Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 20



Category:285 corridor

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 285 corridor


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not sure that we want to or need to use categories to list places along a section of a road. Category:U.S. Route 22 shows how this type of category is more normally used.  Based on a quick look at the contents, I don't see being able to keep this following the US 22 model. Maybe if the restriction on the size was removed it could be kept and reworked to follow other examples. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:54, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 03:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete categorizing places by what freeway they are along is not a standard practice. I would hate to see what we would do with Detroit, Michigan if we were to have Category:75 corridor, Category:94 corridor, Category:96 corridor. and so forth.  This is not a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Tim! (talk) 11:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; let's not categorize each place by which roads pass nearby or through it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Lists of toponymy of the United States

 * 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: speedy merge as duplicate. The Bushranger One ping only 18:07, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Lists of toponymy of the United States to Category:Lists of United States placename etymology
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge, toponymy means the same thing, or at any rate is used in this category for the same thing. The categories were started independently in previous years, and linked only this year. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:56, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge no meaningful distinction between the categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Slang expressions

 * 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 and restructure.  delldot   &nabla;.  23:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Slang expressions to Category:English-language slang
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename, and restructure so that this becomes part of, and its current sub-cat goes up into  (with a "see also" link to it on the new category page). – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree Rename and restructure. Beyond just slang, for Spanish language at least, a number of addition renames are in order at some point, such as Category:Spanish variants to Category:Spanish-language dialects. Mayumashu (talk) 20:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree per nom; I'll wait to see Mayumashu's nom - but Spanish (and perhaps other languages) have both variants (which non-users hear as different but not incorrect for normal discourse) and slangs (which non-users hear as both different and incorrect for normal discourse). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Hispanic slang
Relisting debate to Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 7 delldot   &nabla;.  00:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Category:Indian slangs

 * 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 (C2A/C2C). The Bushranger One ping only 19:20, 25 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Indian slangs to Category:Indian slang
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename, following others in . Apart from Bombay Hindi, all the contents are words/phrases rather than languages. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:55, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Kenya ambassadors

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep all (i.e. do not merge). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Ethiopia to Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Kenya
 * Propose merging Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Tanzania to Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Kenya
 * Propose merging Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Uganda to Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Kenya
 * Propose merging Category:Permanent Representatives of Colombia to the United Nations at Nairobi to Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Kenya
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories duplicate one another as the position is the same for all of them. Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:12, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge all to Category:Ambassadors of Colombia. There are only two articles in the Kenyan one, which is the actual position held, so it is not worth even having that category at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose, because s/he is Concurrent Non-Resident Ambassador to the others, and deletion would take the page out of Category:Ambassadors to Ethiopia etc. Alternatively, upmerge each one to all parents. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the creator of the categories I'll tell you why: the officeholder is not always concurrent to those countries, so even though the ambassador right now is concurrent to Tanzania, Uganda, and Ethiopia and others he will not always be, for example the Embassador of Colombia to India used to be concurrent to Iran, that changed this year when the Ambassador of Colombia to Turkey was invested as non-resident ambassador to Iran. Juan Alfredo Pinto Saavedra was ambassador to India and nonresident ambassador to Iran, but not anymore as Fernando Panesso Serna is the new non-resident ambassador to Iran, and so these two people would be found in the Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Iran, but NOT in the Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Turkey as this is not factual or true, and is what would happen if this proposal is approved and implemented to all similar categories. Also María Victoria Díaz, the current ambassador of Colombia to Kenya has now been assigned other countries, countries that her predecessors were not accredited to, so if anyone creates an article about her or her predecessors or sucessors they would be miscategorized because of this. Also see: Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Nauru, Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Tuvalu, and Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Tonga who according to this rationale should all be merged into Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Fiji since the Amb to Fiji is the same ambassador to all of them too. mijotoba (talk) 21:57, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. In principle, the creation of these is OK, I think, as explained above—but it is a bit strange to have them as categories when there are no articles for the individuals who have actually filled these positions. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment', Yes it is strange, but this leaves room for improvement, and opens the door for someone else to do it. I have started to expand Colombian articles on foreign affairs, these ambassadorial posts are the stage being set for me, or some other fool, to create articles about the actual officeholders, embassies, and bilateral relations, specially in light of Colombia's desire to extend influence in Africa (by setting these accreditations in law, as part of its new role as part of the CIVETS, even by now announcing the opening of a new Embassy in Algeria). And if we start to upmerge categories because of this, then someone has to go through all like-categories and do the same, for example: Category:Ambassadors of the United States to Turkmenistan and Category:Ambassadors of Russia to Thailand.mijotoba (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What I meant was that it is a bit strange to create the categories before multiple articles exist to place in them. Creating the categories and waiting for them to be filled is the reverse of what is the usual process. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:58, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose While the current Colombian ambassador to Kenya may have concurrent accreditation in, say, Ethiopia, this might not be the case in two years. I can't check but maybe this wasn't the case 10 years ago. Ambassadors with multiple ambassador titles should therefore be included in multiple categories. For these very reasons, I disagree with categorizing Ambassador of Colombia to Kenya in Category:Ambassadors of Colombia to Ethiopia but I believe Germán García Durán should be there instead. Pichpich (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- They may currently be identical, but that does not mean that the same person always has and alway will hold both posts. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Television programmes

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was:
 * Rename Category:UKTV programmes to Category:UKTV television programmes.
 * Rename Category:Sky1 programmes to Category:Sky television programmes.
 * Rename Category:London Weekend Television series to Category:London Weekend Television programmes.
 * Rename Category:BBC television programmes to Category:BBC Television programmes.
 * Rename Category:BBC television programme stubs to Category:BBC Television programme stubs.

It looks like there's consensus for using 'television' at least when it doesn't create the duplicate 'Television television', so I did that where possible. I tried to pick the option that had the most support and least objection in each case. delldot  &nabla;.  02:18, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:UKTV programmes to Category:UKTV television programmes
 * Propose renaming Category:Sky1 programmes to Category:Sky1 television programmes
 * Propose renaming Category:London Weekend Television series to Category:London Weekend Television television programmes or at least Category:London Weekend Television programmes
 * Propose renaming Category:BBC television programmes to Category:BBC Television television programmes
 * Propose renaming Category:BBC television programme stubs to Category:BBC Television television programme stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: The convention of is "FOO television programmes", where FOO is the name of the television channel, in this case UKTV, Sky1, London Weekend Television and BBC Television respectively. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support UKTV and Sky1, Oppose other 3 - Perhaps if "London Weekend Television television programmes" is the convention, the convention should be ignored? I notice that the entire Category:Television series by network tree is quite inconsistent, partly because of ENGVAR, but one thing it does have is a general avoidance of 'Television television' and 'Network network' even when sibling convention calls for it. --Qetuth (talk) 14:35, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Would you agree renaming Category:London Weekend Television series to Category:London Weekend Television programmes than? Armbrust The Hromunculus 21:24, 23 December 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds a lot better, and yet I don't think incorrect or inconsistant. --Qetuth (talk) 14:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose most -- Sky1 programmes frequently reappear on Sky2; merging to Category:Sky programmes might be appropriate. UKTV broadcasts little but repeats, so that I am notsure we need a category  at all.  I would have thought that a programme cat and a series cat were dealing with different things - the former with single ones.  BBC TV does not broadcast on radio, only TV: Category:BBC Television programme stubs might be appropriate, but I see no point in changing.  Certainly, "BBC TV TV programmes" would be plain stupid.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename as nominated, though if "Sky" is more appropriate than "Sky1," so be it. Sometimes there is redundancy in the system: Category:Cheapass Games games, Category:Miramax Films films, Category:Ace Books books. We can handle a little "Television television" every now and then.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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:BBC New Media

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: keep.  delldot   &nabla;.  23:57, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:BBC New Media to Category:BBC new media
 * Nominator's rationale: To correct capitalisation in the title of the category, just like . BBC New Media is not a proper name. Armbrust The Homunculus 10:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Actually it is a proper name, is a group within the BBC. Ephebi (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Urdu fiction writers

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming


 * Category:Urdu fiction writers to Category:Urdu-language fiction writers
 * Category:Urdu novelists to Category:Urdu-language novelists
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Urdu is a language, not an ethncity. (There is the ethnicity Muhajir - I suppose all writers here are Muhajir and it could be Category:Muhajir fiction writers, etc., alternatively. Mayumashu (talk) 06:51, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Support though, really it makes little difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.

Azumanga Daioh

 * 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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting Category:Azumanga Daioh
 * Nominator's rationale: Overly small category. No chance for expansion from the six articles it contains. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:58, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. The contents can be easily linked through the main article, no need for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment - Leaning keep. What exactly is the threshold considered 'overly small' for these? 6 plus a subcat of 3 is more than a lot of similar categories out there, and I'd think that would be enough that readers/editors might find the category useful, even if they are all linked in the navbox. --Qetuth (talk) 00:53, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)




 * Relisting since the subcategory Category:Azumanga Daioh characters has been emptied. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. With 6 articles, there are certainly many more egregious examples of so-called "eponymous" categories. In other words, many others have fewer than 6. I know, I know—WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, I'm just not sure if this constitutes "crap" or not. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The soundtrack articles don't look particularly notable, so they can probably be redirected, which would bring it down to 4. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 03:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestion - It seems a little strange to be merging/deleteing articles to get the category down to 4 so it's small enough to be deleted, when hundreds of siblings have 2 or 3 much smaller articles. But I agree the soundtracks should probably be merged into a music of daioh article or into the main article. I still think there is potential navigational value in the category system here, so what do you think of upmerging to Category:Kiyohiko Azuma? --Qetuth (talk) 14:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I would not upmerge all the contents into the author's category. If this is deleted, it would be sufficient to put the main article in that category. There is already a navigation box Template:Azumanga Daioh which seems sufficient for navigation. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:04, 20 December 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Place names of English origin in the United States

 * 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: listify and delete.  If you're willing to help out with this process, please do.  I'm going to put this on the to do page at WP:CFDWM.  delldot   &nabla;.  00:10, 7 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete Category:Place names of English origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Buckinghamshire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Cornwall origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Cumberland origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Derbyshire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Devon origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Dorset origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Essex origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Gloucestershire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Herefordshire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Hertfordshire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Huntingdonshire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Lancashire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Leicestershire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Lincolnshire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Middlesex origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Norfolk origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Northumberland origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Shropshire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Somerset origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Staffordshire origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Suffolk origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Surrey origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Sussex origin in the United States
 * Delete Category:Place names of Warwickshire origin in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale we categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. The process of naming places is complexed, and since at times it is on the whim of a child or by the flip of a coin it hardly tells us anything about the people who named the place, even less about the place at any later point.
 * delete There's little or no proof that many of these places are named after a specific place in England. A lot of them are probably named after people rather than places, and then there's Springfield. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Procedural oppose If the rationale is sound, then it should be applied to all such categories rather than to a subset; no rationale is given for applying it only to some such categories, which would break a consistent naming pattern. Whatever the intent behind this sort of selective nomination, its effect is to sneak hundreds of changes in under most people's radar. CFD has winessed a lot of this recently, and it astounding that this underhand and disruptive pattern has not been nipped in the bud by Admins.--Mais oui! (talk) 11:09, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since all the other United States place names of x origin categories are currently up for deletion (and many from Category:Place names of Czech origin in the United States to Category:Place names of Swedish origin in the United States have been deleted) a procedural opposition makes no sense at all. This is the last set of place names categories to be nominated, and with these they have all at least been nominated for deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Listify – this is OC based on the name (or, in most cases, guesswork about the name), not a property of the place. Oculi (talk) 12:59, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete/Listify - this is categorisation based on name. Only some of the articles have referenced support for their inclusion, but even for those this is not a defining characteristic. As for the scope of this nomination, it appears to be a complete major branch - any bigger and it would risk falling afoul of the troubles Chinese categories have been subjected to lately where mass nominations contained many categories which really deserved more individual treatment. --Qetuth (talk) 14:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify per precedent at Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 16. This has the advantage of adding context and citations. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:25, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. So French survived then. So should this. Benkenobi18 (talk) 02:24, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The French category was listified, ie the category did not survive. Oculi (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete all per nom; no objection to listifying if each entry is supported by a WP:RS. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:46, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify then delete -- Little obvious coherence. We might have kept the French one as indicating where French people settled. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * If you look at Category:Place names of French origin in the United States you will see we did not keep it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:14, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Listify. Listify this as the French and Spanish categories were listified and the Native American categories are scheduled to be listified. For whatever reason, some categories such as the Dutch one were not listified. This wouldn't be a problem if these categories were collectively put up for discussion, rather than this unhelpful one-category-at-a-time tactic. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a 25-category nomination and was in many ways the main reason I did not do another all in one nomination. 25-categories at once is enough, and this was after some of the most irregular named sub-cats of England were removed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:44, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I realize there are a lot of categories. It nonetheless is a bad idea to nominate them separately, because the results are inconsistent. The Irish category was just deleted without being listed, as was the Dutch category, whereas the French, Spanish, and other categories were listified then deleted. Why some listified and not others? The separate nominations are not helpful. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 08:33, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * 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.