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 American variety of English is more common in these regions so there is potential for confusion at the current title. SFB20:53, 27 February 2015 (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.
Olympic athletes from places that use American English
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 American variety of English is more common in these regions so there is potential for confusion at the current title. SFB20:53, 27 February 2015 (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.
World Championship in Athletics athletes from places that use American English
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.
Oppose This proposal elongates an already wordy category name to disambiguate a term which does not require disambiguation. Regardless of whether you read "athlete" as "track and field athlete" or "sportsperson" it doesn't matter – no other types of athletes compete at the World Championships in Athletics so there is no potential for confusion. On the contrary, this introduces confusion be adopting multiple naming conventions when "athlete" is sufficient, regardless of what you think it means. I would also prefer a bulk move of the whole tree to use "competitors" over "track and field athletes/athletes" on the grounds that unity is important and possible, and competitor is shorter than the above proposition. SFB20:51, 27 February 2015 (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: That a particular telescope (e.g. IRAS) has looked at, for example, the Andromeda Galaxy or NGC 922 is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of a galaxy, comet etc. Articles about galaxies should not be categorized below Category:Telescopes. This category could be listified, but many of the articles don't mention IRAS in the article text. This form of categorization could lead to articles about some astronomical objects being placed in thousands of categories ("Footown Observatory objects"?). DexDor (talk) 22:34, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Category:IRAS catalogue objects. The nomination has completely misunderstood the purpose of the catalogue. These are not just objects which were 'looked at' by the IRAS satellite - they are in fact objects which were listed in the IRAS catalogue. That's a separate entity, albeit composed using the satellite as part of its mission. The difference is subtle but important. As an analogy, Category:Henry Draper Catalogue objects contains stars with entries in the Henry Draper Catalogue, not stars seen by Henry Draper. Admittedly this isn't clear from the category name, which is why I propose renaming it. Modest Geniustalk15:23, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That an object has been listed in the IRAS catalogue is equally non-defining. The IRAS catalogue is presumably (we don't have an article about the catalogue) a list of (some of) the objects (anything from a comet to a galaxy) that have been viewed using that telescope. We don't, for example, categorize works of art by which auction catalogs they have appeared in. DexDor (talk) 07:28, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I find it hard to understand how, for an object whose primary or only name is its IRAS catalogue number (IRAS 16293-2422 for example), that its IRAS cataloguing could not be defining. However, for other objects, Messier 109 for example, it seems improbable that its IRAS cataloguing is defining at all. There will be intermediate, debatable situations, of course. Therefore, as often in these sort of discussions, we should remove the articles that should not be in the category and, if need be, review in the light of the outcome. Yes, rename it and edit the category entry to explain its intended use. Thincat (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2015 (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: This is categorizing stars (astronomical objects) by a characteristic of (one of) their names (i.e. how humans refer to them) rather than by a characteristic of the stars themselves. It also places articles about stars in Category:Catalogues. DexDor (talk) 22:19, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a defining characteristic for humans which is what the encyclopedia is for, humans. Almost all stars with proper names are stars that are naked eye visible. Stars with proper names participate in the celestial mythologies of various cultures astrologies -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep ― per arguments of 70.51.200.101 and User:Reyk. Just a clarification: star names are unique proper names, designations such as "greek-letter constellation-name" aren't regarded as names but designations according to astronomy terminology, same goes for "HD number" and similar; in this context note that "Proxima" is not a greek letter. Rursus dixit. (mbork3!) 11:41, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reyk etc. Proper names are often discussed and defined in astronomy books as the Greek/Latin/Arabic names such as Sirius, Betelgeuse etc. Their origin and legitimacy is a subject of much discussion. All stars known by Bayer designation only (or HD, HIP etc.) should not be on the list. Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 12:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryek and Rursus. Having a proper name means that these objects have attracted major attention from the public and/or have an important role in the history of astronomy. There are surprisingly few of these - most stars have systematic designations instead. It's not arbitrary because Wikipedia didn't decide which ones were given names - and all which were are included. Modest Geniustalk15:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Ryek and Rursus above, who have expressed a system of inclusion with clear purpose rather than being something more arbitrary. Nice. — Huntster (t@c)20:49, 27 February 2015 (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: No indication that "Indochina" as a geographic term is in common usage, or ever included all of what is listed in the category. For instance, Britannica lists Indochina only in the French Indochina meaning. A feasible alternative may be Continental south-east Asia, which is a more descriptive term. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:57, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite an 1886 map on the article claiming to include the countries, there is insufficient evidence of any current reliable sources that verify that the term is in current usage. Creating a category based on an article as source with insufficient RS seems insufficient to create a category. satusuro14:03, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My intention was to create a Category on geographical term Indochinese Peninsula. As far as I know, this term is used to describe continental part of Southeast Asia, i.e. a landmass that stretches from Myanmar to Vietnam and to Singapore in the south. I am familiar with the other definition of Indochinese Peninsula, as well (i.e. from Vietnam to approx. Bangkok). There are both definitions in use. I see them as definition of Indochinese Peninsula in the broad sense and the other one in the narrow sense.
I wondered, why there was no distinction between the terms Indochina and Indochinese Peninsula on english Wikipedia, since I understand the term Indochina to be more of a geopolitical, cultural and historical one. Since there was no discussion on this topic, I would be glad to see one now. So please satusuro, by all means, I'm looking forward to your (and from the others, too) contribution to this topic on wikipedia.
I wanted to name the Category for what it is: Category:Indochinese Peninsula - in the broad sense of the definition, the one that I am familiar with as a geographer. I did so on sl.wikipedia. On en.wikipedia, I used the existing page name, since there has been no distinction between both terms. I'm aware that the distinction exists though. Odd enough, there is also no distinction between Arabia and Arabian Peninsula, for instance (it is nice to read de.wikipedia as an exception to the rule!). I assume this to be a rather similar case. I find regions to be often very difficult to define (see Levant for instance). I hope there will be a distinction of some sort between Indochinese Peninsula and Indochina in the future. In this sense, I see the point in creating of the Category:Indochinese Peninsula. Cabana (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This response fails to address the issue that (a) the article re this subject remained with no WP:RS for over 5 years, the 1886 maps is hardly what can be identified as an example of broad usage and acceptance (b) failure to understand or apply WP:RS suggests that the ideas are great but do not stand basic requirements of wikipedia inclusion. (c) to play with the notions of indochinese peninsula and indochina is fine on talk or afd space, but not what WP:ABOUT requires. satusuro22:51, 26 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is still being used and not just in historical context, see e.g. [1]. The absence of an article about it on WP must be an accidental omission. I'll notify Wikiproject Asia about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oops - WikiProject Southeast Asia exists for a start - 5 years and the article has no wp:rs of any substance - I am not doubting the capacity of an enterprising editor to qualify the usage(or not) - there is no effort to have improved the article - the current state of the article does not justify tying in a category - as it is close to encouraging WP:OR and WP:HOAX if one is creating the category based on the article in its current form satusuro11:50, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The term is still being used, but research demonstrates that almost every reference to it shows different borders of this hypothetical geographical zone. Traditionally, Indochine was the area colonised by the French comprising Vietnam, Lao, and Cambodia, but journalistic licence today in various concepts use it to include anything up to almost the whole of Southeast Asia. No,I cam't see a compelling reason for having a category for something so loosley defined in the absence of an official geographical area. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:21, 28 February 2015 (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:People educated at The Haberdashers' Aske's Boys' School
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:Merge. Category moved with absolutely no discussion after the name of the article was also changed without discussion (I have moved it back - the mover can open an RM discussion if he wants it moved). The definite article is not used consistently even on the school's own website. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:52, 26 February 2015 (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.
Delete this is a small category that is not part of a large subcategorisation scheme – the scheme barely populates 13 nationalities, let alone the hundreds of potential ones. SFB20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCategory:Popes by nationality and all its subcats, except: Greek, Syrian, Italian, and French, which should be re-catted to Category:Popes. German is questionable due to conflation of "German" meaning of the Germanic peoples", rather than "of nationality of the country Germany". - jc3702:09, 6 March 2015 (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.
Delete this is a small category that is not part of a large subcategorisation scheme – the scheme barely populates 13 nationalities, let alone the hundreds of potential ones. SFB20:57, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is a really silly argument. It is "large" because it covers 100% of popes to whom a nationality can be sensibly given. That there have never been any popes from Thailand etc etc really is neither here nor there. Johnbod (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnbod: I don't think this is a silly argument at all. I would define a large categorisation scheme as one that populates well the majority of the elements which comprise the chosen sub-definition (nationality). I don't really understand your logic, which suggests that any categorisation scheme that divides all the popes on a given feature is by definition a "large" one. SFB22:09, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteCategory:Popes by nationality and all its subcats, except: Greek, Syrian, Italian, and French, which should be re-catted to Category:Popes. German is questionable due to conflation of "German" meaning of the Germanic peoples", rather than "of nationality of the country Germany". - jc3702:09, 6 March 2015 (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: Overcategorization per WP:NON-DEFINING and WP:OCAWARD. A minor award rarely (if at all) cited when talking about fashion. The only reason this award is mentioned in any bios is that the creator of this category added it along with creating the award's article, which has no secondary sources to establish notability. Mbinebritalk ←02:46, 26 February 2015 (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.
