Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 19

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: Double upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:45, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Greek-American lawyers to Category:American lawyers and Category:Greek Americans

Likewise: Category:Irish-American lawyers, Category:Scottish-American lawyers, Category:Welsh-Americans lawyers, Category:German-American lawyers, Category:Czech-American lawyers, Category:Japanese-American lawyers, Category:English-American lawyers.

Nominator's rationale: upmerge. Overcategorization by intersection of ethnicity and occupation. I'm not sure why any user would think this intersection is necessary or desirable to have in category space. Category:American lawyers hasn't been otherwise broken down by ethnical or national origin (apart from Category:African American lawyers), nor is there a good reason to do so. Could anyone write a legitimate WP articles on "Greek-American lawyers" or on "Law as practised by Greek-Americans"? Overall, just seems weird to me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all per nom and per OCAT as trivial intersection. Now excuse me while I get back to planning the annual convention for the Association of Irish-American Lawyer Expatriates in the Caribbean. Postdlf (talk) 23:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. A feel thing too, that the line drawn here would be too far. These are tough though - many African American lawyers would not tangibly practice law in a different way although I would guess some have so an article on it would be plausible. Irish and Italian American lawyers would not be legitimate, but why is Category:Irish-American sportspeople? Should there be a Category:European American lawyers as a counterpart of Category:African American lawyers? Mayumashu (talk) 20:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably not and no. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:28, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (nom). More of these "Fooian-American lawyers" categories were created after the start of this discussion. They can be seen in Category:American lawyers. I'm too tired to add them here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:05, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all. I have added another four similar categories that were created recently, and have notified the creator (lower case "c") that we don't create categories with trivial intersections like this. Debresser (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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: Speedy deleted under CSD G5.

Propose renaming Category:Hyderabad, Pakistan to Category:Hyderabad, Sindh

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article Hyderabad, Sindh. Currently only contains one article so upmerging to parent is a possibility if more couldn't be added presently. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge or rename in this order. Debresser (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy as the creation of a sock of Strider11, who keeps creating useless categories related to Pakistan, and then adding one article so they can't be speedied. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for_discussion/Log/2009 October 31#Category:Suicide bombing in the Chechen-Russian conflict. postdlf (talk) 19:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Suicide bombing in the Chechen-Russian conflict to Category:Suicide bombing in the Chechen wars

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match ultimate parent Category:Chechen wars, which is how this conflict is usually referred to collectively in the category tree. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I note that the parent is "Suicide bombings by country". Leaving aside for a moment the messy business of whether Chechnya is a country, we probably still need an "s" on "bombing", especially since this seems to be being used for specific incidents. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since Riyadus-Salikhin Reconnaissance and Sabotage Battalion of Chechen Martyrs and Shahidka are not about specific bombings, I thought the lack of an "s" was appropriate. Maybe a subcategory for the specific bombings would be in order. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - I hadn't noticed those two articles. Grutness...wha? 06:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The articles are not about bombings, nor about bombing itself, and are already adequately classified into "bombers" categories. Debresser (talk) 19:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most of the articles are about bombings. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative transfer from speedy rename section: The following proposal was listed at speedy renames. I'm transferring it here since it doesn't meet the speedy criteria. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:21, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Visitor attractions in Trivandrum to Category:Visitor attractions in Thiruvananthapuram

Nominator's rationale: The city was renamed as Thiruvananthapuram Paalappoo (talk) 12:30, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Was better off at speedy... Debresser (talk) 19:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. The parent is Category:Trivandrum and many of the sister categories use "Trivandrum". Will require follow-up if renamed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Airline destinations to Category:Lists of airline destinations

Nominator's rationale: The "articles" in this category are lists, so the category name should reflect this. On a sidenote, the articles themselves should also be renamed to "List of XXX destinations". Russavia ^Dialogue 19:22, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Congresses - general (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains user sandboxes. —Markles 12:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Congresses - state detail (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains user sandboxes. —Markles 12:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:44, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Congresses - summary (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only contains a couple of user sandboxes. —Markles 12:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. Postdlf (talk) 23:03, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2nd United States Congress (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too small, and unnecessary. Only has two pages and unlikely to grow. —Markles 11:08, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to its parents. Note that none of the other congresses have subcats until after the 100th. Occuli (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• do not delete. Like the more modern congress categories, this should contain the articles about the statutes that were passed during the congress. I have added them, and the category now has 8 articles. Rather than having eponymous categories, it might make more sense to have categories for legislation by congress, but that's not what we have at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per Good Ol’factory's rationale, I withdraw my nominating support for this deletion and suggest keeping it, after all. Sorry to be a bother.—Markles 10:39, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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. When I relisted this I was hoping for comments from editors who hadn't previously commented, but no matter. I'm going to do something that no one mentioned and rename the category to Category:United States Air Force organizations in Korea. I realise there is also "no consensus" for these changes, but one (the capitalization) is speediable and I think the other (expanding the abbreviation) would be uncontroversial (though I'm sure it's possible someone will prove me wrong). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:USAF Organizations in Korea to Category:Military units and formations of the United States in the Korean War

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Large overlap of two categories, and the title "USAF Organizations in Korea" is ill-defined. The other option is to rename it to Category:Military units and formations of the United States Air Force in the Korean War and categorize articles appropriately. Tassedethe (talk) 10:42, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• do not merge. Rename. Whether or not USAF articles should be in both categories depends on arcane arguments about various sub-categorizing schemes. Hmains (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both (possibly with rename). There were US forces in Korea both during the war and ever since the armistice (which may be a valid distinction). No doubt some are army formations and some Air Force. This is a clear case for a tree of categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The only parent that relates to this discussion with subcategories is Category:Groups of the United States Air Force and it has no similar categories. The category as currently named implies that these units are actually located there and that is not the case. Some were there in the past and in some cases for short periods of time for a specific crisis. So this appears to be OCAT and somewhat ambiguous without any criteria for being included. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Maintain previous position Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• not only rename as I said before, but sibling categories for US Army and US Marines should be created for balance. Hmains (talk) 04:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.