Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 9



Category:Zahid Hussain family

 * 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 Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting zahid hussain family


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category for a family consisting of two people, father and son. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT no likelihood of further expansion. Tassedethe (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. No reasonable prospect of expansion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete, article makes no mention of further notable relatives. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:14, 11 June 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:People from Holland, Vermont

 * 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 Derby and Barton, upmerge Holland. The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Holland, Vermont to Category:People from Orleans County, Vermont
 * Nominator's rationale: Recommend upmerging to Category:People from Orleans County, Vermont. Holland, Vermont only has 588 people in it and its doubtful that there will ever be more than a handful of articles in Wikipedia for them. I also recommend upmerging the following, both of which have less than 5000 people each:


 * Category:People from Derby, Vermont
 * Category:People from Barton, Vermont Kumioko (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge all of these into their respective county articles per WP:SMALLCAT...William 23:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep 1, upmerge the others . Category:People from Barton, Vermont has 7 articles, so by my rule-of-thumb of 6 existing articles, it is big enough to keep. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * (changing my !vote)Keep Barton and Derby, but upmerge Holland. Now that Derby is better populated, it's also a keep. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Since I appear to have created both Holland and Barton, I just want to note for the record that I create categories outside of my areas of personal knowledge (as Vermont is) only when they're specifically on the list of redlinked categories and seem potentially justifiable (rather than just deletable.) So these don't exist because I thought they were needed; they exist because somebody else added them to articles as a redlink and then left them behind. At any rate, I was able to get Derby up into the double digits just by spending two minutes scanning the town's "what links here", and while I didn't do a complete check for Barton, I clicked on just one random name and found that it could have been but wasn't in that category — which means it's now up to eight rather than seven, with the potential for further additions. However, I did the same check for Holland and failed to turn up any new entries for the category at all. Further, the population of a town is entirely irrelevant to whether it should have such a category or not — the only number we care about is the number of articles we have on here about people from that place. Keep Derby and Barton; eight articles is sufficient for a category. But upmerge Holland. Bearcat (talk) 05:30, 14 June 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.

Sutton

 * 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 the "(London borough)" format. There are two equally viable options on the table, so I'm going with the one that more closely matches other categories of this type. That said, this creates a precedent for other London borough categories, so is open to reexamination if the tree doesn't want to bear this much weight.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Visitor attractions in Sutton to Category:Visitor attractions in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Transport in Sutton to Category:Transport in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Geography of Sutton to Category:Geography of Sutton (district)
 * Category:Councillors in Sutton to Category:Councillors in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Politics of Sutton to Category:Politics of Sutton (district)
 * Category:Parks and open spaces in Sutton to Category:Parks and open spaces in Sutton (district)
 * Category:History of Sutton to Category:History of Sutton (district)
 * Category:Media and communications in Sutton to Category:Media and communications in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Disused railway stations in Sutton to Category:Disused railway stations in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Railway stations in Sutton to Category:Railway stations in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Schools in Sutton to Category:Schools in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Museums in Sutton to Category:Museums in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Buildings and structures in Sutton to Category:Buildings and structures in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Education in Sutton to Category:Education in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Sport in Sutton to Category:Sport in Sutton (district)
 * Category:Districts of Sutton to Category:Districts of Sutton (district)


 * Note to closing admin: See also Category:People from Sutton (district) added below.


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename all to eliminate ambiguity. The head article is London Borough of Sutton, and the main settlement in the area in Sutton, London. The list at Sutton (disambiguation) is huge, and there is no way that the borough would meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
 * The proposed disambiguator "Sutton (district)" follows the model of, and is also used for many other boroughs in England. It does create one rather ugly name (Category:Districts of Sutton (district)), so I would be equally happy with the alternative of "Sutton (borough)", as used in e.g. , , , , and many others. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject London has been notified. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:37, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Using the word "borough" leaves us with a choice between "Foo in Bar (borough)" and "Foo in the London Borough of Bar", and I suggest a further possible variant in the form of "Foo in Bar (London borough)". Each of these 3 options solves the ambiguity problem, so I am curious as to why some editors want the most verbose option. I can see that since the parent category in each case is "London Borough of Bar", there is a certain consistency in repeating that phrase, but it seems to me to be rather verbose. Category:Buildings and structures in the London Borough of Sutton is quite a mouthful, and it also seems to me to be a little hard to use, because in applying these standardised categories I expect to be able to type "Foo in Bar" and then add any necessary disambiguators. Prefixing "Bar" with "London Borough of" breaks that option. So ... please can editors who favour "London Borough" explain a) why they think that the phrase "London Borough" is needed here, and b) whether they would be happy to use it as a disambiguator in the form "Foo in Bar (London borough)". Thanks! -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:11, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support when I first saw the categories, I thought it was about the famous ski resort of "Sutton" (Sutton, Quebec), one of the top ranked ski resorts for glade skiing in Eastern North America. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename using "(borough)", adding Category:People from Sutton (district) to Category:People from Sutton (borough). "Borough" is more specific. "District" is potentially ambiguous with other Suttons, and with the former Sutton Urban District which is now part of the borough. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Fayenatic's rationale. "Sutton (borough)" is better. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Strictly speaking it's a London borough not a generic borough. London boroughs are sort-of equivalent to the metropolitan boroughs and non-metropolitan districts found elsewhere in England (see Districts of England). -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, but that isn't really the issue here. What we need here is just a disambiguator, not a formal classification. Per WP:PRECISION, over-precision should be avoided. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename using London Borough of Sutton, or (borough). I think the same should be applied to all London boroughs for clarity. Tim! (talk) 20:13, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename using borough so as to avoid the terrifying prospect of Category:Districts of Sutton (district). CaseyPenk (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per Tim's suggestion of London Borough of Sutton. I also support his contention that that format should apply to other boroughs. — Hex    (❝  ?!  ❞)   07:29, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per Tim's suggestion of London Borough of Sutton. I also support his contention that that format should apply to other boroughs. Like most of these, Sutton used to be a village & is now a borough; it has never been a "district". Johnbod (talk) 19:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Questions. There seems to be a clear consensus that the title of these categories should include the word "borough", and I am particularly persuaded by Johnbod's comment that Sutton has never been a district. On a headcount so far, the preference seems to be to adopt Tim's suggestion of using the full phrase "London Borough of Sutton".
 * You raise interesting points, particularly about the relative ease of finding "Sutton (London borough)" or "London Borough of Sutton". However, we should also consider the internal consistency – and, by extension, predictability – of the category tree. I'm not opposed to "Sutton (London borough)", but then the main article and category also should follow that naming. With regard to length, the difference between the two options is just five characters:
 * Category:Buildings and structures in the London Borough of Sutton
 * Category:Buildings and structures in Sutton (London borough)
 * -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename in the format "Sutton (London borough)", for precision and to follow the proper format for dabbing. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * REname but I prefer Black Falcon's solution with Bushranger's as a second best. Since these are late suggestions please relist.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename from Category:foo in/of Sutton to Category:foo in/of the London Borough of Sutton -- Red rose64 (talk) 18:49, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename in the format "Sutton (London borough)". The rationale for this nomination is not that Sutton the borough needs to be distinguished from Sutton the smaller town/settlement as per  and others.  Rather, the rationale is to distinguish the Sutton in London from other Suttons around the world.  There is an established hierarchy of "X in London by borough" and there is no ambiguity about Category:Parks and open spaces in Kingston upon Thames or Category:Schools in Westminster.  So this group should be a one-off.  As to the precise name, 'district' is just wrong, and 'London' needs to be in the name to provide the clarity about where this place is.  It is "Sutton (London borough)" in the same way as we have "Georgia (US state)".  Sussexonian (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually should this be put on hold as all the other categories from the other boroughs (City of Westminster included) are added as well? Simply south...... always punctual, no matter how late for just 6 years 18:45, 10 July 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:People from Newport, Nebraska

 * 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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 23:18, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Newport, Nebraska to Category:People from Rock County, Nebraska
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Town has less than 2,000 inhabitants and only one notable person at present. Very little chance for growth. I recommend it be upmerged to People from Rock County, Nebraska which is currently empty. ...William 23:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:09, 16 June 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:People from Bassett, Nebraska

 * 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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Bassett, Nebraska to Category:People from Rock County, Nebraska
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT Town has less than 2,000 inhabitants and only one notable person at present. Very little chance for growth. I recommend it be upmerged to People from Rock County, Nebraska which is currently empty. ...William 22:58, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nominator and per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:10, 16 June 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:1863 establishments in London

 * 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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 23:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1863 establishments in London to Category:1863 establishments in England
 * Nominator's rationale: This one was somehow omitted from the group nomination at CfD 2012 March 27, when other "YYYY establishments in London" categories were upmerged.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Tim! (talk) 18:27, 14 June 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:1910s disestablishments 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: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 23:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1910s disestablishments in the United States to Category:20th-century disestablishments in the United States
 * Nominator's rationale: Currently in the entire series of categories for Category:20th-century disestablishments in the United States there are only a couple of articles with any of them. I recommend that all of the 20th-century disestablishments in the United States categories be upmerged to the 20th-century disestablishments in the United States category. If at some point in the future we get a large number of articles and need to split it out we can. In my opinion we don't need to create all the categories just in case. The categories I suggest merging are:


 * Category:1910s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1917 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1930s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1933 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1936 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1940s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1947 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1950s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1955 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1957 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1959 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1960s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1960 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1961 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1962 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1963 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1964 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1965 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1966 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1967 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1968 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1969 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1970s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1970 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1971 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1972 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1973 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1974 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1975 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1976 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1977 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1978 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1979 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1980s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1980 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1981 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1982 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1983 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1984 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1985 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1986 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1987 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1988 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1989 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1990s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1990 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1991 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1992 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1993 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1994 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1995 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1996 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1997 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1998 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1999 disestablishments in the United States Kumioko (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all. There is plenty of scope for expansion of these categories, so don't don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Per WP:SMALLCAT, the test is not whether the categories are populated now, but whether they have any reasonable prospect of expansion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:39, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the upmerge of the yyy0s categories but not the by year ones. This tree has ample material to populate the by year categories and adding by decade categories adds an unhelpful extra level of navigation and creates an issue with the 1900s category for a correct parent since these article lay in two centuries. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:31, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all - this is not the right way of subcatting these. Has no historic value whatsoever.  Split all to Category:20th century disestablishments and Category:Establishments in the United States.  If (if) these categories become too large, split the former by decade, and the latter by state, no need to start splitting them by year and hoping that most of them will become big enough.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now as this tree is currently being created and populated which due to scope takes a long time. It is part of the larger scheme of Category:Disestablishments by country and Category:Disestablishments by year. There are a lot of articles in, for example, Category:2012 disestablishments that need to split by country and type of organisation, and many articles have not even been categorised with year of disestablishment so need tracking down. Tim! (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is being populated and will get a lot more complete. Upmerging them now and downmerging them again afterwards is a useless waste of time and effort. As for the decade cats, a general RfC on these cats is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, where input is welcome from all sides and on all issues, to see what appraoch is the most useful and informative. Fram (talk) 07:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep because I support the scheme and because it has potential for growth. I honestly don't know where one would start in terms of populating these categories, so props to anyone who is doing that investigative work. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Keep All as part of an overall structure that is appropriate for navigation and has clear potential to fill the gaps. Alansohn (talk) 03:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all, corresponds to category structure, adding the location. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:36, 15 June 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:2000s disestablishments 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: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 23:22, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 2000s disestablishments in the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: Currently in the entire series of categories for Category:21st-century disestablishments in the United States there are only a couple of articles with any of them. I recommend that all of the 21st-century disestablishments in the United States categories be upmerged to the 21st-century disestablishments in the United States category. If at some point in the future we get a large number of articles and need to split it out we can. In my opinion we don't need to create all the categories just in case. The categories I suggest merging are:


 * Category:2000s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2000 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2001 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2002 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2003 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2004 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2005 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2006 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2007 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2008 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2009 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2010s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2010 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:2011 disestablishments in the United States Kumioko (talk) 22:06, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all. There is plenty of scope for expansion of these categories, so don't don't demolish the house while it's still being built. Per WP:SMALLCAT, the test is not whether the categories are populated now, but whether they have any reasonable prospect of expansion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the upmerge of the yyy0s categories but not the by year ones. This tree has ample material to populate the by year categories and adding by decade categories adds an unhelpful extra level of navigation and creates an issue with the 2000s category for a correct parent since these articles lay in two centuries. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all - this is not the right way of subcatting these. Has no historic value whatsoever.  Split all to Category:21st century disestablishments and Category:Establishments in the United States.  If (if) these categories become too large, split the former by decade, and the latter by state, no need to start splitting them by year and hoping that most of them will become big enough.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now as this tree is currently being created and populated which due to scope takes a long time. It is part of the larger scheme of Category:Disestablishments by country and Category:Disestablishments by year. There are a lot of articles in, for example, Category:2012 disestablishments that need to split by country and type of organisation, and many articles have not even been categorised with year of disestablishment so need tracking down. Tim! (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't argue that someday we may need to split them out by year or something but IMO we should create the categories when its necessary, not create would could be around 37, 800 (one for each year and decade in the century) categories for all the years in the century just in case we need them, many of which only have one or 2 articles or are empty. IF we get a year with say 5-10 then fine I say go ahead and create one, at least for the decade the year falls in. Other than that it can be tagged as either the century or the decade until needed. Kumioko (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is being populated and will get a lot more complete. Upmerging them now and downmerging them again afterwards is a useless waste of time and effort. As for the decade cats, a general RfC on these cats is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, where input is welcome from all sides and on all issues, to see what appraoch is the most useful and informative. Fram (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep because I support the scheme and because it has potential for growth. I honestly don't know where one would start in terms of populating these categories, so props to anyone who is doing that investigative work. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all, corresponds to category structure, includes location and sorts and organizes. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:37, 15 June 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:ALBC Conservation Priority Breeds

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Convert Category:ALBC Conservation Priority Breeds to article American Livestock Breeds Conservancy
 * Nominator's rationale: --- listify into the article. A category is not justified. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:01, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This looks very similar to Category:IUCN Red List endangered species. But even if Category:IUCN Red List endangered species did not exist, I would still support this scheme. I see animal preservation as a worthy categorization scheme and being endangered is somewhat defining for an animal. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:21, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - as mentioned above, this is a defining characteristic of the animals in question. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - A list within the article would be undue weight given that there are almost 190 breeds on the ALBC Conservation Priority List (apparently all of the breeds on the list haven't yet been tagged with this category). The ALBC is the major livestock conservation organization in the US (and one of the largest in the world), and being endangered (and hence on the CPL) is a defining characteristic for many, if not all, of the livestock breeds in this category. Dana boomer (talk) 20:20, 20 June 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:1820s disestablishments 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: keep. These may need to be revisited in some cases once the tree is fully populated, but until then let's not demolish the house while it's being built. The Bushranger One ping only 23:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 1820s disestablishments in the united states


 * Nominator's rationale: Currently in the entire series of categories for Category:19th-century disestablishments in the United States there are only a couple of articles with any of them. I recommend that all of the 19th-century disestablishments in the United States categories be upmerged to the 19th-century disestablishments in the United States category. If at some point in the future we get a large number of articles and need to split it out we can. In my opinion we don't need to create all the categories just in case. The categories I suggest merging are:


 * Category:1820s disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1820 disestablishments in the United States
 * Category:1825 disestablishments in the United States Kumioko (talk) 21:56, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:1820s disestablishments in the United States, but upmerge the by-years categories to it. Decades are a fine enough grouping in this era, but a century is too big a span. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete all - this is not the right way of subcatting these. Has no historic value whatsoever.  Split all to Category:19th century disestablishments and Category:Establishments in the United States.  If (if) these categories become too large, split the former by decade, and the latter by state, no need to start splitting them by year and hoping that most of them will become big enough.  Note that Category:19th-century disestablishments in the United States is at the moment a tree of 4 categories to hold 2 pages.  Start from the biggest and split to make 'm smaller, not make the smallest possible one and hope they get full enough.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:09, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep for now as this tree is currently being created and populated which due to scope takes a long time. It is part of the larger scheme of Category:Disestablishments by country and Category:Disestablishments by year. There are a lot of articles in, for example, Category:2012 disestablishments that need to split by country and type of organisation, and many articles have not even been categorised with year of disestablishment so need tracking down. Tim! (talk) 10:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, this is being populated and will get a lot more complete. Upmerging them now and downmerging them again afterwards is a useless waste of time and effort. As for the decade cats, a general RfC on these cats is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, where input is welcome from all sides and on all issues, to see what appraoch is the most useful and informative. Fram (talk) 07:57, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep because I support the scheme and because it has potential for growth. I honestly don't know where one would start in terms of populating these categories, so props to anyone who is doing that investigative work. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:05, 12 June 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:Comedians from Ontario

 * 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 to UpMerge - jc37 04:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting comedians from ontario


 * Nominator's rationale: This category fails to meet either of the criteria that are required for subcategorization by individual Canadian province or U.S. state to be permissible: the individual province or state a comedian comes from has no direct bearing on their career as a comedian, and the parent is not large enough to need by-province subcategorization for size management purposes. Delete as WP:OCAT by location; as everybody in it is already in either  or, upmerging them back into the parent category is not necessary. Bearcat (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The Ontario comedians category is large enough to stand on its own, in my view, and should not be singled out because of its relative underpopulation. I would imagine that you oppose Category:People from Ontario by occupation and its sub-cats, given your "no direct bearing" statement. That's a fair contention, and one that would be suitable to another CfD. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Nope. The others fit into the "large enough to need by-province subcategorization for size management purposes" criterion, so whether the province has a direct bearing on the occupation or not is irrelevant (and anyway, in some of the cases, e.g. there is a direct bearing.) This one does not fit into either criterion. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Support. Per WP:Otherstuffexists. If the cat can stand on it's own then why is it underpopulated? Makes no sense. Upmerge. If it turns out there is a specific brand of Ontario humor then we can consider splitting it out.Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Canadian comedians . No evidence so far that there is a specific Ontarian brand of humour. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Eight is Enough to be a valid category. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:33, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No other US state or Canadian province has a comparable category, with the sole exception of Quebec — which at least has the defense that as a predominantly French-speaking province in an otherwise mostly English speaking continent, its culture functions quasi-independently of Canadian culture as a whole and does have an inherently distinct flavour to it. There is a very discernible difference between Quebec comedy and any other North American state or province's comedy, but the same cannot be said of Ontario — and there's no discernible reason why Ontario should be the only subnational division in all of North America that has such a category for no more encyclopedic reason than just "because it's possible". And we don't keep categories solely on the basis of their current or potential size in raw numbers, either — if a category is just "categorization for the sake of categorization", and doesn't have a properly encyclopedic rationale behind it, then it can still be deleted even if it has over 1,000 entries. Bearcat (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Then why shouldn't there be those other categories created? Once WP:SMALLCAT is exceeded we don't delete categories just because other stuff doesn't exist that should. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Canadian comedians. I don't see why Ontario (of all places) should be singled out in North America for subcategorization of comedians. In any case, it's woefully underpopulated and doesn't currently represent an accurate subdivision of . Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep subdividing professions by largest sub-national unit is an accepted scheme. This is especially true of a coutry like Canada where the provinces have a high level of autonomy and large amounts of cultural differences.  It might not be needed for all Provinces, but it works in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:34, 28 June 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:Canvey Island football clubs

 * 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: upmerge. The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Canvey Island football clubs to Category:Canvey Island and Category:Football clubs in Essex
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge to both parents. This category currently contains 2 articles and one sub-category. I don't see any scope for expansion, so this fails WP:SMALLCAT.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Tim! (talk) 10:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:27, 10 June 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:Telugu films by genre

 * 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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting telugu films by genre


 * Nominator's rationale: Created like a list; also if used properly as a category it would be redundant to Category:Telugu-language films as it wouldn't give any precision as to the genre. Either delete or create sub-categories for each specific genre. benzband  ( talk ) 15:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Listify and delete. Save the info as List of Telugu-language films about religion, as the page only got as far as "devotional". As far as I know there are no other film categories by intersection of language and genre/subject. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * deletethis category, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Telugu-language_films  will give required information thoe it is incomplete but not time consuming to edit .bye the way i created this category  --Sriharanathrayala (talk) 07:55, 20 June 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:Serer athletes

 * 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 match the category tree standard. The Bushranger One ping only 23:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Serer athletes to Category:Serer sportspeople
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename The current title is ambiguous since the term "athlete" can be used to refer to sportspeople in general or specifically to track and field competitors. Although all current members of the category are track and field athletes, I think the wider scope makes most sense because it's a natural subcategory of Category:Sportspeople by ethnicity (track and field athletes are not subcategorized by ethnicity). Pichpich (talk) 12:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment - Hi thanks for notifying me. My concern is "Serer sportspeople" is too general. Many Serers engage in a variety of sports. So it does not narrow it down much for "Serer people by profession", but I am more than happy to go along with whatever the concensus is. Thank again. Best regards. Tamsier (talk) 13:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nominator and per convention of Category:Sportspeople by ethnicity. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:00, 16 June 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:Eastern European sports venue stubs

 * 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 all. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Eastern European sports venue stubs to Category:European sports venue stubs
 * Category:Northern European sports venue stubs to Category:European sports venue stubs
 * Category:Southern European sports venue stubs to Category:European sports venue stubs
 * Category:Western European sports venue stubs to Category:European sports venue stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: There are four regional splits under . But there has been a tradition, that once a country fills up, it is taken out of the regional category, and placed under the main European category.  The downside is that one of these regional splits  has now seen enough countries mature that it is now undersized.  I propose that we do away with the regional splits altogether, and just upmerge any remaining countries into the European category.
 * This would mean that the main European category would then have around 700 articles. At the very least, I'd at least like to get rid of the Western category, and upmerge the remaining countries from that category into the European parent. Dawynn (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Support: Certainly East/North/West, and it then seems silly to leave South seperate. Bulgaria category is already speediable and Slovakia, Ukraine, Finland and Serbia are very close (about 50 stubs each), with those 5 countries taken out of the picture it'd be closer to 400 articles total, about half of them from the Southern Europe. --Qetuth (talk) 00:22, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Support, but consider merging all four to, so as to not overwhelm the parent category, and encourage categorisation by nation wherever not very small. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need for an extra category. Current totals will only bring the parent category up to about 670.  But two of the countries already have proposals for categories of their own, bringing the total for the parent down to about 550, well shy of the 800 limit currently imposed by WSS.  I would expect to see a few more break into categories of their own before we see the parent category flooded. Dawynn (talk) 12:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Procedural relocation from CFD. Per this discussion, SFD is no longer needed. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 05:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The current scheme is useful given the hundreds of articles within the regional categories. Upmerging to a bloated Category:European sports venue stubs would reduce the scheme's usefulness, in my view. I would support upmerging the Western category alone, but that would form a logical inconsistency. I propose that we wait until all four regions are underpopulated, and then upmerge. CaseyPenk (talk) 07:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Categories were created recently for Serbia and Slovakia, meaning that the main European category would have about 510 articles if all four regional splits were upmerged. Our guidelines for stub types – point 6, in particular – suggest that this is an acceptable amount. The next likely country-level splits are Ukraine (50), Finland (46) and Hungary (45), which can be split once they reach 60 articles. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:50, 13 June 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:FC Red Bull Salzburg
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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, but purge of the hockey categories, which I've put into a new Category:EC Red Bull Salzburg.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:20, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:FC Red Bull Salzburg to Category:Red Bull Salzburg
 * Nominator's rationale: I nominated this category to be speedily renamed, which it was, from Category:Red Bull Salzburg to Category:FC Red Bull Salzburg since I thought that the main article was FC Red Bull Salzburg. However, that may not be the case, according to the following explanation:


 * I am not sure what constitutes common practice in a case like this. Should the title of the 'master' category reflect the name of the 'primary' or older club (see, for example, Category:Paris Saint-Germain F.C. and Category:Paris Saint-Germain Rugby League) or should it omit any sport-specific designation? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the easiest thing would be to move the cat back from whence it came, or split it into two separate categories, one for the hockey club and one for the football club. Just think the idea of having the top category for both refer to only the one is poor categorization. It's not entirely comparable to the PSG example, as rugby is still a form of football, while ice hockey is an entirely different sport. oknazevad (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. &#9733;&#9734; DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 14:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - I believe that separate categories should exist for the football club and the hockey club, and that a new master category should be created as a parent to the sport-specific categories. – PeeJay 23:48, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:PeeJay2K3. Though it looks like the EC cat will only have 2 members, I think this would be clearer, and thus more helpful to navigation. - jc37 23:15, 25 July 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.