Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 23



Category:1922 establishment in Hawaii

 * 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) 20:56, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting 1922 establishment in hawaii


 * Nominator's rationale: empty category based on old misspelling now corrected Doprendek (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Either keep as a category redirect or speedy delete per db-c1. Thanks. -- Star cheers  peaks  news  lost  wars Talk to me 01:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete per G7. There's not much use for keeping the redirect. kennethaw88 • talk 04:52, 27 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:Professional wrestlers from Calgary

 * 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:Stampede Wrestling alumni and cleanup'''., , can you do the cleanup? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:04, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for the heads up. SFB 23:27, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting professional wrestlers from calgary


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per numerous past CFD discussions, consensus has been established that we do not create geographic sportspeople crosscats for individual sport intersected with individual city that the sportspeople happen to be from. It was proposed in a prior discussion that we treat wrestlers from Calgary as a special exception due to the prominence of the Stampede Wrestling promotion, but the problem is that not everybody associated with Stampede Wrestling was from Calgary and not every professional wrestler from Calgary was necessarily associated with Stampede Wrestling — so while a category for would absolutely be appropriate, this category is actually tangential to the properly defining characteristic. Accordingly, here's my proposal:


 * 1) Create a new ;
 * 2) Recategorize the entries from this category which do belong in the new one, while removing the entries from this category which don't;
 * 3) Delete this category. Bearcat (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support As the person who raised this particular point, I agree with the proposed outcome. Most of the people in the category will belong at the proposed title. However, I think this should also be an upmerge to Category:Sportspeople from Calgary, rather than a straight up deletion. Those trained at Stampede Wrestling in Calgary represent a uniquely important relevance to professional wrestling, given its prominence in establishing many of the sport's leading performers in the 1980s and 1990s. The training venue (Hart House (Alberta)) has been designated as a municipal heritage site, such is the impact of this group. SFB 12:10, 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:Saraiki cuisine

 * 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. Note I did edit this category doing cleanup for various nominations. I do not believe that this disqualifies me from closing this. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:58, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting saraiki cuisine


 * Nominator's rationale: Only one page (Saraiki cuisine) was included in the category, even though it better fits Category:Pakistani cuisine. The very existence of "Saraiki cuisine" is debatable at best - there are regional dishes in South Punjab, sure (like, mango dishes), but they are related to the region's botany and not to any ethnicity. The category is thus unlikely to ever contain anything else than the page with the same name.  kashmiri TALK  16:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete No obvious contents here and some obvious worries in that searching non-wiki-based pages doesn't turn up anything obvious for source material of the main topic. SFB 17:30, 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:International sports competitions hosted by the Greenland

 * 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: speedily delete as error in name. (The relevant category is at Category:International sports competitions hosted by Greenland.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting international sports competitions hosted by the greenland


 * Nominator's rationale: Unused Rider ranger47   Talk 15:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * speedy delete as empty category. I also don't foresee this getting populated in the future either. SFB 17:32, 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:Scientific societies by country

 * 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) 20:53, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Scientific societies by country to Category:Learned societies by country
 * Nominator's rationale: No need to distinguish on country level between learned societies in general and scientific societies in particular. Randykitty (talk) 09:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Looking at Category:Scientific societies, it looks like only the US, UK and India would have enough articles for this tree to work, leaving dozens of potential 1 and 2 article categories. 13:14, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support With the renaming of Category:Scientific societies of Poland‎, Category:Scientific societies by country can be merged into Category:Learned societies by country. Fgnievinski (talk) 22:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge -- No point in splitting science from other academic disciplines, quite apart from the problem of discerning the boundary as to which subjects are (or are not) scientific ones. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 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:Scientific societies of Poland

 * 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) 20:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Scientific societies of Poland to Category:Learned societies of Poland
 * Nominator's rationale: Cat contains more than just societies in the field of science, but also in history, philosophy, etc. Given its size, I don't see a need to create "Learned societies of Poland" separately with this as a subcat. Randykitty (talk) 09:21, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Really for truth in advertising to reflect what is actually in the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- for reasons as parent (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 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:Frogs of New Zealand

 * 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 to Category:Amphibians of New Zealand. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:52, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Frogs of New Zealand to Category:Native amphibians of New Zealand
 * Nominator's rationale: Renaming would reduce ambiguity and better accommodate future entries. First, there are no salamanders or caecilians in New Zealand, so all amphibians, native or introduced, are frogs (order Anura, which includes toads). Thus Category:Frogs of New Zealand is functionally identical to Category:Amphibians of New Zealand, and is ambiguous regarding introduction status. I believe sorting New Zealand's amphibians (all of which are frogs) by native/introduced status is more useful, and thus by renaming Category:Frogs of New Zealand to Category:Native amphibians of New Zealand, an unambiguous parallel to Category:Introduced amphibians of New Zealand‎ is created. Another options would be to replace all instances of "Amphibian" with "Frog", but it's best to stay general, e.g. should a non-frog amphibian ever be introduced, it could easily be placed in the existing category. --Animalparty-- (talk) 07:47, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Amphibians of New Zealand. There is Category:Endemic fauna of New Zealand (which is not split by species). Oculi (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As nominator, I now agree with Oculi, change my vote, and believe upmerge to Category:Amphibians of New Zealand is more appropriate. Category:Native amphibians of New Zealand is a WP:SMALLCAT, and the even smaller Category:Introduced amphibians of New Zealand‎ is discouraged per the discussion Categories for discussion/Log/2007 May 23 (see notice at Category:Introduced species) and introduction status is largely a WP:NON-DEFINING trait of species that happen to occur in New Zealand among elsewhere. --Animalparty-- (talk) 20:20, 27 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:Politicians convicted of corruption

 * 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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 21:51, 30 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting politicians convicted of corruption


 * Nominator's rationale: The only article cited in this category, relates to a politician who, according to the article, may have been charged for murder. There is no evidence cited in the article that the individual has been convicted of corruption. Dan arndt (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Note Since being nominated, another editor has emptied the category and I have recategorized it. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep & Populate This seems like a worthwhile subcategory of Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. I think most readers would care if the crime was related to office or was just coincidentally committed by someone with elected office. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:20, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep unlike some of these Foos convicted of XXX, not only is there a notable intersection (and a well-developed if not top-notch quality article: Political corruption), but that those convicted were politicians both at the time of offense and the time of conviction. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and question: is there a good reason to keep the two child categories apart? It doesn't look like they are clearly distinctive. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate Political office is open to corruption by design and it is the most common criminal charge against politicians. This is clearly of worth to anyone who thinks we should be categorising people by relevant concepts with a history spanning millenia. SFB 12:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and populate -- My Indian friend tells me that the papers there are full of stories about corrupt politicians. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I suppose the ones closer to home don't tend to get prosecuted for their corruption, eh? :) SFB 22:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I've just done a fair attempt of populating this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 26 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:American nondenominational Muslims

 * 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) 20:50, 30 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:American nondenominational Muslims to Category:American Muslims
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. Is this a worthwhile category at this stage? There is currently one article in it, and there is no overall category scheme for nondenominational Muslims at this stage. As a comparison, non-denominational Christians are not categorized as such, they are simply placed in the appropriate "FOOian Christians" category. (If kept, it could be renamed to to match non-denominational Muslim.)  Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom If this is kept, category Category:American Muslims should be a container category, because all its members will belong to one of the sucats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:42, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support This is a form of "and the rest" type of categorisation. Unless any of the subject identifies as non-denominational, then this should be upmerged and articles can be kept in the main category. SFB 12:19, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Category:Gilligan's Islands characters subcats: Category:Gilligan, Category:The Skipper, Category:The Millionaire and his wife, Category:The Movie Star, Category:And the rest. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge -- I suspect that most will in fact belong to one or another sect, at least by parentage.  It is wholly appropriate for any that do not to go directly into the parent category, even if it is tagged as a container category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 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.