Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 August 18

< August 17	August 19 >

August 18[edit]

Category:Silly People[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedily deleted by Chaser. Non-admin closure. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Vandalism, and, well, rather silly. WP:OR, blatant bias inherent in the addition of nearly all members to this cat. MrZaius^talk 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. — AnemoneProjectors (?) 23:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --ElKevbo 23:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is the right of the free world for them to decide who is silly and who isn't. I don't see how it can be considered vandalism for me to offer people to choice to follow a link to a page where they can express which individuals they feel are silly. People should be free to edit this page at their own will. It is not the place of you or anyone else to decide who is silly and who isn't. Allow this page to go on and allow the people to decide. Atraxus 23:26, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even if we treat the category seriously, it can be nothing except a repository for a collection of WP:OR and/or WP:POV entries. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 23:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as nonsense. Craig.Scott 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Already deleted by me as vandalism. Someone with CFD experience please close this nomination.--Chaser - T 00:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:South Asian artists[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was recategorize articles and delete. the wub "?!" 09:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: People should not be categorized by an intersection of occupation and geographic region; they should be categorized by country/nationality. This category is unnecessary as specific nationality categories already exists such as Category:Indian artists, Category:Bangladeshi artists, Category:Pakistani artists, Category:Sri Lankan visual artists, etc. musicpvm 22:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Craig.Scott 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recategorize articles, then delete per nom as an inappropriate intersection. A straight delete would orphan some of the articles, or leave them without an occupation+nationality category, which would not be the best outcome. There are only five articles for the closing admin (or his/her chosen nominee (says he, volunteering if needed)) to fix before deletion, so it wouldn't be too big a job. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:58, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Recategorize by nationality if not already done, then delete per nom & Bencherlite. Carlossuarez46 02:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:A albums[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:A albums to Category:A (band) albums

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match lead article A (band) and to reduce ambiguity. Otto4711 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom & custom. Carlossuarez46 02:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and precedent. --PEJL 03:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Local government in England by county[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 09:20, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:London Government to Category:Local government in London

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per convention of Category:Local government in England by county. RegRCN 20:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Confused - rename "category" to "something", per the convention of the category you're trying to rename? Doesn't make sense. And why would Category:Local government in London be an appropriate parent category for, e.g. Category:Local government in Gloucestershire? But perhaps you were intending to nominate and tag Category:London Government for renaming to Category:Local government in London "per convention of Category:Local government in England by county"? If so, please say so! Bencherlite ^Talk 00:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC) Rename per (amended) nom for the sake of consistency with the parent category. Bencherlite ^Talk 01:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This has to be an error as outlined by Bencherlite above. It makes absolutely no sense to change it otherwise. Mighty Antar 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Now amended. I tagged Category:Local government in England by county by mistake. Could the closing admin please disregard that "Keep" unless it is repeated. RegRCN 00:32, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Oliver Han 10:09, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per now-clarified nomination. Consistency in categories is something we should always aim for unless there are compelling reasons against it in a particular case. Xtifr _tälk 12:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Dominictimms 23:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Images of Portland,Oregon[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy by Vegaswikian. ×Meegs 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This one is a duplicate categorgy. E_dog95'^{Talk ' Contribs} 20:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A duplicate of what? Dominictimms 20:01, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of this misspelled category. The diff here is the lack of a space after the comma. E_dog95'^{Talk ' Contribs} 20:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy merge with Category:Images of Portland, Oregon as obvious typo. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Extrasolar planets with unofficial names[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Extrasolar planets, categorization by name, no different than Things named for Magellan. -- Prove It ^(talk) 16:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is important to keep things like this documented. The naming of extrasolar planets is fairly important in the history of astronomy. Zazaban 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Isn't this better as a list since you can include some of the associated history and other notes? Vegaswikian 02:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Wryspy 06:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all entries in this cat are also in its parent. 70.51.11.13 07:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I just gave them all unofficial names! :) No objection to a list if someone wants to populate it with references to some more notable unofficial names than the one I made up, but this is absolutely not a defining characteristic, so categorization is not the appropriate way to present this information. Xtifr _tälk 12:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I didn't mean like, random names people made up, but like, actual notable ones. I assumed people would assume it would work along WP guidelines. Zazaban 06:36, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Xtifr. Carlossuarez46 03:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Xtifr. Vsst 02:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Machinima based on The Sims 2[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: A category which has only had one entry since it's creation in September 2006. themcman1 _talk 15:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creator - User:iNVERTED, and contributor - User:TKD informed. themcman1 _talk 15:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per empty. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 15:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A bit of an overly specific category. — TKD::Talk 00:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed. Carlossuarez46 03:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the list of machinima deletions. — TKD::Talk 19:07, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Lahore University of Management Sciences[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, single item category containing only Lahore University of Management Sciences. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per empty. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 15:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & not needed. Carlossuarez46 03:01, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:1921 in the Soviet Union[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Speedy Merged - simple, obvious error in naming. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:1921 in the Soviet Union to Category:1921 in Russia

Nominator's rationale: Merge, the Soviet Union was established in 1922. Tim! 15:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Craig.Scott 00:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Wikipedia requested photographs of religious sites or objects[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was speedy delete. ×Meegs 00:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a new category that I have renamed to Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of religious subjects for more general coverage. A speedy rename or merge would work, but does not seem necessary, as the category has only existed for a few days and there is no reason to expect any other articles to appear here. :-) Tim Pierce 13:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per author's request. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:05, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Hubert Evans Non-Fiction Prize[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Hubert Evans Non-Fiction Prize winners, convention of Category:Literary award winners. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and convention of the parent category. Bencherlite ^Talk 00:06, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners (preferred) or rename per nom. This is a provincial award, in both the literal and figurative sense. It is, I think, a long way from being among "the most notable awards", from a global perspective, and is therefore overcategorization and should be deleted. Note that the article about the prize lists it as being one of a red-linked set of provincial prizes; if the set isn't notable enough for an article, I'm not sure this specific prize is notable enough for an article either, let alone a category. However, if the category is kept, nom is certainly correct about the name. Xtifr _tälk 12:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Xtifr and WP:OC. Otto4711 12:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Xtifr, OCAT. Carlossuarez46 03:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:American dietitians[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 09:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to merge Category:American dietitians into Category:Dietitians. Category:American dietitians has existed for four months and contains one article. Its parent Category:Dietitians also has only one article. Given the total of two dietitians contained in this tree, it is unneccessary and cumbersome to subdivide by nationality at this point. Should the category grow to a point much larger than it is now, then it would be appropriate. --Kurieeto 12:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. If there were hundreds, dividing by nationality would make sense .. but for now, one is plenty. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - per above. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 15:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Everyone should be categorised by nationality. It's better to have the article here than either of the alternatives, which are to place it in category:American people, which should not contain any biographical articles, or to remove it from the American people menu altogether. Dominictimms 20:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - with no prejudice to recreation should a sudden spate of American dietician articles appear. With the category's removal the article is still in the categories for American entrepreneurs, American nutritionists, American television chefs and American television personalities and so is sufficiently identified as an American in the category system. Otto4711 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into both Category:American physicians and Category:Dietitians All biographies that would fall under Category:American people should be subcategorized under Category:American people by occupation. So when merging this subcategory I recommend merging the article into Category:American physicians since I think dieticians qualifies as a subgroup under physicians. That way the bios don't become orphaned out of the Category:American people by occupation scheme. The articles should also appear under Category:Dietitians. Note the difference here that American people is completely subdivided by occupational groupings, but that not all occupational categories need to be divided by nationality. Dugwiki 21:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Dieticians are not automatically physicians and the specific article in this category does not state that she is a physician so the category should not be merged to any physicians category. Otto4711 14:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Competitors for the United States at the 1904 Summer Olympics[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was upmerge to Category:Olympic competitors for the United States. the wub "?!" 09:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Over-categorization by intersection (Category:Olympic competitors for the United States and Category:Competitors at the 1904 Summer Olympics or Category:Competitors at the 1908 Summer Olympics Neier 09:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Olympic competitors for the United States, as they are all already in the correct by-year cat. These have been discussed before (Canada, in recent games, if my memory is correct), and deleted. Neier 12:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One previous discussion can be seen here. Neier 01:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Royal Shakespeare Company members[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep. the wub "?!" 09:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Royal Shakespeare Company members to Category:Royal Shakespeare Company people

Nominator's rationale: Rename, per Category:People by company sub category. Sutiec 04:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose That would be a change of scope. This category is for actors, who are conventionally referred to as members in this context. "People" would also include directors, writers etc. Dominictimms 20:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as performer by performance/venue overcategorization. Otto4711 14:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose renaming per Dominictimms, and Keep. This category is not about "performance/venue", but rather about membership in one of the world's most reknowned acting companies. The main article has a very long list of actors who have performed under its auspices, but I don't believe that they are/were all members of the RSC, whereas this category makes that important distinction. Hopefully, somebody with greater knowledge of the subject than I will confirm that (or clarify it). Cgingold 15:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I consider that membership of the RSC is more akin to something like Category:Alumni of the University of Oxford but for articles about actors. There only a few such companies in the UK, there is also Category:Royal National Theatre Company members, and the overlap between those two is quite small so I don't think it's really adding a lot of overcategorisation. Tim! 16:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Shakespearean actors[edit]

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 09:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - per Category:Actors by series sub category CFD.Sutiec 04:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete performer by performance. Wryspy 07:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Onnaghar ^{tl | co} 15:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Shakespeare" is not a "series". This is a sui generis defining category. Dominictimms 20:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it's a genre and acting style. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep—after some thought, I find myself agreeing with Adam Cuerden. This is clearly the sort of thing we normally delete as overcategorization, but in this case, I think it's a widely recognized style that has to do with more than just performing the works of Shakespeare. Xtifr _tälk 11:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subjective inclusion criterion. What constitutes "specializing" in Shakespeare's works? Is Orson Welles a "specialist" because he was in a film version of Othello along with dozens of other roles? Does James Earl Jones, even with multiple roles in stage productions, "specialize" in Shakespeare? We don't have an article on Shakespearian acting; with no point of reference as to what constitutes a Shakespearian style it's difficult to judge whether the people in the category consistently act in such a style, or that such a style is limited to actors who perform Shakespeare. Otto4711 15:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how much of one's career must be devoted to those roles? Subjective and therefore POV and OR magnet. Carlossuarez46 03:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete pending clearer inclusion criteria Latin phrases like sui generis aside, I can't find an article in Wikipedia that actually talks about what the term "Shakespearean actor" technically means other than the vague notion that the person is an actor who performs a lot of Shakespeare. The problem, though, is that virtually all actors have done some Shakespeare, and there is a spectrum of actors between doing "a little" Shakespeare and doing "exclusively" Shakespears. It's not clear, therefore, where to draw the line on how much or how often someone needs to perform Shakespeare compared to other types of performances to qualify for this category. Therefore I agree with the delete comments above that the category is too subjective and should be deleted. I'd be a lot more comfortable with the category if there were some sort of objective, referenced main article for Shakespearean actor that actually demonstrated an objective inclusion criteria for the category. Dugwiki 21:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, not a series as such. I see what Dugwiki says above but I think it is possible to constuct a reasonable test for entry based on looking at the articles in question and seeing if Shakespeare appears frequently or prominently in them. For example looking at Derek Jacobi, his roles in many Shakespeare plays are mentioned and I think we could safely describe him as a Shakespearean actor. A random selection from the category I viewed also seem to mention Shakespeare prominently. Tim! 16:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As indicated by Otto, Carlos, and even Tim, the inclusion criterion is subjective and arbitrary. >Radiant< 12:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all per previous comments.--Alabamaboy 21:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.