Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 13



Romanian language diacritics

 * 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: procedural close with no action, as the nominated pages have not been tagged. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:51, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

All those categories are about Romanian-language speaking community things. The Romanian language uses S-comma and T-comma, not S-cedilla / T-cedilla. There is a list with 114 such categories to be renamed at User:Ark25/Robot. —  Ark25  (talk) 19:03, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Category:Communes of Bălţi municipality
 * Category:Media in Constanţa
 * Category:Dacian fortresses in Ialomiţa County
 * Support as this is correct letter type we should be using given the introduction of s-comma into the common font package. SFB 11:51, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support now that fonts support it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:18, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nothing nominated here is tagged.  But that may not be a big issue since everything appears to be redirects.  It appears that the new categories were created.  So it appears that the out of process moves need to be reversed (which the discussion does not support at this point), or the redirects should be deleted as not needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:07, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- the correct diacritcals should be used, according to native practice, but we should retain the incorrect forms as cat-redirects, to prevetn them being populated inadvertently. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment the old categories should have been tagged with cfr-speedy and listed at WP:CFDS. Instead, you have moved the category pages out of process. As an administrator, I would be inclined to make a procedural close of this nomination, as you have still not tagged the old pages which you now want deleted. The overall outcome would be the same as Peterkingiron's suggestion, anyway. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:39, 17 December 2014 (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:Haliotidae 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: upmerge. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting haliotidae stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. The majority of this family is now up to Start-class. Delete category and upmerge template to . Dawynn (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2014 (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:Companies based in Gainesville, Texas

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Companies based in Gainesville, Texas to Category:Gainesville, Texas
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This is a town of 16,000 people on the state border of Texas which has two main employers: the one article in this category and a casino over the line in Oklahoma. I don't see any potential for growth and a 1-article category doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 06:58, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Texas. – RevelationDirect (talk) 07:11, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Support - merger makes sense for such a small town. Sionk (talk) 00:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support upmerge to Category:Companies based in Texas as well. SFB 11:53, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per SFB. kennethaw88 • talk 04:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support upmerge as nominated. The article does not need to be readded to at all, as it's already in  — so SFB's second upmerge would just be redundant. Bearcat (talk) 17:57, 17 December 2014 (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:Sportspeople from West Nipissing

 * 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 per nom.  Note; also reflects Dec 8 close for the subcategory. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:57, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting sportspeople from west nipissing


 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to . Category whose only actual content at time of nomination is an subcategory — by the time this is actually eligible for closure, however, that category will have been deleted at CFD per an established consensus against crosscatting individual sports with individual birth cities or towns, and its seven entries will have been upmerged into this one. It also warrants note that West Nipissing is a small town with a population of just 14,000, so the  parent has just 16 people in it right now — so we're talking about a grand total of 23 people between the two categories, which isn't nearly large enough to warrant diffusing them by occupation. Bearcat (talk) 02:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Any reason why the Canadian structure tends to jump to grouping specific sportspeople by small towns while something like Category:People from Northern Ontario doesn't even exist? It just seems bizarre that we don't have a useful intermediate location category between an area containing 40% of Canadians and a level containing 0.04% of Canadians. SFB 12:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
 * There's nothing inherent in "the Canadian structure" per se that jumps to that any more than any other country does — one particular user has been undertaking a self-initiated program in the past several months of implementing an overdone structure of subcategories for every individual small town from which he could find two sportspeople, but no established consensus ever supported him in that. We see these kinds of categories happen for places in the US too — the only thing that's made the Canadian ones more numerous lately is that one specific user's own self-initiated idea that this was somehow warranted, not any broad movement of Canadian editors. Bearcat (talk) 01:01, 16 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete and upmerge if necessary. SFB's comment is apt - I thought that Ontario was subdivided into counties, is that not so? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:21, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Upmerge somehow -- I also thought that Ontario had counties. I would have thought there ought to be a sportspeople by county target too.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No other Canadian province, nor any American state at all, has "Sportspeople by individual county" subcategories, at least not comprehensively. A few US states admittedly do have isolated instances for one or two individual counties, which are usually violating WP:SMALLCAT in the process, but no state has anything even approaching a comprehensive set for all counties. Why would Ontario be unique in needing or having a level of categorization that's different from any other state or province? Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2014 (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.