Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 6



Category:WikiProject NIOSH templates

 * 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: no consensus. A re-nomination would be fine if no further contents are forthcoming. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:06, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikiproject niosh templates


 * Nominator's rationale: The pages in this category (e.g. Talk:Acrodynia) are not template pages. An alternative to deletion might be to rename this category (and give it a parent category). DexDor (talk) 21:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that the category contains just a single template an upmerge to Category:WikiProject templates and Category:WikiProject NIOSH may be more appropriate than straight deletion. DexDor (talk) 20:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy keep It was being mis-applied though a problem with WPNIOSH which I've just fixed., please withdraw this nomination. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:59, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Apart from Template:WPNIOSH, what pages is this category intended for ? DexDor (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm still busy creating templates - it's taking awhile since I'm working on a million other things - but there will be several templates for the wikiproject included. I think most projects have a template-class category, no? Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 04:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for fixing my template error - clearly I still don't know what I'm doing with templates. Ever. Much appreciated. Emily Temple-Wood (NIOSH) (talk) 05:01, 7 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:Golf clubs and courses in Karachi

 * 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; merge contents to Category:Golf clubs and courses in Pakistan and Category:Sports venues in Karachi. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting golf clubs and courses in karachi


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has 2 entries and sits under Category:Golf clubs and courses in Pakistan, of which the category under discussion is the only subcategory. Given the status of golf in Pakistan there is no need for geographical subdivisions for golf courses there. The 2 entries can be tagged with Category:Sports venues in Karachi which should be sufficient. Nigej (talk) 19:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Subdivision by city does not improve navigation of this small national category. The sports venues city category is also small so does not benefit from this division either. Should the potential category grow exponentially then I would support recreation. SFB 21:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to Category:Golf clubs and courses in Pakistan per WP:SMALLCAT, little room for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 8 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:Golf clubs and courses in Klang Valley

 * 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; merge contents to Category:Golf clubs and courses in Malaysia and Category:Sports venues in Selangor. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:55, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting golf clubs and courses in klang valley


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category has 7 entries and sits under Category:Golf clubs and courses in Malaysia which is empty apart from the category under discussion. Given the status of golf in Malaysia there is no need for geographical subdivisions for golf courses there. The 7 entries can be tagged with Category:Sports venues in Selangor (Klang Valley being part of Selangor) which should be sufficient. Nigej (talk) 19:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The national category is otherwise empty due to this category, so subdivision by region is not helpful to navigationat this time. Should the national category expand significantly with non-Selangor content then I would support recreation. SFB 21:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per SFB's analysis. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:59, 8 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:Successful Romanian singles

 * 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) 07:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting successful romanian singles


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. DexDor (talk) 17:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete as clearly subjective criteria. SFB 21:46, 6 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:National football team kit manufacturers

 * 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) 01:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting national football team kit manufacturers


 * Nominator's rationale: That a company (e.g. Mizuno) has manufactured kit for a national football team is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. This may (if it can be referenced) be suitable for a list. DexDor (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete It is hard to see why a Japanese corporation's act of making a sports kit for one nation is defining in the same way as a French company's making of another nation's kit. Almost all major international sports clothing makers will have made a national level kit in football – it being the world's most played sport. In that light, it's not really any more defining than, say, sports manufacturers with manufacturing operations in South Asia. SFB 21:51, 6 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.

Islip (town), New York

 * 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: no consensus, valid arguments from both sides--Ymblanter (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:People from Islip (town), New York to Category:People from Islip, New York, Category:Islip (town), New York to Category:Islip, New York
 * Nominator's rationale: Islip (town), New York is a redirect to Islip, New York. There's no reason this category should also include that disambiguator. The other "Islips" are known as Central Islip, East Islip, and West Islip. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:58, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Disambiguation is unnecessary here. kennethaw88 • talk 21:05, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep - The disambiguation between the Town of Islip and the hamlet and census-designated place of Islip is clearly necessary. Obviously the nominee and his supporter are unaware of how the territorial boundaries within New York (especially Long Island) work. -User:DanTD (talk) 21:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah hi, I was born and raised on Long Island. I know how this works, so don't assume. I also know that there aren't any other categories or such for Islip (hamlet), New York, meaning this is unnecessary disambiguation. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * My apologies for misinterpreting your knowledge of how Long Island is set up. Having said this, you should know better. While there's no current category for "People from Islip, New York," such a category would be perfectly suited for the hamlet. The disambiguation is still necessary because of this. -User:DanTD (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't agree, because Islip the town is the primary usage of "Islip", while the hamlet is clearly subordinate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:32, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
 * The point is that Islip the town has already been determined to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for the article titled Islip, New York. Because of that, the category should match the naming of the article. If you believe that disambiguation is necessary for both of them, that should be discussed at the talk page for the town. But in either case, the category name will follow the article name. kennethaw88 • talk 23:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose per DanTD. Categories should not be ambiguous. This clearly is, since there are many differently scoped Islips in New York. Categories are not articles, the category name must show scope, because people use HotCat, and will categorize anything Islip into this category whether they are part of town or not. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 03:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename. Category should follow the name of the article. If the article has been determined to be the primary topic, we don't generally disambiguate the corresponding category. Categories do not need to be 100% unambiguous, because such precision is unachievable in many cases. Cf, , etc. More confusion is caused when the category and article names do not correspond than is created by such ambiguities. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Any rename would still be geographically incorrect. -User:DanTD (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true in the context of the reasons I set out. It won't be 100% unambiguous, but neither are lots of categories that use a name that exists elsewhere but for which the place in question is the primary usage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - This reminds me of the Category:Las Vegas situation. I wonder how that turned out and if it can help in this situation. - jc37 21:42, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Rename per precedent for Las Vegas: Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 7. – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom and per Good Olfactory. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename Per nom. ― Padenton &#124;&#9993;  06:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per User:DanTD. Clearly this is ambiguous and categories should not be.  If anything, the Las Vegas example should be why we don't do this when it is ambiguous.  Those categories need constant cleanup to weed out the those not from the named city.  Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose The name is ambiguous enough that it requires distiction in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment Las Vegas, Nevada is a poor precedent because in that case the only actual place with that name in Nevada is the city. Here we have multiple places with this name. Also, they are a lot less known, so the analogy fails because some naming choices are based on how commonly used the names are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
 * That's simply not the case. There is Las Vegas (the city), Las Vegas Valley, Las Vegas–Paradise, NV MSA, and Las Vegas Township, all of which are in Nevada. These names are as close to each other as are Islip, Central Islip, East Islip, and West Islip. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:09, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
 * And Las Vegas is grossly ambiguous! What most people mean when they use Las Vegas is NOT the city.  The fact that virtually every source uses Vegas to cover the area makes it neigh impossible to prove that anything is about the city. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename Category should follow the WP entry. If in disagreement over that name, please propose to rename the article, only then the category. gidonb (talk) 11:17, 12 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:Bridges across the River Gipping

 * 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) 01:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bridges across the river gipping


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Relatively tiny river, less than 20 miles. Category created 8 years ago but no other notable bridges identified (the one bridge in the category spans the point where the Gipping joins a larger river and the bridge is categorised under that river too). Unnecessary category, per WP:SMALLCAT Sionk (talk) 01:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support Category unlikely to grow further than one article. SFB 09:39, 6 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 cities 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:52, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:American cities in fiction to Category:United States in fiction by city
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. C2C NeoBatfreak (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support speedy rename on the basis is seems to fit in with United States categories above it in the tree and with similar categories such as Category:United Kingdom in fiction by city‎. Sionk (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support satusuro 23:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be about fictional events in real world cities, not fictitious cities. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 7 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:Canadian cities 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Canadian cities in fiction to Category:Canada in fiction by city
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. C2C. NeoBatfreak (talk) 07:34, 6 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Support as speedy per similar categories in tree. No preference for either choice. SFB 09:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support satusuro 23:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Support Appears to be about fictional events in real world cities, not fictitious cities. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:19, 7 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.