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. While the rename arguments are based on precedent, they never addressed the deletion rationale here, which is based on the guideline WP:SMALLCAT. Renaming some categories in a tree does not preclude deleting others for separate reasons. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 16:33, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Due to their small population, expressions of separatism from Azerbaijani Kurds are virtually nonexistent and this seems unlikely to change in the future. Charles Essie (talk) 16:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support delete. If there would have been sufficient content a rename would have been perfectly alright, but in this case there is just one child category, so this category layer is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 8 June 2016 (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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Clearly we need only one of those, and I'm proposing to settle with "Elazığ Province" per the main article Elazığ Province and Elazığ. Background: while "ı" and "ğ" are distinct letters in the Turkish alphabet, "â" is just an accentuated "a", which is not common in English-language sources, often even omitted in Turkish-language sources. PanchoS (talk) 15:30, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Come on. This is nearly a WP:C2C/WP:C2D case. Somebody take a quick look, so we can move on. --PanchoS (talk) 02:32, 4 June 2016 (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.
Category:2016 in the Los Angeles metropolitan area[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Given the huge number of articles on Los Angeles events, a Southern California by years scheme and/or an LA metropolitan area by decade scheme seem acceptable, but at this point we probably shouldn't go beyond that. PanchoS (talk) 14:33, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Dimadick in that it's probably better not to have another layer between LA and Southern California. --PanchoS (talk) 21:50, 4 June 2016 (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:split as per nom. I fully agree that they should all be theorists in this category, but as others pointed out, categories get messy over time and this seems like one of those. No reason not to do the housekeeping of cleaning it up now. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 17:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikidata entries should be merged, [1] to [2]. I'm willing to boldly merge/redirect the duplicate categories on Farsi wikipedia, which Google translates as Education experts and Education researchers. – FayenaticLondon 14:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, it's not the "same thing", and they're not altogether educational theorists. --PanchoS (talk) 02:35, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would you care to explain why an academic in education is not an educational theorist? That's like saying an academic in history isn't necessarily an historian. If you hold an academic position in the education department of a university or college (i.e. you are an education academic) then you are surely by definition an educational theorist? Academics research and publish. What else does an education academic research and write about except educational theory? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, please note I included the Canadian ones here in this list. --PanchoS (talk) 22:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support for now, there are apparently people in this category who are academic lecturers in any field but education, so the splitting is more like a housekeeping action. I'm neutral between "theorists" and "researchers". It may be worth a discussion, some other time, if we really want to have all academic lecturers in a general educators category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 9 June 2016 (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 after manually recategorizing as appropriate. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 16:40, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: ambiguous. – FayenaticLondon 14:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion and manual recategorization. --PanchoS (talk) 15:08, 30 May 2016 (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:keep, without prejudice to a broader discussion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:57, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all women's teams will have a coach navbox, some have a specific year navbox for championship teams. Following the same system of categories as men's college basketball.Littlekelv (talk) 14:02, 30 May 2016 (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:merge/rename as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 17:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. The main article is Identity document. These might be eligible for speedy merging & renaming under WP:C2D but probably deserve a full discussion. – FayenaticLondon 09:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer: head categories will need to be merged manually. – FayenaticLondon 09:38, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support While there may be subtle differences, the current state is a mess, and even for further refining, a full merge seems to be the best starting point. --PanchoS (talk) 13:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Personal identity is a philosophical distinction, not an official government one. And while I do think that Identity document is a "backronym" for ID (which used to merely stand for "identification", hence "ID card" meant identification card), it appears to now be the current vernacular... - jc37 22:45, 4 June 2016 (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.
Category:Children's charities based in England and Wales[edit]
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.
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous and non-defining. The charities are either based in England or in Wales. Rathfelder (talk) 07:56, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The legal jurisdiction of England and Wales is the root of the problem. All English and Welsh charities are registered with the Charity Commission for England and Wales, but that does not imply that they are based in both England and Wales, nor that they operate in both, nor indeed that they don't operate in other countries. We use the UK as the main geographical focus in line with all the other organisational categories, and it makes no sense to replace it with a focus on England and Wales.Rathfelder (talk) 22:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the nom wants to merge to UK, while Necrothesp wants to split England from Wales. Personally, I think both proposals are reasonable. The single jurisdiction of England and Wales doesn't keep us from subdividing into the constituent "countries", as is done with most other categories. --PanchoS (talk) 02:51, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In general we do split the United Kingdom into its constituent parts for most purposes. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:27, 8 June 2016 (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:repurpose and purge, using the inclusion criteria of "This category should only contain articles that are specifically about the Edwardian era (e.g. articles with titles such as "... in the Edwardian era"). For articles about events that took place during the period see Category:1900s in the United Kingdom and Category:1910s in the United Kingdom." (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 18:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per the head article Edwardian era, the characterisation of this era as "Edwardian" is a significant part of the historical and cultural scholarship of the era. The section Edwardian era#Further_reading lists some of the many scholarly works which use this time period, and the category serves a useful navigational purpose by grouping topics related to that scholarship. The fact that some definitions of the era use the dates of King Edward VI's reign seems to have misled the nominator into thinking that these are some sort of hard-and-fast-boundary. This is wrong; most modern scholarly usage regards the Edwardian era as extending up to the outbreak of World War I in 1914. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
How would you propose to define the inclusion criteria? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Something like This category should only contain articles that are specifically about the Edwardian era (e.g. articles with titles such as "... in the Edwardian era"). For articles about events that took place during the period see Category:1900s in the United Kingdom and Category:1910s in the United Kingdom. It certainly shouldn't contain articles that aren't specifically about the UK. Nor should it contain articles about companies etc that were formed during the period, events in 1908 etc - that's an unnecessary (and very incomplete) duplication of decade-based categories. If (the category isn't deleted by this CFD and) no-one objects to this tightening up then this CFD could be used as a basis for adding such inclusion criteria to the category (if there wasn't a CFD discussion like this then I'd propose it on the category's talk page and inform relevant wikiproject(s)). DexDor(talk) 21:43, 30 May 2016 (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.
Nominator's rationale:upmerge to both parents per WP:SMALLCAT, only contains one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as the original creator) Hugely important phenomenon throughout the Global South. We're currently undercovering this due to a number of biases. A main article needs to be written. Added some more articles, so even "technically", it should be fine now. --PanchoS (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Having a sourced main article to build the category around would be really helpful here. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it would, but this is no prerequisite. The relevance and the degree of undercoverage should be obvious from the individual articles that do exist. --PanchoS (talk) 02:53, 4 June 2016 (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.
Support Based on the current title, this could be about video games produced in Nazi Germany. Which is a bit of an anachronism, since the earliest video game on record is the cathode-ray tube amusement device from 1947. Dimadick (talk) 05:36, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename As currently named this category should be about video games made in Nazi Germany. However even if any existed, it is unclear that splitting the category by the government of a place would make sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (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:administrative close: Part of the issue here is that the names of the articles and other categories have been somewhat in flux. As discussed, I suggest that rather than having separate discussions, as in this discussion and also here, a group nomination be started for the subcategories of Category:Judiciaries by country that need to be renamed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this nomination doesn't follow up with the above mentioned CfD but rather with this currently unconcluded one: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 20#Category:Judicial system of Albania. Spreading the discussion across several nominations is no good idea. Let's settle on the Albania one first and then continue with a full nomination of the remaining ones. --PanchoS (talk) 12:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Combine This nomination should be combined with the outcome of the Albania discussion, whether I agree with that outcome or not. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2016 (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.
Category:Wikipedia categories named after awards[edit]
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 (see below). The arguments to oppose generally cite the lack of other applicable categories to parent these award categories. This seems to be a fundamental disagreement on how we categorize. The reality is that these categories currently do have parents, and there's clearly no consensus to remove them, at least based on this discussion. Given that, the arguments that this category is redundant/duplicative are stronger.
The debate here stems from the distinction between a set and topic category. If Category:Awards is a topic category on "awards", then all of these subcategories are proper. If it's a set category on "awards", then they aren't, since they don't contain exclusively awards. As it stands, it appears to be a mash-up of the two. Obviously, many awards are in this category, but so are categories like Category:Award ceremonies, which would only belong in a topic category. Trying to decide between the two here would probably cause a very long discussion and quite a bit of stress, but does it matter to our readers? Currently, our readers can go through this category and find all the information they could possibly be looking for. Splitting the category in two (topic and set) would make this far more difficult. The only headaches caused by a set/topic mash-up category are to editors trying to pull lists of articles using recursion on the parent category. We should be prioritizing readers over those editors, and I'm one of the bot operators who receives those headaches!
As a side note, this isn't uncommon in category trees. We just usually don't go far enough up the tree to worry about it. This whole "Awards" category is a sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-category of Category:Semantics. Whether the Semantics category is a topic or set category, "Awards" clearly doesn't belong in that tree, but this discussion probably does. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 17:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm reclosing this as no consensus. After further consideration, I believe it was improper of me to base my decision on the current categorization scheme. If the nominated category was deleted now, then any future discussion relating to the overall Category:Awards categorization scheme and whether we should categorize these eponymous categories in the awards tree would be influenced by the fact that there exists no current alternative. That's the discussion we really need to be having, and I don't want to influence it with my close here. If that discussion is held and concludes with consensus to keep the eponymous categories in this tree (not just no consensus defaulting to keep - an actual keep outcome), then a speedy renomination of this category would make sense and the outcome would probably be along the lines of my original close. On the other hand, if the wider discussion concludes with consensus to remove the eponymous categories from this tree, then the category nominated here becomes essential. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 07:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is an maintenance category that groups together categories named after any specific award into one large hidden container category. This tree is in contrast to the visible Category:Awards tree that groups categories and loose articles into subcategories based on type of award or country.
Right now I'm probably doing more maintenance of Award categories than any other editor on Wikipedia and even I don't see any maintenance benefit to this rival category structure. This category has no navigational benefit both because it's hidden and because it groups 380 very different awards alphabetically: the Deadly Awards, Demidov Prizes and Detroit Film Awards are listed next to each other. No merge is necessary because these categories are already somewhere under the Awards trees. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Intent This nomination is intended as a trial balloon to see if there is support for deleting other "Wikipedia categories named after..." categories, excluding the biography ones. I picked this one to start with partly because it's directly under Category:Eponymous categories and deleting it won't orphan any hidden subcategories. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. At best, I can imagine only a very peripheral administrative usage. I can see that these categories could be used as a means of having these "eponymous" categories all together to allow for a quick checking that the category names conform with the present name of the main article for the categories. That's not a very good reason I don't think. However, I think that the original purpose was because for some reason users were uncomfortable giving "eponymous" categories the usual sort of parent categories that would apply to an article of the same name. I'm waiting for some enlightenment about these sorts of categories. Barring any revelations as to their actual usefulness, I'm leaning in favour of deletion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:44, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support as duplicative, unless someone comes up with a really good explanation why this might be helpful. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:00, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe (e.g. based on this CFD) that the purpose of these "Wikipedia categories named after ..." categories is to provide a parent category (e.g. so they don't show up in database reports of uncategorized categories) for categories that may have no other valid parents if WP:SUBCAT is obeyed (as it should be). These categories (which are rather oddly named, but I'm not aware of a better name) should be hidden from readers.
The purpose of categories like this is clearer where the topic is a person (rather than an award). For example, when Category:Pythagoras (which contains articles such as Pythagorean trigonometric identity) was created it was (correctly IMO) not placed in any "normal" (non-hidden) categories. Since then overcategorizers (editors who add category tags without regard to the rules of Wikipedia categorization such as SUBCAT) have placed Category:Pythagoras in many parent categories putting, for example, an article about music into Category:Founders of religions and causing at least one categorization loop.
I don't think the nomination (e.g. "Per WP:PROJCATS"?) makes a convincing argument that this category is harmful (although it does highlight that the background/purpose of these categories should be easier to find). Hence, for the moment at least, I oppose. DexDor(talk) 22:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: In practice, most the eponymous categories named after people do not have other parent categories but all the rest do. That's why I excluded the people categories from my "intent" above. But River categories often have non-river articles (fish and bridges). With the Pythagoras exception noted, do you know why the people categories are usually treated differently? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One difference is that a river should only be in geography categories, whereas a person may be categorized in several fields. E.g. Pythagoras is notable in fields such as maths, music and religion so categorizing his eponymous category under categories for all those fields has the effect of placing articles about music (that are not about religion) in categories for religion etc. DexDor(talk) 06:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – picking Category:Golden Raspberry Awards at random, this has no other valid parent categories. A category is not an award, American or humorous or otherwise; it is undoubtedly a category named after an award. (I can't see that 'the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME' has any application to category names. The defining characteristic of an awards category is that it is an awards category. What else is there?) Oculi (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
London is not a city an England; it's just an article in an online encyclopedia called "Wikipedia" and an article cannot be a city. But we categorize it as such because the London article is about a city. Similarly, Category:Golden Raspberry Awards is not an award; it's a category. But it is placed under Category:Ironic and humorous awards because it a category about an award. Why would we treat eponymous categories different than every other? RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As expressed by @Oculi:, this is the logic that I can't figure out either. It's super-pedantic from one perspective (categories), but then from another perspective (articles), it's a loose system and we don't worry about those types of "in the weeds" issues. Why are we loose on the one hand but super-strict on the other? Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:55, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
When you place an article in a category (e.g. London in Category:Populated places established in the 1st century) that's just affecting categorization of one article. When you place a category in a category (e.g. if Category:London was placed in Category:Populated places established in the 1st century) that can affect the categorization of thousands of articles (many of which aren't about a populated place established in the 1st century). A reader interested in the 1st century is not looking for articles such as Mandela Way T-34 Tank, but can still reach it via the category system - i.e. if they wish to find out more about the city they can navigate from London to Category:London (although, in practice they would be more likely to use "main" links). Placing unnecessary/incorrect parent category tags on category pages clutters up the parent category page and makes it harder to use category intersection. DexDor(talk) 06:13, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes (they should be purged per WP:SUBCAT). Category:United States is a good example of what tends to happen with these categories - the 1776 category was added (without explanation) in 2012 then self-reverted a minute later, added (without explanation) in 2013 then removed (with explanation), added (without explanation) in 2015. In general, it's less experienced users (e.g. most recently an IP who had only just started editing categories) who add these category tags and more experienced users who remove them. Maintaining a neat category system (as would be required for category intersection to work well) is difficult (if not impossible) in such an environment. Perhaps a notice should be displayed when a category is edited reminding editors that there is no rule that a category page should have every parent category as the eponymous article. DexDor(talk) 06:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added to RevelationDirect's question: DexDor, do you really think that solving the problem in this way is the way to go, though? As pointed out, the category system is not a neat and clean system whereby everything in each subcategory necessarily fits nicely into the parent category's definition. Doesn't it make more sense to allow readers to find categories about awards using the Category:Awards category tree as opposed to a hidden, administrative parallel category system? I think this places an emphasis on "correctness" above userability, and a full correctness is impossible to achieve using such a blunt tool as categorization. To me, the whole tree reeks of an idea a category nerd had to solve a perceived problem of accuracy that the vast majority of users would not regard as much of an issue at all. I believe that if this issue were put to a general !vote in an RFC, it would come out with a clear consensus having the parallel scheme of "Wikipedia categories named after..." is unnecessary and confusing to most users. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:00, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re "allow readers to find categories about ..." - readers try to find articles, not categories (see my 1st century - T-34 example above). DexDor(talk) 06:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is how best do they find them? From my perspective, zig zagging back and forth between articles and categories in order to navigate categories seems inefficient. Maybe I'm not a typical user. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: To suggest that readers never try to find categories—that they only seek out articles—suggests that they are very close to completely useless. Are you suggesting that categories are only used when readers stumble upon them by happenstance? Sure, articles are no doubt sought out more than anything on Wikipedia. But to suggest that readers never seek out categories that group together similar articles seems a bit limited. Anyway, that issue doesn't really address the core of my question, so never mind (unless you want to answer it). @RevelationDirect: If you're serious about eliminating this tree, I really do think that RFC might be the way to go with this tree. If non-category-focused users found out about their existence, I think the vast majority would be perplexed, and possibly laugh, and probably support eliminating them. As far as I can tell, there are a handful of editors who think they are a good idea, but I find it hard to imagine that view having the general support of the community at large. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:47, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with your 1st sentence - categories may be useful to readers (as a way to find articles) and are useful to editors (spotting duplicate articles, doing maintenance edits on similar pages, spotting pages in the wrong namespace ...). But a reader (or editor, for that matter) interested in, for example, populated places established in the 1st century will find most of the articles in Category:London (e.g. articles about events in 2016) outside their topic - showing that category to that reader is just adding unnecessary clutter (quite apart from the problems such categorization causes for category intersection etc). I happen to think that "named after" categories for cities etc are unnecessary (Category:London does belong in non-hidden categories such as Category:England) and yes, I do think these categories sound kinda weird (see the 2012 CFD for some background to the name) and currently aren't well explained, but we shouldn't delete such categories without at least attempting to understand their purpose - otherwise we risk (among other things) making it more difficult for category intersection to be more widely used in the future. DexDor(talk) 05:33, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As long as these categories exist, I think it would be a good idea for an little explanatory note to be written and included in each one. I think most editors would find it weird to suggest that Category:London belongs in Category:England and not in Category:Cities in England (or a more specific subcategory). Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:21, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Re "weird to suggest": My above comment doesn't say anything about whether Category:London (and it's necessary to emphasise that we're talking about the category here, not the article London) should be directly in Category:England or in a subcat such as Category:Cities in England; either way the London category isn't uncategorised. DexDor(talk) 22:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ClarificationCategory:Golden Raspberry Awards was already in two award categories; Oculi feels it should not be though. I spot checked 50 of these categories before nomination to make sure they had other parents prior to nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:52, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, those are the two places where it belongs, while the nominated category is redundant. I've read the above discussion, but it wasn't convincing enough to change my mind in this respect. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:01, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. The eponymous award categories that I've looked at in this nomination generally don't do that; they group by country of award or type of award. But I would be open to making this a guideline in WP:OC.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:12, 10 June 2016 (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.
Category:Deaths by American drone strikes during the Syrian Civil War[edit]
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; upmerging the contents. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:00, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As the Syrian Civil War is still going on, I'm not entirely sure that per WP:SMALLCAT it has "no potential for growth". However, its focus is quite narrow. Especially since the US primarily operates in Iraq which is affected by the spillover of the Syrian civil war. Bataaf van Oranje (Prinsgezinde) (talk) 20:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In this case, there actually seems to be potential for growth, since it is an ongoing war with ever-increasing casualties.Dimadick (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to airstrike categories, distinguishing based on the method of piloting of the aircraft is extremely narrow.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 5 June 2016 (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.
