Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 14



Category:Geography of Merthyr Tydfil

 * 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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Geography of Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Geography of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Landforms of Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Landforms of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Bodies of water of Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Bodies of water of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Mountains and hills of Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Mountains and hills of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Rivers of Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Rivers of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Valleys of Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Valleys of Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Populated places in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Villages in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Villages in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Railway stations in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Railway stations in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Disused railway stations in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Disused railway stations in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Education in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Education in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Schools in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Schools in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Secondary schools in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Secondary schools in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Defunct schools in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Defunct schools in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Listed buildings in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Listed buildings in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Grade I listed buildings in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Grade I listed buildings in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Propose renaming Category:Grade II listed buildings in Merthyr Tydfil to Category:Grade II listed buildings in Merthyr Tydfil County Borough
 * Nominator's rationale: These categories need to be corrected to reflect the fact they contain articles relating to Merthyr Tydfil County Borough rather than isolated to the main town of Merthyr Tydfil. The Merthyr Tydfil category seems to be an anomally in the Wales category tree, where the town and the county are currently confused. NB I'm not nominating the entire category tree, some categories do relate directly to the town, while others need to be upmerged per WP:SMALLCAT. Sionk (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Eminently sensible and provides consistency with other parts of the Wales category tree (as done with Wrexham and Wrexham County Borough). Robevans123 (talk) 08:27, 22 January 2016 (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:Dutch football organisations

 * 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) 06:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Dutch football organisations to Category:Football organisations in the Netherlands
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Tim! (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge since we generally use this form. However I am not that set either way, they need to be merged one way of the other absolutely.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support nomination. While looking at the contents of the parent Category:Association football organisations, I suppose the nominated direction of merge is right. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:26, 29 January 2016 (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.

V-12 Navy College Training Program

 * 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: Does not require a CfD. Consensus appears to be to go ahead with the nominator's plan. No admin action required..  SQL Query me!  00:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose splitting Category:V-12 Navy College Training Program to Category:V-12 Navy College Training Program and Category:V-12 Navy College Training Program alumni
 * Nominator's rationale: This category contains three different things. First, it contains articles about or related to the V-12 Navy College Training Program like the topic article, the list V-12 Colleges and universities by state and related historical articles like 1943 Purdue Boilermakers football team. These should be retained in the category. Second, it contains articles about V-12 program alumni like Frank N. Mitchell and Dade Moeller. These should be put in a sub-category Category:V-12 Navy College Training Program alumni. Third, it contains every college and university that hosted the V-12 program. These should be removed from the category unless for some unusual reason it's WP:DEFINING for that particular school. For most of these colleges and universities I don't think it is. The content is covered in the list article V-12 Colleges and universities by state.--Jahaza (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, splitting seems like a reasonable idea and a good alternative. Was not aware the Page existed.InfoDataMonger (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support nominator's proposal per DEFINING. --Regards, James(talk/contribs) 20:18, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support however I am not sure it really needs approval here. Removing the colleges and universities that were mere participants can be done under standard rule application. Creating the alumni sub-cat can be done without a CfD proposal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:12, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you go ahead with creating and populating the new category, per John Pack Lambert's comment. If you agree with that, we can close the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 25 January 2016 (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:Military units and formations in West Yorkshire

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Military units and formations in West Yorkshire to Category:Military units and formations in the West Riding of Yorkshire
 * Nominator's rationale: To conform to Category:Military units and formations in the East Riding of Yorkshire and Category:Military units and formations in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The new title better reflects the content. Military units are not formed by present-day county, but were historically formed by historic county. Mhockey (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: you will need to move Category:Military history of West Yorkshire to Category:Military history of the West Riding of Yorkshire also for consistency. I note that there are other categories that will need to be looked at:
 * Category:Hill forts in West Yorkshire
 * Category:Castles in West Yorkshire
 * Category:History of West Yorkshire
 * and that opens a can of worms. Then,
 * Category:Hill forts in North Yorkshire
 * Category:Castles in North Yorkshire
 * Category:History of North Yorkshire
 * is another. Hamish59 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment what about things categorised as South Yorkshire such as Category:Hill forts in South Yorkshire Keith D (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment err, was no South Riding. Hamish59 (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- The difficult question is what is meant his West Yorkshire: do we mean the West Riding or the former metropolitan county. The hillforts item refers to the historic county, which probably means West Riding, though actually the only historic county is Yorkshire.  The West Riding was a large area, including the metropolitan county of south Yorkshire and area transferred in 1974 to North Yorkshire and even Lancashire.  Which are we talking about?  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment "West Yorkshire" can only mean the present county of West Yorkshire.  We categorise buildings and structures by present-day county.  There is actually only one article in Category:Hill forts in West Yorkshire, and the hill fort is in West Yorkshire.  Articles relating to history are generally also categorised by present-day county, so Category:History of West Yorkshire comprises both articles on the short history of that county since it was formed in 1974 and the history of anywhere which is now in the county.  Where that breaks down is in categorising things which relate to the historic ridings, particularly the West Riding, because the West Riding covered a much larger area than West Yorkshire.  Thus Category:Lord-Lieutenants of the West Riding of Yorkshire does not belong in Category:History of West Yorkshire, because it relates just as much to South Yorkshire, a large part of North Yorkshire, and small parts of other counties which were once part of the West Riding.  It belongs in Category:History of Yorkshire (there is actually an intermediate category for the West Riding of Yorkshire).  The point about Category:Military units and formations in West Yorkshire is that it deals with units formed in the West Riding rather than with units formed in West Yorkshire (none since the county was created?), so it belongs with Category:West Riding of Yorkshire and Category:Military history of Yorkshire - and thus Category:History of Yorkshire.--Mhockey (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment We should categorize demonlished buildings only by polities they were actually in. Beyond that, military units are not buildings, they are governmental organizations that in many cases have spent large amounts of time operating outside their place of formation. Still, a British unit sent to Portugal does not become Portuguese. I have to wonder if military units should be categorized at this level at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support, nominator mentions two valid reasons for the rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 13 February 2016 (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.

Heer (1956–present)

 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst  ✈  14:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Heer (1956–present) to Category:German Army (1956–present)
 * Nominator's rationale: German Army has been the established English-language name of the ground forces of Germany for the past 20 years. The categories should reflect that usage.ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support -- This is the English WP. I have never heard Heer used as an English word.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support - Heer is virtually unknown in English. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:29, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per common usage. Hamish59 (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2016 (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.

Heer (1956–present)

 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst  ✈  14:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Units and formations of the Bundeswehr Heer (1956–present) to Category:Units and formations of the German Army (1956–present)
 * Nominator's rationale: German Army has been the established English-language name of the ground forces of Germany for the past 20 years. The categories should reflect that usage. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support -- This is the English WP. I have never heard Heer used as an English word.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per the other Heer cat, the word is virtually unknown in English. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:30, 19 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per common usage. Hamish59 (talk) 10:41, 19 January 2016 (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:Recipients of The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918

 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst  ✈  14:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting recipients of the honour cross of the world war 1914/1918


 * Nominator's rationale: The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918 was awarded to any German soldierserving in World War I, or their dependants resp. It is not a decoration or order but more a campaign ribbon. There were more than 8 million awards. While the subject itself is noteworthy, the category simply mirrors Category:German military personnel of World War II. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Serving in WWI may be notable but getting an automatic award is WP:OVERLAPCAT. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:26, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete -- clearly non-defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:14, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete non-defining. Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 09:26, 19 January 2016 (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:U-boats involved in international incidents

 * 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) 06:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting u-boats involved in international incidents


 * Nominator's rationale: This category is a sub-category of Category:U-boats only. Any German or Austrian submarine in either WWI or WWII that sank an enemy ship is technically involved in an international incident. There might be merit in a category for incidents involving U-boats, but this category is certainly not helping. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- There does not seem to be any robust definition as to what kind of international incident qualifies them. It seems to refer to cases where something was notorious, but that is a POV issue.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to its parent, per previous comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete despite being for U-bots, several of the articles in the category are not on U-boats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:15, 23 January 2016 (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:Organizations by country and subject

 * 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 action; categories are not tagged. Please see Categories_for_discussion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: I have been doing a lot of work on the categorisation of organisations. I've found Category:Organizations by country and subject very unhelpful.  There is no discernible distinction between the categories that end up there - typically about half a dozen for most countries - and those placed in Organisations in the country.  For anyone looking for particular kinds of organisations in a country it is an unnecessary complication.Rathfelder (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Clarification You're proposing deleting both categories, correct? RevelationDirect (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * yes I think so. Rathfelder (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Presumably the nomination is more about the child categories such as Category:Organizations based in the United States by subject‎ than about the parent category Category:Organizations by country and subject. While I can imagine that a child (country) category is not too helpful in smaller countries, it may actually help in bigger countries to make the other parent such as Category:Organizations based in the United States‎ less crowded. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:55, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – this is the standard way of subcatting. In it I expect to find fully populated categories such as Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom by subject (which has been mysteriously emptied recently and thus deleted). I would also expect to find Category:Organizations by subject and country. See eg Category:People by nationality and occupation and Category:People by occupation and nationality. (The nom is emptying categories out of process, eg diff.) Oculi (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The organizations category by subject and nationality are pretty typical. Consider also category:Companies, which is very analogous: It includes:
 * Category:Companies by city and industry
 * Category:Companies by country and industry
 * Category:Companies by industry and city
 * Category:Companies by industry and country
 * Category:Companies by city and industry

--Lquilter (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

The Category:Companies by city and industry exemplifies the problem. Out of many thousands of companies 5 are included in the subcategories here. How is a user supposed to know that there are such subcategories? The point of categorisation is to help users find articles. Except possibly in the case of the USA there are not so many articles about organisations that this is helpful. What is needed is to ensure that all the articles about organisations are included into a relevant country category, where appropriate, and a relevant subject category, where possible. This requires a system of categorisation which is sufficiently transparent. It's clear that this system is excessively complicated, not understood by those who write the articles and not working.

Category:Organizations based in Greece by subject isn't helpful if it arbitrarily separates out some kinds of organisations from others so that they are less visible. Category:Political organizations in Greece‎ appears there, but Category:Trade unions in Greece doesn't. Of course a few countries will end up with many categories, but this can be reduced by application of the hierarchical principle, so, for example, arts organisations are within the bigger category of cultural organisations, charities are within non-profit making organisations etc.

Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The question how a user is supposed to know that there are such subcategories isn't relevant for container categories. Users need not to know them because there are no articles in them, container categories are merely accidentally found by users as they scroll up or down through the category tree. The more important question is whether "by subject" is clear enough. Personally I think it is and I see a clear commonality here with the tree of Category:History by country and topic, where the topics within history are politics, economy, social, cultural etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge all back to their country parent. This is not a helpful split.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment In the case of US cats, it has never been clear whether some of them are meant to refer to the specific city (New York City) or to the Metro-Area of that city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)


 * I think there should be guidance on when and why to break it down by sub-national unit more generally. --Lquilter (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2016 (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 associations by profession

 * 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. Note that the category hadn't been tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: A similar problem to that above. The categories which are put there show no logical distinction from those placed in Category:Professional associations. Rathfelder (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – it is not a problem. There is the category Category:Professional associations. This is subcatted in various ways: eg by country. An editor thought it a good idea to gather together those connected with a single profession into Category:Professional associations by profession (which leaves the remaining subcats easier to see). The logical distinction is that 'Nuclear industry organizations' relate to a specific profession whereas 'Professional associations for women‎' do not. Oculi (talk) 02:55, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * The nominator may not realize that without subcategorizing, the category:Professional associations category would have hundreds of professional organizations all lumped together, alphabetically. It would also be harmful to the categories of the individual professions -- for instance, "Category:Anthropology organizations" would then have "museums", "research institutes", and an alphabetical list of anything that wasn't those -- so professional associations would be lumped together with schools, student groups, a publisher ... This would not be very helpful to people actually browsing the Category:Anthropology organizations.  --Lquilter (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I have spent all week working on the category professional organisations, and have got it down to manageable proportions by putting all the organisations into their appropriate countries, and making more categories to go into category:Professional associations by country‎. But I think the categories which at present appear in category:Professional associations by profession‎ would be more easily found in Category:Professional associationsRathfelder (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per both above. Neater this way. Nice to see the main cat empty though, so thanks. Johnbod (talk) 19:37, 20 January 2016 (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:Landless Chippewas

 * 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, without prejudice to the creation of a new category like Category:Landless tribes containing a set of tribes. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Landless Chippewas
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
 * The "Landless Chippewas" refers to a period from around 1879 to 1916 when Ojibwe Native Americans (aka Chippewa Indians) were present in Montana but the Rocky Boy Indian Reservation had yet to be established for them. I'm telling you this because there is no main article and both of the two articles in the category are already in Category:Ojibwe in Montana. (Alternatively, if kept, we should rename it to Category:Landless Ojibwe to reflect the preferred naming.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note:The creator was banned but I added this discussion to WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and I'll ping those from an earlier discussion: . – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose and populate, but consider upmerge to new category. The main Chippewa tribe that is "landless" today is the . Little Shell Chippewa.  I suppose we could use a Category:Landless Tribes or something like that; the problem of "landless" Indians is actually bigger than just the Chippewa people, and sometimes grounds for tribal termination, I think it was an issue for some branches of other groups, but would have to research. I added the Little Shell article to the group, and a quick search on "Landless tribes" pulled up 2-3 non-Chippewa/Ojibwa groups in the east, probably won't be tough to populate an upmerged category.  Montanabw (talk)  01:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I think this topic is definitely worth an article. Once that happens, it will be easier to know what to call any possible category and what to include within it. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Many tribes don't have reservations. What constitutes a landless tribe? A tribe with no land in trust? A tribe with no fee simple title? What would constitute a "tribe" in this instance? Canadian? US? What about other countries? Continents: Africa, Asia? In the US, federal, state, or unrecognized? It seems very subjective, very messy, and not particularly encyclopedic. Yuchitown (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown


 * Comment - thanks for the ping; this is a subject I'm not very knowledgeable about so I'll just leave a comment. Ojibwe is the accepted modern term but if these historic tribes were more commonly known as Chippewas in the 19th/early 20th century then we should use that term. Either way, it seems to be a valid categorization (and subcategorization from Category:Ojibwe in Montana, despite the naming disparity) and so I think the category should not be deleted. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Very subjective and not useful for any purpose. An individual, Rocky Boy (Chippewa leader) is listed. Should every Ojibwe person ("Chippewa" isn't even the preferred term on Wikipedia) who has an article on Wikipedia who rents their home instead of owning it be listed? Yuchitown (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown
 * Delete I put Rocky Boy himself in Category:Ojibwe people. The other two articles are adequately covered in other categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 23 January 2016 (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:Ricardo Arjona

 * 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) 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting ricardo arjona


 * Nominator's rationale: The album and song subcategories, along with the eponymous article (as opposed to this category) are enough for navigation. This practice is discouraged at this level per WP:OCEPON when individual works have specific options to go into. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 00:52, 14 January 2016 (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.