Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 1 April 3 >

April 2[edit]

Category:Marine corps[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 result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Marine corps to Category:Marines
Nominator's rationale: This is a category for Marine forces which happen to have the word "Corps" in their name. This seems like a rather arbitrary and trivial criterion to me; these articles should be upmerged into Category:Marines, which is the general category for marine armed forces. TomTheHand (talk) 23:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment should have military in there ... Catgory:Military marines? 70.51.9.57 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom; the current Marines category doesn't have people in it, and also has some other organizations using "Corps" not currently in the "corps" cat. Making up a WPlogism like Military marines isn't necessary nor is it desirable. People know what marines are. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:49, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merchant marines you mean? Mariners are also sometimes referred to as marines. 70.51.11.131 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:40, 4 April 2008 (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:Bonesmen[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 result of the discussion was: delete. While not exactly like the Masons, it is similar. This is, for all intents and purposes, a Yale student society, and precedence calls for the deletion of such. There is also a well-annotated list which does a good, if not better job, of listing the members. Kbdank71 13:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bonesmen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: While it has been voted down for deletion before, the category is similar to the deletion of the Freemasons category in that membership is not defining. It may be significant, but a list exists, and that is probably better serving of the needs of the topic. Note that other college fraternities have been deleted here and also here, as well as a few other scattered places. this place. (Sorry, I linked User category discussions instead of regular category discussions. —ScouterSig 22:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See previous CFD debates about this category:
  • Delete per nom. Interesting, but not defining and a good list already exists for it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous decision(s), which should be linked. A far far smaller & more defining group than freemasons. Johnbod (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous decision(s) and per Johnbod. If renominating a category (as has been done here), the nominator should explain what has changed since the previous, or how in their view the previous debates were mistaken, but this nomination just looks like a case of "asking the other parent", by repeating the question in the hope that a debate amongst difft editors will reach a difft conclusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining, we have an article, and yes, it's like the freemasons. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply Oh no its not! </pantomime> The freemasons are a huge and diverse organisation, whose local groups vary in style from the very murky P2 lodge in Italy to many groups which function as little more than local benevolent societies. The Bonesmen, OTOH, are are smallish group with a limited membership, whose influence may be disputed but which has been very widely covered> Membership of the bonsemen it has been a widely-discussed attribute of any of its members who have entered public life. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think that while, yes, the topic of Bonesmen is smaller and more documented than Masons, it is essentially the same as other college fraternity categories: not a defining characteristic. Members of the category like Scott Frankel, John Chafee, Thomas Anthony Thacher, and E. H. Moore only casually mention membership within the article, which was one of the main points in the deletion of other college fraternity membership categories. —ScouterSig 15:24, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The previous discussion that was closed as keep was better described as no consensus. So using that as a reason to keep this is, in my opinion, a really weak technical argument. Given that it has been a while, a new discussion is reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:19, 7 April 2008 (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:Seni Gayung Fatani[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 result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 13:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Seni Gayung Fatani to Category:Silat
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Child category only contains two articles. All other silat styles and notable silat practitioners are in the main category. Lenticel (talk) 22:20, 2 April 2008 (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:Western India Cinematographers' Association ( WICA )[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 result of the discussion was: This was speedy deleted at 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) by User:Woody. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Western India Cinematographers' Association ( WICA ) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This newly-created category seems to be an article in category space. The only entry (not there anymore) is that of an "upcoming" cinematographer. ... discospinster talk 20:51, 2 April 2008 (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:Indian Cinematographers' Society ( ICS )[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 result of the discussion was: This was speedy deleted at 21:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC) by User:Woody. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Indian Cinematographers' Society ( ICS ) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This newly-created category seems to be an article in category space. The only entry (not there anymore) is that of an "upcoming" cinematographer. ... discospinster talk 20:47, 2 April 2008 (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:Slovenian people[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 result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 13:11, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Slovenian people to Category:Slovene people
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A consensus has been formed[1] and confirmed[2] to use Slovenes for the people and Slovenian for the country in titles. In addition, Slovenes have lived for many centuries not only in the current-day Slovenia but in the whole territory of the Slovene Lands. --Eleassar my talk 20:34, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question What about all the subcategories that are people categories? Will these be nominated after this change is made? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would make sense, wouldn't it? --Eleassar my talk 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As in the still ongoing discussion of Slovene/Slovenian art, this nomination does not reflect the concensus achieved at the linked discussions. "Slovene" is the ethnic and linguistic adjective, "Slovenian" the national one. As will be seen by the parent, this is a national category, and as with the Germans and Italians, we backdate nationality to before the creation of a nation state to avoid things becoming even more complicated in this area than they already are. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, there is no still ongoing discussion. Second, what do we do about all the Slovene painters that have lived outside the territory of the nation state (e.g. in what is nowadays Italy)? It would be against consensus to call them Slovenian painters. Do we call them Italian painters then? I think this backdating makes a mess. People will wonder why have the articles about people who never lived in Italy nor were of Italian descent been put among the Italians. In addition, you have missed the parent category Slavic people which is an ethnic and linguistic category. --Eleassar my talk 05:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I was unaware the other had been closed, which close supports my argument here. It may be necessary to set up two categories - presumably all the Slovenians are Slovene, so Slovenian (national parent) could be a sub-cat of Slovene (Slavic parent). I agree this is a pain throughout the tree. In practice I think Germans, who have the same issue, are treated rather loosely - Immanuel Kant is rightly categorised as "German" although "He spent his entire life in and around his hometown, the capital of East Prussia at that time, never traveling more than a hundred miles from Königsberg" (now Kalingrad in Russia), which I think means he never once set foot in the modern German territory. Johnbod (talk) 08:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In Slovenia several notable minorities live: Italians, Hungarians, Serbs, Roma, some say also Germans and Croats should be a protected minority. In addition, many people from other former Yugoslav republics arrived to work in Slovenia (e.g. the majority of Slovenian footballers). You see many notable Slovenians are not Slovenes; and as said many notable Slovenes did not live in Slovenia. So I think it would indeed be most consistent to set up two categories as you have proposed: a national one and an ethnical one. For example, Alojz Rebula is a notable Slovene writer living in Italy (a minority member). We could put him in the category Slovene writers and the category Italians of Slovenian descent (should be renamed to Italians of Slovene descent) so the problem is fixed. --Eleassar my talk 10:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but note we have many more occupational trees by nationality than by ethnicity - eg for writers we have Category:Writers by nationality and Category:Writers by language but not Category:Writers by ethnicity, although there is Category:Jewish writers as I think the only exception. Alojz Rebula is fine in a by-language cat Category:Writers in Slovene , but I think a Slovene from Trieste writing in Italian, or one in many other occupations won't find a category, other than perhaps a catch-all Category:Slovene people (this is currently a redirect to Slovenian). There is also Category:People from the Province of Trieste and a city category, which Rebula was not in (now added). Johnbod (talk) 14:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for spotting that. --Eleassar my talk 17:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for two reasons. (1) The nomination is incomplete — if we're going to change them, we should change them all. (2) Per Johnbod I don't think the discussion referred to reflects a consensus to change the national categories, which these are. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Having taken another look at the evidence I have serious doubts about the linked discussions really showing convincingly that Slovene should be shunned as the adjective for the residents of Slovenia. These doubts are also supported by the fact that in the article Slovenia the first demonym listed is Slovenes, not Slovenians. The only thing the discussions (especially this one) indicate for certain is that Slovene should be used as the adjective for the ethnicity and its language.
As I have shown in my comments above many of the subjects of these categories have lived outside the territory of the nation state (in Italy, Austria, Hungary etc.) so we cannot apply the nationality retroactively. In addition, don't forget the parent category is Slavic people (i.e. an ethnic and linguistic category). This means the category Slovenian people is a national as well as an ethnic and linguistic category too. Considering this and the first paragraph, I believe it would be more appropriate to rename it to Slovene people than to call members of the ethnicity Slovenian people. --Eleassar my talk 11:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We need national categories for the people by occupation tree; it is pretty clear to me the concensus was (correctly in my view, not having contributed to them) that this should be under "Slovenian". "Slovene" categories can be added to the ethnic tree, but it would not be appropriate to have as full a range. Johnbod (talk) 12:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think this category should be relisted to gain more input. --Eleassar my talk 13:15, 5 April 2008 (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:Dance Dance Revolution series[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 result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 13:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Dance Dance Revolution series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose renaming to Category:Dance Dance Revolution games
Nominator's rationale: Per AeronPrometheus, it "needs to be done", for consistency's sake with other categories of related games. ViperSnake151 19:39, 2 April 2008 (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:California Speedway[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 result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:California Speedway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Articles in the category can all be linked to from the article, overcategorization. If kept, should be renamed to Category:Auto Club Speedway since that is the new name of the track. Recury (talk) 19:03, 2 April 2008 (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:No Turning Back[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 result of the discussion was: delete. Kbdank71 13:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:No Turning Back (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This category lists members of the No Turning Back Group, a Thatcherite faction within the British Conservative Party. The group was briefly notable a few years ago, but was never particularly strong. MPs are already highly-categorised, and this category adds to the clutter for a relatively minor attribute of these MPs, who are already listed in the article on the group. There are mnay formal and informal groupings within British political parties, most of which are of limited notability, and this one is not neither significant enough nor large enough to need a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I contest both of your main arguments- I would say that this was probably the most significant party faction within the Conservative party, and certainly one of the most famous; I would suspect almost any documentary or book on Thatcherism would mention the No Turning Back group. I would also say that there are enough members to warrant a category- they aren't all listed on the article, which I expanded earlier today, I was hoping others would help with that. Another of your points- that there are a lot of these groups- is pretty moot, as the majority of them are much more informal; with No Turning Back, we can say 'yes, X is a member, no, Y is not.' There is no debate about it, which there would be with the majority of these groups. On whether this constitutes over-categorisation, I don't know, I'll leave that to others to decide. J Milburn (talk) 18:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If we look at David Davis (British politician) we see no mention of 'No Turning Back' in his article, suggesting it was not crucial to his political development. Further, the name Category:No Turning Back is far from self-explanatory (even in the UK) unless one is steeped in Tory minutiae. Occuli (talk) 19:41, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Also true of Michael Fallon, but this suggests nothing of the kind, merely a typical weakness in these articles, which are, whether through lack of information or being frightened of POV accusations, usually extremely short on discussion of the actual politics of MPs, as opposed to directory information & stuff on their websites. This is an argument for the category not against it. You would have no clue from Fallon's article if he was on the extreme right or left of the party; whereas the category gives you some context. But all members should be listed at the article, and if all the articles were better, the category might not be needed. Renaming is an option - N T B (Conservative group) etc. Johnbod (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply I quite agree about the weakness of many MP articles in describing their actual politics, and it would be great to make sure that this sort of thing is discussed in the articles. However, that doesn't mean that these groups form the basis of useful or appropriate categories. There have been a lot of groupings of MPs, of different durability, and so far as I am aware we have categories for none of them. The list could run to dozens, but includes:
  1. The Tribune Group: for 40 years, it was the dominant group of the left in Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP), but faded in the 1990s after various political shifts. Difficult as a category, because membership of it had difft meanings at difft times: until 1981, it was the left-wing group, but when the left split in 1982, it became the "soft-left" group (distinguishing it from the "hard left"), and by the late 1908s it had become little more than a support group for the leadership
  2. The Socialist Campaign Group, founded in 1981, and still existing, but while it was initially a major force, it has been increasingly marginalised for the last decade
  3. The "Solidarity Group" and the "Manifesto Group", relatively short-lived early 1980s Labour groups which achieved little public notice, but were in their tine highly significant as the organisers of the fightback by the Labour right.
  4. the Cornerstone Group of Conservative MPs, associated with Liam Fox and Edward Leigh; hasn't achieved as much of a public profile as NTB, but very significant as a the focus of opposition to the liberalisation of Conservative social policy as advocated by Michael Portillo and implemented by David Cameron.
  5. "Centre Forward", a short-lived group founded in the mid-80s by Francis Pym: notable as the last gasp of the old Tory "wets"
... and so on.
All of them make for bad categories, because membership of these groups means very different things at difft times, and because even at a particular time it's a terribly crude way of describing an MP's politics. Some MPs join these groups for tactical reasons, e,g. as a sop to opinion in their constituency parties, and others only really become notable after they move on (e.g. Dawn Primarolo, who has been an über-New Labour minister since 1997). More importantly, though, most of the political groupings in Westminster which actually shape what's happening are fluid and/or informal; e.g. in the Blair years, particularly the the later period, the PLP was bitterly divided between Brownites and Blairites, but there as no public label for any of this. Categorising MPs by their membership of these public groups grotesquely distorts and oversimplifies the complex and shifting web of their actual political positions and alliances. Johnbod is quite right that most MP articles are far too weak in this respect, but that's argument for writing better articles which discus these issue, not for misleading the readr by applying crude categories when the article doesn't explain the history or significance of the MP's relationship to the group. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well it may be POV, but I enjoyed the suggestion the Tribune Group was recently still living in late 1908; many a truth said in typo :) The Monday Club was the one I checked - no category either. I'm still inclined to keep until all the articles at least mention membership, or we have learned sections on all the "complex and shifting webs". Johnbod (talk) 18:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Johnbod if the following seems rude, but I can't think of another way of phrasing this: crude and misleading categories are not a substitute for properly comprehensive articles, and I think it would be a very bad precedent to treat them as if they were. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and per the impracticality of categorizing politicians by in-party political factions. See, as what from reading through No Turning Back strikes me as an American parallel, the constituents of Category:Caucuses of the United States Congress. These caucuses have greater or lesser degrees of influence within any given Congress and none of them have their membership captured by category. Otto4711 (talk) 12:42, 6 April 2008 (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:DADT[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 result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Sexual orientation and military service. Kbdank71 13:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:DADT to Category:Don't ask, don't tell
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I don't think cryptic four-letter abbrevations should be used for category names, the article and the phemomenon is called Don't ask, don't tell, the category should also have this name.. meco (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DADT is a well known acronym for "Don't Ask, Don't Tell."--Robapalooza (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is renamed, will the pages that link to it be automatically updated? Is there some sort of bot that will do this?--Robapalooza (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I certainly didn't know what it was by its acronym.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Otto below, now my 1st choice, or nom & to match main article (if this is done, all articles automatically remain in the renamed cat). Johnbod (talk) 15:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - An important issue, to be sure -- but I'm not as yet persuaded that there's a good rationale for having such a Category for what is, after all, a fairly narrow issue in the overall scheme of things. Perhaps it should be expanded to encompass the broader subject of gays in the military -- which extends well beyond the United States. Cgingold (talk) 15:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • True enough. Could be renamed "LGBT issues in the United States military" or something. Regardless, Hillary Clinton and others not in the military probably should be deleted from the category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I just noticed this after Robapalooza added Hillary Clinton and tried to add Barack Obama. I doubt this subject is significant enough to warrant a category, especially one so poorly named. Also, most of the names that have been added to this category thus far have only a passing significance to the subject itself. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:37, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as an obscure subject that doesn't need a category. If there's no consensus to do that then Rename per nom. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:43, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sexual orientation and military service and use Sexual orientation and military service as the lead article. The topic of sexual orientation and military service certainly seems worthy of a category and not at all "obscure." However, people like Calpernia Addams, whose association with the topic is tangential at best, should be removed from the category. Otto4711 (talk) 16:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment i have changed my !vote above to support this, but nb nearly all the US-specific parent categories would need changing, to what I don't know. Johnbod (talk) 14:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Otto4711. This is a valid topic, but it's far from a US-exclusive one. Bearcat (talk) 17:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Sexual orientation and military service (and clean out inappropriate inclusions) - This is exactly what I had in mind with my comment above. Cgingold (talk) 21:15, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I nominated the category, I suppose I took for granted that it was a sub-category of something like "gays in the military". I will support the latest proposal. __meco (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Otto4711. --Lenticel (talk) 22:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Otto and remove from articles of people with only minor connection to the subject. I'd question the inclusion of Lee Bollinger and John G. Roberts, for example. (I haven't gone through and checked all the people in the category, but I suspect there are more whose connection to the subject is tenuous at best.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 07:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Otto. Remove all people, because people aren't "sexual orientation and military service" - create subcats if needed to place people in such as "activist" category we have on other issues. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is common practice, in my experience, to allow for people to be categorized into such a category. The spawning of subcategories, such as those which you propose, follow as the need arises. Usually a subcategory isn't created for very few entries only. __meco (talk) 09:28, 4 April 2008 (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:People from Manhattan[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 result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 12:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:People from Manhattan to Category:People from Manhattan (New York City)
Nominator's rationale: In this nomination about people from cities, which I felt was pretty clear cut, I was stumped by what to do with this one. New York City isn't a state, "Manhattan, New York" is just wrong, and Category:People from Manhattan, Kansas already exists. I'm not sure what to do here, given that the naming of the parent Category:Manhattan would be called into question by the results of this nomination. Options welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment looks rather like WP:OCAT to me, especially if it includes all residents for a period. Johnbod (talk) 15:14, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could be seen as WP:OCAT, but I also note that Category:People from New York City is already alarmingly oversized as it is — and borough cats may be the only viable way to subdivide it. A rename is also probably unnecessary; the undisambiguated term Manhattan is pretty universally recognized as referring to the one in NYC rather than the one in Kansas or the one in Nevada. Keep as is. Bearcat (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, although many people may be in several of these borough cats! Johnbod (talk) 14:24, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with Category:People from New York City - by borough or neighborhood is OCAT given the loseness of "from" at WP and which would, as noted above, put many people in many boroughs. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I see no reason why Category:People from New York City should not be broken down by borough. It needs a short headnote that it relates to the New York borough and a cross refernece to the Kansas category. I note it already has a population of nearly 600 and two subcategories. Note I am English and do not know New York. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 04:17, 7 April 2008 (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:Life coaching[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 result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 12:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Life coaching to Category:Coaching
Nominator's rationale: Propose renaming because life coaching is now part of coaching. --Vince (talk) 12:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep will only confuse people if these are added in with sports coaches. No doubt life coaching will have its own article at some point - it's a bit odd it doesn't already. Johnbod (talk) 15:26, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification sports coaching has a separate article. Life coaching did have its own article but it was incorporated into coaching which also includes business coaching, relationship coaching, etc. The proposed category would not include sports coaches but I agree there is some potential for confusion here. If this is not clear please refer to the articles. --Vince (talk) 15:47, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is to maintain distinction from sports coaching categories. Cgingold (talk) 22:52, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This will mean that the main article for Category:Life coaching will be coaching. My concern is if the category is called life coaching it will exclude certain articles like dating coaching from the category as (apparently) dating coaching is a subset of coaching not life coaching. --Vince (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2008 (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:Turkish Genocide during World War I[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 result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Turkish Genocide during World War I to Category:Genocides during World War I or other suggestions
Nominator's rationale: Rename. When a genocide is named the "XXX Genocide", the XXX is always the victim group, not the perpetrating group: it's the Bosnian Genocide not the Serbian Genocide, for example. Using the phrase "Turkish Genocide" implies that the Turks were the victims of genocide during World War I, when in fact they were not, so the current name is definitely misleading. Based on the contents, the category is probably intended to categorize genocides committed by the Turks during World War I. My suggestion leaves out the "Turkish" part of the name and simply makes it a category for genocides committed during WWI (all of which happen to have been committed by the Turks). If someone can justify why we should have a special named category for WWI genocides committed by the Turks, then the name could changed to something like Category:Genocides committed by the Turks during World War I, but I think that level of specificity is just not necessary because it won't really change the articles that are included. Any other suggestions welcome. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Genocide by war by perpetrator" seems an unnecessary triple intersection.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (to double intersection). Occuli (talk) 19:27, 2 April 2008 (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:American evangelical Christians[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 result of the discussion was: merge. Kbdank71 12:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:American evangelical Christians to Category:American Evangelicals
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Duplicate category by different name. Target category is part of overall Category:Evangelicals by nationality tree. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 15:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom.--Lenticel (talk) 23:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Treybien (talk) 20:10 2 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete unnecessary religion category, and what? WP only has bios of 134 people who self-identify as evangelicals. Impossible to maintain, apparently as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it (hopefully) has 134 articles for individuals who identify as evangelicals and are American and that self-identification is a defining characteristic for the person's notablility. There is, or at least should be, a big difference. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:22, 3 April 2008 (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:OutKast songs[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 result of the discussion was: rename all. Kbdank71 12:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:OutKast songs to Category:Outkast songs
Propose renaming Category:OutKast albums to Category:Outkast albums
Propose renaming Category:OutKast members to Category:Outkast members
Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:CAPS#Mixed or non-capitalization. Spellcast (talk) 09:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see you've created the new categories and populated them. But doesn't the history of the original categories have to be preserved for GFDL purposes? Spellcast (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (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:United States Navy air stations[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 result of the discussion was: rename. Kbdank71 12:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Navy air stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_April_2&oldid=1074799858"