Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 August 27



Deaf universities and colleges

 * 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 Category:Deaf universities and colleges in the United Kingdom; no consensus to delete Category:Deaf universities and colleges or Category:Deaf universities and colleges in the United States. A re-nomination to rename the categories and/or to upmerge the U.S. category should be permitted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:45, 11 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting Category:Deaf universities and colleges and its two child categories
 * Nominator's rationale::
 * delete Category:Deaf universities and colleges in the United Kingdom. The only university in the category isn't a university for deaf people.
 * delete Category:Deaf universities and colleges in the United States per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that the two articles are already contained in the parent categories, there is no need to upmerge.
 * delete Category:Deaf universities and colleges, after the previous deletes this category becomes empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep/Delete/Upmerge Keep parent category for the two American articles and the two one Filipino ones I added and there may be some room for growth based on List of schools for the deaf. Delete the UK category which is effectively empty. Upmerge the American category per smalllcat.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:57, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment for the both Filipino articles it is a bit questionable if they belong in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Took another look at Miriam College and I was mistaken so I removed it; De La Salle–College of Saint Benilde seems like a stronger candidate though. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * delete I don't know if this is a defining trait, but the categories are way too small to be useful. Dimadick (talk) 08:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep This is a very defining trait for both of the American institutions. This is part of a general practice of categorize institutions of higher learning with specific ethnic or language focus as having such. The American institutions included are defined by this trait.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep US category which has two legitimate articles, but it should be Category:Universities and colleges for the deaf in the United States, as the college is not itself deaf. Delete the rest: The one Phillipines institution appears to have a department training teachers for the deaf: that is a performance-type category: we do not categorise a university according to whether it has a chemistry department.  University of Bristol (the only UK item) is not a deaf institution: most of its students hear normally.  There are (or have been) deaf colleges in UK, but they are training colleges (or schools) not degree-awarding institutions.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:58, 9 September 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:Deaf lists

 * 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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging/deleting Category:Deaf lists to Category:Deafness
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there's actually only one list in this category. Please note that the entire contents of the nominated category is already in the parent category, so an upmerge and a delete is practically speaking the same in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the subcategories are especially baffling. RevelationDirect (talk) 07:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The contents are not actually lists. Dimadick (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 7 September 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:Scottish auto racing teams

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Scottish auto racing teams to Category:British auto racing teams
 * Nominator's rationale: There's not enough distinctly Scottish, as opposed to simply British, motor racing teams to warrant a category. QueenCake (talk) 22:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Question shouldn't it be merged to all three parent categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No to Category:Motorsport in Scotland as no other category in the tree contains teams (they're included in one of the Category:Auto racing teams by country subcats). I had thought that Category:Sports teams in Scotland was for teams that represented Scotland only, but if not then merge away. QueenCake (talk) 22:09, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this seems very reasonable. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge to all 3 parent categories per Marcocapelle. DH85868993 (talk) 11:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge to all 3 parent categories per Marcocapelle. Dimadick (talk) 08:54, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge somehow. The one team identified itself as Scottish, but it was not necessarily representing Scotland.  A category with one article is pretty useless, so that merger is the right solution.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 9 September 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:Humangeographic territorial entities

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Humangeographic territorial entities to Category:Human geography
 * Propose merging Category:Territorial entities to Category:Human geography
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. After this earlier discussion about the name of Category:Humangeographic territorial entities ended in no consensus, this nomination has a different purpose and rationale, namely upmerge to one parent per WP:SMALLCAT. Upmerging to its second parent Category:Territorial entities is not meaningful though, the latter category can better be merged to Category:Human geography as well, also per WP:SMALLCAT. 22:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * In what sense is the one article in the category (List of uninhabited regions) something to do with "Human" anything? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a different kind of question, not really related to WP:SMALLCAT. I would say that it has to do with human geography in so far that it describes where humans are absent. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:53, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
 * If that were a rationale, then every place where humans are present has something to do with humans and this category could encompass every populated and unpopulated place on earth rendering it meaningless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as meaningless per my comment above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * At least the two of us have consensus on the fact that this category does not need to stay. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom. Apart from main articles and one list there is virtually no content.  They are much better included in a wider category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 9 September 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:County Commissioners in York County, Maine

 * 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 both parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:34, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:County Commissioners in York County, Maine to Category:County Commissioners in Maine
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. Also upmerge into other appropriate categories. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:53, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to both parents per nom. kennethaw88 • talk 01:20, 3 September 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:Mozart in fiction

 * 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: Closed by nominator and moved to article talk page. --The Evil IP address (talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Mozart in fiction to Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in popular culture
 * Nominator's rationale: Pretty much the same content and the new category is in line with similar Category:Ludwig van Beethoven in popular culture and the article Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in fiction (which should then be renamed to match). The Evil IP address (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment in general the right order is first to have the article renamed, then to have the category name renamed in order to follow the new article name. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Though in this case it's also about merging two categories. --The Evil IP address (talk) 09:50, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see, but if the article rename is going to be declined, hypothetically speaking, the category merge will also be less obvious. In that scenario Category:Mozart in fiction could become a child category of Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart in popular culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:02, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I got your point. Close this one and move to article move discussion? --The Evil IP address (talk) 08:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Better so. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:54, 3 September 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:User page

 * 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) 03:27, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting user page


 * Nominator's rationale: There're already Category:Wikipedians. GZWDer (talk) 08:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's not actually being used as a category, but just an extra user page link for one user. kennethaw88 • talk 01:27, 3 September 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:Born

 * 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) 03:26, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting born


 * Nominator's rationale: Ill-defined category. GZWDer (talk) 08:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – no valid contents. (Its sole contents were 2 user pages, which I have removed from category space.) Oculi (talk) 08:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not a valid category. kennethaw88 • talk 01:21, 3 September 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:Brunch foods

 * 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) 03:22, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting brunch foods


 * Propose deleting brunch beverages


 * Nominator's rationale: That a food/drink (e.g. Muesli, Omelette, Quiche, Fruit, Ham, Smoked fish, Tea, Champagne) can be consumed at brunch is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. See previous discussions, for example, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_July_14 or Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_December_15. For info: there is a list of brunch foods (that should be upmerged to Category:Brunch). DexDor(talk) 05:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – same case as the deletion of Category:Breakfast foods, except that this is even more culturally subjective, since brunch is less common across cultures. Not clear, though, on what's being called for with regard to List of brunch foods. By upmerge to Category:Brunch, do you mean to recategorize the list under that parent category, or do you mean merge the list into the category, adding every item on the list to the category, and then deleting the list? Ibadibam (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete cold pizza would qualify in most college dorms... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:35, 31 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Non-defining trait. And I agree that pizza is probably covered by the criteria. Dimadick (talk) 09:05, 2 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Anything I eat at brunch is a brunch food, and I could eat anything for brunch. Absolutely pointless category (and descriptiom, come to that). Emeraude (talk) 14:14, 3 September 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:Dry places in New Jersey

 * 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. There's no clear consensus regarding renaming the category either so that may require a WP:RM discussion. Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:Dry places in New Jersey to Category:Dry cities in New Jersey and Category:Dry townships in New Jersey
 * Nominator's rationale: Was CfDed in June; CfD was closed as no consensus, but the closer had a desire for a rename or split of the current title. p  b  p  04:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose The fact that these places are dry is a strong defining characteristic and some of these places are cities or townships. But many are boroughs (e.g., Elmer, New Jersey and Far Hills, New Jersey) and there is an unincorporated place within a township that is dry (Ocean Grove, New Jersey). I'm not sure how we could handle all of these scenarios nor why we would want to split them up by type of government. Alansohn (talk) 13:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose/Possible Rename Per Alansohn above. How about Category:Dry municipalities in New Jersey or Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Support alternative rename of Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey. It doesn't require an unnecessary splitting and the term jurisdiction is general enough to cover all different kinds of territories. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment if this isn't delete, it must be renamed since it isn't about arid places in New Jersey, places suffering from drought, places without watersources, etc. -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 07:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's part of a larger "dry" tree, although dry county is probably clearer, at least to American readers. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:22, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's probably a good idea to nominate the entire tree for a rename in a different nomination. While 'dry' may be clear to Americans it is less so to an international audience. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose rename. I do have to admit I actually think "cities" and "townships" make it more clear this is about alcohol regulation. With dry counties being mentioned at times in country music, I think it is well known to the majority of Americans. Still, I do agree that it is too ambiguous of a category name. I also still think it should be listified instead of being in categories. I do think we should rename, but that should be done for the whole tree, not just New Jersey.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep -- Some years ago there was a mass rename of categories for cities, towns, villages, etc to "populated places", because of difficulties in determining robustly which class of settlement places belonged to. We should not allow that principle to be reversed for one US State.  The fact that this is about alcohol prohibition, not aridness, can be covered in a headnote.   Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Question The current format doesn't follow the "populated places" format. Would a rename to Category:Dry populated places in New Jersey better match your goal? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Previously I supported alternative rename to Category:Dry jurisdictions in New Jersey but Category:Dry populated places in New Jersey is also fine I think. Both of these solutions avoid the nominated split. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
 * oppose any split and renaming. JackTheVicar (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to . I closed the previous discussion and simply commented that I thought that the current name was ambiguous since on its face it suggests that we are categorizing arid places in NJ. I wasn't suggesting that the category be split. I think is clear, since it uses a legal term for "place" and so implies that "dry" is being used in the legal sense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose splitting/Support Rename . I see no need for this to be based by the type of jurisdiction. Besides the various in-between places mentioned, it increases overall upkeep of the category. Avic ennasis @ 07:02, 2 Tishrei 5776 / 07:02, 15 September 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:Underground rapid transit in Australia

 * 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, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting underground rapid transit in australia


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no functional difference between this category and Category:Rapid transit in Australia. Mqst north (talk) 01:58, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Question Was there anything in this category prior to nomination?RevelationDirect (talk) 01:40, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (Repeat question With the right username) Was there anything in this category prior to nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. The category looks to have been empty when Mqst nominated it for deletion or at least if it was emptied Mqst wasn't the one to do it. I looked at their recent edit history....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for sorting out. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 30 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete Whatever the history of this category, I can only find a proposal for a subway in Australia (Sydney Metro (2008 proposal)), not any actual subways. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:53, 31 August 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.