Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 25



Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games by host 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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games by host country to Category:Commonwealth Games by host country
 * Propose renaming Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games in Australia to Category:Commonwealth Games in Australia
 * Propose renaming Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games in Canada to Category:Commonwealth Games in Canada
 * Propose renaming Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games in New Zealand to Category:Commonwealth Games in New Zealand
 * Propose renaming Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games in South Africa to Category:Commonwealth Games in South Africa
 * Propose renaming Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games in the United Kingdom to Category:Commonwealth Games in the United Kingdom
 * Nominator's rationale: The Commonwealth Games has been known by a variety of monikers (British Empire Games, British Empire and Commonwealth Games, British Commonwealth Games, and finally Commonwealth Games). It is the same competition with a continued history, so we should use the most up-to-date description to categorise it by. SFB 20:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename all six. I created four of these six categories recently, modeling their names after the already existing two (Australia and South Africa). I agree with the nominator that it is better to simply use the current name, especially since it has been in use since 1978 already, so many people will not even be familiar with the older names. Gap9551 (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename – all the above are subcats of Category:Commonwealth Games (not Category:British Empire and Commonwealth Games). Oculi (talk) 10:55, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- I am far from sure that we need this split at all, but we should be using "Commonwealth Games", as the parent despite all previous names. The precedent on this is alumni categories.  The alumni of a renamed or merged institution are seemed to have attended the successor.  We also apply this in parenting categories for renamed countries and sports teams.  According the British Empire Games of 193x should be parented a Commonwealth Games category, because it is essentially the same completion under a new name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 1 November 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:Languages of Murcia

 * 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) 21:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Languages of Murcia‎ to Category:Murcian culture
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, one article in the category with no room for expansion. Please note that upmerging in the language tree is not needed, the article is already in Category:Spanish variants of Spain (which is btw a pretty confusing category name). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 25 October 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:Singles certified by the Recording Industry Association of America

 * 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) 04:23, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting singles certified by the recording industry association of america


 * Propose deleting singles certified diamond by the recording industry association of america


 * Propose deleting singles certified nonuple platinum by the recording industry association of america


 * Propose deleting singles certified octucuple platinum by the recording industry association of america


 * Propose deleting singles certified septuple platinum by the recording industry association of america


 * Propose deleting singles certified sextuple platinum by the recording industry association of america


 * Nominator's rationale: The remainder of Category:Certified singles by certifying authority is empty and will soon be deleted following the singles by certification CFD but these categories weren't connected there for some reason. Suggesting deletion as these are WP:NON-DEFINING characteristics for the singles based on the reasoning from the Australia single certifications, this discussion, Musiikkituottajat Albums by gold certification and the albums and singles certifications discussions above. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per unanimous decision at AfD. I, for one, voted on the assumption that all these categories were included. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Was missed. Unfortunately there's no option for speedy deletion based on prior discussions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 26 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per previous CfD.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 20:19, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per previous CfD. Oculi (talk) 20:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:56, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:OCAWARD. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete -- We do not need to have records by certification authority. There must be dozens of them, which creates category clutter, like Performance categorioes.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:17, 1 November 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.

Medieval Transylvania

 * 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: relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2015 December 29. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:48, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:History of Transylvania (1003–1308)‎ to Category:Medieval Transylvania and Category:Medieval Transylvanian people
 * Propose splitting Category:History of Transylvania (1308–1526)‎ to Category:Medieval Transylvania and Category:Medieval Transylvanian people
 * Nominator's rationale: split since quite a number of the articles in these categories are biographies. After keeping apart the biographies, too little content remains to justify a split between the two time periods. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Question - Are there any other Category:Medieval  people categories? I even looked and I'm not seeing a Romania (or Hungary) subcat of Category:People by region for this to go into, even without the Medieval descriptor. - jc37 08:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per the above, I'm leaning towards keeping these and deleting Category:Medieval Transylvania. Everything in it is already subcatted. - jc37 08:25, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * A separate tree by region is not necessary because Romania has only three major historical regions (Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania) and Hungary doesn't have any historical regions of major importance. In Romania it seems difficult to build a consistent tree because locality and ethnicity are confounding: Category:People from Moldavia and Category:People from Wallachia are both in Category:Romanian people as "locality equals ethnicity" categories, but Category:People from Transylvania is not in there, instead Category:Transylvanian Romanians is parented to Category:Romanian people while it is not even parented to Category:People from Transylvania! Nevertheless it should be relatively easy to build categories for medieval people of Hungary, Moldavia, Wallachia and Transylvania, if only because they had their own medieval rulers. Besides "medieval" is highly discriminating in these countries as Middle Ages ended with the occupation by the Ottoman Empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I created Category:People by region in Romania, and added all 3 as subcats. I think Category:Transylvanian Romanians needs to be re-assessed as to how and where it is subcatted (as you said, ethnicity? locality?). As for the nom, because Transylvania has been part of different countries/kingdoms, I'm not sure the nommed plan is the way to go. I am loathe to start a "medieval people" tree of cats. And I am also not thrilled with "dumping" the two nommed cats into the medieval one. All of these things come together pointing out that this region is one of those "special cases". - jc37 19:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Category:Medieval people - It looks like it already exists. Sigh.  Ok, so after going over this, and also in relation to the several other cats nominated, I think medieval people (and maybe medieval events) should in general be split between early, high, and late middle ages. This will help navigation for readers (and spare them the headache I got in trying to sift through this all), and may help solve the problems of the Norwegian and Scotland cats too. Then have a medieval location cat as parent.  So in this case, renaming to: Category:Transylvanian people of the High Middle Ages, and Category:Transylvanian people of the Late Middle Ages, respectively. And merge the non-people pages to Category:Medieval Transylvania. Then we can take a look at a few group noms and/or just general cleanup for everything under Category:Middle Ages. auuuuugggghhh - there, I'm better now : ) - jc37 20:03, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey you're moving very fast now :-) I would consider if there is a vast amount of medieval people in a country that they should be split by century (as already happens a lot!) so there's no split needed in early high and late middle ages, while if the amount of medieval people in a country is pretty small (as e.g. in Transylvania) then I would just leave them at medieval without further diffusion in early high and late middle ages. In both these cases the distinction of early high and late is not too meaningful. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Side note, Early Modern is a longer period than Late Medieval while it contains a lot more articles per century, so enforcing a Late Medieval distinction everywhere would lead to a pretty skewed distribution of category sizes. On another side note, content wise there is not an amazing difference between the political history of High and Late Middle Ages (there is a difference in social history but there aren't too many articles about medieval social history anyway). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:46, 25 October 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:States

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:42, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting states


 * Nominator's rationale: This is essentially a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. The various meanings of "state" can be found at State, which is a disambiguation page. This category is essentially mixing and matching the various meanings of that term within the "law and politics" header. "State" can mean a sovereign country; or a country subdivision; or a country that belongs to an intergovernmental organization, whether it is sovereign or not; and several other things. It's not a useful term to categorize by because it is ambiguous; the category page should be a category disambiguation page. The contents are adequately categorized otherwise, so there is no need to merge anywhere. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:38, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

* Alternative: rename to Category:Federated states since all current content seems to be about federated states. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 25 October 2015 (UTC) (stricken after discussion below)
 * Rename to Category:Federated states, per Federated state and above. Otherwise, something would be missing from Category:Types of country subdivisions : ) - `jc37
 * Four of the five articles in the category are not specifically about federated states—but OK, if we want to convert the category in this way. It will require some clean up. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:58, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree. But as it currently stands, it is as you said in the nom. But if we follow the Catmain of federated states, then it's just some (hopefully) simple cleanup. All that said, I don't mind keep-ing as a parent cat, if Category:Federated states is created as a subcat to diffuse to. But with the varying definition of "States" in political science, it probably would be better as a cat redirect. - jc37 19:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support redefining and clean up of categories as above. Coverage of federated states is clearly warranted. SFB 20:40, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete shared name; nothing to show that states, provinces, governorates, or other first level subdivisions differ substantially from one another and that all those denoted "states" share something which those denoted "provinces, etc." don't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * They share the fact that the federal government can't unilaterally decide to overtake (part of) the federate states' power. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At second sight I'm starting to doubt whether you may be right after all. While a federate state may be legally different from a province of a unified state, it would rather make sense to have a legal topic category (if sufficient content is available, which is doubtful) rather than a geographical set category (as currently is the case). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If this category was converted into, all the category would contain is the article Federated state, and then a bunch of subcategories of various first-level administrative country subdivisions, including the ones currently in it, but also other "federated states" that don't use the name "state", such as , , , and many others. As the article indicates, federated states do not have to literally use the word "state" in its name or descriptor. Perhaps the category should cross-link to . Frankly, I'm having a hard time seeing how this new category will be beneficial, but it certainly could be done. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:40, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Change vote and support nomination, initially I was thinking that it might be a good idea to have a container category for federates states of various countries, but then it would merely become a container category for some countries' subdivisions based on a trivial characteristic of these subdivisions (at least trivial from a geographical perspective). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In principle, Delete -- However, I do wonder whether we do not need a category for the top-level country subdivision, which in some countries are states; in Germany lander; in France departments; in others, provinces; in yet others a vernacular term, which gets translated into English in different ways. There may thus be a case for a merge to something.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Is Category:First-level administrative country subdivisions what you are thinking of? Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like the states are already in this tree, so then we can delete the nominated category without any loss of data. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That is probably what I had in mind. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The denominating of subdivisions of a country as states does not always imply the same division of power between center and periphery. At the same time there are several countries that do not use the term state where it might well apply.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 18 November 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:Intelligence activities in India

 * 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) 21:40, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Intelligence activities in India to Category:Activities of foreign intelligence agencies in India
 * Nominator's rationale: Clarity of the scope. Shyamsunder (talk) 05:34, 25 October 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:IIIT

 * 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) 21:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:IIIT to Category:Indian Institutes of Information Technology
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category . Shyamsunder (talk) 03:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete IIIT is a disambiguation page -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Merge -- WP does not like obscure abbreviations. Possibly the present category should be converted to a cat-redirect, to prevent re-creation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:24, 1 November 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:Afaka script

 * 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. I have upmerged the article to all parent categories, one of which was . Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting afaka script


 * Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge Only contains one article and a redirect to the same article. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Upmerge but it needs another target, as it has no scripts category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:27, 1 November 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:The Hunger Project

 * 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) 21:34, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:The Hunger Project
 * Nominator's rationale: Per People associated with...
 * This category sounds perfectly reasonable but it's a semi-random collection of biography articles, many of which don't mention The Hunger Project. Queen Noor probably gave a donation or gave a speech for them but, whatever the connection, it's not in the article. The hatnote on the category reads "People/Organizations involved with The Hunger Project, individuals/media groups who have written about The Hunger Project in detail." If you're looking for a textbook example of WP:OCASSOC, this is it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note:Notified Rj as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom (it could be re-created in the unlikely event that we ever get a significant number of articles actually about the organization). DexDor(talk) 06:57, 25 October 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.