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: Very arbitrary qualification. Why is 5 million noteworthy? Why not 1 or 10 million? I don't see much of a precedence of "x with more than y sales" categories. This type of info is best left to top selling articles. Vossanovao<18:07, 5 April 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.
Delete Guitar Craft, but keep Crafty guitarists. I suggest this for two reasons - firstly, the method of guitar playing taught by Guitar Craft leas to a very distinct style which marks these guitarists out from those taught by other methods, incluing modified tuning and playing techniques; second, there is definite room for growth in the category (I've added a further couple of people already). Grutness...wha?00:52, 6 April 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: This intersection of a nationality and a position on a basketball team is non-defining. American basketball centers do not inherently play the game differently than their Canadian, Turkish or Australian counterparts. TM15:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. As creator, I created the category for the simple reason that Category:Centers (basketball) has been described as oversized and wanting splitting. If that is not the case, I have no problem with the re-merging of all articles back to the main category. I would, however, note that if that is the case the main category wants clarifying as to its purpose, as do the other categories regarding basketball positions. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa.16:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@AusLondonder: What makes this "appropriate" to subcategorize by nationality? See my reasons for supporting the upmerge below. I am curious to hear what your take is from the other side of the fence (your initial !vote did not actually explain your position). Jrcla2 (talk) 14:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nomCategory:Centers (basketball) is appropriately sized. A sport position is not an occupation. In a case of dual citizenship (and there are many in basketball), you'd now have two categories instead of one. If you have a dual citizenship case where the person also plays two positions, then the person will now have four categories instead of two. This models the same convention in place for Category:Association football midfielders and pretty much all other sport position category structure. We already segment by nationality and sport (their profession), we do not need to also denote nationality by position on the court. At some point, categories are what they are and will just be large. For example, Category:1960 births is what it is. Rikster2 (talk) 10:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support for upmerge per nom. He said it best. Positions of a sport are not governed any differently due to a player's nationality. "Becoming too large" is not a reasonable rationale for subcategorizing a sport's position. I guess we should start creating subcats such as "Category:March 1960 births" too? (I fear even suggesting that as a joke, for some overzealous "professional categorizers" might take me seriously). Jrcla2 (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - In the current NBA, the "modern center" is almost an exact duplicate copy of what most centers are in Euroleague, Greek League, Italian League, Eurocup, French League. If anything, American center position is closer to an exact copy of European basketball centers now than any other basketball position is. It's also quite similar to the kinds of centers you often see playing in the biggest Latin American leagues, like Brazil's top league, or FIBA Americas League. So I really don't see why the American position should be separated out as being different from the others.Bluesangrel (talk) 23:22, 9 April 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.
KeepWP:SMALLCAT is for merging of categories that have no chance for expansion, like Australian geishas that had a single person. The previous three mayors could easily have article based on their coverage in The Bergen Record and other New Jersey papers. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Both of the current BLPs in this category are of seriously questionable notability. Precedent has been to delete such categories. AusLondonder (talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Basically everything is and should be questionable, but from what I can see, the two existing biographies are clearly notable. And as there is a chance for expansion, the category is no WP:SMALLCAT. The category follows a stringent scheme, so its existence doesn't hurt, while its deletion would. --PanchoS (talk) 00:03, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mergefor Now The question is not whether there are other mayors, the question is are there enough notable mayors under Wikipedia standards for articles. No objection to recreating though if I'm wrong and we get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:04, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Mayors of small towns don't need their own category, even if they are notable enough for articles (which is questionable). -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
… but please note as well that both articles are receiving a majority, in one case an overwhelming overwhelming of Keep votes backed by good arguments, so clearly there is no consensus for deletion. --PanchoS (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, CFD discussions should not anticipate the results of AFD discussions except in extreme cases. (For what it's worth, I voted to keep 1 and delete 1.) RevelationDirect (talk) 01:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator seems to have never read WP:SMALLCAT. The archetypal examples provided for "Small [categories] with no potential for growth" are The Beatles' wives, Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor, Catalan-speaking countries. This ain't one of them. Why do we tolerate such blatant misrepresentation of policy here? As a rather active WikiProject, there are plenty more articles coming, and the subcategorization by municipality serves as an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge for now. Opponents stretch the "potential for growth" exception too far, imho there should be some concrete evidence of growth potential and that's not the case here. Besides the category can be restored in the unlikely event that there are suddenly many more mayors of Bergenfield in Wikipedia. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- A place needs to be very significant or to have a lot of notable mayors before we should allow a freestanding category. Local politicians are generally NN, unless notable for other reasons. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:40, 10 April 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:Non-governmental organizations by country
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 term "NGO" was coined in 1945 by the (intergovernmental) UN. In this context and at that time, specifying "non-governmental" organizations did make some sense. However, in modern, pluralistic societies, an organization not to be a government agency is the standard case.
Few of these are UN-recognized NGOs. Based on a wider definition of NGO, almost all organizations with some substantial outreach would qualify as such. In fact, however only relatively few happen to be in the NGO category, based on completely arbitrary decisions.
While none of the organizations categorized as NGOs by its organizational form should be a government agency, many NGOs rely on government funding in one or the other way. While they usually retain organizational autonomy, few are free from government influence, with some being outright mouthpieces of governments.
Anbother distinction often made is referring to NGOs as organizations with international outreach, or "powerful" advocacy groups for goals considered "universal values". Loads of local or regional organizations currently categorized as NGOs should therefore be excluded unless they have a major impact at least on national poltics. The "power" is however hard to assess, and even harder is it to draw a line between "sufficiently powerful" ones and those that are not. Also, the universality of the values is sometimes debatable, while in other cases they may be a veil for more profane or conflicting interests. In any case, this is far too contestable and too constested to be an adequate inclusion criterion.
Being faced with all of these problems for almost 10 years, we have still not solved any of them. As of now, the whole category branch remains a rather arbitary collection of organizations, and it seems impossible to fix. At the same time we developped much better (i.e. more meaningful, and often more clearly defined) ways of categorizing organizations: by activity, legal status, membership, affiliation or subject. Covering the typical aspects of NGOs, we have the widely corresponding Category:Non-profit organizations by country, and categories for quite a number of topics, including Category:Human rights organizations by country, Category:Environmental organizations by country, Category:Political advocacy groups by country, and much more. We may also continue to categorize UN-designated NGOs. But there simply is no point in maintaining this effectively broken category branch.
Support NGO is fundamentally non-defining. However we may need a category for the sort of NGO which operates what could be described as missionary work on behalf of Western values in poor countries. But it needs to be defined in relation to the country of operation, not the country of origin. And when we have done with this lot, are we going to think about Category:Nonprofit organizations to which many similar arguments apply?Rathfelder (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support with caveat. I note that with quite a few of these category upmerges will move organization to organisation or vice versa, depending on local usage. I would suspect that, with the renamed pair, "organisation" would be correct for the former British-colonised Somaliland. Grutness...wha?00:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While there would clearly be WP:STRONGTIES to British English, I'm however still not convinced that the Oxford spelling "organization" would be incorrect or uncommon in British English, see -ize. This clearly is a minor issue in the larger context of this nomination, so thanks for still supporting. --PanchoS (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uncommon, no - but heavily frowned upon. Many spellings regarded as "American" are not uncommon in British English - but that doesn't mean they are widely accepted as correct in British English. The "Oxford" spelling is not even used by Oxford University - and all the equivalent categories for countries using the various Commonwealth forms of English use the -ise spelling. I do not support the move of the Somaliland category to one containing the spelling "organization". Grutness...wha?06:18, 8 April 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: A RfC on the category's talk page shows some agreement for a change from the current name to something less abstract. Per the general naming conventions for categories - specifically "Avoid abbreviations" (an ellipses is a form of abbreviation) and "Choose category names that can stand alone, independent of the way a category is connected to other categories." (the ellipses confusingly suggests that the categorised entries are not in some other category), I hereby propose the aforementioned name change. fredgandt12:11, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no way to avoid being pedantic when one is being pedantic, so I'll just own it: Category:Uncategorized ... is a whopper of a contradiction. But more importantly, these images can't be categorized in any other way (within the non-free fair use arena), which is why they're in this one. Calling them flat out "Uncategorized" is thus glaringly incorrect, and somewhat misleading, as if to suggest they should be moved to another more suitable category at some point. The images are in fact, within the non-free fair use arena, "otherwise uncategorizable". The length of the category name should not be an issue (within reason) so long as the name is accurate, which I strongly argue "Uncategorized fair use images" is not. This is a particularly specific category of edge cases that should have an appropriately specific name. fredgandt20:00, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Non-free fair use is what invokes this cat, and it states that "[This image] does not fall into one of the blanket acceptable non-free content categories...", so they are, indeed uncategoriseable under the current categories, and when they become categoriseable, they will be moved. — crh23 (Talk) 20:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question. Why do we assume that these are all "uncategorizable"? For one, this assumes that the category system is static. Sure, maybe they are uncategorizable today, but what about next year? Will they be uncategorizable forever? Is the proposal that items will be removed from the category as categorization changes? Secondly, I'm not even sure that it's true that they are all currently uncategorizable. Many of them could be placed in existing categories (legally and practically), so long as the category had a __NOGALLERY__ on it. Perhaps the "uncategorized" makes more sense in this context (or—for the pedants—"otherwise uncategorized"). Good Ol’factory(talk)00:31, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The proposal isn't to create a new category, but to rename an existing one with a name that relays its purpose; The function of the category won't change, so yes, if images can be moved to another category, they should be. Grammatically speaking, the proposed name tells the story reasonably clearly, without becoming a short essay. These images are non-free with a fair use rationale that (within that range of possible categorization) are otherwise uncategorizable. They are not simply otherwise uncategorized as this implies that they just aren't - without reason; all categorized images are otherwise uncategorized as they're not in other categories. It's that they can't be in other categories (at any given moment) that matters. We can't call the category "A category for images that might be otherwise categorizable later", and have it mean anything useful, since it would apply to every image. They also are most definitely not uncategorized - obviously. fredgandt01:00, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But just because a file is fair use doesn't mean that it can't be categorized in multiple ways. So long as the image itself does not appear in the category space, there is no copyright problem. So they could be otherwise categorized; they just aren't right now. ("Otherwise uncategorizable", to me, suggests that it is impermissible to change the categorization of the files in the category.) For instance, a non-free screenshot file of Madonna can be placed in Category:Images of Madonna (entertainer), so long as __NOGALLERY__ is placed in the category space to avoid the image itself from appearing there. (I do realise that the proposal is to rename the nominated category; I don't think I said anything that indicated otherwise.) Good Ol’factory(talk)01:41, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Cute, but I do think it's important for the category to mean what it says. It's accurately pedantic in one way, but fails dramatically in another way. My concern is about the category name, and the proposal here is to change the category name, so I hardly think this is a WP:BIKE situation. But I'd be interested to hear why you think otherwise. Good Ol’factory(talk)05:13, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the use of "Otherwise uncategorizable" due to inaccuracy issues, per my comments above. But I am open to other solutions, including "Otherwise uncategorized". Good Ol’factory(talk)05:14, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I do see a slight difference in meaning between "uncategorized" and "uncategorizable" in this context, both sound correct to me, in their own way. I also think further dissection of semantics would be bordering on a bikeshed discussion, and I would invite (another) administrator to make the final call. Eman235/talk16:16, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative: Since the category is for Non-free images with fair use rationale which as such cannot be alternatively categorized, which could be shortened to "Non-free images with fair use rationale not otherwise categorizable as such" or the neater and shorter original "Otherwise uncategorizable non-free images with fair use rationale", but for whatever reason this is misunderstood; perhaps the meaning cannot be accurately shortened in an agreeable manner, and as such should be named "Non-free images with fair use rationale which as such cannot be alternatively categorized", which doesn't feature the "...able" that's apparently the cause of confusion? fredgandt01:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is kind of a side point, but one of the underlying problems with getting something to work here is that it is essentially categorization by something that the contents are not, rather than categorization but what the contents are. This is unusual in the category system, and arguable could even fall within WP:OCMISC. There could be a case made that they should just be upmerged and contained in the parent Category:Fair use images. Good Ol’factory(talk)08:53, 28 April 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.
Delete per nom as unnecessary, incorrectly implemented and potentially misleading when included in a page (source will imply that it is a separate catagory). — crh23 (Talk) 20:17, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If an article needs 2 stub tags, we use each of them on the article; we don't package them together into a third template, even if several different stubs need the same set. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu15:38, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see, the template combines two unrelated templates. Thanks. Well, it will be easy to replace it, just by subst'ing it on the articles that transclude it. – FayenaticLondon08:22, 8 April 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.
Comment the ship classes have their own categories already, this is the shared name category for classes named "Tang", instead of the ship class categories for ships of these classes -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 04:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:United States Tang-class submarines to this category The shared name nomination is incorrect; however, the underpopulation of the category led me to search the sub classes tree, where I found the US Tang-class category. This latter doesn't fit with the pattern of other such categories, whereas the category under discussion does: hence, the merge.Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fayenatic london (talk·contribs): Sorry, I wasn't aware that a category change needed previous discussion. Since there are two submarine classes with the same name but very different origin and etymology, and none of them is currently in service (the US class because it was fully decommissioned long ago, and the Chinese class because it is currently in development), I thought it was only too logical to differentiate them without giving priority to any of both. Best regards. --MaeseLeon (talk) 03:17, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say weak keep just to prevent confusion, since there are going to be two very different submarine classes with the same name. There should be some way for the reader to choose if they are looking for information about the old US Tang class or the new Chinese Tang class. I'd be OK about any other option providing for such disambiguation. Greetings. --MaeseLeon (talk) 03:25, 16 April 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:no consensus on the issue of upmerging this single category. Concerns that this category's name is false are not fully accurate. It's just slightly ambiguous. You could read it as "MEPs of the Scottish Labour Party" (factually incorrect) or "MEPs of the Labour Party who are Scottish" (factually correct). There may be more support for a more complete nomination that seeks to upmerge all such categories. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk17:55, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with merging to all parents if that is desired. Regarding "looking at only one party sub-cat out of Category:Members of the European Parliament for Scottish constituencies". There is only three party-based cats. This one, the Scottish Conservative one and the SNP one. Obviously, the SNP one stays because that is the actual name of the party in the European Parliament. I have said I will support merging the Conservative cat. The problem with the Scottish Labour Party MEP's cat is that it is erroneous and WP:OR. Look at the profiles of the MEPs in the category. Catherine Stihler for example. She is listed as being a Labour Party MEP. Not Scottish Labour. As far as I can tell this is the same for all those in this category. AusLondonder (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Fayenatic london: too partial nomination, and the category doesn't unduly clog other categories, so deletion doesn't improve anything. Also, the category is not erroneous. Even if it might be debatable whether there are "(Scottish Labour Party) MEPs", there clearly are "Scottish (Labour Party) MEPs" (brackets added for clarification). --PanchoS (talk) 02:28, 28 April 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.
@Fred Gandt: I don't see how this supports keeping: this says that there is a higher barrier to making eponymous categories. Are you suggesting that we should have tens of thousands of categories like this about bands which contain little more than main articles, templates, and subcategories of albums/members/songs? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯04:55, 11 April 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.
Rather keepSmall, yes. But with no potential for growth? Most probably there are many more. While we might want to establish a more consistent naming scheme within Category:Subnational political parties, I see quite some value in keeping the per-country subdivisions. --PanchoS (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but is such a category really needed for a country like Guatemala? Guatemala is a very small country without much in the way of subdivisions and since this category only includes one party at the moment and seems unlikely to grow by any significant amount I don't see why it's worth keeping separate from its parent category. Charles Essie (talk) 21:16, 6 April 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: This and the following categories all use the noun demonym "New Zealander", rather than the adjectival demonym "New Zealand". Referring to "Samoan-New Zealander culture" is similar to talking about "Spaniard culture" or "Swede culture". While it's difficult to tell (New Zealand is unusual in having separate noun and adjectival demonyms) it looks like all other countries use the adjectival form. Grutness...wha?00:28, 5 April 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.
