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. WP:SMALL category with no reasonable chance of expansion. Individual episodes of the show don't appear to become independently notable and the one article purportedly about an episode is really about a charitable campaign the show ran over the course of two episodes. These articles can live comfortably in the parent. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:29, 30 December 2013 (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 from Ocean Shores, Washington
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.
Category:Chapter 9 bankruptcies
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. But we cannot delete both here, since the latter was not nominated, tagged, etc. As an editorial matter, I am going to make the original nomination a soft redirect, because I see a high probability of recreation otherwise - let's be honest the target category name is way to verbose to be most normal persons' first attempt! -Splash - tk22:36, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
comment Two actually: first, I can see an argument retaining the first category rather than the second. Also, "merge" actually means "delete", given that everything in the first category is a redirect to an article in the second, other than the very few where the target isn't so categorized. Mangoe (talk) 03:04, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all articles are redirect. The Detroit Bankruptcy has a different article. These are very different categories, covering different things, and I see no reason to merge them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that they are "very different", they cover the same topics, except that one is a category for the actual municipalities which have declared bankruptcy, and the other contains mostly redirects. The Detroit Bankruptcy could easily fit in the second category. --Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs18:20, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Is there a defining difference between filling for bankruptcy and getting it approved that we need to categorize by? In any case, I'm opposed to Category:Government units that have filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy since this seems to be a made up name. That category is all settlements except for a school district and an agency. So if we are going to keep that it should be renamed to something like Category:Chapter 9 bankruptcy filings since only municipalities and governing bodies can file we don't really need to make that point in the category name. But then, we would likely want redirects also. In some of that content, the chapter 9 is mentioned in passing and does not seem to be defining for the entities. I'm not going to say that is the case for all, but it is for some. This point reenforces my concern about a category for filing and one for granting chapter 9. So, unsure what is the best direction here, but if one category can work, I think that is what we should do. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both but listify -- The subject is a category full of redirects. The only substantive articles are Mformation, which may be a differnet class of bankruptcy and Detroit. The target is essentially a performance category: it is not a category about Chapter 9 banruptcies but about authorities that have filed for bankruptcy, where the bankruptcty article is a redirect to the county or city article. There is a list in the main article, and we should expand that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 15:50, 4 January 2014
Merge, but do not delete. Quite frankly, why anyone who knew anything about reorganization law want to delete a useful category? Bearian (talk) 23:27, 28 January 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:Geography of West Java
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: I think most landforms (mountain ranges, rivers, etc) would make sense to categorize by island not by administrative units that are subject to change. Larger mountain ranges and rivers might fall within several administrative divisions. It is also much easier to search by island, than seven or so less well known subcategories, with only a few articles in each of them. ELEKHHT04:59, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
comment - the sundanese/west java cultural boundary has been there for over 200 years in one sense, 1,000 years plus in another, and the provincial boundary has not been subject to any vagaries... West Java is also mountainous, and quite full of features that could fill the category and make a java category as hard to negotiate. One way or the other the arguments can go both ways.. 3 main sub cats (not 7) hardly seems difficult to negotiate satusuro05:58, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean with 3 sub cats? Currently West Java is a subcat of Provinces of Indonesia, so no doubt sooner or later people will pop-up to create a subcat for each province, that is 6 for Java and 10 for Sumatra per current status (sorry for my previous lack of precision). If you mean a parallel categorization by geographical region (west-central-east) than that needs to be clarified in the category description. --ELEKHHT06:28, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to both parents. There is a well-developed category for West Java, but not soo full that it needs splitting. The objection is not to having a category for West Java; that is legitimate, but it is undesirtable to have a mass of little sub-cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 4 January 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:Animal impersonators
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.
Category:Wikipedians who support one world wide race
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: I think we try to avoid race based categories, and this one is odd, as there already is one race, at least from a biological perspective, and supporting it would imply opposition, which would of course be used as an attack category Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:52, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a ridiculous seemingly racist category. Echo above user in there only technically being one race(but I suppose many varieties?) of humans.AioftheStorm (talk) 20:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm hoping the category creator means they support one race- The Monaco Grand Prix, The Daytona 500, or maybe the 24 hours of LeMans. Even if that optimistic view is correct, the category is in need of deletion....William21:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete AGF of the creator, who supposedly supports Miscegenation (e.g interracial mixing), which may eventually lead to so much mixing that there are no more separately identifiable races. But I don't see how this can further the goals of wikipedia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:53, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Wait and see what the (new?) editor has to say - I know that I did not choose a standard keep/delete option, but I would like to give the editor an opportunity to expand on what he or she meant. I do think that this category has the potential to cause upsetedness, especially at a quick glance; However, there are people (including myself) who hope that in 1,000 (2,000? 5,000?) years, that due to increased opportunity for travel, trade, attending school in foreign lands, etc., that eventually there will be so much intermarriage among persons of different races that the whole notion of "different races" will be an anachronism. KConWiki (talk) 05:40, 1 January 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:Wild cats
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.
Merge -- There are other species of wild cat, including one in Scotland, whose genes are being diluted by interbreding with feral domestic cats, but this is a category level that we do not need. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 4 January 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:Unique locomotives
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. The discussion was marred by the out-of-process depopulation of the category before nomination, and by some confusion over the distinction between individual and unique. This was clarified (unique locos are by definition individual, but individual locos are not necessarily unique), but the discussion did not reach a consensus on whether the concept of uniqueness fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Just what degree of differentiation from other locos makes a loco unique? In the course of the discussion, an explanatory text was added to the category page which defined it as being for "One-of-a-kind locomotives, as opposed to those produced as part of class", but this discussion did not consider whether "one-of-a-kind" might be a more appropriate name for the category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged for speedy deletion - an editor (not the nominator) apparently manually merged the categories several days ago, seemingly in good faith. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:15, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep There is a difference here between being "unique" and being "individual". There are large numbers, perhaps the majority, of articles in the latter category which are not unique: for instance, Nickel Plate 759 and Nickel Plate 765 are more or less identical locomotives within the same class. However, many locomotives, for a variety of reasons, are one-off engines which never had duplicates, e.g. Baldwin 60000. It seems to me to be useful to have a separate (sub) category for the latter, and I have begun repopulating it. Mangoe (talk) 02:51, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep While I'm assuming whomever merged it was doing so with the best intentions, I created this category in order to catalog locomotives that were one-off designs and not duplicated. While these locomotives are indeed individual locomotives, I feel that including it as it's own category is more appropriate as many individual locomotives, as Mangoe stated are members of the same class and therefore not truley unique. O484 (talk) 00:19, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The Category:Individual locomotives text clearly states: "These are famous locomotives, as the first, last or only one of their type, record breakers, or simply popularly known." This, and also the contents of the individual locomotive categories have a huge overlap with the Category:Unique locomotives definition Mangoe just added. Do Mangoe and O484 have a solution for this when the unique locomotives category is kept? Are they going to sort out the Category:Individual locomotives? and move all the appropriate content to the unique loco category?--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 08:27, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it would be the case that unique locomotives would also by nature be individual locomotives, so yes, one would be a subclass of the other. And yes, it would take some work to sort it all back out again. However looking at the American individual class my guess is that probably no more than 15% would fall into the "unique" class, since the claim to fame for virtually all of them is that they still exist. The long-winded explanation of why we have articles on individual locomotives isn't germane. Mangoe (talk) 11:43, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quote: And yes, it would take some work to sort it all back out again.. Sort it all back out again? The contribution history indicate that I removed only 11 articles from Category:Unique locomotives before it was emptied. And all of this is already restored. Your 15% estimation would indicate that, based on the contents of the individual locomotive (sub)categories, there should be around 60 unique locomotives. That leaves me to the conclusion that the creation of the unique loco category (and subsequent populating of its desired content) was left unfinished shortly after its creation on 20 November 2013.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment unique locomotives are the sole examples of their class ever built, so there should be no class articles for these locomotives, and the category should exist in the locomotive class tree and underneath individual locomotives. -- 76.65.128.112 (talk) 06:00, 31 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (assuming that every article in the category is already in an appropriate "Individual locomotives of <country>" category). We do not usually categorize things by whether they are unique or not - i.e. we don't have categories for unique buildings, unique spacecraft etc (the only other unique objects categories are a few for USN/RN ships). There is also an element of subjectivity here; in my experience (with ships rather than locos) nearly every ship is unique (the later ones incorporating design improvements and changes for specific customers) even if they are part of a class. Even if an argument can be made that being unique is a defining characteristic of a loco, consistency of categorization means that we shouldn't categorize locos in this way unless we intend to apply this form of catageorization to all types of vehicles etc. DexDor (talk) 06:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I confess I do not follow the logic here, particularly as it applies to ships. Yes, ships are usually not identical, and locomotives tend not to be identical either. But locomotives were and are mass-produced, and naval ships are generally built in large classes and rarely as one-offs. In the case of the naval ships they have individual articles because they have individual histories, not because they are physically unique; maybe a third of the American locomotives are there because of their specific history (e.g. New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999 or Union Pacific No. 119), and probably half of those are early one-off designs, but at least half of the individuals are there simply because they still exist. In short, the reasons we have articles on individuals differ from one class of object to another, so the fact that this distinction doesn't obtain elsewhere isn't compelling. Mangoe (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand your logic; it appears to be mainly about whether something is an individual item which is a separate characteristic for categorization. In particular you haven't shown that "the reasons we have articles on individuals differ from one class of object to another"; we should have an item about an individual item when that item is sufficiently notable and there is enough information about it to make a separate (from an article about a wider topic) article appropriate. Let me try to explain why the "unique" characteristic is a bit subjective: Presumably if the only difference between 2 locos (for example) was the serial number stamped on them you would not consider them unique, but what if they were painted a different colour, had different air filters, had different engines ... ? What if items were identical when they left the factory, but one was later modified ? DexDor (talk) 07:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
delete definition of unique is subjective, and I don't think we should start categorizing unique other-types of objects. Especially given that unique could mean "only one surviving of it's type" or "a model that wasn't made again". Categorizing articles we have on notable individual locomotives is fine, but categorizing b/c it's the last one I don't think is defining.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Uniqueness as the category definition gives it isn't subjective, except to the extent that one quibbles about whether any two things are identical. As far as distinguishing "only survivor" from "one-off", perhaps you could suggest a better name. Your comments indicate that you yourself see a difference which is pretty clear-cut. Mangoe (talk) 13:27, 15 January 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:People with nocturnal enuresis
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:Delete. Unencyclopedic. Also, almost everyone had nocturnal enuresis at some point in his/her lifetime, and the category is not well-qualified to list criteria for being in the category. --Nlu (talk) 00:38, 30 December 2013 (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:Petoleum in Yemen
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.
Speedy Delete Could it be empty because of the typo? Category:Petroleum in Yemen (with an "r") already exists, and unless this category is about oil produced from cats, dogs and other household pets, this is probably an excellent speedy deletion candidate. Alansohn (talk) 14:55, 31 December 2013 (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:2013 disestablishments in the Palestinian territories
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.
Category:130s establishments in Israel
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.
Category:131 establishments in Israel
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.
Category:320s disestablishments in Israel
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.
