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 most per CFDS. And "Star" is a horrible use of the category name how was that missed for so long? ; Category:Sailing by class should be kept separate, there are many classes of sailing that are not Olympic classes (like Volvo 60s, or IACCs, etc) But that category needs populating, as it is missing non-Olympic classes. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 06:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: an alternative could be Category:470-class sailing, Category:49er-class sailing, Category:Dragon-class sailing, etc. Agree with IP's comment on Category:Sailing by class versus Category:Olympic sailboat classes. The latter seems to be a subcat of the former. The former could instead be renamed to Category:Competitive sailing sailboat classes, or something similar. HandsomeFella (talk) 13:16, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support most, though the parentheses are entirely unnecessary. Star sailboat and Laser dinghy are perfectly natural noun phrases in their own right. Also, keep Sailing by class as there are dozens of non-Olympic classes. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 13:34, 11 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:Potential members of editor retention programme
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: Categorizing Wikipedians for something they may potentially do is (IMO) taking user categorization too far. If kept, this should be renamed to something more meaningful such as "Wikipedians who have expressed an interest in ..." or "Wikipedians who have been invited to join ..." (although I'm not sure that the latter is the sort of category that should be encouraged). DexDor (talk) 22:28, 10 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:Video Processing and Encoding Solution Companies
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:Winners of the Los Angeles Times Women of the Year
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.
Would it be better to create a list article instead? There may be recipients who are not notable enough to have their own articles in any case. For example Sister Frederica Horvath of the Sisters_of_Social_Service. To me, the existence of the award is important, if largely forgotten. This was one woman's effort to highlight the efforts of women who were taking part in the affairs of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mellen22 (talk • contribs) 22:26, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a WP:RS that can be used to create a list then please go ahead. The articles I looked at made no mention of this award in the text (let alone a prominent mention with cite) so it would not be appropriate to use the category contents as the basis for creating a list. DexDor (talk) 06:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify This seems like a reasonable enough thing to have as a list. I think the judgement of whether enough citations are present for the material is a question for the content space, not this category discussion. SFB18:03, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete -- yet another unnecessary awards category. This is the normal outcome. I would go further than DexDor, and say that we do not allow a category, because a list does the job much better, because it can be in chronological order and give brief details of the citation. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:17, 16 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:Ancient Roman forts in Hunedoara County
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 Not aiding navigation in its current form. Happy for this to be recreated if a well-populated county-based set of children can be built. SFB18:04, 11 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:Roman legions' camps in Romania
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:Vishwakarma
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:Tahitian paintings
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:Rename. Tahitian paintings may imply those made by native Tahitian artists, while currently the category contains solely Gauguin's paintings. The proposed name is somewhat provisional, may be there's an established name for Gauguin's Tahitian period, but I didn't find it during quick search. Brandmeistertalk10:18, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support this makes better sense and also groups his Tahitian paintings together in Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin (which I have just added as a parent category - if this category is kept, the paintings should only be in the sub-category not also in the parent category). The weakness of my support is because the categories within Category:Paintings by artist are usually only sub-divided for portraits or in cases of prolific painters (Van Gogh) and I'm not entirely convinced that we need a subcat for four paintings. The alternative is double upmerge to Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin and Category:Tahitian art. (But is it part of "Tahitian art" or should it be part of "Art in Tahiti"? If a Frenchman paints a picture of Rome, is that part of "Category:Italian art" or "Category:Art in Italy", or neither? How is this usually tackled?) BencherliteTalk10:45, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another deficiency of our cat scheme. Books, paintings, etc. are not easily categorized by nationality. They don't have passports. Are the Elgin Marbles English, because that's where they are? Are they Greek? or Athenian - as the state in which they were created? Is the Bible an Israeli book? a Roman book? Frankenstein English (author) or Swiss (where written) or French (first published with attribution)? Since we cannot OBJECTIVELY define nationality for works of authorship, we ought not. Paintings by Gauguin in Tahiti as an objective period of an artist is fine, Tahitian or French paintings isn't. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support as proposed. This group of works is broadly understood as the Tahitian paintings. Classifiying the works by the period he was in Tahiti may not work well as he also did non-Tahiti influenced works during that period (see paintings list). SFB18:17, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin. The category only contains about half the "Tahitian" Gaugins we have articles on, and the articles generally don't say where the paintings were actually painted. Gauguin spent several years (and died) on the Marquesas Islands; should works painted there be excluded? We typically don't categorize on where paintings were made, or that level of detail in subject matter and style, and I don't think we should. Johnbod (talk) 15:53, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Paintings by Paul Gauguin. As above. The idea that the Tahitian paintings are authentically "Tahitian" is fairly dubious anyway. There's a strong overlap with his "primitive" Bretton paintings and I think the idea that they are authentically "Bretton" is also suspect now. What about organising Paintings by Paul Gauguin by decade? That would at least provide some sort of context, assuming we think that his art developed in some sort of chronological way. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:42, 22 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:Yugoslav nationalism
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 as a synonym that is the title of the main article. @Charles Essie: However, some thought needs to go into how this is differentiated from Category:Pan-Slavism. I also strongly disagree with the placement of Category:Chetniks of World War II in this category, as Chetniks actually fought Pan-Slavic movements and seemed to be focused on Pan-Serb concepts, which is different. SFB18:41, 10 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.
