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 With over 850 articles in the parent, it is evident that Category:American engineers is not effectively split by non-gender means, and so it would seem to be better to upmerge this to its parents than to have it sit as a functional last rung category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comments here, I believe existence of gendered categories should not be subject to existence of other sub-category types. A non-diffusion approach should render the last rung rule unnecessary. SFB17:35, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. Gender is usually not a defining characteristic within a profession. (There's a similar CfD with women historians running.) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no, this is not similar to the issue for women historians. Here, I am proposing that we keep a separate category for women in engineering, I am only proposing that we do not split it by nationality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:56, 26 July 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.
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.
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.
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 had a proposal for renaming to "Music by place" at July the 2nd, and got equal support and opposition, before I abandoned the proposal, because of this big new idea: Category:Music by place would've been well suited for categorizing the topic music by city, continent, country, region. But is that all that we want? Maybe we want to categorize by nationality, ethnicity, language and other attributes. These all categorize also by location of music, but not only by location, and can therefore not be included in Category:Music by place. My proposed title Category:Geographical categorization of music is best suited for combining a classification by place and the other geographical factors. It would make Category:Musica lot tidier, and add clarity and logic to the category system. -- CN1 (talk) 19:08, 22 July 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.
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 -- The convetnion is that we name things according to the contemporary polity, but since the areas are much the same, we should not have a separate Dutch East Indies parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - There was no Indonesia in 1933, or 1914. It was the Dutch East Indies. We should reflect this, rather than try and revise history. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:46, 28 July 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.
1935 establishments in the Republic of the Congo[edit]
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.
Pre-1960 establishments in The Democractic Republic of the Congo[edit]
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 Dated country categories should use the naming of that country during that period. II also support other proposals listed above on the same basis. SFB19:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support - the chronological scope of each of these categories is entirely during the time when that area was known as "Belgian Congo", so the category names should refelct that. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu12:12, 25 July 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.
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: The term athlete in this context is ambiguous as to whether it refers to athletes in sports in general, or more narrowly competitors in the sport of athletics. Athletics has quite a distinguished connection with the military, stemming from its origins to present day, so this is a term well in need of disambiguation. SFB16:36, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As best I can tell this is a intersection of two careers category, and I see no good reason to have this one. It also seems to be being misused, since the military patrol sub-cats do not seem to be related to the parent category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as unrelated intersection. I assume all included articles are already in more specific categories for both the military and athlete aspects so no merger should be necessary. postdlf (talk) 19:19, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Johnpacklambert and Postdlf: Sorry, I should probably have mentioned that this is to do with people's association with national military sports clubs, so it's more of a club type category than an occupation one. For example, see Category:Italian military athletes for more specific divisions of the clubs. The Military World Games is the top level event for such military associated athletes. Not sure whether this changes your perspective or not. SFB21:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
From the artilces I have read, I have seen no mention to the people being associated with national military sports clubs, it appears to just categorize athletes who were in the military. There are no guidelines anywhere that would change this. Even if there were, I see no evidence these sports clubs are defining to the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:00, 26 July 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.
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: The current name of the category sounds like it's refering to tennis venues that are real, and not venues of a game called "real tennis". עוד מישהוOd Mishehu06:00, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support It's not very unlikely that someone may see this as the other side of "fictional tennis venues", but the outcome is still an improvement in this regard. SFB16:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename The current name matches the overwhelming standard in the parent Category:Sports venues by sport. I'm not sure that there are many imaginary real tennis venues or if anyone would erroneously place non-imaginary places here rather than in Category:Tennis venues, but I don't see why these imaginary concerns should sway the naming of a real sport. Alansohn (talk) 23:21, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this should all use "royal tennis", since this is about royal tennis, as this is not about "real" tennis versus "table tennis", which if you think of "tennis" as a head category with subcategories for types of tennis, then common tennis may be referred to as "'real' tennis", therefore this is an ambiguous category. As for fictional vs real, we should use "real-world" to distinguish those, if necessary, and create a different subcategory for that. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, the sport we're talking about here is the subject of the Real tennis article. Secondly, the issue nhere isn't what we would call a category about real-world venues of tennis, but what we should call the category for venus of real tennis. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu11:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That is my point. Your rename still makes it ambiguous. As 'royal tennis' is an alternate name for that sport, it also removes ambiguity with real-world venues of tennis, and venues of common tennis. Category:Venues of royal tennis would not give confusion between normal tennis and other forms of tennis, nor would it give confusion between the real world and non-real. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 07:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The ambiguity of "real tennis" exists with the article name, too. If/when the article is renamed, the category tree will be renaed accordingly. Until then, though, there's a different ambiguity issue - whether the "real" goes with the "tennis" or the "venues"; my proposal deals with that ambiguity. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu12:10, 25 July 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.
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 WP:SMALLCAT says, "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." And location is a specific example of when it is appropriate to add a smaller category, "However, location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. For example,Category:American writers by state." The intent of overcategorization editing guideline (and it is a guideline not policy) is to avoid trivial categories. Category:Novels set in Namaqualand is not a trivial categorization. Sydney Poore/FloNight♥♥♥♥20:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This appears to refer to a region that straddles the South Africa/ Namibia boundary; if so, it might bhe legitimate, but in fact, both seem largely to be about South Africa. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While Namaqualand does go well into Namibia, these novels are both set in South Africa. Also, categorizing novels by the non-political or cultural geographical area they are set in is not a widespread practice. Even if it was, we do not need it here. It just creates more small, not useful to navigation categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:03, 26 July 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.
Relisted at 2014 AUG 20. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)