Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 4



Category:2012–13 in Indonesian football

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:03, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:2012–13 in Indonesian football to Category:Category:2013 in Indonesian football


 * Category:2012–13 Liga Indonesia Premier Division to Category:2013 Liga Indonesia Premier Division
 * Category:2013–14 in Indonesian football to Category:2014 in Indonesian football
 * Category:2014–15 in Indonesian football to Category:2015 in Indonesian football
 * Category:2015–16 in Indonesian football to Category:2016 in Indonesian football
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename to match contents, which all use a calendar year from 2013 onwards. I accept that the contents and head categories will need pruning slightly, and will do this. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Question -- Does Indonesia play its football using a season that does not straddle two years? In UK, the fooball season is in the northern winter, which does straddle.  If that does not apply to Indonesia, the answer should be to rename; if it does straddle the year-end, we should keep.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Reply – it appears so, from 2013 on. The articles and tables e.g. in Liga Indonesia Premier Division are drawn up that way. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:10, 20 September 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:Sport in Nishapur

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Sport in Nishapur to Category:Nishapur
 * Nominator's rationale: Small category, only one article, about a football cub. This article is already is in Category:Football clubs in Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:27, 4 September 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:Current ministerial offices in the United Kingdom

 * 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. (Deletion would be most unhelpful.) The Defunct category suffices to separate current from former. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:44, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting current ministerial offices in the united kingdom


 * Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize by current status. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Ministerial offices in the United Kingdom. DexDor (talk) 19:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or upmerge as suggested per no current cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Possibly Keep -- Normally we do not like "current" categories, but in this case, we also have Category:Defunct ministerial offices in the United Kingdom and there are enough obsolete titles to warrant the existecne of that. Deleting should not be an option, merging per Dexdor might be.  If we did that we would have his target with the defunct one as a subcat: would that be a better outcome?  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes - if an article is categorized correctly then it should never (apart from special cases like Living people category), be necessary to remove that article from a category, but the article may become eligible to be "moved" to a subcategory. DexDor (talk) 22:16, 10 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment We actually also do remove people from religious categories are put them in categories like Category:Former Roman Catholics. It is unclear if Mrs. De Blasio would still fit in an LGBT category despite her having written an essay that asserted being Lesbian, but I can see successful arguments that LGBT should not be applied to people who currently reject that label even if they embraced it in the past. However most categories it is not possible to loose. We also have a few for people who had awards officially revoked from them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:48, 20 September 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:Current Indian state and territorial ministries

 * 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:Lists of current Indian state and territorial ministries, as it currently contains only lists, not individuals. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:51, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting current indian state and territorial ministries


 * Nominator's rationale: We don't categorize by current status. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Indian state and territorial ministries. DexDor (talk) 19:15, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete or upmerge as suggested per no current categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Lists of current Indian state and territorial ministries That will fit in as a sub category of Category:Lists of current office-holders of country subdivisions.Shyamsunder (talk) 13:44, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment -- This rasies much the same issues as the UK item - not discussion above. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 7 September 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:Holy Child College of Davao

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


 * The result of the discussion was: administrative close: deleted by another user. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting holy child college of davao


 * Nominator's rationale: This is a non-notable article disguised as a category. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete - per nom.--ukexpat (talk) 13:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * delete no need for a category for a single article (and that only a draft). -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. An article on a non-notable subject, camouflaged as a category. Maproom (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Category is only used for one draft article about a non-notable subject. Creator is trying to disguise an article as a category, which is a misuse of categories. J I P  &#124; Talk 18:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Close as delete -- It seems to have eben deleted already! Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 7 September 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:Pro-government people of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine

 * 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, as there is no consensus for deletion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Pro-government people of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine to Category:Pro-Ukrainian people of the 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine
 * Nominator's rationale: More correct name (as creator). People of another side named . NickSt (talk) 11:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I wonder if this is the right way of categorizing. I think that for pro-Russian people a category name like Category:Leaders of Federal State of Novorossiya would me more appropriate, while a pro-Ukrainian category may not be meaningful at all as it can be regarded as just an opinion category to which too many Ukrainian people would belong. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * There are two sides in this unrest/conflict/war: Pro-Russian (DNR, LNR, Russian) and Ukrainian sides. Key people (limited number) from both sides included in article's infoboxes, navboxes etc. They must be categorized under different subcategories, clearly. Subcategory's name are subject for this discussion. NickSt (talk) 12:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * It is about a strict definition of key people. From the one side I can imagine that key people are the leaders of Federal State of Novorossiya, so that would be suitable as a category. However, I can't imagine how one would define key people of the other side. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete people by one issue position is usually wrong. Here "pro-government" is doubly problematic, as in people who were pro the government of the president who up and fled were pro-government once too, and if this is defining, changing sides doesn't change their categories... right? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 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 of the Arab League

 * 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. Sub-cats were not tagged, so have been nominated at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_16. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:06, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting companies of the arab league


 * Nominator's rationale: The Arab League is a political organisation that doesn't have companies either belonging to it or registered to it as an entity. Aviabranding (talk) 00:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Support delete. The same applies to its two childcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete no showing that the Arab League has some process of registering companies that supersedes those of its members. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to Companies of the Arab world, do not delete. The Economy parent categories were merged to "Arab League", see Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 1, but this choice of name should not result in the abolition of sub-categories, nor force consistency where it is unnatural. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * If it comes to a rename, I'd rather make it more specific e.g. Pan-Arab companies or possibly Multinational Arab companies, as I imagine it's not desirable to put all companies of all Arab countries in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
 * This may not be a good idea, since there are hardly any pan-Arab companies in this category, surprisingly enough. So, I would rather stay in support of the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment Does anyone find this combination useful (organisation+arab-country-based)? SFB 23:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per Carlossuarez46's logic. If the Arab League starts getting involved with licensing companies like the EU, then this category makes sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:39, 15 September 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:UFO-related locations

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting ufo-related locations


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Notability is not inherited, so places "related" to or "associated with" categories are improper. Imagine: Category:Napoleon-related places, Category:Football-related places, or the like. The paranormal should not be treated differently than the normal. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * delete per the analysis above. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  16:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree that 'related' doesn't make it a strong category. Is a rename an option? e.g. Category:UFO-reported locations or Category:UFO-suspected locations Marcocapelle (talk) 19:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I sampled 4 articles. The first two did not even refer to UFOs.  The next two were the locations of alleged UFO sightings.  In each case there was a main article on the sighting, which was in Category:UFO sightings.  It might be possible to alter this to Category:Locations of UFO sightings, but if so, it should be purged of all articles that do not mention any sighting.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's not even clear what this category is supposed to mean. Should Mars be included? How about Hollywood? jps (talk) 02:20, 11 September 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.