Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 9



Category:Partners Harvard Medical International

 * 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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:25, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting partners harvard medical international


 * Nominator's rationale: The category does not explain what its inclusion criteria are (i.e. what relationship an organisation should have with Partners Harvard Medical International to be eligible), but it appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Also, it is incorrect to place organizations such as Dresden University of Technology and University of Lausanne under Category:Organizations based in Massachusetts. DexDor(talk) 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * DElete -- This looks like membership of a research syndicate. We have deleted a lot of such membership categories, including for associations of univeristies.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 13 April 2015 (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:Meteorite files

 * 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 to Category:Meteorites. I have also added the one image of a meteorite into Astronomy images. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:31, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Meteorite files to Category:Meteorite images
 * Nominator's rationale: This category has 3 parent categories that are specifically for images (a subset of files). All the pages (currently) in the category are images (not, for example, videos or sound recordings). If the category is renamed as proposed then "and other media" should be removed from the category text. DexDor(talk) 21:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or upmerge. Most of the images are buildings or people or logos which are not images of meteorites per say. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why the proposed rename target is not "Images of meteorites". DexDor(talk) 08:04, 25 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Do not delete the images are meteorite related, so good enough for categorization -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * But not meteorite images. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a subcategory of "Meteorite", so is good enough for a name, or you could add "-related" -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge: Files can live directly in Category:Meteorites; we don't need a separate category for them. -- N  Y  Kevin   22:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it's better to have a file category tree instead of mixing them with articles/pages -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 08:34, 16 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename There are 5 of these so I think it's a viable sub-category. I am opposed to deletion but do not feel strong against an upmerge.RevelationDirect (talk) 13:10, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge but I would upmerge to Category:Astronomy images rather than to Category:Meteorites since all five images are about astronomy while only one is about a meteorite. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:19, 22 April 2015 (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:Las Vegas Film Critics Society Awards

 * 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. MER-C 12:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting las vegas film critics society awards


 * Nominator's rationale: Category is now deprecated due to deletion at AfD of all subject articles. Additionally, the navigation template has been nominated for deletion and will be gone within the week. Safiel (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete As being empty (or will be very soon).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:44, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I hope this has not been emptied out of process. Even if it has, this is a typcial award winners' category, whcih we do not allow.  If there was any substantive content, I would have voted to listify in Las Vegas Film Critics Society, but that does not exist.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:16, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment All articles populating this category were deleted en mass at AfD. Please refer to Articles for deletion/Las Vegas Film Critics Society (2nd nomination). I was the editor who created that AfD. The deletion of this category and the navigation template are essentially cleanups from that AfD. Safiel (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2015 (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:Power forwards

 * 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 Category:Power forwards to Category:Power forwards (basketball). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting power forwards


 * Propose moving power forwards (basketball)


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete and move Category:Power forwards (basketball) here. There was one member of the category which I moved over to the more-used category above. Other basketball positions don't disambiguate with (basketball) and there's no need for it here. &#8213;  Padenton &#124;&#9993;  16:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep - article is Power forward (basketball), and Power forward is ambiguous. 31.110.111.250 (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep Category:Power forwards (basketball) and merge Category:Power forwards into it. Avoiudance of ambiguity is more important for categoeis than articles.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:19, 13 April 2015 (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:Test2

 * 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: see below. MER-C 03:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting test2


 * Nominator's rationale: Declined speedy (G1, G2, C1), on the basis that the page was created by an adminbot. I've already notified the operator, but said operator has been inactive recently and most likely has not had a chance to read my note.  Now, can we please zap this thing already?  N  Y  Kevin   13:16, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Pinging User:Cyde and User:Bbb23. -- N  Y  Kevin   13:17, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Deleted by .--Bbb23 (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey now, I'm not *that* inactive! -- Cyde Weys  00:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep (and restore) I think it is a good idea to have a few test categories for editors to get the hang of things, just as we have sandboxes for templates and regular pages, categories should also have a sandbox area, so, , should be restored as sandbox areas. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:23, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * See Category:Xn. MER-C 03:34, 19 April 2015 (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:Roman legions' camps in Germany

 * 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. For info, all the members, or redirects using their Roman names, are in either  or, so not all is lost. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting roman legions' camps in germany


 * Nominator's rationale: That there was once a Roman legions' camp in, for example, Bonn, Cologne or Mainz is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the town/city. DexDor(talk) 05:57, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Saalburg is the only valid Roman article in this category and is already included in Category:Ancient Roman forts in Germany. The rest are towns etc which may have some roman remains nearby. Twiceuponatime (talk) 07:59, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose if there hadn't have been a Roman legions' camp in these places, they'd be open fields or hamlets, as they were when the Romans arrived. Certainly as notable and defining for the articles and places over their entire history than being on the Rhine or in whatever current district that current government assigns them. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Being a Roman camp may have been a factor in forests/fields becoming a city, but many other things (being at an important railway junction, being chosen as an adminstrative centre etc) are also likely to have been significant. Being on a river is much more important (and more permanent) - just look at article leads, guidebooks or how towns/cities are usually disambiguated (" -on- ").  Similarly, being in a particular district is more WP:DEFINING (and provides a structure to categorize all populated places) than events of ancient history. DexDor(talk) 06:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Empty the category, then C1 it: These towns are not Roman legions' camps. They are modern-day towns.  The articles in this category should be about the former rather than the latter.  If any articles about such camps exist or can be written, we can skip the C1.  -- N  Y  Kevin   22:51, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- According to the history sections of the articles on Bonn and Mainz, it is clear that they were legionary fortresses. Cologne was promoted to a colony, i.e. settlement of veterans and should be purged out (unless evidence about the legion is added).  That they originated as legionary fortresses is highly significant, just as it is for Chester, York and Caerleon.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute that there may have been forts at those locations, but the category has to be for articles about those forts NOT about the subsequent settlements. At the moment there appear to be no articles about the forts/camps so the category is not needed. It can easily be recreated when the articles appear. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:03, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, classic example of WP:NONDEF. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2015 (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.

Chechen Islamists

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:32, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Chechen Islamists to Category:Russian Islamists
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Nothing that rely differentiates Islamist from Chechnya from Islamists from Russia. We don't have Category:Chechen painters differentiated from Category:Russian painters. Per WP:OCLOCATION and WP:OCEGRS. Thank you. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 02:29, 9 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep We have a Category:Chechen people, Category:Chechen rebels, Category:Chechen murder victims, Category:Chechen poets, etc. Are there Chechen painters we have articles on? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Fair enough but that still does not explain how being Chechen affects one being an Islamist. There are no Category:Chechen Muslims because the vast majority of Chechens are already Muslims and their ethnicity for the most part does not make them practice their religion any differently. If you or anyone else can provide a source of how being Chechen affects one's Islamist views I'll gladly change my position.Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 12:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTFINISHED, create a Category:Chechen Muslims as it is missing. The vast majority of Saudis are Muslim, but we have a Category:Saudi Arabian Muslims. Being an Islamist is not the same as being a Muslim. Being an Islamist indicates they are practicing differently. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 13:48, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I never said being an Islamists was the same as being a Muslim, my point was that they are both philosophical viewpoints that are not necessarily effected by ethnicity. Still seams to be a case of WP:OCEGRS to me. Chechnya is not a country so having there own Categories seams a bit iffy. Can't really see any other ethnicity which has its own Categories regarding religious and philosophical viewpoints. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Chechen is an ethnicity, not a nationality (they almost got there, like the Confederate States of America, Biafra, etc.), we group these by nationality, not ethnicity. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The people may be of Russian nationality as regards the rest of the world, but Russia is itself a union, in which people have an internal (ethnic) nationality, such as Tartar, Chechen, Circassian. Volga German, etc. The vast majority of ethnic Chechens are Muslim, just as the Ossetians are largely Christian.  However not all are Islamists.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:33, 13 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep per nom and Peterkingiron. Also WP:OCLOCATION doesn't really apply here: since Chechens are mostly Muslims (in contrast to most other Russian peoples) they should be allowed to have a more specific subcategorization within Muslims. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 15 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose Many Chechens have the goal of creating a nation indepdent from Russia. This makes them a distict and different group from other Islamists. Looked at from another perspective, their ethnicity is central to how they carry out this activity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:53, 18 June 2015 (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.