Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 October 30



Category:Books with ambiguous titles

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:44, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting books with ambiguous titles


 * Nominator's rationale: It is impossible to determine from sources whether a title is ambiguous. Even if a source states a title is ambiguous, where do we refer to the source? Bduke    (Discussion)  22:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * To follow up my nomination, the only article in this category is Scouting for Boys. I understand why someone might think this title is ambiguous, but the article does not state that the title is ambiguous. What kind of source could be used to justify adding that to the article? -- Bduke   (Discussion)  22:59, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Subjective and non-defining. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Per the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME. We categorize books by what they are, who wrote them, etc., not by how they are named. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Is this based on the title being ambiguous if you just see the book, or it having multiple possible meanings after having read the book? The Same Kind of Different As Me, sounds pretty ambiguous (but the sub-title undermines that), but even the subtitle lacking film, if you watch it, it makes sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:55, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete Virtually empty category, undefined scope, and probably no chance for expansion. Dimadick (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2017 (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.

NYC metro boroughs

 * 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.  ℯ  xplicit  01:44, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting boroughs in the new york metropolitan area by county


 * Propose deleting boroughs in the new york metropolitan area


 * Propose deleting boroughs in the united states by metropolitan area


 * This nomination does not include Category:Boroughs of New York City, which for some crazy reason isn't in this category tree.


 * Nominator's rationale: What's the point of boroughs by metro area? It makes sense to identify people, companies, etc. as originating in metro areas, largely because they often move within the metro area and because they're often identified as coming from the metro area without further details (e.g. a Millbourne native will likely be identified as coming from Philadelphia), but place like municipalities can't move, and their locations can be identified more precisely.  Moreover, if you're browsing the category tree for boroughs, it makes far more sense to use the "boroughs by state" tree: if you know that a place is a borough and not some other kind of jurisdiction, you'll definitely know what state it's in, and there's no need to have a category that includes some Pennsylvania boroughs and some Connecticut boroughs, as this one does.  Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment. This just seems to be a subcategory of Category:Populated places in the New York metropolitan area, which I do believe is useful to have. Whether it needs to be subdivided into towns, cities, townships, and boroughs is the question, IMO, not Nyttend's question of whether there's a point to categorizing places in the metro area. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Categorising places by metro area is useful, but that's simple — the metro area comprises counties, so "Populated places in the New York metropolitan area" should just include the populated-places-in categories for each county. Doing a second subdivision, by type of municipality, isn't useful.  Nyttend (talk) 02:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Let me clarify. Having a category tree for places in the metro area is a good idea: it's a subdivision of the country, and then you keep subdividing it by geographic location until you get down to the county level.  Having a somewhat-separate tree for municipalities by type is unhelpful as I noted, and in metro New York, with four very different states included, you're in a particularly problematic location.  All four states have boroughs, and while I suspect PA and NJ boroughs are similar, they're very different from the five NY boroughs that should be included here, and all of them are different from the CT boroughs.  If we had this setup for all five types of municipalities in the area, it would be even worse, especially with towns; NJ towns are similar to NJ boroughs, while NY towns are comparable to PA and NJ townships (PA doesn't have any towns in this area), and CT towns are more important yet.  It's quite unhelpful to have a category for "towns in metro NYC" embracing towns in all three states and a separate tree for "townships in metro NYC" for both states, since they have different meanings, and they're not some systematic method of organizing all towns (or boroughs or whatever) in the country.  Nyttend (talk) 22:44, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * DElete/Merge (to eliminate them) the second and third nom categories which have a single subcat and little or no scope for expansion. I do not know enough beyond this and am not voting on the first.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This ends up categorizing by shared name. Weather something is called a borough, a city, a town or whatever else, is just a fact of the name, expecially since the exact legal implications of these names varry by state, and at least in New Jersey some entities have changed their name intentionally to game the system.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: the talk page had no project banners until now. This Cfd may now start appearing in alert pages, assuming that WIkiProjects NY and NJ have them, so let's allow time for more participation. – Fayenatic  L ondon 00:00, 27 November 2017 (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.

Early medieval decades by country

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. (I spotted a couple of members that were not in the continent categories, but I think I have fixed all such cases.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:330s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:500s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:520s by country‎


 * Propose deleting Category:530s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:540s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:550s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:560s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:570s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:580s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:590s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:600s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:610s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:620s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:630s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:640s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:650s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:660s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:670s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:680s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:690s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:700s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:710s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:720s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:730s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:740s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:750s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:760s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:770s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:780s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:790s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:800s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:810s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:820s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:830s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:840s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:850s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:860s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:870s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:880s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:890s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:900s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:910s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:920s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:930s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:940s by country‎
 * Propose deleting Category:950s by country‎


 * Propose deleting Category:540s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:610s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:620s establishments by country


 * Propose deleting Category:650s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:660s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:730s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:770s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:800s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:820s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:850s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:900s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:930s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:940s establishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:580s disestablishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:630s disestablishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:640s disestablishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:730s disestablishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:740s disestablishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:750s disestablishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:760s disestablishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:800s disestablishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:830s disestablishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:840s disestablishments by country
 * Propose deleting Category:950s disestablishments by country


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, this is essentially a housekeeping nomination. After these mergers and these mergers the early medieval decades by country categories have become nearly empty. There is no need to merge to general decade categories, because all remaining content is still contained in the tree of Category:Decades by continent. There is also no need to merge to century by country categories because every country's decade is contained in that particular country's century category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:00, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: if this is passed, EstcatCountryDecade will need editing to remove these parents for dates in the 1st millennium before 960. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:34, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:46, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and precedent: keep up the good work. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:54, 5 November 2017 (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 the domestic sphere

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting books about the domestic sphere


 * Nominator's rationale: Far too vague, seeming to encompass how-to books about running a household, feminist fiction and nonfiction about the confinement of women to same, novels set partly in homes(?), and more. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 19:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete not a very clear category. If we had an article on Home Memories of David O. McKay I would categorize it here, but then would be hard pressed as to why that book really belonged any more than My Father, David O. McKay. Since they are both by sons of the late President of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (who said "no other success can compensate for failure in the home"). Although to make things more fun, in that quote "the home", means raising your family, so I guess I am doing the work of the home when I spend time running, playing, talking etc with my soon to be grandson on Belle Isle, but is that part of "the domestic sphere". Would "Papa John's Book of his Belle Isle Adventures with Kayden" qualify for this cateogry when I publish it? If no, would people feel differently about "My adventures with Kayden on Belle Isle" being so categorized if it was instead written by Arkasha M. H. Lambert? For that matter is my friend who runs his sports equitment resale business online out of his home "in the domestic sphere" while his wife who works in a job that causes here to leave the house not in the domestic sphere? If you don't think that my friend with his sports equitment retail business is in the "domestic sphere", what about my sister with her sewing business run out of her house? What if she ran her sewing business in a warehouse? What if she did her sewing on Belle Isle while keeping an eye on her two younger children? For that matter, since her husband works for a home improvement retailer, is he in the domestic sphere?John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:04, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment What does Midas (Shelley play) by Mary Shelley have to do with domesticity? It is a satirical take on the tale of Midas, King of Phrygia. Featuring his encounters with the gods Apollo and Dionysus. Dimadick (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2017 (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:Rojava politician 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: upmerge to Category:Rojava stubs and Category:Syrian people stubs. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:22, 13 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Rojava politician stubs to Category:Rojava stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: Permanent category has just two articles, and missing several supporting levels. (e.g., there is no .) Only one of the two articles is small enough for a stub, and that's a borderline call. Double-merge the template to and . Dawynn (talk) 13:14, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete cat, double-upmerge template - much too small for a stub category. There were a couple of other Rojava politician articles which i've added into the category, but even then it's woefully tiny. is in itself undersized, though it looks like it might be possible to get it up to 60 stubs. If not, it will probably also need to be looked at. Grutness...wha?  00:33, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep - relatively new category with much potential for expansion, thus doesn't stand to WP:SMALLCAT criteria. And it is already 4 articles.GreyShark (dibra) 09:34, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per Greyshark's arguments, which reinforce the reason for deleting; we're talking about a stub category here, not a content category. As Grutness notes, the standard size for splitting out a stub category is 60, not 4 or less.  Nyttend (talk) 22:46, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * There are also potential problems with the Rojava stub tree as a whole (which GreyShark created without any contact with the Stub-sorting proposal page). Although Rojava is a de facto self-governing territory, the situation in Syria is in such flux that we generally use the standard Syrian governorates as divisions of stubs (e.g., ). I'm not entirely sure that Rojava stub categories sit comfortably within that scheme. Grutness...wha?  00:29, 2 November 2017 (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:Local Testimony Award Winners

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting local testimony award winners


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING (e.g. for Kobi Wolf). See WP:OC.  Note: Possibly listify - e.g. into Local Testimony.  If not deleted then rename to Category:Local Testimony award winners. DexDor(talk) 06:17, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * When I created the category I wasn't aware of WP:OC. My apologies for that. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete as non-defining and per the creator, above. No objection to a list. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:51, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete -- A typical OCAWARD case. No need to listify, as we have a list.  I note that most of the winners have red-links, which may indicate that the Award article also needs to go to AFD.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 5 November 2017 (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:Wikipedians interested in pig latin

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 7 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians interested in pig latin


 * Nominator's rationale: Currently, this category contains a single user sandbox (of a user who has been inactive since 2013) which contains the category code as a sample only. However, even as a real category, this would be overly narrow in scope—any possibility for collaboration is limited to just one article and, therefore, could occur just as easily on the article's talk page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2017 (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:Wikipedians who are or were United States Peace Corps Volunteers

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 17:41, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Wikipedians who are or were United States Peace Corps Volunteers to Category:Wikipedian Peace Corps volunteers
 * Nominator's rationale: Same scope, the proposed target's name better aligns with user category naming conventions. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:37, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support - per nom. More concise and clearer name. Inter&#38;anthro (talk) 12:51, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. VegaDark (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2017 (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:Multilingual Wikipedians

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


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:52, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting multilingual wikipedians
 * bilingual wikipedians
 * Nominator's rationale: The value of the Wikipedians by language category scheme is that it groups users by ability to access, produce or understand content in specific non-English languages. These userbox-populated categories, on the other hand, merely declare that the user is multilingual but do not specify which languages they understand (or their level of proficiency). While this is fine as a userbox, there is no value in a grouping of users as broadly defined as this one. -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete without prejudice against restoration. Having categories for "en-n Wikipedians who speak French", "en-n Wikipedians who speak Farsi", etc. would be useful for finding competent translators, but this one is useless by itself, and since we don't have Wikipedians by bilingual status, there's no point in retaining this as a container category.  Nyttend (talk) 22:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete both per nom, with prejudice against restoration. I'm not sure how a recreation of these categories would solve this issues Black Falcon mentions in the nom, unless you are envisioning these as some sort of container category for more useful subcategories. If that's the case then the scope of the category will have changed to the point where a speedy deletion as recreation would no longer be appropriate anyway, making a "without prejudice" caveat unnecessary. VegaDark (talk) 01:45, 31 October 2017 (UTC)
 * I was so envisioning them; that's what I meant about Having categories. Nyttend (talk) 02:32, 31 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Listify and invite the membership to comment on their language skills. Presumable they all self-declare to invite invitation to help with translations.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:28, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Listify to where? Any new page would duplicate the language-specific subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by language. Separate tracking exists already for self-declared translators—see Category:Available translators in Wikipedia and Translators available. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:33, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm, OK, not obvious. The superficially obvious to where is Multilingual Wikipedians.  Dump the membership list into it.  Include a lede to the section containing the dump explaining where the list came from.  It is a problem that many, possibly all, self-categorised without the intention to volunteer in translating, but there is the possibility that some did.  This is why they should be dumped into WikiProject_Intertranswiki, for example.  I would dump them all into Multilingual Wikipedians, pinging each.  There are few enough that it can be done in one edit.  On that page, I would point them to Category:Available translators in Wikipedia and Translators available, and to WikiProject_Intertranswiki.  At WikiProject_Intertranswiki, I would add a link to Multilingual Wikipedians, as a list of potential volunteers.  Ideally, Multilingual Wikipedians, will be subdivided by actual language language skills.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * @SmokeyJoe: Instead of creating a new page that at least partially overlaps with the more complete, existing structure of Category:Wikipedians by language, would your concern be addressed by either: (1) a message to each user (on their talk page) informing them of the category's deletion and the various options you listed above; or (2) a message on the userbox's talk page that pings all of the users and links to the same resources? -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:48, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * They both sound like good alternative solutions. Bottom line is to do something to help direct possible misguided actions intended to volunteer to help, unless there is a stated reason not to (like it was all a joke), and to not make hard work of it.  In a case like this, I don't think there is a good reason to ping the membership to the discussion, if we make an effort to inform them, basically as per Nyttend's statement.  I notice now, that this is a userbox populated category, so it is not really so serious.  There remains the userboxes and its WhatLinksHere functionality, but Nyttend's statement remains equally true of their userboxes.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Bottom line is to do something to help direct possible misguided actions intended to volunteer to help, unless there is a stated reason not to (like it was all a joke), and to not make hard work of it. — I can definitely support that. I'll post a note on the userbox's talk page to direct interested editors to the appropriate resources. -- Black Falcon (talk) 21:21, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Redundant with the specific categories for language fluency.  A catch-all that isn't specific isn't a useful category.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  18:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Removed auto categorisation per WP:USERBOXCAT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2017 (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.