city categories ought to be sub-cats of a state one. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC) reply
The Birmingham article is ambiguously named. RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. Follow the article name. There's not a very good reason that categories should not adhere to the primary topic convention. I've heard a number of attempts to justify a distinction over the years, but at the end of the day, I have found that far more confusion results from category names differing from corresponding article names than results from category names that are not 100% unambiguous. Achieving 100% unambiguity is impossible. Achieving conformity between article names and category names is easy. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 21 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • In my view, the confusion arises from a lack of discipline and rigour in the naming of the articles, not in the naming of the categories. If the same logic and rigour was applied to articles, there would be no problem. The root cause of this indiscipline is the over-reliance on WP:Primary and the unwarrented importance attached to WP:Common. They whould be relegated to a few steps lower in the hierarchy IMHO. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 08:11, 23 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Well, having uniformity throughout the project is a good thing. It's not a good thing (in the sense of it being confusing for readers) to have little sections of Wikipedia, such as categories, applying different naming standards than articles follow. Users should attempt to change the general naming approach Wikipedia uses if they feel article names are going in the wrong direction. It's entirely the wrong approach to maintain categories as its own bailiwick of what certain users regard as more appropriate naming. (Gad, I'm starting to sound like Alansohn circa 2012.) But just for once, I'd like to see users do something for the good of the project that happens to go against their personal preference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Keep per Oculi. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:40, 22 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. RM was closed as "No move. Consensus is that the city is the primary topic of the term." Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:08, 29 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CONSISTENCY. Nohomersryan ( talk) 18:10, 30 September 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Requested Move Of Main Article Failed My nomination to rename the main article to add "(city)" failed by a large margin. While I respectfully disagree with that outcome, I don't wish to undermine that decision by using a different naming convention in the category space. RevelationDirect ( talk) 16:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per main article and also per the recent US cities CFD. Categories should match the main article titles, not randomly introduce disambiguation needlessly. Timrollpickering ( talk) 22:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • An eponymous category should always be at the same level of disambiguation as the eponym — if there's ever a situation where a category needs to be disambiguated more precisely than the article does, that fact in and of itself constitutes proof that the article is at the wrong level of disambiguation. I don't know whether the right answer is to rename these categories, or to move the article back to a disambiguated title — but I do know that the rationale that they need to be at different levels of disambiguation from each other is a non-starter: if just plain São Paulo is too ambiguous to be the category name, then it's too ambiguous to be the article title either. Bearcat ( talk) 22:37, 15 October 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Rename. The article title on the city is at São Paulo, so the category on the city should match that. -- Tavix ( talk) 03:05, 20 October 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_September_14&oldid=1074817475"