Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 2



Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara Oblast

 * 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. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:10, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara Oblast to Category:Lists of monuments and memorials Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Russia
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there is currently only one article and the category can realistically only ever contain max 2 articles (the other being Lists of monuments and memorials in Samara). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Counter-argument. This category has been designed to contain the lists of monuments and memorials for each city/town of Samara Oblast in the future. Here is the list of administrative divisions of the region. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 15:00, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Apart from Tolyatti and Samara the other cities in the oblast are way too small to create a similar list. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:29, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Except the mentioned cities, there are another two settlements with more than 100.000 population. Anyway, in my opinion, it’d be better to keep the special category for appropriate articles than merge it to a broader-scope category and make it messier.
 * P.S. I’m currently organizing the articles within the Category:Lists of monuments and memorials to help us reach them at least by country. Leonid Dobrov (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete not a viable category. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Russia. This category only has a total of 3 articles, there is no reason to subdivide it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * (as nom) Agree to that. I have adapted the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Keeping the opinion that the existing structure helps to allocate the lists by geographical location more accurately and has real capacity to be more populated in the future. Is there a wiki-rule which requires from us to collapse such structures of categories? Leonid Dobrov (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Categories are meant to facilitate easy navigation between related articles. Navigation is made unnecessary cumbersome by creating multiple category layers each with very little content. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 10 February 2019 (UTC)


 * @Marcocapelle: Also see Category:Lists of monuments and memorials in Rostov Oblast. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Same thing indeed. That category will only ever contain an additional a list for Rostov-on-Don and that will be it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Twilight Zone Guest Appearances

 * 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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:22, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting the twilight zone guest appearances


 * Nominator's rationale: This fails WP:NONDEFINING. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: ... not to mention that it violates WP:INCOMPATIBLE (a person is not an appearance) and WP:CAPS. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete. You are entering the vicinity of an area adjacent to a location. The kind of place where there might be a monster, or some kind of weird mirror. These are just examples; it could also be something much better.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:42, 3 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete this is a performer by performance category, which is a classic example of a non-defining category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. If we categorized actors/actresses by doing one episode of Murder She Wrote, Law & Order, or Love Boat, the category clutter would be overwhelming. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:02, 26 January 2019 (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:Egyptian Premier League footballers

 * 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 per nom. There is a clear consensus that this should be "players", not "footballers". The arguments for renaming this to "Players in the Egyptian Premier League" to avoid ambiguity are not without merit, but they have been countered by arguments that the wider category tree treats similar categories as the nominator suggested. No prejudice against a wider nomination of all potentially ambiguous categories involving national-specific "Premier Leagues". ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:07, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Egyptian Premier League footballers to Category:Egyptian Premier League players
 * Nominator's rationale: Footballers isn't the correct word to use here. Most of the "league players" categories like this one, if not all of them, ends with "players". For example, We have Category:Premier League players, Category:Bundesliga players, Category:Qatar Stars League players, and many other examples; and because of that I believe that this one should match rest of the categories. Ben5218 (talk) 20:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Comment a recent discussion about this category was closed as no consensus. pinging the one other participant in the earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:27, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Players in the Egyptian Premier League as 'Egyptian Premier League players' is ambiguous (Egyptian players in the Premier League being another interpretation). Oculi (talk) 15:32, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Despite it might actually sounds ambiguous, but most other league with the name "Premier League" has a category with the same name. For example, we have Category:Ukrainian Premier League players, Category:Armenian Premier League players, Category:Kenyan Premier League players and Category:Israeli Premier League players. I believe that Egyptian Premier League players is the most suitable name for this category to match the league's article title, and to use the same naming system that all other leagues use. Ben5218 (talk) 18:45, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename per Occuli to make it clear we are categorizing by the league played in, not by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * But that won't match the naming system all other leagues use. Plus, there are already some categories with a similar name like the ones I mentioned above. Don't you think that it would be better if this category's name is changed the naming system all other leagues use? Ben5218 (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * We should rename all those other categories as well. We need precesion in naming categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 12:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename to to match standard naming conventions for both clubs and competitions, which are 'X players' (see submits of ). There is no ambiguity with people thinking this relates to Egyptian nationals who played in the Premier League. GiantSnowman 13:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename to (matching parent article Egyptian Premier League) per nom. S.A. Julio (talk) 13:49, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment Since there is a redirect Egyptian Basketball Premier League, as well as according to Premier League (disambiguation), not all "Premier League" are football league, it seem the renaming to foo players, requires the reader to have assumed knowledge of what sport Egyptian Premier League is. Matthew hk (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Note that the basketball league in Egypt is more commonly referred to as the Basketball Super League (دوري السلة السوبر المصري) rather than the Basketball Premier League (دوري السلة الممتاز المصري). Because of that, I believe that anyone who would search for Egyptian Premier League would be looking for the football league, since it's way more popular than the basketball league. Ben5218 (talk) 01:48, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
 * It rather the naming of the whole system. The Serie A had namesake basketball (and other sport) competition in native language, while in English language the football competition certainly is the primary topic, so that is reasonable naming without much assumed knowledge to other reader. For club, any club ending with FC, either association football or other rule football, "Category:foo FC players" is a reasonable naming due to the FC. It may applies to FK, AC, CF (despite CF in Italian can stand for women's football, which differ from Spanish CF = FC) for assumed knowledge on the meaning of the affix . The naming of "Category:foo league players" actually require assumed knowledge one by one which sport the league was. Matthew hk (talk) 01:28, 17 January 2019 (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:Japanese-Canadian internment

 * 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 to Category:Internment of Japanese Canadians. WP:C2D does not seem to apply here.  Mini  apolis  23:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Japanese-Canadian internment to Category:Internment of Japanese Canadians
 * Nominator's rationale: It's not the internment that is Japanese-Canadian, it's the internees. HandsomeFella (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:44, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:Japanese Canadian internment essentially per WP:C2D to match Japanese Canadian internment. Whether we agree with the grammatical correctness of the term, this is the term used commonly in reliable sources, and currently the name of our article on the subject. ~ Rob 13 Talk 05:58, 25 February 2019 (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:Asian-American novels

 * 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 at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 19. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:39, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Asian-American novels to Category:Novels by Asian-American authors
 * Propose renaming Category:Chinese-American novels to Category:Novels by Chinese-American authors
 * Propose renaming Category:Filipino-American novels to Category:Novels by Filipino-American authors
 * Propose renaming Category:Indian-American novels to Category:Novels by Indian-American authors
 * Propose renaming Category:Japanese-American novels to Category:Novels by Japanese-American authors
 * Propose renaming Category:Korean-American novels to Category:Novels by Korean-American authors
 * Propose renaming Category:Pakistani-American novels to Category:Novels by Pakistani-American authors
 * Propose renaming Category:Vietnamese-American novels to Category:Novels by Vietnamese-American authors
 * Nominator's rationale: Asian-American authors rather than books. HandsomeFella (talk) 12:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Rename to make sure it is clear. Although I have my doubts about all of these being actual things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC
 * Oppose. I notice that these categories are currently subcategories of, say, Category:Pakistani-American culture through Category:Pakistani-American literature. What troubles me with the nomination is that it implies that we would then have Pakistani/Japanese/Filipino-American authors, which I do not think would be right. We currently only have only descent categories, many of which are borderline according to WP:OCEGRS. If someone is Pakistani-American and writes books, do they necessarily convey a Pakistani-American theme? Can they not be about computing, crime, love, life and everything, and does this make them part of Hyphen-American culture? Similarly, do you need to be Italian to open an Italian-American restaurant? I don't think so. The scope of these categories are not the same, and novels are better classified by theme or sub-genre (or not at all) than by perceived ethnicity of the author. Place Clichy (talk) 20:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * User:Place Clichy has an excellent point. We might even consider renaming the categories in an entirely differently direction, to e.g. Category:Novels about Asian-American culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree with the solution suggested by User:Marcocapelle. This solution may then be extended to the rest of Category:American novels by ethnic background, probably in a new nomination citing this one as reference if it is successful. Also note mother Category:Novels about race and ethnicity: the topic here is clearly the theme of the novel and not the ascendancy of the author. Place Clichy (talk) 07:54, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * what is your opinion about the latter part of the discussion? Marcocapelle (talk) 21:22, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. The articles in the respective categories may need some checking to verify that the proposed theme is really the context. HandsomeFella (talk) 22:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the rename to culture, but with a clear review to make sure all the works belong at the target.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment, while there is a Culture of Asian Americans, there are sub-cultures of the different ethnicities which make up the pan-ethnic Asian American definition, given the different histories of the different Asian American ethnicities.-- Right Cow Left Coast  (Moo) 05:40, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Manual split (with partial overlap) between "Novels by X authors" and "Novels about X culture". We have two different parent categories with very different purposes. I think both the Category:American novels by ethnic background and Category:Novels about race and ethnicity trees have encyclopedic merit. There is substantial academic writing about the stylistic differences between writers of different races and ethnicities, even when they are writing on topics unrelated to race and ethnicity. That clearly passes WP:OCEGRS. I would not want to get rid of a perfectly valid set of categories that allows exploration of such a topic just because we have a separate partially-but-not-completely-overlapping useful category. I don't see WP:OVERLAPCAT as an issue here, given the diversity of topics that authors from any given ethnicity may write on. Pinging earlier participants to consider this possibility. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Comment: That's absolutely a possibility. We need to go through the articles manually anyway. HandsomeFella (talk) 20:47, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I am not convinced of the merit of categorizing of novels of ethnic authors together if they do not contain a strong ethnic theme. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Perhaps if the author is notable enough, they should have a category for their novels (especially if they have at least a have dozen notable novels), and that category can be subcategorized under Novels by x ethnicity authors. Just my 2 cents.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 02:04, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Another comment, a notable novel may be written by an individual who is of an Asian American ethnicity, but that does not mean that that novel is about the culture which that author is a member of.-- RightCow LeftCoast ( Moo ) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Procedural comment, request for closure of the discussion posted on the administrators noticeboard. 22:43, 12 March 2019 (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.

Commons category tracking

 * 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: speedy delete. Tracking categories now empty because tracking has been restructured looks to me like a WP:G6 issue. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting Category:Commons category with local link different than on Wikidata
 * Propose deleting Category:Commons category with page title different than on Wikidata‎
 * Propose deleting Category:Commons category without a link on Wikidata‎
 * Nominator's rationale: These three tracking categories can be deleted as they have been replaced by a new set of tracking categories, see Category:Commons category Wikidata tracking categories, and the related discussion at Template_talk:Commons_category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2019 (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:Capacitive touchscreen mobile phones

 * 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 at Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 25. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting capacitive touchscreen mobile phones


 * Nominator's rationale: Category created when capacitive touchscreen was a novelty. Now this is expected from any touchscreen device and would require all phones created in the last two decades to be included if we aimed to be complete. uKER (talk) 08:42, 2 January 2019 (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:Battles won by Indigenous peoples of the Americas

 * 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: listify. ~ Rob 13 Talk 18:23, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting battles won by indigenous peoples of the americas


 * Nominator's rationale: This category does not fit into any wider battles-won-by category scheme (in fact, this category currently has no parents). Battles are already categorized by date/location/war etc (and various combinations of those) so this categorization is unnecessary. Many battles don't have a clear winner so this isn't a good way to categorize. If anyone thinks we should categorize (all) battles by winner (and loser?) then that should be discussed at WP:MILHIST first. The category could be listified.
 * If this is not deleted then it should be renamed to use a lower case "i" in indigenous peoples of the Americas and parented. DexDor(talk) 07:32, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Hello, I created this category. I am all for converting it into a list and also agree with the capitalization change. I created this list because I think it is of high importance.
 * Retinoblastoma (talk) 07:45, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete So if we have a battle where the Aztecs defeated the Tlaxcalas, it goes here right? What about a battle where Briths and Iroquois fought French and Potawatomi? This is a very, very problematic way to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:46, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I think we should delete the category and replace it with a list (note, I created this category but I am a very casual contributor and in retrospective it was a bad idea) Retinoblastoma (talk) 07:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete and listify per nom. I notice that category creator is also in favour of this outcome. Place Clichy (talk) 07:44, 24 January 2019 (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:Radom Confederation

 * 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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 18:25, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting radom confederation


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, there is only an eponymous article that is already in Category:Polish confederations. The subcategory should be kept but does not need this category as a parent, especially not because there is a direct link to the Radom Confederation article in the header of the subcategory page. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Note, for the record: previous discussion Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_November_5 ended with no consensus. There were additional articles in the category, as in the Polish Wikipedia, but the nominator stated why they should not be categorised under Radom Confederacy. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete for Now It's been years since the category was held anticipating translation of articles from Polish Wikipedia. If and when that happens, we can recreate the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:05, 26 January 2019 (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.

Churches by city (Spain)
<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 nom. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:57, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Alcoy to Category:Buildings and structures in Alcoy‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Ávila, Spain to Category:Buildings and structures in Ávila, Spain‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Baeza to Category:Baeza
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Barcelona to Category:Buildings and structures in Barcelona‎ and Category:Religion in Barcelona
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Burgos to Category:Buildings and structures in Burgos‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Calatayud to Category:Buildings and structures in Calatayud‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Córdoba, Andalusia to Category:Buildings and structures in Córdoba, Andalusia‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Granada to Category:Buildings and structures in Granada‎


 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Guadalajara, Castilla–La Mancha to Category:Buildings and structures in Guadalajara, Castilla–La Mancha‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Lugo to Category:Lugo‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Marbella to Category:Buildings and structures in Marbella‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Oviedo to Category:Buildings and structures in Oviedo‎ and Category:Churches in Asturias
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Requena to Category:Requena-Utiel
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Salamanca to Category:Buildings and structures in Salamanca‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Seville to Category:Buildings and structures in Seville‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Sigüenza to Category:Buildings and structures in Sigüenza‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Soria to Category:Soria‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in the city of Murcia to Category:Buildings and structures in Murcia‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Toledo, Spain to Category:Buildings and structures in Toledo, Spain‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Toro to Category:Toro‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Valencia to Category:Buildings and structures in Valencia‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Valladolid to Category:Buildings and structures in Valladolid‎
 * Propose merging Category:Churches in Zaragoza to Category:Buildings and structures in Zaragoza‎


 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, all the above categories only contain 1 article and/or 1 (Roman Catholic) subcategory. There is only one merge target, because the content of every category is already categorized in a Roman Catholic churches category of a region. For example, the article in Category:Churches in Alcoy is already in Category:Roman Catholic churches in the Valencian Community. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support all but permit re-creation if lots of Protestant churches suddenly start being constructed in Spain. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment The issue is not that there are not any non-Catholic Churches in these places. The issue is that by and large these non-Catholic churches are in general not notable. The vast majority of churches are not notable. For example The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints prbaobly has over 10,000 Church buildings, of which I would doubt 100 are notable. The same applies for many Evangelical and Baptists Churches, although not quite to as high an extent. In the case of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints this is partly because so much of the worship of the Church is focused on the 161 temples of the church, which are notable. In the case of the unnumbered but probably in excess of 100,000 Pentecostal churches worldwide, it is because so many of them are small congregations numbering in the tens in congregant count.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:51, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support All Per nom and JPL's comments above. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and the comments above. Ben5218 (talk) 00:04, 22 February 2019 (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:New South Wales Stations/Wharves with map
<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. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:44, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting new south wales stations/wharves with map


 * Nominator's rationale: Category is populated by articles that have had an external link showing a map of connecting buses in the area. There are endless ways public transport infrastructure articles can be categorised by, but usually it is kept to a fairly high level; Stations in Sydney, Wharves opened in 1923 etc. This category is doing so by features of the article, rather than features of the subject matter, so really an WP:ARBITRARYCAT. JCN217 (talk) 06:07, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep. This template allows users to know which articles have maps without having to look up each individual article.Fleet Lists (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete Obsure category, bit like having a category for articles with a commons gallery. Rhodes88 (talk) 05:35, 7 January 2019 (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:X86 Supercomputers
<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: rename. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 05:41, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:X86 Supercomputers to Category:x86 supercomputers
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:Categorization, regular nouns are not capitalized. 99Electrons (talk) 04:53, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Support because x86 is correct when talking about computers and X86 means something else. Levivich (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2019 (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:African-American Ivy League academics
<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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting african-american ivy league academics


 * Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic of any of its members per WP:CATDEF; non-notable intersection of race and educational affiliation. <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 03:26, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom/WP:CATDEF Natureium (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Due to the nature, history/creation and organization of the Ivy League, the university system of the US, and its historical exclusion of the African-American in not just attendance/matriculation, but in academic study, research and value: (Columbia University JUST literally a few weeks decided to create a department for African and African-American studies, thus opening up a whole new field, industry, research and jobs for this particular group, African-American academics at the Ivy League). Plus with the history/creation and organization of the African-American construct as an ethnicity (it is NOT a race), it is definitely a defining characteristic. Know any? Just ask them, and the lists that are constantly created in publications, journals, alumni, professional, and alumni orgs, etc. LumaNatic (talk) 16:03, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, per WP:EGRS: Do not create categories that are a cross-section of a topic with an ethnicity, gender, religion, or sexual orientation, unless these characteristics are relevant to the topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * These characteristics are certainly relevant to the topic, as precedented by the existing of similar category constructs like Category:African-American educators, Category:African-American schoolteachers, Category:American people of Mestizo descent, Category:American academics of Mexican descent, Category:Jewish musicians and the so very, very many others. Maybe reword following the precedent of Category:American academics of Mexican descent or Category:American writers of Mexican descent, but then what would the real difference be? The inclusion of the "African-American" designation? But why designate of "Mexican" (or any other) descent? What's REALLY going on here? LumaNatic (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A number of these may be nominated for deletion as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:African-American academics. Category:Ivy League academics is dubious, as is Category:African-American Ivy League alumni. Oculi (talk) 12:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a clear violation of ERGS categories. The two suggested upmerge categories should in no case have any direct content. Academics are connected with a specific school, not an athletic league (that is what the Ivy League is), and should be categorized at Category:Harvard University faculty, Category:Dartmouth College factulty etc. Beyond that, academics should be categorized by their specific field of expertise, and should only in such cases be in ERGS categories if say Category:African-American historians or Category:African-American physicists is justified by the specific ERGS guidelines. In fields where ERGS guidelines do not justify an African-American sub-cat, we should not put people in an undifferentiated academics category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:55, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 'NOTE: Those advocating for Delete''' seem adverse to documenting the US/West's history of discrimination, and thus seem disingenuous. There is no need to follow a "rule" or "law" that seems to have been made in error, or at the very least seems intent on white-washing history. Wikipedia has no place replicating such practices. These are historical, cultural facts, and these categories represent such, as an encyclopedia should. Wikipedia serves no purpose in omitting this.-LumaNatic (talk) 19:26, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * For example the fact that Elizabeth Alexander (poet) is working at Columbia does not tell us anything about the history of discrimination. We have Category:African-American history for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * You are absolutely welcome to document the history of discrimination in the United States in the article realm, by writing documented detailed nuanced articles. It is not at all welcome to try and do so by placing randomly selected people in stigmatising categories. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per JPL and other comments above. First, Ivy League is an athletic conference, and we don't do "Big South academics" or any other categorization of academics/alumni by their school's athletic conference. It's trivia. Second, the Ivy League was established in 1954; discrimination against AA in academia goes back much, much farther than that. I fail to see how the Ivy League has a special place in the history of anti-AA discrimination in academia. Indeed, I imagine most AA in history who were discriminated against by colleges and universities were discriminated against by non-Ivy League colleges and universities (since the Ivy League only has eight schools in it). Third, I don't see why an AA academic at an Ivy League school should be categorized as "Ivy League" instead of as "AA academic" or "AA academic from [school]". An AA academic from MIT or CalTech is no less impressive or important than an AA academic from the Ivy League. Fourth, the editor who created this category is, per his userpage, a graduate fellow and Wikipedian in Residence at an Ivy League school. I'm not sure if COI applies but it still seems a little self-promotional. AA academics are important, but the Ivy League is not. Levivich (talk) 19:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong delete blatant provocation and misuse of Wikipedia. By pretending to be an activist against discrimination, the exact opposite result is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom/John Pack Lambert. Ben5218 (talk) 16:04, 26 January 2019 (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:African-American Ivy League alumni
<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. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 23:10, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting african-american ivy league alumni


 * ALSO: '''african-american ivy league academics, ivy league alum


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection of educational affiliation and race. TM 03:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete. Not a defining characteristic of its members, per WP:CATDEF.  <span style="font-family: Gill Sans MT, Arial, Helvetica; font-weight:140;"> General Ization  <i style="color: #000666;">Talk </i> 03:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per General Ization. Natureium (talk) 15:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Due to the nature, history/creation and organization of the Ivy League and the history/creation and organization of the African-American construct as an ethnicity (it is NOT a race) - and the historic exclusion of such a group from the educational system, of which the Ivy League is the pinnacle, it is definitely a defining characteristic. Know any? Just ask them, and the lists that are constantly created in publications, journals, alumni, professional, and alumni orgs, etc. ~LumaNatic (talk) 16:08, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, per WP:EGRS. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
 * "Ivy League alum" can become "Ivy League alumni," but as for "AA IL alumni" and "AA IL academics" I state again, as above: these characteristics are certainly relevant to the topic, as precedented by the existing of similar category constructs like Category:African-American educators, Category:African-American schoolteachers, Category:American people of Mestizo descent, Category:American academics of Mexican descent, Category:Jewish musicians, and the so very, very many others. Maybe reword following the precedent of Category:American academics of Mexican descent or Category:American writers of Mexican descent, but then what would the real difference be? The inclusion of the "African-American" designation? But why designate of "Mexican" (or any other) descent? What's REALLY going on here? ~LumaNatic (talk) 01:30, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * A number of these may be nominated for deletion as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I most definitely concur with Marcocapelle here. While some ethnicity categories are beneficial, most ethnic intersection categories are a nuisance, for reasons well explained at WP:OCEGRS. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Delete - it's the combination of 'Ivy League' and ethnicity which is a bad idea. Moreover 'Ivy League alumni' was deleted at cfd in 2012. Oculi (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Very, very strong delete We do not subcategorize any alumni by ethnicity. This is a horrible idea and will start a horrible precedent. There is a much stronger argument to have Category:Jewish Ivy League alumni because of the anti-Jewish quota system. Also considering the current admission practices of the Ivy League, Category:Asian and Asian-American Ivy League alumni would highlight the group most distriminated against in current admission practices.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:58, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 'Abandon the play at oppression olympics. All of these groups have been systemically and institutionally excluded from education in the US, and the western education system at large, and thus Wikipedia should reflect these historical (and present day) discrimination if it is to be an accurate encyclopedia. Those advocating for Delete''' seem adverse to documenting the US/West's history of discrimination, and thus seem disingenuous. There is no need to follow a "rule" or "law" that seems to have been made in error, or at the very least seems intent on white-washing history. Wikipedia has no place replicating such practices.-LumaNatic (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Thom Hartmann mentioned on one of his radio/TV shows that he once paid a visit to the Heritage Foundation,as he looked around he saw banks of interns sitting at computers, those that could see were busy editing wikipedia. From the amount of votes to delete categories dealing with minorities and White Supremacy and comments at Teahouse. I find validation of his observations. If not Heritage interns, then fellow travelers sharing the same bias. Not all of course, but enoughOldperson (talk) 00:05, 7 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Delete for same reasons detailed in my !vote at the AA IL academics nom above. To summarize: IL is an athletic conference not an academic subcategory; IL is fairly recent (1954) and the history of anti-AA discrimination in academics goes back much father, and is much broader, than just the IL; and, AA IL alumni are no more "special" than non-IL AA alumni. Levivich (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Strong delete blatant provocation and misuse of Wikipedia. By pretending to be an activist against discrimination, the exact opposite result is reached. Place Clichy (talk) 20:24, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment There is lots of bias present in the attempts to defend this category. The main problem is this is a blunt instrument and is constucted with ignorance to the fact that the point of Wikipedia is not to "right great wrongs".John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2019 (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.