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.
Keep this is a franchise category, for the "Carlito's Way" franchise, so involves 2 books, 2 films and a character article. Recategorize into the franchise category tree. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Alumni of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University
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.
It's not really a real-life ENGVAR matter: it's only in Wikipedia where the categories for the UK and some of its present and former colonies have adopted this name format. There's nothing inherently UK English about "Alumni of FOO" as compared to "FOO alumni", and there's nothing US English about "FOO alumni" as compared to "Alumni of FOO". It's quite daft/crazy to have two different formats, and they really should be standardiz/sed. Good Ol’factory(talk)04:39, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. It was shown in previous discussions that the claim this was an engvar thing is false. What it really is is an example of "we get to name categories for places related to us", but should not be really followed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Defunct organizations based in Moscow
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 no clear indication that Moscow organisations are more relevant to group together than a broader Russian one. A better solution would be to group by type, e.g. Category:Defunct governmental organizations of Russia (I would give my left arm to stop people defaulting to using geographic and yearly child categories, rather than topical ones which are most clearly much, much more definitive than a city...) SFB18:45, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Madras University alumni
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.
Reverse merge I did a study and figured out that even with Oxford putting alumni at the end was the common practice. We should just adopt it everywhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Historic Russian communities
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 per WP:NONDEF. The (one) article in this category doesn't deal with a Russian community or any other community. Also, there's not an article about Historic Russian communities. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete That at various times Odessa had various % of its population who were in some sense "Russian", can be covered in the article. It is not a defining characteristic that is categorizable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:09, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Streets in Tampere
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: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Tampere is a city of 225,000 people and the category only has one article so it doesn't currently aid navigation. I'm not seeing any other notable streets, at least using Google in English, so the growth potential is limited. No objection to recreating later if more articles appear though. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:21, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have populated the category with a second street that was previously overlooked. There is potential for additional growth. gidonb (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Russian Orthodox churches
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.
Weak support Are there variations of churches within Russian Orthodoxy? That is, do multiple congregations of the Russian Orthodox church exist? Or is it a single church? If it's a single church, then support, otherwise keep this category. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Coats of arms by charge
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?. This is a relatively new scheme being developed. It's far from complete right now. I think in terms of heraldry, it makes sense to divide things up like this—this sort of categorization for flags and coats of arms is routine on Wiki commons—but because coats of arms are notoriously "busy" things, any single article about a coat of arms could be in quite a few of these categories. Before this scheme is developed further I thought it would be good to discuss whether its a scheme that we want to have or not. I'm more or less neutral at this stage.
Delete. Many coats of arms have many things on them. I looked at a random example and found roses, lions, grass, castle, piles, crowns, shield, suit of armour, sun ... i.e. having any particular image is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. It's much better to categorize in a "Coats of arms of ..." category (and have an article/list about, for example, roses in heraldry). Particular problems with this category scheme are that it's likely to put articles in many categories (with consequences like watchlist noise as editors disagree about whether an article belongs in the with-ships or with-boats category), it may not be clear what an image is of (e.g. if a mythical creature makes up a small part of a coat of arms), and articles may be placed in this category scheme instead of in the existing category schemes (e.g. Category:Coats of arms by country). That Commons has a particular category (e.g. red automobiles[1]) does not mean that such a category is appropriate in an encyclopedia. DexDor (talk) 06:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason why this is a bad form of categorization is that each "Coats of arms with foos" category gets placed under the corresponding "Foos" category (e.g. Category:Trees or Category:Fish) thus adding to the clutter on those categories. A fictional fish (example) can be considered to be within the topic of fish, but a coat of arms (example) ? Pictures of many things appear on coats of arms (e.g. windmill, aircraft ...) so if this category scheme was completed thousands of "high-level" categories would have a coats-of-arms-with subcat. DexDor (talk) 07:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You say "another reason why this is a bad form..." but say nothing about why this is "bad". What is the problem you see with categories having a subcategory with coats of arms? Of course coats of arms with fish will be of interest for anyone with a more than just passing interest in fish. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 01:11, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Preference for Listify Grouping visual images by what they contain is probably defining but may run into subjectivity issues. I would lean toward listifying. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, these categories are for easier identification of coats of arms. An encyclopedia should have easy access to information. If you see a coat of arms with a particular image in it, you should be able to find it here, even if you have no idea what country, city etc. the arms stand for. Articles should of course be placed both in these categories and in the geographically named categories. I see no problem in having many categories for an article and the articles on heraldic arms usually do not have many categories. There are categories like this on Swedish Wikipedia which seem to have been around for years without being questioned there. Snowsuit Wearer (talk|contribs) 01:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If the wp categorization system was for easier identification of things then we would have categories like "tall people with red hair", "birds with yellow beaks", "paintings with a tree in the background" etc (note: categorizing things by their appearance is sometimes more appropriate on Commons). Coats of arms can have 10 or more different things on them which would mean some articles being in many categories. Problems with categorization schemes that put lots of category tags on articles include the extra maintenance effort, incompletely populated categories, watchlist noise, and it's more likely that an article isn't placed in a "normal" category (a person categorizing an article may put it in a "with a castle" category instead of putting it in the "of Fooshire" category). DexDor(talk)06:51, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Emblems in heraldry have meanings with more detail than simple color, this is a legitimate search criterion, the category enhances navigability. Montanabw(talk)21:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as these are non-defining and often unrelated. Like categorizing companies that have squares in their logos. They would just create category clutter. It is an interesting topic (I like to browse thru sometimes), but Commons does it better. Renata (talk) 03:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - these are defining features that are fundamental to the meaning, and are a key organizing principle for interpretationSadads (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
