Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 16



Category:Disco films

 * 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 re-creation if a definition can be written and applied properly, as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Convert Category:Disco films to article List of disco films
 * Nominator's rationale: It's not clear what the inclusion criteria for this category is, and it appears to currently be being used (and sometimes erroneously) for any movie in which any disco song appears, which doesn't seem appropriate for categorization to my mind. Also of note is that there's no article such as Disco film (that I could find) to make it more clear what would be appropriate for inclusion here. A sourced list seems like a better way of handling this. DonIago (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: I don't specifically remember creating this category, but apparently I did. Thanks for notifying me of the nomination. In all likelihood, I noticed that there was no equivalent category to Category:Rock music films (and other sub-categories of Category:Films by music genre) for films about the disco era. I'm fairly neutral on converting it to a list. It makes some amount of sense. I don't see this category as significantly different than the others mentioned above, though, most of which also contain no clear definition nor an article (like Rock music films or Jazz films) - Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * In theory, I can see the validity of this category for some films — Saturday Night Fever being the obvious no-brainer — but I agree with the nominator that it's getting used for a lot of films whose connection to a "disco genre" of film is tenuous at best (Behind the Candelabra and Airplane!, for instance, are not "disco films" per se, but merely have a disco song on the soundtrack, or a brief scene set in a discotheque, because of their time settings). So it's not necessarily an unreasonable category per se, but it is getting used incorrectly. Purge of all films not defined by their disco-ness. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment (from a non-expert). I would suggest that the category be kept, but with a tighter definition of what qualifies and it should then be purged of items that do not belong.  That assumes that a robust tight definition can be provided.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be amenable to that, though I worry that six months from now, regardless of the definition, we'd be right back where we started. In any case, the definition provided at the Rock music category referenced above could probably be adapted, if this is the direction we want to pursue. DonIago (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete suffers the usual problems of films about... categories, though phrased differently. Moreover, categorizing films by the type of music that's played in them or whether there's a scene in a disco, is just not a useful or real-world categorization scheme. Against an article creation because there are no reliable sources that any of these are "disco films", much less how such is defined. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and purge per the suggestion of Peterkingiron. Dimadick (talk) 00:31, 25 May 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:Philosophy of disciplines

 * 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) 03:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Philosophy of disciplines to Category:Philosophy of science by discipline
 * Nominator's rationale: rename to make it less ambiguous with regard to the fact that it concerns disciplines of science. This nomination and the next four ones are related to this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - (Oppose). It concerns disciplines, most of the time NOT disciplines of science : consider
 * Philosophy of war : war is not a science
 * Category:Philosophy of language : language is not a science (linguistics is)
 * Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence : technology, not science
 * Category:Philosophy of technology : not science.
 * Category:Philosophy of law : law is not a science
 * Category:Political philosophy : philosophy, not science
 * Category:Philosophy of history : history, not science. Stefanomione (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Same comment as below, if they aren't about science these should be purged. By the way, Category:Philosophy of language has been parented to Category:Philosophy of social science so we should be a bit careful with making too quick conclusions about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Category:Philosophy of language is NOT parented to Category:Philosophy of social science, philosophy of linguistics is. Stefanomione (talk) 13:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You just removed it. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I corrected the mistake - the parent article Philosophy of language was never in Category:Philosophy of social science. Stefanomione (talk) 13:41, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Anyway all I was saying was that we should be a bit careful when we're going to purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Or ... Both categories could exist one besides the other, one for scientific disciplines, one for disciplines, where Category:Philosophy of scientific disciplines is a subcategory of Category:Philosophy of disciplines. Stefanomione (talk) 13:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename&Purge or Delete Whether on accident or by design, this category is too broadly defined and suffers from the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME since lots of things can be "disciplines". Inadvertently, Stefanomione really highlights what a mess the current grouping is. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename the not yet created target category proposed by Marcocapelle to Category:Philosophy of scientific disciplines, that will be a subcategory of Category:Philosophy of disciplines. Stefanomione (talk) 13:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't agree, we then run in WP:SHAREDNAME issues as RevelationDirect was mentioning. We have academic disciplines and sports disciplines (and maybe other disciplines?) that only share a name but aren't related at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They share the name discipline because they are both human creations played / practiced with specific rules (= disciplined, obey to certain rules). Stefanomione (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * "Practising by following rules" is a too broad topic for a category. Virtually everything in life happens by following certain rules. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What about the categories Category:Creativity and Category:Events ? Too broad (and delete ?) ? Stefanomione (talk) 14:43, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that Category:Creativity is also very broad, that would require a separate discussion. But at least there exists a concept creativity, we don't even have that when talking about "Practising by following rules" (which involves much more than just Disciplines). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly open to other non-scientific "discipline" categories if you have a specific subject area in mind. But "disciplines" in general seems like it is too broad to help readers find what they are looking for. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support More WP:POINTy behaviour from Stefanomione. X per "disciplines" doesn't make a whole lot of sense since there is no consensus about what "disciplines" are supposed to group, beyond shared name overcategorization and just random stuff. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- Rename to Category:Philosophy by discipline, which will be comprehensive and include history and law, as well as technologies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Social sciences also belongs to branches of science so these are included in the nomination already. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 19 May 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:History of disciplines

 * 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 and purge, as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:History of disciplines to Category:History of science by discipline
 * Nominator's rationale: rename to a less ambiguous name, to make clear that it concerns disciplines of science - and purge, move content that isn't about scientific disciplines to Category:History by topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - (Oppose). It concerns disciplines, most of the time NOT disciplines of science : consider
 * Category:History of photography : photography is not a science
 * Category:History of printing : printing is not a science
 * Category:History of forestry : technology, not science
 * Category:History of international relations : not science.
 * Category:History of sports : not science.
 * Category:History of writing : not science.
 * Category:History of translation : not science. Stefanomione (talk) 13:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Exactly, that's why the nomination also proposes purging, a better example than the four subcategories you mentioned is Category:History of sports which is definitely not a scientific discipline. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Combine Nomination This should be resolved in the same way as the category above, whether I agree with that outcome or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename the not yet created target category proposed by Marcocapelle to Category:History of scientific disciplines, that will be a subcategory of Category:History of disciplines. Stefanomione (talk) 14:00, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't agree, see nomination above. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support More WP:POINTy behaviour from Stefanomione. X per "disciplines" doesn't make a whole lot of sense since there is no consensus about what "disciplines" are supposed to group, beyond shared name overcategorization and just random stuff. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename -- Category:History by subject or Category:History by topic.  Far too many are not sciences.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I observe that "topic" exists and is a parent of what we are discussing, so that this would be a partial upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * This is partially in line with the nomination, as it was said there: purge and move everything that doesn't fit in the category to Category:History by topic. However, there are also quite a few academic disciplines involved that may keep their own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment - the notion of where some disciplines self identify as sciences (contrary to assertions in this discussion) - the notion of specific History by subject topic or discipline seems a sensible move JarrahTree 11:17, 24 May 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:Works in the philosophy of disciplines

 * 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 as proposed. SST flyer 11:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Works in the philosophy of disciplines to Category:Philosophy of science works
 * Nominator's rationale: rename, this concerns disciplines of science, the proposed name is less ambiguous about that. The proposed format is similar as Category:Philosophy of science literature which should become a child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - (Oppose). It concerns disciplines, most of the time NOT disciplines of science : consider
 * Philosophy of war : war is not a science
 * Category:Philosophy of language : language is not a science (linguistics is)
 * Category:Philosophy of artificial intelligence : technology, not science
 * Category:Philosophy of technology : not science. Stefanomione (talk) 12:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Same comment as above, if they aren't about science these should be purged. By the way, Category:Philosophy of language has been parented to Category:Philosophy of social science so we should be a bit careful with making too quick conclusions about this. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Combine Nomination This should be resolved in the same way as the categories above, whether I agree with that outcome or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename the not yet created target category proposed by Marcocapelle to Category:Works in the philosophy of scientific disciplines, that will be a subcategory of Category:Works in the philosophy of disciplines. Stefanomione (talk) 14:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't agree, see nomination above. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support More WP:POINTy behaviour from Stefanomione. X per "disclines" doesn't make a whole lot of sense since there is no consensus about what "disciplines" are supposed to group, beyond shared name overcategorization and just random stuff. Plus "Works in the philosophy of..." is barely English, for pete's sake. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to match the related subject category (discussed above). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 18 May 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:Works about the history of disciplines

 * 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) 03:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Works about the history of disciplines to Category:Works about the history of science
 * Nominator's rationale: merge, this concerns disciplines of science so the contents should be in the science category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment - (Oppose). It concerns disciplines, most of the time NOT disciplines of science : consider
 * Category:Works about the history of economic thought : economic thought is not a scientific discipline
 * Category:Works about legal history : law is not a science
 * Category:Works about the history of political thought : not a scientific discipline
 * Category:Works about the history of philosophy : not a scientific discipline. Stefanomione (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Here I'm a bit puzzled. Do you really think that economics, law, political science and philosophy aren't scientific disciplines? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't progress following the Scientific method, so they are not scientific. Stefanomione (talk) 13:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * For now it goes too far to dispute that, in any case social sciences is one of the four major groups in branches of science so we should definitely not exclude social sciences. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I propose an elegant solution for this naming ambiguity below ... Stefanomione (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Works about the history of science to Category:Works about the history of scientific disciplines, that will be a subcategory of Category:Works about the history of disciplines. Stefanomione (talk) 14:08, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't agree, see nomination above. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. As explained at the Cfd for Category:Disciplines, "Disciplines" grouped two unrelated categories that had "discipline" in the name, one of them a now-deleted category for "sports disciplines," and then a bunch of other stuff that Stefanomione has decided are "disciplines." So this category makes no sense, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to match the outcome of the related subject category (discussed above). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 18 May 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:Works about the development of disciplines

 * 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) 03:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting works about the development of disciplines


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, "development" is not a defining characteristic of the content of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename if Kept No strong opinion on whether "development" is meaningful here. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete oh good heavens. So now we're to create a category structure based on the development of things, as determined by Stefanomione's own idiosyncratic rationales? Categories are supposed to aid navigation, as a way is that people might reasonably look for things. They are not meant to be a sandbox for one editor to ceaselessly and uselessly fuck around. This isn't categorization, this is masturbation, and it has to stop. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I think everything in it already has appropriate categories; and I am not sure they are about development, more about ideas about subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete as unnecessary. Pichpich (talk) 20:40, 2 June 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:Bosnia and Herzegovina footballers in England

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina footballers in England to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina expatriate sportspeople in the United Kingdom
 * Nominator's rationale: Per consensuses in WP:Footy, and to avoid overcategorization, a wide cat for sportspeople should be created first. So for XXX expatriate footballers in YYY were all deleted (correct me it is not; even Brazilian were not subcategorized). Matthew_hk   t  c  09:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- This is an appalling mouthful. I just wonder whether we need this triple intersection.  An alternative might be a broader upmerge.  Certainly UK not England, but we should ensure that an expatriate B&H footballer category survives.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. It's only a long name because the country names and the standard WP format makes it that way. Category names are not required to be short and pithy, especially when they contain long compound nouns. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 25 May 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:Paintings by national location

 * 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 here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 01:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Paintings by national location to Category:Paintings by country
 * Nominator's rationale: This is the only category on Wikipedia that seems to be named "by national location", as far as I can tell. It is for categorizing articles on individual paintings by their physical location by country, and is child to Category:Arts by country . It subcategories, such as Category:Paintings in United States, are children to Category:Arts in the United States, which is part of Category:Categories by country. Through I feel that "by national location" is perhaps a bit more clear, we have a dilemma: rename for standardization or consider introducing an entirely new tree for many other concepts that would be "by national location". And considering that we have Category:Sculptures by country, and so on, which work pretty well, I think we should just rename this outlier and move on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Rename For Now Let's standardize the odd man out. If you want to come back later with a broader rename, I'm open to it. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. Paintings are different from most "by country" categories, because they can easily be moved and because they don't have any specifically national association, other than where they were created.  Most other subjects with lots of articles either can't be moved (Category:Cities by country) or have specific national associations (Category:People by country, Category:Submarines by country) that apply regardless of current location.  Consider Mona Lisa, which is of Italian origin and is currently located in France.  It belongs in Category:Italian paintings (it's a member of the subcategory Category:Paintings by Leonardo da Vinci) as well as Category:Paintings in France (it's buried in that category tree), both of which would fit into "Paintings by country", but because of the distinction between country of creation and country of current location, those two are in the separate Category:Paintings by nationality and Category:Paintings by national location categories.  This proposal would effectively merge the two (if "national location" becomes "country", why shouldn't "nationality"?) and thereby create confusion.  Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Italian paintings is properly categorized by "paintings by nationality". That there is some miscategorization of "by nationality" and "by country" container categories is a problem to fix, yes, but argument that this is intended to merge nationality and country categories is a straw hat. We are just standardizing the "odd one one" in naming here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment, if renamed it should become clear what we mean with "by country". Is it country of creation (which sounds more intuitive), or is it current location (as apparently intended by this category). In the former case I would suggest renaming to Category:Paintings by country of creation, in the latter case I wonder if the proposed rename is unambiguous enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Paintings by country of creation. I agree with Marco that "by country" is confusing because it does not specify whether the country is that where the painting was made or where the painting is currently located. Neutralitytalk 19:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I like User:Neutrality's clarification, it seems like a good compromise. Through in this case it should be "Paintings by country of location", I think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing that User:Neutrality suggests not only to rename but also to re-purpose the category. It would indeed make more sense to categorize by country of creation than by country of current location because the latter may vary too much to categorize. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, it would be a rename and a repurpose (or clarification of purpose). Neutralitytalk 13:23, 3 June 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.

Dutch Brazil

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete; merge contents of Category:1648 in Dutch Brazil to Category:Dutch Brazil, Category:1648 in Brazil, and Category:1640s in Dutch Brazil. There may also be a good case for deleting Category:1640s in Dutch Brazil. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1637 in Dutch Brazil to Category:Dutch Brazil and Category:1637 in Brazil
 * Propose merging Category:1640 in Dutch Brazil to Category:Dutch Brazil and Category:1640 in Brazil
 * Propose merging Category:1648 in Dutch Brazil to Category:Dutch Brazil and Category:1648 in Brazil
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are two articles for three year categories in a very short-lived colony. After merging, the (grand)parent container categories can be deleted as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support -- We are never going to get enough content on this colony to be worth having any kind of annual category for it alone. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Alt merge to resp., plus the Years in Brazil category. --PanchoS (talk) 20:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete 1637 and 1640, merge 1648. The 1637 and 1640 categories originated in this edit which the editor has agreed were mistaken; they have since been upmerged at various CFDs, but should simply be deleted. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Even better. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 3 June 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:Political engineering by coup

 * 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 (and distribute contents as discussed). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting political engineering by coup


 * Nominator's rationale: delete as this is not a defining characteristic, the term "political engineering" is not even mentioned in many articles. The contents of this category should be moved partly to Category:Coups d'état and partly to Category:Military dictatorships. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Split per Marcocapelle - Political engineering is a rather nebulous concept. I do not think that it is sufficiently well defined to warrant us having a category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:29, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete (i.e., split). Confusing, excessive categorization. Neutralitytalk 19:21, 27 May 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:Nowpunk films

 * 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) 05:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting nowpunk films


 * Nominator's rationale: Not exactly a specific genre of film. Quick internet search does not suggest the importance of said genre (only Sterling, the inventor of the term, seems to use it in any serious sense) (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nowpunk&safe=off&tbm=bks) and (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nowpunk&safe=off) Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- The main article is in fact a section of something else, making it clear that this is one person's Neologism. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:31, 19 May 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:Actors Studio members

 * 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) 03:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Actors Studio members
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC and WP:NONDEFINING
 * The Actors Studio is a prominent theatrical school in New York City known for method acting. The school offers training on site as well as Masters Degrees in association Pace U and previously with the New School so we have a separate "Category:Actors Studio alumni" for that purpose. In contrast, this membership category consists of 300+ professional actors who belong to the organization both as a social club and to support training new actors. A few articles in the category do mention this membership in passing (Will Hare) while most don't mention it at all (Jack Nicholson, Jane Fonda, Dustin Hoffman). - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified DavidESpeed as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Theatre. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment -- We do not normally categorise by membership of an organisations, though there are some exceptions, such as Fellow of the Royal Society. The alumni category (covering both the sponsored institutions) is certainly legitimate.  Those who had been through some earlier (less formal training) might be added to that, but I am dubious of the merits of having a category for club members. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NONDEF. While membership of Actors Studio has been added quite consistently in the Wikipedia articles that are in this category, it gives the impression that it's a single-editor issue. For example in the |the Internet Movie Database membership of Actors Studio remains pretty unnoticeable. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:03, 27 May 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:Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award winners
<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. For information, in case there is a need of further listification, there was currently only Julie Meyer in this category. She wasn't an "overall winner" of that year though. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose Deleting Category:Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award winners
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
 * The introduction to the main article, says that "according to Ernst & Young, in the 25 years the award has been given, there have been over 10,000 individuals recognized, an average of over 400 per year." Lisfifying doesn't seem to be a viable option here. I have found some biography articles that mention the award but it doesn't seem defining especially since it's given early in a person's business career. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Ottawahitech as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Business. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Listify and then delete -- There is a list in the main article, but it is clearly incomplete. This applies the usual outcome for OCAWARD cases.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:38, 19 May 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:Salvation Army buildings
<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: no consensus, with two conflicting naming conventions. Good luck with trying to get the article renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Salvation Army buildings to Category:The Salvation Army buildings
 * Nominator's rationale: An opposed speedy. Suggestion was for renaming to match head category and main article The Salvation Army. We already have another subcategory that uses the same format, . ( does not use this format, but that's because the main article for that category is Salvation Army brass band.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Category:Salvation Army buildings to Category:The Salvation Army buildings – C2A/C2B per /The Salvation Army Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose; IMHO this would not be an improvement. "The" is not used when referring to the organisation's buildings, e.g. "a Salvation Army citadel". – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:41, 14 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Support (as creator) The category names should blindly follow the main category name, per WP:C2D. The current name was an oversight on my part. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:10, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose as nominated; where "Salvation Army" is used as an adjective, as in Salvation Army brass band, no article is required. For another example, we do not use Category:The Daily Telegraph journalists (that link is a redirect), but Category:Daily Telegraph journalists. I would have no grammatical objection to a name that followed e.g. Category:Properties of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, but that form seems unnecessarily cumbersome to me. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
 * But cf. Category:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints texts‎. There is no one correct way or overriding convention, as far as I can see, so absent a main article that would dictate what form to use, it makes sense to just follow the more general head article and corresponding category per usual practice. (For an example of using a "the" with "Salvation Army band", see the lyrics of "A Hazy Shade of Winter".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * IMHO that "texts" category is not correct. As I've illustrated with the journalists of The Daily Telegraph, it is not "usual" to include "The" within compound adjectives. "The" is mainly included in Wikipedia category names related to musical groups, see . Moreover, the nominated category is not an outlier; we have Category:Salvation Army officers (formerly Category:Salvation Army clergy), and articles at Salvation Army bonnet, Salvation Army Boys Adventure Corps, Salvation Army Centre, Teddington, Salvation Army corps, Salvation Army Radio, Salvation Army Team Emergency Radio Network, Salvation Army Vision Network and Manchester Central (Salvation Army). The officers category was renamed two years ago (2014 January 8), and even though it was nominated to follow the term "per Officer (The Salvation Army)", nobody suggested adding "The" in the category name.  (As for that song, it would be using "the" to refer to a specific local Salvation Army band, not because it's a/the band of The Salvation Army.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see why we would make a distinction between musical groups and other bodies that use "The" as part of the "Wikipedia name". The fact that there is such a mix of approaches within Wikipedia itself suggests to me that there is no overriding convention. A category name is not the same thing as general prose. (I find the song example to be an interesting example; I don't think it's provable either way why "the" was chosen, rather than "a". It could have been for the reason you state, but it just as easily could be a usage of the actual name of the institution. In any case, it does demonstrate that the use of "the" in the context, even in prose/poetry, is not an inviolable no-no.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep -- In common parlance the proper name is Salvation Army. Where this is used as an adjective, the definite article is certainly not needed.  I think this solution is obvious, if one substitutes other denominations.  We would not have "The Church of Scotland buildings".  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:44, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, the article and category are at Church of Scotland/, both without the "The", so within the context of Wikipedia this is an apples to oranges comparison. In any case, the nomination rationale is based more on category uniformity within the Wikipedia tree than on some idea of what would be used in "common parlance". I just don't think it makes much sense to vary category names away from a standard based solely on the way people happen to talk. Nobody really says "The Beatles albums" either, do they?—and yet we have . Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - I don't think this is necessary. Officially, the name of the university is The George Washington University, yet we have Category:George Washington University (no definite article). Neutralitytalk 14:32, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * The main article is George Washington University and the category matches that name. (The link above with a "the" at the beginning is just a redirect.) Perhaps The Salvation Army article should be renamed.? RevelationDirect (talk) 13:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
 * That's true. I would support a rename of the main article to Salvation Army. That would be in keeping with the general trend of dropping "The" in formal titles of entities (George Washington University, Ohio State University), except for music and performance entities (e.g., The Muppets, The Beatles). Neutralitytalk 13:17, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per the brass bands; this isn't any different. As RevelationDirect notes, the article should probably be renamed, because this is basically the same as The George Washington University, The Ohio State University, and lots of other institutions with an unnecessary "The" beginning their names.  Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 22 May 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:Metropolitan areas of Barbados
<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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting metropolitan areas of barbados


 * Nominator's rationale: Formal definitions of metropolitan areas do not exist for Barbados, as far as I'm aware. Even if they did, this category would still likely run afoul of WP:SMALLCAT. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge (not necessarily to all parents) -- I strongly suspect that Bridgetown is the only possible member of the category. Similar considerations will apply to other island capitals in the West Indies.  The answer is to have it directly in Metropolitan areas in the Caribeean.  Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Currently unsure. Note that this one is part of the established scheme, with quite a number of subcategories existing since 2005 or 2006. Merging dozens of subcategories to or  might not be a good idea. On the other hand, if every single country got its own subcategory, there might be quite a number of categories with less than five metropolitan areas. Also, I don't know how complete our coverage of less industrialized countries is. --PanchoS (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Barbados is by far the least populous and smallest country listed among . It's an exceptional case. Cobblet (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's true that Barbados is an exceptional case, then we would keep the category, as a handful of WP:SMALLCATs within an established category scheme is perfectly acceptable. We would only delete it, if a substantial part of all (existing or non-existing) per-country-categories would inevitably be WP:SMALLCATs. --PanchoS (talk) 20:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge, because you can't possibly have more than one metropolitan area on an island of less than 500 km2. Nyttend (talk) 14:55, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Merging isn't really needed, since Category:Bridgetown is already in Category:Capitals in the Caribbean. Apparently we assume that a capital always is the center of a metropolitan area. So it's either keep or delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:14, 23 May 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.