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 extensive past discussion on both "expatriates" and "expatriate footballers" categories, this is not a tree where we automatically create or want triple-intersected "Nationality-X expatriates in Country-Y" for every combination of X and Y that happens to describe one or two people -- it's a tree where people are supposed to be left in the parent categories, with a a dedicated category for any particular X+Y intersection in question created only when the number of potential articles is large enough to justify it navigationally. The question of whether a category tree is an "overall accepted subcategorization" scheme for the purposes of evading the WP:SMALLCAT rule is not determined by whether similar categories simply exist or not, because nothing stops anybody from creating any category at any time -- the question is determined by consensus around whether the tree warrants being subcategorized that narrowly or not, and past discussions on similar categories have suggested that it's not desirable in the "expatriates" tree. Certainly categories that have a significant number of entries can be left alone, but it's not a tree where every possible combination of X and Y is automatically fair game the moment there are just one or two possible entries. Yes, I'm aware that such categories are also proliferating for other countries as well -- but it's not feasible to batch them all together in one go, so it's better to start with one group and proceed from there. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep these aren't only for footballers and some are fairly underpopulated and part of a general tree which you mention, although opine not needed, I think that having the tree which has been well-tolerated for a long time probably sufficiently indicates acceptance thus overriding the WP:SMALLCAT prohibition. An overall discussion on the wisdom of the tree and how small a cat should be tolerated would be welcome, but selective trimming probably doesn't get us there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep there are thousands of such categories and no good reason to delete these or the others. They serve a valid article navigation purpose, the purpose of categories Hmains (talk) 03:28, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the Expatriates tree in general consists mainly of diplomats (mainly ambassadors) and sportspeople (mainly footballers). Neither of these are expatriates in the common-language meaning of the word (see also Expatriate article). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These are generally non defining - people who go and work temporarily in another country. Often listed as expats in several countries. Rathfelder (talk) 18:57, 5 August 2018 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Eponymous small category for just the eponym and a destination list. As always, every company does not automatically get one of these just because it exists; it would be warranted if there were a lot of spinoff content that needed this for navigational reasons, but is not needed if all that exists is the standard "main article + destination list" that every airline always has. Bearcat (talk) 17:05, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - I was going to say delete but I noticed additional things that could go in this category. Four is the bare minimum to keep a category I would say and as it is still operating, I say weak keep. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:36, 28 July 2018 (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:WP:NC for this tree is "medical schools", not "medical colleges", and even if it were "medical colleges" MOS:CAPS would require renaming for the miscapitalization of colleges anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:46, 28 July 2018 (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: A discussion last year was closed no-consensus, because people spent more of the discussion arguing against those who felt it was deletable as not sufficiently distinct from Category:Artists' models than they did actually considering any alternative names. Since Category:Muses already exists for the classical Greek muses, disambiguation is necessary -- but I'm not sure what the most appropriate disambiguator would be, which is why I'm leaving it up for discussion. However, the category must be named in a plural, not singular, form as required by Wikipedia's naming conventions for categories of this type. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion: Rename existing "Muses" to "Greek Muses" and then "Muse" to "Muses". That option I think has the benefit of embracing diversity in a couple of ways. Firstly by not assuming that the "Muses" can only be the Greek ones (9 European muses only seems a rather limited number of muses for an entire planet...), and secondly by allowing the "Muses" category to be a bit more all-purposes, allowing muses from various cultures and domains to be included within it. Ammienoot (talk) 17:19, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to Ammienoot's suggestion. This seems like the most appropriate way of resolving the two category distinctions we have at present without delving into fragmenting of musical muses, literary muses, artistic muses etc.Stinglehammer (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Muse seems fine and descriptive, and certainly no need to divide it up into further categories ("Carpenter's muse", "Candlestick maker muse"). Ammienoot's suggestion is fine as well, as long as a 'muse' stays identified as a 'muse'. Randy Kryn (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SupportAmmienoot's suggestion. As this involves renaming another category, I've left a pointer to this discussion at Category talk:Muses. I'm not convinced that "Greek Muses" are proper nouns, so the capitalisation of "Muse" is debatable. --RexxS (talk) 18:25, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, yes, the Muses are a proper noun (there are nine of them, either a class of muses or enough to field a baseball game). The article Muses pertains to the Greek Muses. I don't know why we can't just leave this category as 'Muse', seems a solution seeking a problem which doesn't exist. Randy Kryn (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Randy Kryn: So "Greek Muses" are proper nouns, but "Roman emperors" aren't? There are a finite number of them as well. See Category:Roman emperors and MOS:NAMECAPS: ("Do not capitalize terms denoting types of religious or mythical beings". The reason why we can't use Category:Muse is that muses constitute a set category. As I indicated above, Wikipedia:Category names #General conventions states "Names of set categories should be plural." Do you see any compelling reason why this category should breach our naming conventions for categories? --RexxS (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: there's no question that "Muses" to refer to a specific group or class of Greek goddesses is a proper noun, just as "Oceanides" and "Nereids" are proper nouns. It's the metaphorical use to refer to anyone who inspires a work of art that doesn't need to be capitalized, and that mainly because the original meaning seems to be lost on most people. When the connection is clearer, we still capitalize: for instance when metaphorically describing someone as "Athena" or "Aphrodite". Very few words identifying Greek deities/nature spirits are common nouns: nymph, dryad, faun, etc. Most are not, especially when the word itself identifies them as the offspring of a specific deity (i.e. a "proper adjective"; the Pleiades, the Hyades) or belonging to a limited class (the Charites, the Horae, the Hesperides). P Aculeius (talk) 17:41, 18 August 2018 (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:Birds of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands
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:Category:Astrologers already exists, so the category system has no business further subcategorizing astrologers on the subjective question of whether they're "celebrities" or not. Upmerging not necessary, as everybody here is already in one or more appropriate astrologer subcategories. Bearcat (talk) 05:15, 28 July 2018 (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 upmerging: there may be case for subdividing Europe into smaller regions (such as Northern Europe, Central Europe, Southwestern Europe, etc.) but there's not a case for individual countries, especially ones as small as Latvia or Montenegro. A classic set of NotWith/Caftaric/etc. categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support all except Cyprus. All the other countries listed are located wholly or mostly in Europe. Cyprus is located in the borders of Europe and Asia, and is variously counted as both Asian and European. "It measures 240 kilometres (149 mi) long from end to end and 100 kilometres (62 mi) wide at its widest point, with Turkey 75 kilometres (47 mi) to the north. It lies between latitudes 34° and 36° N, and longitudes 32° and 35° E. Other neighbouring territories include Syria and Lebanon to the east (105 and 108 kilometres (65 and 67 mi), respectively), Israel 200 kilometres (124 mi) to the southeast, Egypt 380 kilometres (236 mi) to the south, and Greece to the northwest: 280 kilometres (174 mi) to the small Dodecanesian island of Kastellorizo (Megisti), 400 kilometres (249 mi) to Rhodes and 800 kilometres (497 mi) to the Greek mainland. Sources alternatively place Cyprus in Europe, or Western Asia and the Middle East." Dimadick (talk) 09:23, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a good point, but runs into a common problem when categorizing animals by distribution. For plants, there's a well worked-out system (the WGSRPD) which is used in the English Wikipedia (see WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD) and does indeed place Cyprus in Asia (see the categorization of Category:Flora of Cyprus). But for animals of any kind, there's no such detailed scheme available, and Category:Fauna of Cyprus is placed in multiple overlapping and inconsistent categories. Only the vague map at Category:Fauna by continent seems to be available to define what is meant by the continents for fauna, and this has no boundaries shown. Peter coxhead (talk) 11:34, 28 July 2018 (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: Unnecessary level of categorization. Each of these categories contains only one article and it seems that each could only ever conceivably contain that one article. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:28, 28 July 2018 (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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 August 13#Category:WOW air. ℯxplicit 06:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
