Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 6

< May 5	May 7 >

May 6

Category:Set indices on lakes

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 16:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Set indices on lakes to Category:Lists of lakes sharing the same name

Propose renaming Category:Set indices on mountains to Category:Lists of mountains sharing the same name
Propose renaming Category:Set indices on Poland to Category:Lists of places in Poland sharing the same name
Propose renaming Category:Set indices on rivers of Michigan to Category:Lists of rivers of Michigan sharing the same name
Propose renaming Category:Set indices on Russia to Category:Lists of places in Russia sharing the same name
Propose renaming Category:Scottish Island set index articles to Category:Lists of Scottish islands sharing the same name

Note: The following templates will need to be changed: Template:Lake index, Template:SIA, Template:mountainindex

Nominator's rationale: Consistency. At present some of these categories have names like "Lists of roads sharing the same title", some are like "Scottish Island set index articles", some are like "Set indices on lakes". The proposed name fits the SIA template message "a list of related items that share the same name (or similar names)" and is similar to some of the page titles (e.g. "List of lakes named Diamond"). The term "set index" is an example of (en?)-wiki-specific jargon that's confusing for newbies (and some experienced editors) - there are m a n y p a g e s that have been incorrectly tagged as a SIA. DexDor (talk) 20:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep I don't see the confusion here. Set indices is precise; and the contents are not technically lists but ~~disambiguation pages~~set indices, but I suppose that's a formality.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How does "the contents are not technically lists" fit with "A set index article is a list article..." (from WP:SIA) ? DexDor (talk) 21:07, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, that's true. Nonetheless, I don't see the case for a move here, esp considering this is long-standing terminology used in several places.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. All set indices are lists; not all lists are set indices. And no, set indices are not disambiguation pages :)—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); May 6, 2014; 20:58 (UTC)

erp, sorry, corrected. Anyway, we have this defined in policy at WP:SIA and there is a top-level category for same, so this would entail a renaming of a whole lot of content - policy, categories, templates, etc, all to fix some presumed confusion which I'm not seeing yet, and which can be easily addressed by pointing people to the relevant pages and asking them to read carefully.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:03, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The main reason for the proposed rename is consistency (with the other cats in the nom and the roads SIA categories, some of which have existed since 2005); we generally consider consistency in categorization to be a good thing. We already have some SIA cats titled "List of ... sharing the same ..." so renaming some others is not going to make the sky fall down. DexDor (talk) 21:29, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going by consistency, we should be consistent with the guidance language, the template, and the parent category at Category:Set indices. I count 45 subcategories, the majority of which are "set indexes" cats [1]. Indeed there could be an argument to rename some of the others.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose set indices are set indices, there's no need to muddy the waters. If you want a greater list category, then create a supercategory for them. -- 65.94.171.206 (talk) 04:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - A lot of the islands don't have the same name, they have similar or confusing names.-MacRùsgail (talk) 12:00, 4 June 2014 (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:0 BC births

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 16:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:0 BC births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Jsharpminor nominated this for deletion at RfD with the rationale "Seems really unnecessary as stated on talk page." This is a procedural nomination; I'm neutral, at least for now. BDD (talk) 19:06, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There is no year zero in the proleptic Gregorian calendar, nor in the Julian calendar. This is at best confusing and at worst actively misleading. --N Y Kevin 19:38, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If this were a page, I would oppose deletion for obvious reasons: people unfamiliar with Year 1 would look up 0 BC. However, as a category, I would say strong delete except that in looking at the Unused Categories page, there are many such category redirects present. I'd boldly CfD them all, but the large quantity of examples gives me pause to wonder if there is a legitimate reason for these to exist. Jsharpminor (talk) 19:47, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep harmless as a redirect. This is not misleading, it is filling a gap with a useful redirect.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a redirect -- 1 BC was followed by 1 AD, as the concept of zero was a later development. These are useful to prevent inadvertent creation and population of improper categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Peterkingiron, but retarget to Category:1 births. Anyone typing "0 BC" means the year after 1 BC, which unambiguously was AD 1. Right now, the {{category redirect}} bots will automatically fix categories for someone mis-assigned to this category, but if we delete it, they won't. Right now, people going to this category learn their error and go to the right place. Right now, nobody's going to repurpose this as a normal category, but if we delete it, someone might create it with the normal category coding ({{M1YearInTopic (no calendar)|0}} {{birthyr||0}}) and inadvertently create confusion. Nyttend (talk) 23:40, 23 May 2014 (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:Yugoslav Front

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: upmerge. – Fayenatic London 16:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yugoslav Front to Category:Resistance in Yugoslavia
Propose merging Category:Yugoslav Front into Category:Yugoslavia in World War II

Nominator's rationale:

Rename. The main article was renamed away from this OR-ish "Front" title, and this category actually has its scope more specifically defined as This category refers to all resistance and counter-insurgency operations conducted in Yugoslavia during World War II. Hence, we should rename it. There's already a more generic Category:Yugoslavia in World War II so it makes sense to focus this one. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 18:46, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with the apparent concensus below - let's just upmerge it. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed - Yugoslav Front ≠ Resistance in Yugoslavia. I.e. Battle of Lijevče Field. Unless Ustaše were Yugoslav resistance forces led by Yugoslav Ante Pavelić.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Oppose and~~ Support upmerge to Category:Yugoslavia in World War II - I've always thought this category was strange, I believe it should be upmerged, which will avoid categorisation wars over the Chetniks etc. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 22:15, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

An upmerge would work if there is no real difference between the contents, i.e. if there's no reason for subcategorization. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is a reason for sub-categorisation. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Yugoslavia in World War II. I think that could properly include any operations by Yugoslav partisans beyond the national boundary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge or merge to Category:Yugoslavia in World War II for reasons discussed herein. Quis separabit? 01:10, 21 May 2014 (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:Fictional characters by behavioral attribute

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) 04:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: consistent with Category:Fictional characters. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Seems reasonable to me. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2014 (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:Rockabilly Hall of Fame inductees

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) 04:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Rockabilly Hall of Fame inductees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The Rockabilly Hall of Fame appears to be just a website; it appears that any rockabilly musician active before 1962 can be "nominated" by anyone. There doesn't appear to be any selection committee or process, they just "induct" someone if the owners of the site agree. This doesn't seem like it merits a category. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Halls of Fame inductees categories are award categories, which we do not allowL WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2014 (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:Indian federal legislation

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) 00:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Indian federal legislation to Category:Acts of the Parliament of India

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The word "federal" is not a popular word to identify Acts of Parliament in India (in India the more popular word is "Central government" and not "federal government"). The category has been made to list all the Acts passed by the Parliament of India post-Independence in 1947 (knowingly categorising the Acts passed by the Constituent Assembly within this category). Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 16:13, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Not to mention that it saves the inevitable confusion with Native Americans in the US, which is what I thought of when I saw the title. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2014 (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:Genocide claims

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) 04:30, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Genocide claims (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure what purpose this category serves. While deciding whether something is a genocide or not is extremely problematic, at least we can try to go by the rough consensus of sources to make that determination. But how do we decide what is worthy of being called a "genocide claim?" I think we should just delete, and if something is called by the bulk of RS a "genocide" then it should be placed in that category, otherwise it should be placed in the various massacre categories. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:49, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems POV because of the various genocide based categories, this implies "false claims..." where perhaps reasonable minds may differ see Genocide definitions and, for just one example: Australian genocide debate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2014 (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:Fictional mad scientists

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: not moved. --BDD (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Fictional mad scientists to Category:Fictional mad scientists and engineers. Rename List of mad scientists to List of mad scientists and engineers.

Nominator's rationale: So-called "mad-scientists" is actually usually a "mad-engineer" - as they are building crazy things, not discovering new properties of the universe. Fiction in general won't make firm distinctions between scientists and engineers, and they are often conflated. For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than creating more categories.

--172.251.77.75 (talk) 15:45, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hmm While I agree with your point (Indeed, I think some of those are my words), I don't think we need to rename this category, since "mad scientist" is a well-known trope. Rather we can just parent it in both scientists and engineers if it's not already.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mad scientists are a thing. "Mad engineer" just sounds odd. Engineers may be irritable, exacting, or obsessed, but never mad. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Mad scientist(s) is the WP:COMMONNAME. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 17:36, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The term is "mad scienctist". We follow common usage, and that clearly is the common usage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:06, 20 May 2014 (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.

Ottoman vilayet categories

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: listify and purge geographic articles on places that once belonged to these former subdivisions, and delete any categories which then become empty, otherwise keep. Keep those for people; my experience of CfD leads me to disagree with Ëzhiki's statement that people should not be categorized by administrative division, especially as these divisions relate to a particular historical period; I commend Lekoren's example about Potsdam. – Fayenatic London 18:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: the final outcome after purging geographic articles was keep all. – Fayenatic London 09:00, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Salonica Vilayet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This is a clear example of WP:OVERCAT and pointlessness: what exactly is the purpose of these categories? These provinces were all relatively short-lived in comparison to the region's history (founded in the 1860s, abolished through the Balkans Wars/World War I fifty years later), artificial (they did not correspond to traditional historical or geographical regions and often arbitrarily changed boundaries) and obscure for modern readers, i.e. it is very unlikely one would actually search for people born in a specific vilayet rather than the city or modern country subdivision. It is equally odd to place towns, on whose history the existence of the vilayets had barely any impact, in these categories. IMO a case could be made for having these categories in as over-categories for "Governors of NNN" categories, but that is not really of any use in itself. Should categories be created for every province and sub-province that ever existed? Constantine ✍ 10:17, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I think this might have some utility, and having extra categories really doesn't hurt much... but it does mean more categorization work, maybe too much for the small amount of utility. Brianyoumans (talk) 17:28, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- The categorisation work that is required shouldn't be a concern, as I'm quite prepared to do most of that work personally. In fact, I have already begun and the work is progressing. Lekoren (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Delete the purely geographic ones; keep the "people from" ones once purged of geographic articles on places that once belonged to the former subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire as we ought not be categorizing city articles by every polity and subdivision in which they were located at any point in their history, ~~not much is left~~ the only thing left are the people from categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 6 May 2014 (UTC) And just as we've done with Category:Middlesex, a long-lived and now gone polity in the UK, we keep the "people from" because it would be ahistoric to say they were from a much-enlarged London that has absorbed their old shire, but we have no slew of places in the category but do have a nice article listing them instead, which is what ought to happen here. The people-from cats can be parented by Category:Ottoman people as some already are, or a newly created Category:Ottoman people by vilayet. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am not sure that we can have a category for every past polity, but some did exist for 50 years, and not so far back. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but as I said the main point is that they have not left much of a trace in historical memory (for a number of reasons), so they are rather pointless as categories from a modern reference point. If a particular subdivision corresponds to a traditional and/or particularly long-lasting province that is coterminous with a particular epoch in a region's history, and that has a corpus of articles pertaining to that period and no other, then a category would certainly be warranted. I am thinking here of the Roman provinces like Roman Achaea or Roman Dacia, although even here categories like Germania Inferior are (currently at least) a borderline case. Constantine ✍ 08:55, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep I'd like to point out a crucial detail: these categories are part of an established scheme of categorisation, which deleting them would disrupt. The Ottoman Empire, along with the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire, was one of the four great empires which came to their end in World War I. Each of these four empires has corresponding categories for their first-level subdivisions and for the people born in those subdivisions. The German Empire, which existed from 1871 to 1918, even has corresponding categories for the subdivisions of its largest subdivision (Prussia). As for the time period (the vilayet system existed from the 1860s to the 1920s), it cannot be considered short, because we are talking about roughly half a century of modern history, not half a century of antiquity. This is why comparisions with the provinces of the Roman Empire are totally irrelevant. The vilayets must be compared with the first-level subdivisions of other large countries of the same period (such as the Russian, German and Austro-Hungarian empires), not with the subdivisions of an empire which ceased to exist in 476 AD. The period we are talking about (from the 1860s to the 1920s) was the final stage of the Ottoman Empire and includes, to name a few, the Russo-Turkish War of 1877-1878, the rise of nationalism among the various ethnic groups inhabiting the Empire and among the Turks themselves, the Young Turk Revolution, the First Balkan War, the Second Balkan War, World War I with its several fronts situated in different parts of the Ottoman Empire, the Armenian Genocide, the Turkish War of Independence, the Greco-Turkish War of 1919-1922 and many more. There is great deal of historical literature (and Wikipedia articles) dealing with the numerous important events of this period, and in this literature references to the different vilayets of the Empire are very common indeed. For instance, there are many references to the different ethnic composition of the population of each respective vilayet (along with detailed ethnic and religious population statistics), which isn't surprising given the fact that this is the period of the rise of numerous nationalist movements among the different ethnic groups inhabiting the Ottoman Empire in its final stage. To name another example, policy could in practice vary considerably according to the personality (and political connections) of the governor (vali) which happened to be in charge of a given vilayet. As the numerous references to the vilayets, to the varying ethno-religious composition of their population and to their governors are well-known to anyone acquainted with the historical literature dealing with this period (from the 1860s to the 1920s) of Ottoman history, the allegation that the vilayets somehow "didn't leave much a trace in historical memory" makes absolutely no sense at all. Lekoren (talk) 18:18, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't argue in any way that the vilayets were not important to the last half-century of the Ottoman Empire, or that the Ottoman Empire was not of crucial importance in several far-reaching events of the period. That much is self-evident, and completely unrelated to the question at hand, which is the use of the vilayets as categorization tools in an encyclopedia anno 2014. Why is it in any way important or even useful to categorize a city under a specific vilayet? To quote from WP:CATEGORY, how are these cities "defined by [the] characteristics" of having belonged to a vilayet or another? Ditto for someone born in this city, when the relevant city category already exists? Does being born in an Ottoman vilayet make people different than being born in a Prussian province or a Russian governorate, so that we should remark on it? No. Would a modern reader seek out people being born in Thessalonica, Beirut, Skopje, Damascus or Sivas by the city they were born in or by the administrative entity they belonged to 100 years go? Do modern people in the Balkans, Anatolia or the Middle East still mentally use the Ottoman vilayets to refer to specific areas? No, in fact most people have forgotten all about them. As tools of categorization, and that alone, the vilayets are redundant and hence useless. Constantine ✍ 20:45, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that you have missed my point, which is this: as first-level subdivisions of one of the great empires of this period (roughly, from the 1860s to the end of World war I), the vilayets are the exact equivalents of the governorates of the Russian Empire, the constituent states of the German Empire and the Austrian crown lands. You ask: "does being born in an Ottoman vilayet make people different than being born in a Prussian province or a Russian governorate?" Quite obviously it doesn't, but that's precisely what I'm trying to tell you. Seemingly you do not know that corresponding categories for Russian governorates, Prussian provinces etc (and for the people born in them) do exist, and many of these categories are quite densely populated. Check out, for instance, Category:People from the Province of Brandenburg. These are historical categories, not modern ones, and this is why there is no much point in trying to figure out how much the average guy in Tirana, Kaunas or Poznań cares about them (to be sure, very little or not at all, but as they aren't contemporary categories, that's beside the point). It's also irrelevant to compare historical categories with city categories, for instance (as if they would somehow be mutually exclusive). A person born in Potsdam in 1900 is categorized both as Category:People from the Province of Brandenburg and as Category:People from Potsdam, whereas a person born in Potsdam in 2000 can only be categorised as Category:People from Potsdam, as the Province of Brandenburg (one of the subdivisions of Prussia, itself a subdivision of the German Empire) no longer exists. The same applies to the corresponding categories of the Russian Empire, Austro-Hungaria and the Ottoman Empire. The corresponding categories for those other empires already exist, hence there wouldn't be any logic in singling out the Ottoman Empire and its first-level subdivisions by deleting the categories for those subdivisions. To my knowledge, no one has yet proposed deleting the corresponding categories for the subdivisions of the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire. This is why deleting the corresponding categories for the first-level subdivisions of the Ottoman Empire would be illogical and, as I wrote before, would disrupt an established scheme of categorisation. Lekoren (talk) 22:07, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom. It doesn't make sense to create cats of outdated administrative units.Alexikoua (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia consensus says otherwise. If your personal opinion were the consensus, the elaborate categorisation scheme found under Category:Subdivisions of former countries wouldn't exist. Yet it does exist (with 31 subcategories, many of which have subcategories of their own etc) and, as far as I know, no one has tried to get it (or its various subcategories) deleted. The basic problem with your argument is that you aren't addressing the subject of the present discussion at all. Instead, you're trying to change the subject and to challenge an established scheme of categorisation in its entirety, namely the categorisation tree subsumed under Category:Subdivisions of former countries. Another problem with your argument is that it really isn't an argument at all: essentially, you're saying that Category:Subdivisions of former countries shouldn't even exist, yet you don't advance any actual arguments in favour of the opinion you express. As I have already said a couple of times, the vilayet categories we are discussing are part of an established scheme of categorisation in the same way as other corresponding categories, such as Category:Governorates of the Russian Empire. As first-level subdivisions of a large empire, the vilayet categories are the exact equivalents of the corresponding categories for the Russian Empire, Austria-Hungary, the German Empire, the Byzantine Empire and many more categories about subdivisions of former countries. As far as I know, no one has tried to get those deleted. Deleting the corresponding categories for the Ottoman Empire would mean singling out the Ottoman Empire for special treatment (as compared with other large empires), would be extremely illogical and would disrupt the entire categorisation tree subsumed under Category:Subdivisions of former countries. To do so would make absolutely no sense at all. Lekoren (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there is WP:OTHERSTUFF for this. By the same analogy, would you go on to create categories for every Byzantine theme, Roman province, Persian satrapy, etc? Categories are search tools first and foremost, and it is by their ability to help in this that their use or non-use must be determined. It may make sense in the context of the German or Russian Empires to categorize things by province, but how likely is it for anyone to search any topic by vilayet? As I am actually engaged in reading and writing about the period and the region, I feel I can confidently say "not very likely", for the reasons I outlined above. Unlike Ottoman vilayets, I have a feeling that both the Russian governorates (at least most of them) and, more definitely, the Prussian provinces, were around much longer and left much more of a mark. Vilayets, on the other hand, along with the rest of the Ottoman administrative system, have largely been wiped from historical memory even in Turkey due to the effects of modern nationalism. If person X was born in the village of Y, which at the time was in Z sanjak, vilayet A, then this can and should be mentioned so in the article, but I still think it is irrelevant as a search term. Constantine ✍ 16:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the geographic categories; neutral on people categories. I found Lekoren's arguments convincing, and a parallel with historical divisions of other countries especially helpful. As for the people categories, it seems that the people should be categorized by populated place where possible, not by administrative division. If after such recategorizaton some of the people cats become empty, I have no problem with deleting them.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); June 12, 2014; 16:32 (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.

Category:Breweries and beverage companies of Ireland

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) 04:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Breweries and beverage companies of Ireland to Category:Beverage companies of Ireland

Nominator's rationale: This category appears to serve no purpose, so I propose merging it to its sole parent Category:Beverage companies of Ireland.
It contains only one item (Category:Beer and breweries in Ireland), which is part of series of similar categories. However, this is the only "Category:Breweries and beverage companies of Foo". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, it seems that I created this category, back in 2007. Dunno why, but it doesn't seem to fit with the current category structures. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

merge per nom. I'm reminded of Walt Kelly: "We have met the enemy and he is us" --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Luckily, I am no longer expected to do this :) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 7 May 2014 (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:Pittsburgh sports stars injured in auto accidents

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) 00:46, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Pittsburgh sports stars injured in auto accidents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and not notable characteristic anyways Secret ^account 01:05, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as being WP:NONDEFINING. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 06:50, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for starters there has been an inordinate amount of Pittsburgh athletes who have been injured in auto accidents when compared to other cities (per team). That alone should make this significant enough to keep especially considering other categories of this type included in the project.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 03:33, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That other cities haven't had so many such injuries/deaths (and hence this is a one-off category rather than part of a consistent categorization structure) is a reason not to have this category. For info: Marketdiamond is the creator of this category. DexDor (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Seems like there is some regional bias at play here, and yes anyone considering an opinion on this category should see who the creator was, is it really that surprising that I care about the encyclopedia in my own way? (just asking).^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and broaden -- perhaps Category:American sportspeople killed in auto accidents. Purge if necessary of those who were not killed: the three I checked all died of their injuries. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lugnuts....William 12:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Categorization should primarily be by what the person is notable for - not for how they died (or were injured) which, when different characteristics are combined (e.g. people killed by accident in <state>), can mean many death categories on an article. DexDor (talk) 16:36, 11 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- DexDor, could you please clarify that statement? These articles and persons are already part of the encyclopedia, using that logic such categories as people born in 1957 should also be deleted since when they were born is just as random as "how they died". I second my keep and make a Strong Keep in the spirit of honoring those born in 1957 or 1977 or 1997 on the encyclopedia with their own category, something as random and serendipitous as the category currently under discussion.^{Market St.⧏}_{⧐ Diamond Way} 05:37, 13 May 2014 (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.