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.
Oppose: I've created the category 'Rivers and canals of Ljubljana' instead of 'Rivers of Ljubljana' because it includes the canal Mali Graben (a natural canal, in any case not defined as a river but as a creek). There are at least two other canals in Ljubljana: the Gruber Canal [sl] and Curnovec [sl], both notable. However, as long as we don't have articles on all the three, I don't see a particular need to split the category. --Eleassarmy talk07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Eleassar: The English Wikipedia article on Canal begins with "Canals and navigations are human-made channels for water ..." I think there might just be a translation issue here. Which river/creek/"canal" is the one at question here? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar:A creek is still a river; and for something, in English, to be called a "canal" requires that it be human-made. Based on this, Mali Graben is a river and not a canal. As I explicitly stated, I'm not opposed to subsequent creation of a canal category, should it be appropriate - only that, as of right now, the category only contains rivers. Note my Saint Petersburg nomination, included here, what I would have done if there had been an article about a canal in the Ljubljana category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu11:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are you sure? (a source would be welcome - stream defines creeks/brooks as small to medium, and rivers as large) If so, then it is not a problem. Gruber Canal (a canal dug to drain the Ljubljana Marshes) is of particular interest/notability here. Or should it be 'Gruber Channel'? --Eleassarmy talk11:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good to me. Then when the article 'Gruber Canal' is created, we put it in the category 'Canals of Ljubljana'. The category should be named 'Rivers and creeks of Ljubljana' then (to include Mali Graben). --Eleassarmy talk08:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not entirely clear in the later part of this discussion whether the target should be 'Rivers and streams of Ljubljana' or 'Rivers and creeks of Ljubljana'. The former name fits better in the category tree (see Denmark example as mentioned in the discussion, or the sibling US category). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: It's clear this will be renamed, but we need to decide if it's "Rivers of Ljubljana", "Rivers and streams of Ljubljana", or "Rivers and creeks of Ljubljana".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk00:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I am inclined to accept the creator's explanation. "Canal" is cognate with "channel"; certain of the canals of Venice (e.g. Grand Canal) are probably not artificial. I am reluctant to encourage great use of "creek" as this has a very different meaning in America from Britain, where it means an arm of the sea, perhaps one that dries out at low tide. Creek also has a technical usage in British Customs administration referring to a place where goods could be landed that was not a legal port (but that just complicates things further. However, I would like to see us keeping the canals tree for artificial waterways, which may mean that a few things named as canals will be excluded from the canals tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 12 June 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. Arguments for deletion were mostly based on the fact that many of these articles represent either organizations based in Piccadilly but not defined by their headquarters location or buildings that belong in the subcategory. These were strong arguments and support purging the category if anyone cares to do so. When I took a cursory look through the articles, though, I found several which do not fit in the subcategory and go beyond just an organization's headquarters. I'm not going to list this at WP:CFD/W/M because it's unclear exactly how far purging should go, but at the very least, organizations who merely have their headquarters in this location can be removed by any interested editor. If the result is a WP:SMALLCAT issue, renomination is encouraged. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk05:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: except for the subcategory, it largely consists of companies and institutions that have their address on Piccadilly, London. I don't think Wikipedia should serve as an address book. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Ridiculous deletion rationale, it connects together a bunch of notable buildings in one area of London and a world-renowned road. This is to be encouraged and helps navigation for editors.♦ Dr. Blofeld11:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not convinced the street is defining for buildings in many cases. Categorizing tenants of those buildings by their mailing address seems very undefining. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (but no objection to rename adding London) -- Yes, Piccadilly is a main street in the West End of London, but it is also used for the district around it. I do not think we are dealing with mere registered offices of companies, but organisations that are genuinely based there. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 12 June 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 category doesn't really group together similar topics - e.g. the Sun was considered a planet by some people in medieval Europe and Pluto was considered to be a planet from 1930-2006. This sort of thing is much better handled as a list - and there is already such a list at Planet#Former_planets. This category causes various odd categorizations such as putting Sun into Category:Planets and into Category:Astronomical controversies. DexDor(talk)22:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The subject is adequately covered by the list in the section treated as a main article. Categories are a navigation aid. Those looking for an article Pluto will go straight there. The fact that is has joined Ceres and a few more as minor planets does not merit retention of this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 12 June 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:Articles created or expanded during Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon 2016
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/Move to Talk Page if Kept I think this was intended as a talk page category based on the template it is using. Even there, the ability of this category to facilitate collaboration has probably passed. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 9 June 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 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:Brazilian people of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent
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 -- Within the area of the former Ottoman Empire, there was a millet system under which everyone was classified according to their religion. This made religion a quasi-nationality. How deep this should be reflected in expatriate descent categories is something on which I am uncertain. It may be that at that level there can be some merger of denominations, but not in the countries of origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 12 June 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 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:WP:OVERCAT, WP:SMALLCAT. The contents of this cat relate entirely to the same person or set of events, and therefore, all of the articles are wikilinked to each other already as necessary. MSJapan (talk) 05:25, 6 June 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.
