Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 30



Category:Saraswathi temples

 * 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) 00:57, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Saraswathi temples to Category:Saraswati temples
 * Nominator's rationale: Per Saraswati goddess article name Redtigerxyz  Talk 18:08, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom, assuming there is consensus about the article name. Note that several articles in this category still contain an extra "h". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:12, 2 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.

Category:Slumber Party Girls

 * 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) 01:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting slumber party girls


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous category. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:33, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I do not see a scope for expansion here. Based on the article Slumber Party Girls, they were a band active for about a year. They only released a single album before disbanding. Dimadick (talk) 21:53, 4 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.

Category:The Groggers

 * 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) 01:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting the groggers


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content--eponymous categories have a high threshhold for creation. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. I do not see much scope for expansion. According to their article, The Groggers are a moderately successful Jewish rock band, but have only released one album. Dimadick (talk) 08:19, 5 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.

Category:The Bear Quartet

 * 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) 01:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting the bear quartet


 * Nominator's rationale: Too few subcats and articles. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. This category is about The Bear Quartet, an Indie rock band from Sweden. The band is probably notable and they have been around for 27 years, but their article is a stub and few of their many albums actually have articles. First we create content, then categories. Dimadick (talk) 08:36, 5 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.

Category:Labor in the European Union

 * 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) 00:59, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Labor in the European Union to Category:Labour in the European Union
 * Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy nom. Per WP:STRONGNAT topics related to the European Union should use British or Irish English. The European Union itself always uses the spelling "Labour" see here and here AusLondonder (talk) 02:26, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Note also that while it seems to be the case that EU institutions generally use British English, note that this isn't the case for all EU member nations, as several of them have stronger ties to the U.S. than to Britain. --PanchoS (talk) 18:35, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support: Articles and categories about the EU should prefer British/Irish spellings to American spellings. SJK (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per SJK. giso6150 (talk) 05:35, 31 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support nomination, but the correct procedure would be to speedy delete the duplicate and to rename the older  to.
 * Support nom -- EU is multi-lingual, with translation at its core. Since UK and Ireland are members and use British orthography, it is inevitable that the EU will invariably spell it "Labour".  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 3 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.

More identical Soviet awards issued multiple times to the same person

 * 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: merged (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 18:02, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Heroes of Socialist Labour
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Heroes of Socialist Labour, three times to Category:Heroes of Socialist Labour
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Heroes of Socialist Labour, twice to Category:Heroes of Socialist Labour


 * Order of the Badge of Honour
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Recipients of the Order of the Badge of Honour, three times to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Badge of Honour
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Recipients of the Order of the Badge of Honour, twice to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Badge of Honour
 * Order of the Banner of Work
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Recipients of the Order of the Banner of Work, twice to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Banner of Work
 * Order of Friendship
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Recipients of the Order of Friendship, twice to Category:Recipients of the Order of Friendship
 * Order of the October Revolution
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Recipients of the Order of the October Revolution, twice to Category:Recipients of the Order of the October Revolution
 * Order of the Red Banner of Labour
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour, five times to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour, four times to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour, three times to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour, twice to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour
 * Order of Suvorov, 1st class
 * Propose Upmerging Category:Recipients of the Order of Suvorov, 1st class, twice to Category:Recipients of the Order of Suvorov, 1st class


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:NONDEFINING (but not WP:OCAWARD)
 * These categories all group people by how many times they have received the same exact civil award, not different levels or degrees of an award. This seems trivial because the people who won the Red Bannner of Labour 5 times don't have any more or less in common with each other than those that only won it 2 times, for example. We don't categorize governors who were elected twice differently than those who were elected once or singers with 3 albums differently than singers with 4 albums. (I'm not asserting that winning the underlying award is undefining under WP:OCAWARD.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Folks at 137 as the primary category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Soviet Union. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Background For nearly identical recent CfD discussions, see here, here and here. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom's persuasive reasoning. SJK (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Support -- I could possibly see a case for having multiple awards as a separate category, but not each number. However I will go along with precedent.  There may be a question  as to whether some awards were not given so frequently as not to be worth having a category for, but that is for another day.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:59, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Support. The number of times a person has won an award is not the basis for a separate category from the main one for the award winners. The article may certainly contain sublists for multiple wins — but it's not a matter for the category system to delineate. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 3 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.

Category:Space Propulsion Group

 * 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) 01:00, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Space Propulsion Group
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT.
 * Only contains 1 article, Space Propulsion Group, so it doesn't aid navigation and I don't see any immediate room for growth. (If the topic ever gets up to around 5 articles, no objection to recreating though.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Ohms law as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Space. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 30 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. While we have a low threshold of notability for companies, this one seems non-notable even for an article, much less for a category. The article on the Space Propulsion Group is an out-of-date stub that only mentions a single client for this company: NASA. They are not an industry powerhouse, have not affected popular culture at all, and have not accomplished any breakthroughs. What are we supposed to cover about them? Dimadick (talk) 08:45, 5 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.