Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 17#

: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) 01:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Former French empires

:Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SHAREDNAME, the First and Second French Empire have nothing to do with the French colonial empire. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:57, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support -- French Empire is a sufficient dab-page. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2015 (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:The result of the discussion was: withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 03:02, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Natural history of the United States

:Nominator's rationale: delete because the category contains virtually nothing about history. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

: Comment. You could say that about any category in :Category:Natural_history_by_country. Bod (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Quite right! Marcocapelle (talk) 18:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:** I don't think you understand the term. Bod (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose straight deletion - e.g. because it would leave :Category:Biota of the United States without a United States parent category. There may be opportunities for clarifying the inclusion citeria of these categories and avoiding any unnecessary overlap with categories for zoology, landforms etc. Note: natural history isn't really about history. DexDor ^(talk) 18:17, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Biota should be parented to :Category:Environment of the United States, as is already the case in other countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::*OK, but straight deletion would also mean that :Category:Natural history of the United States by state would not have a natural history parent category. I would prefer categories to clearly indicate whether they are for articles about nature (e.g. articles about species) or for articles about the study of nature (e.g. articles about naturalists) - such a reorganisation might result in this category (and all the other natural history categories) being renamed/deleted/merged, but I don't see any point in deleting just this category. DexDor ^(talk) 21:52, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• keep The article :Natural history explains what this and all such categories are about and it is a common term of the art. Deletion rationale has no basis in fact. Hmains (talk) 18:23, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Honestly I found the article utterly vague and I really wonder if it is a good basis for categorization. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::* Note: I've recategorized the category from being under History to being under Environment (per sibling categories). DexDor ^(talk) 21:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep – one of the most bizarre cfd noms I have ever seen. Oculi (talk) 00:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Let's put it differently, natural history is not a defining characteristic of the content of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep – as the article explains, Natural History is a broad term and an appropriate umbrella given the current "nature-related" category hierarchies (which is not to say that these hierarchies are right – in my view they need a good prune). Peter coxhead (talk) 09:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Do you have any concrete suggestions? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Withdraw nomination per arguments of DexDor. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• See this follow-up nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:59, 23 October 2015 (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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:23, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Cantabrian athletes to :Category:Cantabrian sportspeople

:Nominator's rationale: The distinction of being an athlete is no more relevant to ones being from Cantabria than it is of being a sportsperson. This Spanish region does not have a strong historical position in the sport of athletics and does not merit a sport-specific occupational category. SFB 17:12, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment. Is this not essentially one of a series? {{cat|Cantabrian sportspeople}} is reasonably diffused to subcategories by sport. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
• Procedural oppose There is no reason to target just this one subcategory of sportspeople. I have not formulated a view on the subcategorization scheme here, but think it needs to be discussed in a nomination covering the whole scheme.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 18 November 2015 (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 to :Category:Naturalised citizens of Italy without prejudice against a future delete nomination for the entire tree of :Category:Naturalised citizens by nation. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:43, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

:Convert :Category:Naturalised athletes of Italy to article Italy national athletics team

:Nominator's rationale: The topic of track and field athletes who become naturalised citizens of Italy is one of interest, but as a category it is an awkward mix of a person's occupation with a legal process. This should be converted into a list to be placed on the national team page to show non-Italian-born citizens who have represented the nation. SFB 16:03, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep -- This for athletes (qualified for but not necessarily in the national team) who were born with other nationalities. That is a significant issue. We had a similar discussion (though not quite the same), which I think ended off (on my suggestion) as athletes "born abroad". Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• {{ping|Peterkingiron}} I would say if they haven't competed for the Italian national team, then by definition their being an athlete is not related to their being naturalised, making the category irrelevant. Also, would you advocate the creation of the double grandparent category :Category:Naturalized citizens by occupation? (neither :Category:Naturalized athletes nor :Category:Naturalized sportspeople exist). 22:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete too contrived intersection of "athletes" (in the BrEng sense, NOT "sportspeople"), competing internationally for Italy, who acquired Italian citizenship through naturalisation. There is nothing indicating that this triple intersection is notable or defining for the individuals herein categorized. If it were, they should be removed for the lesser restrictive categories in which they all are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and Carlos. Peterkingiron's suggestion (which I don't think is reflective of any recent outcomes) is not good, because it implies (1) that a person cannot be born in Italy and be a non-citizen of Italy, and (2) that anyone born outside of Italy cannot be a citizen of Italy at birth. Neither of which is true, since Italian citizenship at birth is largely an issue of jus sanguinis, not place of birth. I can't see the utility of this as a category; it's trivia more than anything. At most, this should be mentioned in the appropriate bio articles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete the intersection of a specific sport and naturalization is way to specific. That said, the merger category makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:25, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Do not simply delete, but merge to parent :Category:Naturalised citizens of Italy. None of the above participants have given any rationale for removing the member pages from this hierarchy. There is no need to merge to the other parent, Italian athletes, as the pages are in more specific sub-cats of that one (by sport) already. No objection to making a list; there are already comparable lists of naturalised sportspeople, List of naturalised Equatoguinean international football players and List of naturalised Spanish international football players. – Fayenatic London 23:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
• Personally, I think :Category:Naturalised citizens of Italy should also be deleted per the same line of reasoning in this discussion. "Delete" in this context at its essence means delete the nominated category; it says nothing about what should happen with the articles in the category. So a closer can merge the contents somewhere if he or she deems it to be appropriate or necessary. But I personally see no benefit to maintaining this particular hierarchy of categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:53, 15 December 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Italy at athletics (track and field) competitions to :Category:Italy national athletics team

:Nominator's rationale: Italy at athletics competitions is synonymous with the national athletics team (or similar enough that little content would otherwise be located at the latter). SFB 15:41, 17 October 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Indoor athletics (track and field) venues to :Category:Indoor track and field venues

:* Propose renaming :Category:Indoor athletics (track and field) venues in Norway to :Category:Indoor track and field venues in Norway

:* Propose renaming :Category:Indoor athletics (track and field) venues in the United States to :Category:Indoor track and field venues in the United States

:Nominator's rationale: The only type of athletics practised indoors is track and field (i.e. there are no road running or cross country indoor venues). Thus, we can use track and field directly and not as a disambiguator. SFB 15:35, 17 October 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Indoor athletics (track and field) venues in Louisiana to :Category:Athletics (track and field) venues in Louisiana and :Category:Indoor athletics (track and field) venues in the United States

:Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT - unlikely to expand beyond a small number of entries. The above parents are sufficiently distinct. SFB 15:28, 17 October 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:37, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

:Convert :Category:Balkan Games competitors to article Balkan Games

:Nominator's rationale: Competing at the Balkan Games (an annual track and field meeting) is not a distinguishing feature of an athlete. Mostly it just indicates they are an international athlete from the Balkans. This is better organised as a list of participants on the main article. SFB 14:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Per WP:PERFCAT. Sports competitors would be expected to compete in various regional sporting events and are not defined by each one. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Listify This relates to a sub-continental international competition. We have categories for Olympians, but we need to draw a line somewhere as to how far down the hierarchy we allow such performance categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete performer by perfomance. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 19 October 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:59, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Sport in Gaborone by sport to :Category:Sport in Gaborone

:* Propose merging :Category:Sports competitions in Gaborone to :Category:Sports competitions in Botswana and :Category:Sport in Gaborone

:* Propose merging :Category:Cricket in Gaborone to :Category:Cricket in Botswana

:* Propose merging :Category:Cricket competitions in Gaborone to :Category:Cricket in Botswana and :Category:Sports competitions in Botswana and :Category:Sport in Gaborone

:* Propose merging :Category:Athletics in Gaborone to :Category:Athletics in Botswana

:* Propose merging :Category:Athletics competitions in Gaborone to :Category:Athletics in Botswana and :Category:Sports competitions in Botswana and :Category:Sport in Gaborone

:* Propose merging :Category:Athletics (track and field) venues in Gaborone to :Category:Athletics (track and field) venues in Botswana and :Category:Sports venues in Gaborone

:* Propose merging :Category:Annual events in Gaborone‎ to :Category:Annual events in Botswana

:* Propose merging :Category:Events in Gaborone to :Category:Events in Botswana

:* Propose merging :Category:Football competitions in Gaborone to :Category:Football competitions in Botswana and :Category:Sport in Gaborone

:* Propose merging :Category:Sports teams in Gaborone to :Category:Sports teams in Botswana

:* Propose merging :Category:Sports clubs in Gaborone to :Category:Sports teams in Botswana

:Nominator's rationale: There are only eighteen articles in the whole of the :Category:Sport in Gaborone tree yet there are 14 subcategories. This is clearly excessive and not helpful to navigation or grouping similar articles in the same category. Fourteen of the articles relate to football. I propose all but the populated football tree aspects be upmerged to the general sport in Gaborone category. As the capital of a poor and sparsely-populated nation, the vast majority of sports competitions in Botswana take place in Gaborone, so it makes more sense to gather the small amount of material at the country level. SFB 14:17, 17 October 2015 (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. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Athletics in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown to :Category:Sport in Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown and :Category:Athletics in County Dublin

:* Propose merging :Category:Athletics in Fingal to :Category:Sport in Fingal and :Category:Athletics in County Dublin

:Nominator's rationale: Highly specific locational categories for a specific sport. The county does not have any special connection with the sport of athletics and is unlikely to gather many more entries than the sole current child article. SFB 14:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Calm down SFB This frenetic activity in all things athletics is symptomatic of drug-fuelled zeal. Take a few minutes to relax and I'm sure you'll see a pretty navigational landscape and not the appalling vista that may be before your eyes due to whatever hallucinogens that you may be taking. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:14, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• {{ping|Laurel Lodged}} {{(:}} It's less about me going crazy and more about my doing a yearly review of the Athletics category structure and nominating the outliers and obscurities. You may have noticed a downturn in my recent activity at CFD – it saves us all time to locate and discuss the related group of categories at once, rather than periodically coming back and forth to discussions. Certainly, this day's nominations will make it very easy to find the majority of athletics related category discussions for this year! SFB 13:17, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep How is the current county of Dún Laoghaire–Rathdown a "Highly specific location" but the proposed target - the abolished county of Dublin - is, presumably, not a "Highly specific location"? Since when does a location have to have a "special connection with the sport of athletics"? Where does this criterion come from? It's enough that it contains notable athletes or facilities for athletes. As for sole, it has lots of potential to grow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep County Dublin has been divided into a number of smaller administrative entities. It is wholly appropriate to categorise by them, reflecting the current system, not an abolished one. This nom is thus misconceived. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• {{ping|Peterkingiron|Laurel Lodged}} Am I reading it right that the County Dublin parent should be considered for deletion, an an administrative container category for a non-existent administrative region? I don't see the relevance of a county council of this size to a specific sport (FYI there are only a handful of "Athletics in..." categories for sub-national places and they are much bigger and more populous places e.g. London, Catalonia, New York state). SFB 18:49, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:::We may need a County Dublin category for events before the county was divided into a number of entities, but it needs to be tagged that new events after a certain date should not be added. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::::Agree with that idea. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:47, 19 October 2015 (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. MER-C 20:35, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Athletes in Sweden by club}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Athletes in Sweden by club}}

:* Propose deleting {{Lc|Athletes in Sweden by club}}

:Nominator's rationale: Membership of the given clubs are not a distinguishing feature. Indeed, there is no article on the athletics sections on either. SFB 12:36, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Keep Although not as present as for college track and field athletes in the United States, team representation is still an important feature for athletes (at least in Sweden). Smartskaft (talk) 20:48, 20 October 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets men's track and field coaches to :Category:Georgia Tech Yellow Jackets track and field coaches

:* Propose renaming :Category:Oregon State Beavers men's track and field coaches to :Category:Oregon State Beavers track and field coaches

:Nominator's rationale: There is no categorisation scheme for specifically men's track and field. In the case of Georgia Tech, both the subjects contained coached both men and women so men's does not distinguish anything further. SFB 12:29, 17 October 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Florida Gators women's track and field to :Category:Florida Gators track and field

:* Propose merging :Category:Florida Gators men's track and field to :Category:Florida Gators track and field

:* Propose merging :Category:Oregon State Beavers men's track and field to :Category:Oregon State Beavers track and field

:* Propose merging :Category:South Carolina Gamecocks men's track and field to :Category:South Carolina Gamecocks track and field

:* Propose merging :Category:South Carolina Gamecocks women's track and field to :Category:South Carolina Gamecocks track and field

:* Propose merging :Category:LSU Tigers track and field to :Category:LSU Tigers and Lady Tigers track and field

:* Propose merging :Category:LSU Lady Tigers track and field to :Category:LSU Tigers and Lady Tigers track and field:

:* Propose merging :Category:LSU Tigers cross country to :Category:LSU Tigers and Lady Tigers cross country

:* Propose merging :Category:LSU Lady Tigers cross country to :Category:LSU Tigers and Lady Tigers cross country

:* Propose merging :Category:Southeastern Conference men's track and field to :Category:Southeastern Conference track and field

• Propose merging :Category:Southeastern Conference women's track and field to :Category:Southeastern Conference track and field

:Nominator's rationale: Needless containers. The topics are more easily navigated without this level. Track and field programs at an institution typically share infrastructure and administration, meaning there are very few elements that can be reduced to gender-divided ones beyond the track athletes themselves. The navigation tree is at :Category:College track and field teams in the United States, which has combined gender categories. SFB 12:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Specific oppose - The Florida Gators men's and women's track and field athletes categories contain 48 and 11 articles, respectively, which is more than enough to support separate categories by gender for the convenience of our readers. This structure parallels that of college swimmers in the United States, segmented by men and women, which is the natural progression when any sports categories reach a certain size. When the categories include only a handful of articles, I can certainly understand the convenience of maintaining a single unisex category, but that is not the case for all of these. Personally, I don't segment categories by gender until both genders reach double digits. Segmentation of athletes by gender is inevitable and inexorable; forcing some of the larger categories into a needless unisex uniformity is contrary to our normal principles of categories. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC) I have struck my "oppose" per SFB's explanation below. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:*A quick review shows that the LSU Tigers track and field athletes categories have sufficient numbers to support segmentation by gender, too. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::*I think this is a misreading of the nomination. I am not proposing to merge the athlete categories such as :Category:LSU Lady Tigers track and field athletes and :Category:LSU Tigers track and field athletes, but rather any institution-specific gendered parents of those categories. SFB 15:31, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:::*Merge I understand what you mean now. The current structure has near container categories for gender. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:45, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support merge, with caveat per SFB's explanation above. Only gender-based program-level and conference-level categories will be merged. Gender-based athlete-level categories (with sufficient numbers) will be preserved. Rock on, SFB. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:08, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose merging :Category:Alternative running styles to :Category:Running

:Nominator's rationale: This category mostly contains articles related to barefoot running, only two of which are actually articles about running styles. Barefoot is a common and traditional form of running, rather than an "alternative" one (which is highly subjective). This child category is not part of any larger tree and the information is much better stored in the parent. SFB 11:49, 17 October 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:39, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Indo-European peoples‎

:Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF. Language family is obviously a characteristic of a people, but I really wonder if we should consider it to be a defining characteristic. If the category is kept, it should at least be renamed to :Category:Peoples that speak an Indo-European language because Indo-European peoples - as such - do not exist, the term is just a derivative of the language family. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• WikiProject Languages has been informed of this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Comment this discussion is to some extent related to this other discussion about Germanic peoples. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep as :Category:Peoples speaking Indo-European languages, but probably mainly as a container category for peoples by linguistic group, so that Germanic and Indo-Iranian subcats would be in, possibly Hittites and a few more that are not closely related to others abd so not part of a group. But purge of those that ought to be in subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. I don't see :Category:Peoples speaking Indo-European languages as much better. We have :Category:Indo-European languages which should suffice, because "peoples" as such may or may not fully speak an Indo-European language due to migration, colonization, education, or what have you. See, e.g., Cubans, which would fall into the category's proposed new name; would Native Hawaiians since the article states few speak the Polynesian language compared to the Indo-European language of English? what about Welsh people, similar issue - and what do they really have in common with Hittites, Guyanese people, Sinhalese people, Dutch diaspora; then we get to add among the myriad daughter categories: :Category:Yiddish-language journalists, :Category:Ancient Romans, :Category:Ancient Spartans, :Category:People of the Falklands War (fought between two groups of the Indo-European language speakers), ad infinitem. No thanks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:33, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete This makes the false equivalency of a people and their language. At times a people remains clearly such (the Jews for example) but their language changes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
• Hmm. Caucasian race (aka Europid, Caucasoid) is the equivalent ethnic article category (more or less), but doesn't have a "peoples" category, which perhaps it should. But I think this one will have to go - Delete. Johnbod (talk) 04:46, 18 November 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:42, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Arab to :Category:Arabs or :Category:Arabs (topic)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Berber to :Category:Berbers or :Category:Berbers (topic)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Slavic to :Category:Slavs or :Category:Slavs (topic)

:Nominator's rationale: rename per main article of the category. These nominations were opposed at speedy for reasons of ambiguity. While I agree that this is a risk, I don't think that by just removing the "s" the ambiguity is reduced a lot, so if we really want to tackle that problem we may better add "(topic)" in the category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

{{cot|speedy discussion}}

• :Category:Arab to :Category:Arabs – C2D per Arabs. Overturn redirect to :Category:Arab people. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• :Category:Berber to :Category:Berbers – C2D per Berbers. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• :Category:Slavic to :Category:Slavs – C2D per Slavs. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• : Oppose above 3. The plural form sounds like a category for biographies, but these contain other things too (like culture or history). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

{{cob}}

• Alt rename I don't think "topic" serves as a disambiguator: all categories are topics of some sort. I think a better approach would be to borrow from the German solution and go for :Category:Slavic ethnic group, which covers all things Slavic yet avoids the problem of defining that as something that could be more narrowly read as "people" or "culture". Same for :Category:Berber ethnic group and :Category:Arab ethnic group. SFB 13:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• rename/merge to1st option. The main article is Slavs for that one, but purge: individual Berbers should be in :Category:Berber people. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• rename/merge to 1st option as a container category for such things as language, etc.; the validity of :Category:Fooish people where Foo is an ethnicity not a nationality is for another day. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• Keep or use "topics". Don't rename to "Arabs" etc, which should be biographical if used. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming and purging :Category:Indo-European‎ to :Category:Indo-European‎ studies

:Nominator's rationale: rename per main article of the category. This nomination was opposed as speedy, I think that the objection mentioned in CFDS should be tackled by purging the category from non-linguistical articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:22, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

{{cot|speedy discussion}}

• :Category:Indo-European to :Category:Indo-European studies – C2D per Indo-European studies. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
• : Oppose Indo-European studies is dealing with Indo-European languages, but many articles in the category are not language-related (like: Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex, Boscombe Bowmen or Gradina on Bosut. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 14:32, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

{{cob}}

• Oppose this is not about the academic practices studying Indo-European topics, this is about the Indo-European topics themselves. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:35, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

:* The oppose in speedy (which was I think a quite useful oppose) was that the article Indo-European studies shows that Indo-European is really a language topic, while the category actually contains much more than about language. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:31, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::* :Category:Women and not :Category:Women studies

::* :Category:Canada and not :Category:Canadian studies

::* :Category:African Americans and not :Category:African American studies

:::Thus in this vein, it should not be "Indo-European studies" -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:56, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

::::NOTE: :Category:African Americans redirects to :Category:African American people. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:Indo-Europeans similar to the proposal to pluralize the titles of the categories "Arab", "Berber" running concurrently. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:* As there is apparently no support for the nomination, I support this alternative rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rename to :Category:Indo-European topics - :Category:Indo-Europeans sounds like a biographical category. Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Indo-Europeans per Carlossuarez46's suggestion for standardization. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

::Which should clearly be a biographical category, following our usual style. Note that :Category:African Americans redirects to :Category:African American people, and is a sub of :Category:African-American society. Johnbod (talk) 15:52, 14 November 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Mozabite people‎

:Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains eponymous article. No need to upmerge, article is sufficiently categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to gather sufficient related material in a useful way. SFB 13:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete -- no need to merge as the article is adequately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 18 October 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose deleting :Category:Garamantes‎

:Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains eponymous article. No need to upmerge, article is sufficiently categorized. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Delete Fails to gather sufficient related material in a useful way. SFB 13:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
• Delete -- I doubt we will get enough content to make a worthwhile category. The one article is well categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 18 October 2015 (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. I will also put a category redirect on {{cat|Watercolour paintings}}. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose renaming :Category:Watercolours to :Category:Watercolor paintings

:Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent categories and sibling categories. Under :Category:Paintings the subcategories generally have "paintings" as part of their name. To be consistent with the variant of English of the watercolor category tree, which uses U.S. English, the "u" would be dropped to match :Category:Watercolor painting. The attachment of "paintings" also clafifies the scope of the category, to exclude paints and pigments, as this category is only for the paintings themselves. 70.51.44.60 (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Rename. The new category will be more clear and more consistent. Appreciate the above user for bringing this to the table. Bod (talk) 03:51, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::Why is it "more clear" User:Bodhi Peace? AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:::Because it clearly differentiates the artworks from the media. Bod (talk) 05:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Clearer and more consistent. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:29, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

::But what makes it "more clear" User:RevelationDirect? AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

::: The contents are about the paintings created with watercolours/watercolors, not the paints themselves. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Plain English naming that matches reader expectations and prevents any misconstruing of the topic. SFB 13:32, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

::What do you mean "plain English naming", User:Sillyfolkboy? AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

:::{{ping|AusLondonder}} it differentiates it from the paint, which are also watercolours. To quote the article itself "Watercolor refers to both the medium and the resulting artwork". The change defines the scope as paintings and not the topic in general (which is :Category:Watercolor painting). I'm not too fussed about the form of English, though it does seem better to align with the parent category and article. SFB 21:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose Seems a change designed to purely to remove all traces of non-US spelling from Wikipedia, despite the fact the majority of English speaking world uses "colour" namely Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Jamaica, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Malta, United Kingdom, Pakistan, Canada, Bermuda and more. AusLondonder (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
• I don't feel strongly on the spelling. Do you support adding "paintings"? RevelationDirect (talk) 20:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
• Support The category's spelling should follow it's main article and it's parent category. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 03:57, 20 October 2015 (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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

:* Propose Dual Upmerging :Category:Fruit in Malaysia to :Category:Flora of Malaya and :Category:Fruits originating in Asia

:Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION and WP:NARROWCAT

:The only article in the category is endemic to the Malay Peninsula (parts of Thailand and Malaysia), not the political boundaries of Malaysia. Additionally, the intersection is too narrow to create a category large enough to aid navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

:Note: Notified MKwek as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

• Support Fruit are better categorised by the geographic area rather than polity, as they do not respect the latter. An article would be a better approach to discuss Fruit in Malaysia, but content is insufficient to merit conversion to an article here. SFB 13:32, 18 October 2015 (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.