Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 11#Category:Navigational meta-templates

: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 merge WP:C2D. – Fayenatic London 22:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Sci Fi Channel to :Category:Syfy

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. The two categories deal with the same network. Bbb2007 (talk) 21:51, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Merge No-brainer. This was a simple name change on the part of the network. --BDD (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2013 (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.

: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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Displaced people}}

:Nominator's rationale: This doesn't seem to be a defining aspect of these three people (one category member is an organization). If everyone who ever left a country because of a war would qualify for this category, it's laughably underpopulated. We could tag it with {{t|underpopulated category}}, but it would be rather unwieldy if populated to potential. It might be better to just delete it. --BDD (talk) 21:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete I do not think we want to get into trying to decide who after WWII, the Greek-Turkish conflict and many others were displaced people. Are the Pied Noire who moved to France displaced people. I think this would be a really major undertaking.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- The Australian aboriginal organization does not belong. The other three are expatriate Yugoslavs, and should be in a more specific expatriate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete "displace[ment]" may be temporary (millions left Houston during a hurricane threat) and not defining or permanent and defining but no distinction can be made with the term "displaced". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2013 (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.

: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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Anglo-African people to :Category:African people of British descent

:Nominator's rationale: Merge. Anglo-African has been renamed British diaspora in Africa as the Anglo-African term is a neologism found primarily on Wikipedia. There are over 500 biographical articles in this category which appears to have been created in June 2008 shortly after the similar :Category:Anglo-Africans was renamed :Category:African people of British descent presumably for the same reason (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 May 6). Helen (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

:Comment. Note that :Category:African people of British descent is listed as a subcategory of :Category:Anglo-African people while :Category:Anglo-African people is listed as a subcategory of :Category:African people of British descent, i.e. they are listed as subcategories of each other. Helen (talk) 20:14, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Merge per nom to clearer term. "Anglo-African" is ambiguous, since it could also easily mean Black British, or a sub-groups thereof. Also, it is similar to Anglo-Indian, in which case maybe it should mean people of both British and African descent, such as a Welsh father and a Zulu mother. We should go to the more clear term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Merge and rename to :Category:British diaspora in Africa, to match article. --Soman (talk) 14:18, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

::The problem with that is this is a category for people, not generalized about a cultural phenomenon. We generally name sub-cats of diaspora headings either with descent, or just an ethnic designation, but calling all these people "British" is questionable when many were born to parents born in Zimbabwe, South Africa, etc. so they are multiple generations removed from Britain, and especially in South Africa, and not all their ancestors will even be British in some cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• Merge per nom to clearer term. Johnbod (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Merge per nom. The fact that each category is a subcategory of the other makes it clear that a merge is correct, and "African people of British descent" is consistent with our namining scheme generally, while "Anglo-African" is, as Helen points out, essentially a Wikipedia neologism. - htonl (talk) 16:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Merge as nom. This is the standard format for these dual ethnic categories. There is no reason why the main article on the ethnic phenomenon should have to match the category name. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete unworkable race/ethnicity category. And unlikely to be wholly correct; are we going to require DNA tests to try to prove inclusion and exclusion? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

::We categorize by ethnicity, not race (well, except for 19th-century white Roman Catholic priests who historians have later re-written to be African-American, even though they always presented themselves as white, but that is another story), whether of not someone who claims to be a "South African of British descent", really has any British ancestry at all does not matter, as long as they hold themselves out as such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 19 July 2013 (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.

: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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

----

:* Propose renaming :Category:1859 establishments in the Kingdom of Württemberg to :Category:1859 establishments in Württemberg

:* Propose renaming :Category:1862 establishments in the Kingdom of Württemberg to :Category:1862 establishments in Württemberg

:Nominator's rationale: to match {{cl|Establishments in Württemberg by year}} Tim! (talk) 19:15, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Rename per nom. There is no need for longer name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Support -- I see no need to specify "kingdom". Peterkingiron (talk) 21:34, 15 July 2013 (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.

: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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:09, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Zerilli-Marimò Prize winners}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization by award. The four articles in this category are winners of the Zerilli-Marimò Prize for Italian Fiction award, which is intended to recognize "award winning book[s] ... selected as being especially worthy of the attention of readers in North America and the English-speaking world." In other words, the books are already notable, and this award recognizes the notability; it doesn't confer it. The award was established in 1998, and a list in the article would perfectly suffice to capture the award-winners, and index them by year, title, author, or other aspects that are notable. Lquilter (talk) 17:16, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Overcategorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- another unnecessary category for an award: listify if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2013 (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.

: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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Golden Crown Literary Award winners}}

:Nominator's rationale: Listify and delete. overcategorization by award. This is a relatively young award series, and offers a variety of awards -- one of which is a "trailblazer" award, i.e., a "hall of fame" style award. These don't confer notability, but instead recognize notability. The youth, breadth, and hall-of-fame status all suggest that this award would be better handled as a list, rather than as a category; the list in the article can index by genre, year, subject, or other relevant aspects of the award or recognized work. -- Lquilter (talk) 17:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete over-categorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- another unnecessary category for an award: listify if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2013 (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.

: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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Golshiri Award winners}}

:Nominator's rationale: Delete and listify. While certainly a notable award that should be mentioned in award-winners' articles, it is overcategorization by award-winning. It's also a relatively new award (established in 2001), and applies in four categories -- novel, short story, etc. -- and is therefore going to be broadly applied, over a short timespan; which both tend to suggest non-defining. The list in the Hooshang Golshiri Literary Awards article needs some work, and I would recommend we migrate the three award-winner articles in the category to the list in the article. -- Lquilter (talk) 17:10, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete Does not meet small exceptions to categorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- another unnecessary category for an award: listify if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:36, 15 July 2013 (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.

: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: Keep. Jafeluv (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

----

:* Propose renaming :Category:Penile erection to :Category:Erection

:Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:35, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as ambiguous with erection of buildings. Tim! (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose highly ambiguous -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 04:08, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
• Strong oppose -- An erection is primarily something erected, i.e. built. If renamed, the category would pick up articleson buildings, bridges, etc, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2013 (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.

: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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:09, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Navigational meta-templates to ?

:Nominator's rationale: At the very least this should be renamed to "... metatemplates" per {{cat|Wikipedia metatemplates}}. But I don't think this name properly describes the contents of the category: "navigational metatemplates" sound like they could be navbox skeletons or things like {{tl|navbar}}. — This, that and the other (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2013 (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.

: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. Jafeluv (talk) 11:13, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

----

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|John Rabe Award recipients}}

:Nominator's rationale: Having received an award like this is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#AWARD for previous examples of such awards categories). DexDor (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

• Delete - This is a new (since 2009) and highly specific award (for peace between China & Japan, awarded by the John Rabe Communication Centre, "a small information centre and museum in Heidelberg"). Not only it is overcategorization by a nondefining characteristic, it is an unnecessary WP:EPONYMOUS category -- there is only one article in this category named for an award that cannot possibly have many associated articles. --Lquilter (talk) 17:04, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete This award clearly does not meet the criteria for categorization by award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
• Delete -- another unnecessary category for an award: listify if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 15 July 2013 (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.