Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 20



Category:Fictional gymnasts

 * 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 discussion was tending towards delete but a fresh delete nomination should give more clarity on that. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Fictional gymnasts to Category:Fictional acrobats and gymnasts
 * Nominator's rationale: being more inclusive is better then creating more categories. --76.175.67.121 (talk) 19:47, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose Generally the fictional categories should follow the real world ones (except for mad scientists) and we have separate categories for acrobats and gymnasts. If there' aren't enough fictional acrobats for a category yet, I would group them as both Category:Fictional sportspeople and Category:Acrobats until more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose I've been bold and refined the scope of the gymnasts category to those who compete in gymnastics as a sport, which is what all the parent categories suggest this should be. People who compete in gymnastics are easily distinguish from people who perform as acrobats. I think we should avoid using this to categorise "acrobatic" or "gymnastic" superheroes as that subjective and largely not really that distinguishing a feature. No opposition to creation of a fictional acrobats category, although on the same lines I would expect it to cover those who perform as acrobats. SFB 19:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Fictional high school gymnasts (comparable to Category:High school sports), which is what this category seems to be for. Though, I more strongly support deletion for similar reasons. - jc37 21:31, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete As overclassification by minor characterization. These people are not in the works they come from notable for being gymnasts.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 6 March 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:Paleontology of Ethiopia

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting paleontology of ethiopia


 * Nominator's rationale: Accidental duplicate of "Category:Paleontology in Ethiopia" Hza a 9 (talk) 19:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy per WP:C2E, author's request.RevelationDirect (talk) 17:14, 21 January 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:Smithsonian Institution Archives related

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting smithsonian institution archives related


 * Propose deleting Category:Smithsonian Institution Archives-related articles by importance
 * Propose deleting Category:Low-importance Smithsonian Institution Archives-related articles (empty)
 * Propose deleting Category:Unknown-importance Smithsonian Institution Archives-related articles (empty)
 * Nominator's rationale: This is an unusual category that appears to be grouping articles (not talk pages) based on their relationship to a Wikimedia partnership in 2012 (see GLAM/Smithsonian Institution Archives). Note: This CFD doesn't propose any change to Category:Smithsonian Institution Archives-related articles by quality (which is more like a normal by-quality category as it categorizes talk pages), but that category may need a new parent (or a separate CFD). DexDor (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, on the basis the Category:Smithsonian Institution Archives related seems to be a vague categorisation of anyone and anything with some papers (etc.) in the Smithsonian archives. I picked two of the articles at random and neither mentioned a Smithsonian connection (though they used Smithsonian as a source). The category doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Sionk (talk) 12:20, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- Category:Smithsonian Institution Archives might be valid category, but whether something is adequately related to provide a useful category is essentially a POV issue, so that a "related" category won't do. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:08, 25 January 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:Hereditary peers removed from the House of Lords under the Act 1999

 * 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: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record: list started at List of hereditary peers removed under the House of Lords Act 1999. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Hereditary peers removed from the House of Lords under the Act 1999 to Category:Hereditary peers removed from the House of Lords under the House of Lords Act 1999
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The "Act 1999" is meaningless. I suppose it was named this way to shorten the category title, but it makes no sense. It's the House of Lords Act 1999. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete/Listify. That a person was a member of the House of Lords is a defining characteristic. How they came to leave it (removed under this act, died etc) isn't - WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 19:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete/Listify what's sourced we don't generally categorize parliament members by how they leave office (defeated, resigned, retired, term-limited, this particular law, etc.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Listify definitely worth having as a list, but as a category it's not really a distinguishing feature. SFB 19:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Note that it's not just the fact they left the House of Lords, but the fact that they will be the last holders of their titles ever to sit in the House of Lords. I'm not that bothered, but it does seem to be a worthwhile category. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * keep Of course this is a defining category. These aren't just peers who left the house, they're peerages (and peerages don't often die). To fail to understand this is to fail to understand much of UK parliamentarianism.
 * I'd agree that the original title is clumsy and would in principle support the rename. However to keep it short, how about "...under the 1999 Act", which is the way that such things are usually condensed, in context. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Listify and delete -- There were about 1000 peers entitled to sit up to 1999, but many of them had leave of absence, or even had never gone through the steps to take their seat. 92 hereditary peers retained their seats.  Being among the 92 is certainly noteworthy; being among those excluded is not.  For those who attended regularly and were excluded, it might be notable, but how frequent would attendences have to be to be "regular"?  That is a POV question.  For some peers, going through the formalities of taking their seat and making  maiden speech was a right of passage, after which they never darkened the doors of the House again.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:19, 25 January 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:Economy of Ukraine by Region

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Economy of Ukraine by Region to Category:Economy of Ukraine by region
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. 91.197.junr3170 (talk) 14:28, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy merge DexDor (talk) 19:27, 20 January 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:Wikipedian qin xiao players

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedian qin xiao players to Category:Wikipedian xiao players
 * Nominator's rationale: Contains nothing but a single user box. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:07, 20 January 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:WikiProject Beauty Pageants

 * 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. As I said closing the MfD with the same result, I'd need to see much stronger arguments before deleting a WikiProject anyone is active in. --BDD (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikiproject beauty pageants


 * Nominator's rationale: this project is completely dead after the (likely) paid pageant promoter accts have been systematically deleted. It serves no purpose. Legacypac (talk) 10:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Query What about the subcategories (one of which contains nearly 5000 talk pages) ? DexDor (talk) 19:26, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Question Is there a process for retiring inactive Wikiprojects? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * IIRC, It's done through WP:MfD (deletion) or WP:COUNCIL (retiring); retirement would affect the banner template with various changes. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The guideline is at WP:INACTIVEWP. Thincat (talk) 11:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Procedural Keep Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants. Action on these two XfD items should be taken concurrently. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong keep there are thousands of articles that are categorized. Deletion of the category should be the last step not the "first step". If you want to get rid of the project, first delete the project at WP:MfD (and its project pages), second delete its project banner, then delete the categories. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 10:04, 24 January 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:333-blue

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:22, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting user


 * Propose deleting user


 * Propose deleting user


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. User space-only category, which are usually deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:36, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment/Note Looks like a fairly new editor, so I reached out to him on his/her talk page to give a little background on categories. Note that this category has two subcategories. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:28, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you; you are very thoughtful to have done that. I've added the two other categories above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. User should use Special:PrefixIndex/User:333-blue/ instead -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 08:04, 23 January 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:Best Music Video ― Female on Barbados Music 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting best music video ― female on barbados music awards


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a terribly notable award; no article about awards at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Non-defining to the song(s) in this category. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:01, 21 January 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:Video of the Year on VH1 Soul VIBE 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting video of the year on vh1 soul vibe awards


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not a terribly notable award; no article about awards at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Non-defining to the song(s) in this category. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 18:01, 21 January 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:Austerity Britain

 * 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:Austerity in the United Kingdom (1939–54). – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:32, 10 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Austerity Britain to Category:Austerity in the United Kingdom
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm not positive what "Austerity Britain" is (other than a slogan and the name of recent book), but I think the category is just for "Austerity in the United Kingdom". Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose It's recognisable enough that people are using it as a book title, but because one WP editor from the other side of the world "isn't positive" what it means, it doesn't exist?
 * We have WP:COMMONNAME for titles. We do not have WP:ONTOLOGICALLY DEFINING or WP:GEO PRECISE for them. Yes, there is a subtle distinction between Britain and the UK (not that WP even gets this much right half the time - see recent attempts to colonise the Isle of Man). At heart, this is a term of patriotic propaganda - and whenever the inhabitants of the UK are to be stirred by its government, it's "Britain" that is used to rally the flag, not the "United Kingdom". Britain Can Make It, one of the rallying points of the austerity period, was not "United Kingdom Can Make It". The Festival of Britain, the great celebration of the end of austerity, could tour itself to Northern Ireland without any sense of irony, nor any need to rename itself the Festival of the United Kingdom. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "but because one WP editor from the other side of the world 'isn't positive' what it means, it doesn't exist?" There's really no need to be sarcastic. I didn't say that the concept does not exist. I am merely suggesting that the name that was chosen is obscure. Wikipedia is read by many different types of people from many different places in the world, so it usually helps to have names that can be well understood on their face. If we had an article called Austerity Britain that was about the topic, there might be a case for common name—but absent that, I think it's best to use something else. (From the below comments of users from the UK, it seems that the terminology may not be well known even in the UK, in any case.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename – I had assumed it was something to do with George Osborne, ie 2010s. As "Austerity Britain" is a term of propaganda (and the book Austerity Britain has no article), Wikipedia should use the neutral term "Austerity in the United Kingdom" and some articles on more recent austerities (or earlier austerities) should be added. (Bedroom tax perhaps.) Oculi (talk) 14:12, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why ignore WP:POVNAME? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:53, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I am in the UK and had not heard the phrase "Austerity Britain" until today and so I would dispute the commonness of the name. A general rule is that a category named after something should be preceded by its article: "Austerity in the United Kingdom" has a clear scope whereas "Austerity Britain" does not (without an article to describe the scope, which appears to be 1945-1951 or so). Oculi (talk) 16:27, 20 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete or Upmerge to Category:United Kingdom home front during World War II. DexDor (talk) 19:30, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Except that the austerity period extended for some years, into the 1950s. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:51, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case why did you put your new category under a WWII category? DexDor (talk) 21:06, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Because there is a significant relationship between them. However it's not a simple implicit superset, so it's appropriate to have a separate category, and for that category to be a member of the other. There is a significant history of "Occupation of Germany / Japan to 1948" or "Far Eastern POW repatriation in 1946" that clearly belong under WWII as well, yet is outside the simple VE/VJ day timeframe. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete, there's no matching article and I've no idea what it means (and I'm in the UK). What is austere and what is not austere is a subjective thing ...personally I thought we were still living under 'Austerity Britain'! Sionk (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete not an obvious objective time period that had universal application - an article about rationing seems to indicate its use in other periods than WW2 and post-war. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that it's not obvious is reason to clarify, not to delete. Renaming to Category:Austerity Britain (1939 - 1952) might be reasonable, although an article under Austerity Britain would be better. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Apart from a number(?) of book titles, I can't see any reference to Austerity Britain, no even a section in any of the articles on World War II etc. Before you have a category you first of all need a subject. This category seems to have been created prematurely. Sionk (talk) 12:12, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Apart from a number(?) of book titles, I can't see any reference to Austerity Britain"
 * Just think about that one for a minute. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:18, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Categorising a book or books by their title is hardly an appropriate use of a category. Sionk (talk) 19:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually, reusing the category such that it's going to contain WP articles about books that have 'Austerity Britain' as their defining characteristic would be the most appropriate use of this category. But the current use of the category is very different, and it's entirely unclear what criteria are currently being used for classification in this category. For that reason I would also delete the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:38, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * We don't generally divide up a country's history by what is partially occurring there; austerity measures were undertaken in the context of World War II, where all this could be categorized, and in post-WW2 Britain, where it could also be. However, items like the 1948 Summer Olympics which were held in "Austerity Britain" aren't categorized in Austerity Britain - it's just a grouping of like things over a period, but we don't categorize like that: we don't have Category:Disco era for all the events that happened when Disco songs were all over the charts, etc.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename or Upmerge to somewhere else (Postwar Britain?). This is clearly going to be confused with the current period of austerity in Britain, given that "Austerity Britain" isn't a long-lived phrase to describe the period (or even outside of the context of David Kynaston's book). SFB 19:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * "Postwar Britain" is just a non-defining time period. It would include (per above) the 1948 Summer Olympics, but it lacks the coherence needed for a valuable category. Austerity Britain though, as constituted and even with the few members it has so far like CC41 and Utility clothing, covers a coherent topic that's worthy of record (I'm told there are even books published about it). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * All this continuing sarcasm is amusing and all, but I'm not finding it terribly helpful in moving through this particular discussion. And I mean this comment sincerely, not sarcastically. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's why one of my suggested outcomes is rename. Categories on periods should be a period of broad study and use the name that the period is commonly described as. Austerity Britain as a term seems entirely novel to Kynaston's 2006 book. Can you show me any other treatments of the period that refers to is as Austerity Britain. When you google the term without Kynaston you see it's a term mostly associated with 1980s and 2010s Britain. SFB 07:58, 22 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Austerity in the United Kingdom (1939–1952), as the current name could be confused with 2010s spending cuts. --GCarty (talk) 13:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That would presumably be Category:Austerity in the United Kingdom (1939–52) per MOS:DATERANGE. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Why 1952? Food rationing didn't end till 1954. Sionk (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Austerity in the United Kingdom (1939–54), on the basis that post-war rationing ended in 1954. Austerity Britain is a redirect to that section of the article on rationing in UK.  In common parlance (except among Northern Ireland Republicans) Britain is a synonym for UK.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment. Austerity Britain was created as a redirect in the midst of this discussion. (I'm not saying that creating it was inappropriate, I'm just noting it here for clarity.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Even if a time range would be added, it's still not clear what kind of articles would fit in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 28 January 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.