Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 19



Category:Irish Ombudsman

 * 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:Ombudsmen in the Republic of Ireland. – Fayenatic  L ondon 20:54, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Irish Ombudsman to Category:Ombudsman (Ireland)
 * Nominator's rationale: opposed speedy


 * Category:Irish Ombudsman to Category:Ombudsman (Ireland) – C2D: per Ombudsman (Ireland) Tim! (talk) 19:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Shouldn't it be Category:Ombudsmen (Ireland)? P p p  e r  y   (talk) 22:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC) Tim! (talk) 19:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support Rename to Category:Ombudsmen (Ireland). Demonym raises the possibility of (A) Irish people holding the office of Ombudsman in countries other than Ireland and (B) that non Irish nationals are ineligible to hold the office of Ombudsman in Ireland. Both are false. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Changing my vote. The name change should be for the whole island. We can then create another to cater exclusively for the Republic. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Ombudsmen (Ireland) per its parent Category:Ombudsmen in Ireland. It's a list category, not a topic category. Oculi (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge/ Rename to Category:Ombudsmen in Ireland. The category tree is Category:Ombudsmen by country and there are no other by ethnicity subcategories of Category:Ombudsmen. Since this is a government post, the source country is what's key here. (Supportper WP:C2D.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Convention is to have a category for Ireland with 2 subcats, one for the Republic and one for Northern Ireland (as is the case here). Oculi (talk) 01:59, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I would not support an upmerge. The nom is a very specific office - Office of the Ombudsman. The other category - Category:Ombudsmen in Ireland - is a catch all for other categories of ombudsman. It would be the grandfather of this cat. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:49, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Fair point; vote updated. Right now we have 1 article for all of Ireland, one for Northern Ireland and one for anyone anywhere in the world of Irish ancestry who holds this title. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Ombudsman (Ireland) is not for the whole of Ireland, it's for the Republic only. The category inclusion reads: "Holders of the post of Ombudsman in the Republic of Ireland". And all its entries satisfy the criterion. Oculi (talk) 22:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * We need to create a Category:Ombudsmen in the Republic of Ireland. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Just clarifying that I Support Occuli's rename proposal. P p p er y  (talk) 15:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Just clarifying that I Support Occuli's rename proposal. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:52, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename Category:Ombudsmen in the Republic of Ireland per Laurel Lodged and Purge any Northern Ireland items into the category for it; there are probably none. This is a post-1921 office, so that we should not have an all-Ireland category at all.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Ombudsmen in the Republic of Ireland, this relates to the country, not to the island. 03:15, 27 July 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcocapelle (talk • contribs)
 * Query If you rename as proposed, that will become the parent of Category:Ombudsmen in Northern Ireland ? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:44, 5 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Naturally. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:54, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Ombudsmen in the Republic of Ireland to match similar categories Category:Ombudsmen in Ireland and Category:Ombudsmen in Northern Ireland. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:55, 29 August 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:Television series by Warner Bros. Television

 * 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: administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by Warner Bros. Television to Category:Television series by Time Warner
 * Nominator's rationale: Time Warner category has bean started s o time for merger of some categorys ZPI LLC (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Nominator hasn't given an actual reason for merging the categories; also, these CfR requests are very similar to those made by WCVB98swell sockpuppet 47.54.189.22. Trivialist (talk) 23:12, 19 July 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:Television series by Turner Broadcasting System

 * 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: administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by Turner Broadcasting System to Category:Television series by Time Warner
 * Nominator's rationale: Time Warner is here so time for a merger. ZPI LLC (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Nominator hasn't given an actual reason for merging the categories; also, these CfR requests are very similar to those made by WCVB98swell sockpuppet 47.54.189.22. Trivialist (talk) 23:12, 19 July 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:Television series by HBO Independent Productions

 * 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: administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by HBO Independent Productions to Category:Television series by Time Warner
 * Nominator's rationale: Time Warner category is here, so time for a merger. ZPI LLC (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Nominator hasn't given an actual reason for merging the categories; also, these CfR requests are very similar to those made by WCVB98swell sockpuppet 47.54.189.22. Trivialist (talk) 23:12, 19 July 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:Television series by HBO Downtown Productions

 * 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: administrative close. Nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, and these repeated nominations of these types of categories after many previous ones have been unanimously opposed is becoming disruptive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Television series by HBO Downtown Productions to Category:Television series by Time Warner
 * Nominator's rationale: Time Warner category is here so time for a merger. ZPI LLC (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep: Nominator hasn't given an actual reason for merging the categories; also, these CfR requests are very similar to those made by WCVB98swell sockpuppet 47.54.189.22. Trivialist (talk) 23:12, 19 July 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:Men with beards

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting men with beards


 * Nominator's rationale: An unnecessary category that is extremely trivial and runs afoul of WP:OCAT &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The same category exists in Commons. I do not say that if it exists there, it should exist here. But it would be easy for readers who would want to know which men wore what type of beards, if such a category is maintained. - Veera.sj (talk) 17:13, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't Commons; this is an encyclopedia. Categories such as Commons:Category:Red vans make sense there, but not here. DexDor(talk) 22:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You know, I really didn't want to be reminded of the episode from around the first of the year wherein a certain admin told me I'm confused about categorization on the encyclopedia and provided a link to some categorization page on Commons so that I could figure it out. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 13:45, 20 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. Non-encyclopedic information of a trivial sort.  Shortness or length of hair is an ephemeral/changeable part of the female/male/human condition...WP doesn't have a Category for Short-haired actresses, or Blonde actors, or men with black hair, or women with shaved heads, etc.  A beard or mustache or the length or the color of hair can be changed at a moment's notice, thereby rendering the categorization moot. Shearonink (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete classic example of a WP:TRIVIALCAT.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:40, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - e.g. per previous discussion and salt. DexDor(talk) 22:16, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete Good grief. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment. I considered closing this as a speedy delete (WP:G4: recreation of material deleted at a discussion). But the previous discussion was ten years ago, so I suggest letting this run full course, just to establish whether there has been any change in consensus. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete -- Trivial and temporary. I have a beard, but I might shave it off tomorrow.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. Trivial and non-defining. And since a beard is a thing that can be grown or shaved off at will, nearly every man in all of human existence has been both a "man with a beard" and a clean-shaven "man without a beard" at different points in his life, meaning this approaches total unmaintainability. Bearcat (talk) 17:53, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As was pointed out before this is a very changeable situation. Brigham Young and Abraham Lincoln two men who were largely noted for having beards spent most of their adult lives without them. I could probably come up with lots more examples.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 25 July 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:Chris Christie appointees

 * 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) 04:06, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting chris christie appointees

Unless there is a consensus for wider process of categorising officials by who appoints them, then this looks rather like a WP:POINTy commentary on the controversies surrounding New Jersey governor Chris Christie. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: I haven't found any other category of officials-by-political-appointer. Even the Category:United States Supreme Court justices, whose appointments are heavily scrutinised for political leaning, are not categorised by appointer.


 * KEEP The administration of any elected official is often comprised of that that official's appointees who shape the policy of that administration. Their mention, while important, would perhaps make the target too long. The category enables readers to view how a particular politician create's an administration. The lack of of similar categories recognises the lack, but doesn't explain why the the category shouldn't exist. That US Supreme Court justices would be only one of the many appointees that official (US president in that case) is not really relevant here. The nominator's opinion as to why the category was created is in inappropriate conjecture.Djflem (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The relevant principle here is WP:DEFINING, and officials are defined more by the job they did than by who appointed them. The justification above makes a case that the appointments defined the appointer; but this a category of appointees. A category doesn't belong on article if it defines someone else.
 * The category system cannot encompass every attribute and nuance of a person's career, and some things are much better described in prose. That could be prose in the biographical article, or prose in a standalone list, or both. Why not make a List of appointments by Chris Christie? The list could offer a lot more detail and context than the category, and it would be much more informative to readers. The whole area of political patronage is under-documented on en.wp, and lists like this could help fill at least some of that gap. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete – some of the articles don't even mention Christie, a classic indicator that the characteristic is not all that important, ie not defining. Oculi (talk) 22:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Untrue: of 40 articles cited in category, all but one mention being named or appointed by Christie to the position, and that has more to do with an oversight in article itself. In other words, it is defining.Djflem (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Adding a factoid to an article does not make the factoid defining. Optional add-ons are not defining. Oculi (talk) 00:11, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Conveneintly overlooked the other 35+ other articles in which it is mentioned?Djflem (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, there is this, which suggests that an editor added a category to a page when it did not even mention the attribute. Oh yes, here it is: 2. There is also this where presumably a source could not be found. We could have a host of categories along these lines based on interesting factoids possibly in articles: 'appointed by Theresa May', 'sacked by Theresa May', 'insulted by Boris Johnson', 'betrayed by Michael Gove'. 'called a liar by Donald J Trump'. It's mildly interesting but not defining. Oculi (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with making corrections to articles? To address the cherry picking: That Elizabeth Connelly was not part of the Christie administration (so there wouldn't be a source to be found) and James Weinstein was head of New Jersey Transit appointed by Christie and a citation (preferred by Wikipedia) was added. Any comments on the remaining 35+ articles which all cite the defining fact ?

However, I still think that lists are a much better way of handling such appointments, and that e.g. List of federal judges appointed by Bill Clinton is way more informative than a category. There is a further problem that the US system allows Presidents and governors to make a lot of appointments, and while they are personally involved in the more senior posts, there are far too many offices for them to examine all appointments; the lower down the scale, the more likely that the appointer just takes the advice of others. So a targetted category of "fooers appointed" by X is more focused on significant relationships than an indiscriminate "appointees of X". -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:30, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – Agree completely with the second part of the rationale. The first part ignores the existence of an extensive Category:United States federal judges by appointing president tree while using a closely related office to assert that such categories just don't exist. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  13:50, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I didn't "ignore" Category:United States federal judges by appointing president; I was not aware of it, having checked only the USC categories, which I thought would be the most likely to be so categorised. Thanks for pointing out my oversight.
 * Ambassadorships, judgeships, and cabinet level positions are significant appointments which merit articles on Wikipedia. Lower-level positions likely do not have articles on the encyclopedia.Djflem (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment If one views Template:Infobox officeholder one sees the name of the appointer/nominator is often present. Wikipedia's inclusion acknowledges the significance of the relationship and indicates its importance/merit for mentionDjflem (talk) 05:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:NON-DEFINING, WP:DNWAUC. DexDor(talk) 05:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * If a person is mainly known for a position for which he or she is appointed, the apppointee is part of what makes that role defining.Djflem (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * See the example cited above of Matthew Boxer. He is a technocrat, appointed by a Democrat and reappointed by a Repub. His defining characteristic is that he is a non-partisan technocrat, not that one of his terms of office was under a particular governor. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * In other words someone who has nothing to do with WP:POINTy commentary on the controversies surrounding New Jersey governor Chris Christie as earlier mentioned since he has nothing to do with them. He's but 1 example of 40 articles who happens to be a technocrat and not a judge or member of the administration's cabinet or governor's office or head of a major state agency? As one knows, one cherry-picked example is not a reason to disqualify an entirel cat. Non-inclusion would, on the other hand, not do justice to Wikipedia's completeness or correctness.Djflem (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you explain your last sentence? e.g. how can deleting a category affect the correctness of Wikipedia? DexDor(talk) 16:09, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not including the above cited example in the cat would not do justice to Wikipedia's completeness or correctness.Djflem (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete presumably a "Christie cabinet" or "Christie administration" template, but in many cases (don't know about NJ) a governor appoints literally hundreds of people to various roles from executive, to staff, to judges, regents, tax collectors, etc. that may not be part of his or her administration. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure of the point…because of the uncertainty of the quantity it shouldn't be a category? There are plenty of cats with hundreds of entries, of which this isn't one.Djflem (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment
 * Political appointments are a matter of interest to Wikipedia, including categories, as seen in selection of examples:
 * List of United States political appointments across party lines
 * Judicial appointment history for United States federal courts
 * Category:Recess appointments
 * Category:Federal judicial appointment controversies in the United States
 * Category:United States federal judges by appointing president
 * Category:Obama Administration personnel
 * Template:Infobox officeholder
 * Djflem (talk) 06:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The fact that something is "of interest to Wikipedia" is insufficient grounds for a category. The test is more restrictive: whether it is WP:DEFINING. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's why there are articles, templates, and categories which address political appointments, as above. Djflem (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete categorizing people by what governor or president appointed them will just create a mess. This is especially true because many Supreme Court and other US justices got appointed earlier to other positions, some chief justices were previously associate justice, some had served in lower court appointments. This would just create a huge mess.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hardly the case: See Category:United States federal judges by appointing president which shows that apparently hasn't happened.Djflem (talk) 06:41, 25 July 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:Laâyoune-Sakia El Hamra geography stubs

 * 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 merged template to both Category:Morocco geography stubs and Category:Western Sahara geography stubs. If this is not ideal, it can be adjusted by editing Template:LaâyouneSakiaElHamra-geo-stub. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:53, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting laâyoune-sakia el hamra geography stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Limited size of permanent category. Stub category not needed at this time.  Delete category and upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 10:30, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge -- probably to Category:Morocco geography stubs. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to the (also undersized) . Grutness...wha?  05:48, 12 August 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:Udaipur geography stubs
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 merged template to both Category:Rajasthan geography stubs and Category:Udaipur stubs. If this is not ideal, it can be adjusted by editing Template:Udaipur-geo-stub. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting udaipur geography stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Total of 12 articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category at this time.  Delete category and upmerge template. Dawynn (talk) 10:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I might be bit new for this section of Wikipedia, but how many entries do we expect for having a permanent category? Vishal0soni (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge -- probably to Category:Udaipur stubs, though that also does not meet the standard of at least 60 articles for a stub category. If this were a substantive category, it would be big enough already.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge to and delete this. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  16:02, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge and Comment - Upmerge to . However, the large geo stub categories for Indian states are split by district, rather than city. The template should probably be re-defined as well, to include articles for Udaipur district. -Nocowardsoulismine (talk) 16:44, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per SpacemanSpiff's suggestion. §§<i style="color:#E0115F;">Dharmadhyaksha</i>§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:07, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per SpacemanSpiff - and it might be worth considering doing something with too. Grutness...<small style="color:#008822;">wha?  06:05, 12 August 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:Skagway, Alaska geography stubs
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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, in accordance with the other discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting skagway, alaska geography stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Less than 20 articles in the permanent category. No need for a stub category.  Delete category and upmerge template.  Dawynn (talk) 10:02, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Procedural close – Already nominated as part of Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 18. This nomination reveals that I neglected to tag those additional category pages.  It also reveals the same editor making the same nomination with no connection between A and B, suggesting random drive-by tagging. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions  13:56, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Those category pages have now been tagged, which now leaves this particular category an anomaly. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 14:17, 20 July 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:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Supreme Genghis Khan
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedia sockpuppets of supreme genghis khan


 * Nominator's rationale: As per consensus on all SGK-related userspace pages, and to comply with WP:DENY. Blake Gripling (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete: The category is empty and should always be since pages should not be tagged and existing ones were deleted per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Supreme Genghis Khan. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 18:39, 25 July 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:People who were rejected for the Medal of Honor
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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've added the names of the people who were in this category in the Medal of Honor article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people who were rejected for the medal of honor


 * Nominator's rationale: We generally avoid categorizing people by things that they are not or things that they did not achieve. Do we really want to categorize people for not having been given an award? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:55, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment For this award, and others, very few are nominated so it is something notable. That does not mean that it should be kept but if kept it would be better renamed to Category:People who were nominated for the Medal of Honor. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment – it's certainly worth reading the 3 articles in it. Support a rename to Category:People who were nominated for the Medal of Honor. Oculi (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * DElete -- We have three articles. Two do not mention the citation.  The third was rejected because he had taken off against orders.  Most medals have a vetting process.  Those who are dropped during the scrutiny process do not need a special category.  Possibly listify.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete people rejected for x is inherently non defining. What next "unsuccessful nobel prize nominees"?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 25 July 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:CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. -- Tavix ( talk ) 22:01, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia to Category:CIA activities in Africa and Category:CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific
 * Nominator's rationale: The contents of this oddly named category can simply be dispersed to and . The latter category I have nominated for renaming in the discussion immediately below.  Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support I'm not clear on why these specific areas are being grouped together. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * After poking around a bit more, I think it's because CIA activities in Asia used to be named CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia, but was [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CIA_activities_in_Asia&type=revision&diff=672892735&oldid=672891524 renamed]. So in a way, combined with the nomination below, this is a C2D rename, but the contents about Africa have to be separated out. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support The current name groups together activities in two continents, and there is no obvious reason for this. Dimadick (talk) 12:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Reararange "Near East" is a Euro-centric term that we should not use in a world-wide Encyclopedia. If you live in India it is the near west.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 27 August 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:CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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: renamed. -- Tavix ( talk ) 21:57, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:CIA activities in Asia and the Pacific to Category:CIA activities in Asia
 * Nominator's rationale: Normally we would use "Oceania" in the place of "the Pacific". Here it is unnecessary, though, even if we wanted to combine the two continents for this category. All of the contents relate to CIA activities in Asia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename Indonesia and the Philippines are generally considered Asia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. A narrower and clearer scope. The category does not seem to include any activities in Oceania. Dimadick (talk) 12:57, 29 July 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:Years in Sikkim
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:42, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting years in sikkim
 * Propose renaming to
 * Propose merging:
 * 1700s in Sikkim, 1705 in Sikkim to
 * to
 * to
 * 1953 in Sikkim, 1958 in Sikkim to
 * to
 * 1970 in Sikkim, 1973 in Sikkim, 1974 in Sikkim, 1975 in Sikkim to
 * Nominator's rationale: Overly fine-grained given our limited coverage of events in Sikkim. Same arguments hold as for Odisha, see below. --PanchoS (talk) 06:47, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Support -- Small annual categories with one article that one reaches on clicking down a twig of several successive otherwise empty categories are a hindrance to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:09, 23 July 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:Years in Odisha
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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:Lists of Ollywood films by year, and to the decades categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * PS Rather than delete the year categories, I have redirected them to their respective decades. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming:
 * Category:Years in Odisha to Category:Decades in Odisha
 * Category:1936 in Odisha to Category:1930s in Odisha
 * Category:1949 in Odisha to Category:1940s in Odisha
 * Propose merging: 1950 in Odisha, 1951 in Odisha, 1953 in Odisha, 1964 in Odisha, 1956 in Odisha, 1959 in Odisha to
 * Propose merging: 1960 in Odisha, 1961 in Odisha, 1962 in Odisha, 1963 in Odisha, 1964 in Odisha, 1965 in Odisha, 1966 in Odisha, 1967 in Odisha, 1968 in Odisha, 1969 in Odisha to
 * Propose merging: 1970 in Odisha, 1971 in Odisha, 1972 in Odisha, 1973 in Odisha, 1974 in Odisha, 1975 in Odisha, 1976 in Odisha, 1977 in Odisha, 1978 in Odisha, 1979 in Odisha to
 * Propose merging: 1980 in Odisha, 1981 in Odisha, 1983 in Odisha, 1984 in Odisha, 1985 in Odisha, 1987 in Odisha, 1988 in Odisha, 1989 in Odisha to
 * Propose merging: 1990 in Odisha, 1991 in Odisha, 1992 in Odisha, 1993 in Odisha, 1994 in Odisha, 1995 in Odisha, 1996 in Odisha, 1997 in Odisha, 1998 in Odisha, 1999 in Odisha to
 * Propose merging: 2000 in Odisha, 2001 in Odisha, 2002 in Odisha, 2003 in Odisha, 2004 in Odisha, 2005 in Odisha, 2006 in Odisha, 2007 in Odisha, 2008 in Odisha, 2009 in Odisha to
 * Propose merging: 2010 in Odisha, 2011 in Odisha, 2012 in Odisha, 2013 in Odisha, 2014 in Odisha to
 * Nominator's rationale: India is huge, so if properly covered, we should easily have sufficient articles on every state in every year. Fact is though that only a handful of these categories contain more than a single list article on that year's Ollywood films. Until there's an average of at least three articles per year, these WP:NARROWCATs impede navigation more than they help. We should rather categorize by decade, a scheme that works well for other Indian states, see as an example 1990s in Jammu and Kashmir, 2000s in Jammu and Kashmir, 2010s in Jammu and Kashmir, and may be further generalized for all Indian states. --PanchoS (talk) 06:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * The pre 2010s cats should be Orissa and not Odisha as that was the name then. &mdash; Spaceman  Spiff  17:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That might be sensible and a further improvement, but IMO shouldn't hold up the nomination, as currently all per-year categories are using "Odisha". --PanchoS (talk) 00:14, 22 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge all into Category:Lists of Ollywood films by year (which apparently exists already). All the cases that I looked at had nothing else in them.  If there is any other content in any of the categories, that can be placed directly in an Odisha category and also the appropriate year in India category.  I agree with the point about "Orissa".  We should use the contemporary Indian-English spelling, not the later Hindi-ised one to apply normal WP rules.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Support alternative merge to Category:Lists of Ollywood films by year, the very few remaining articles can be moved to Category:History of Odisha. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:39, 27 July 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:Books about LGBT
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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've moved  to . Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting books about lgbt


 * Nominator's rationale: The awkward name notwithstanding, this category does not seem to fit well into the hierarchy of Category:LGBT literature (which contains such categories as Category:LGBT non-fiction books and Category:LGBT fiction). It seems to be differentiated mainly by its inclusion of Category:Books about preventing homosexuality, which does not belong in the Category:LGBT literature tree. Ringbang (talk) 02:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:LGBT non-fiction books, the content of the category consists of non-fiction books, and I suppose that Category:LGBT non-fiction books is not restricted to any particular views. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I've already merged everything, and this is not a useful redirect. The only remaining subcategory, Category:Books about preventing homosexuality, is represented in Category:LGBT history via its parent, Category:Sexual orientation change efforts. —Ringbang (talk) 16:28, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * That's fair enough, but I would say it also belongs in a non-fiction books by topic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
 * The category name is not descriptive enough to be useful, nor does it imply non-fiction. Category:LGBT non-fiction books is already populated. If there are articles that need a new category, then one can create a more specific category to accommodate those articles. At the moment, such articles are not in evidence. —Ringbang (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom; the phraseology makes it an attempt at "books about" which suffers the problems of (a) how much about the subject must it be, and (b) what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much. One could add Leviticus to this category, based on the amount of ink spilled on a few verses therein "about" this subject. Not useful. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:10, 24 July 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.