Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 5

< February 4	February 6 >

February 5[edit]

Category:Ivorian expatriates in Switzerland[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 discussion was double upmerge. Kbdank71 14:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one member. Double upmerge to Category:Ivorian expatriates and Category:Expatriates in Switzerland. Fayenatic (talk) 23:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Double Upmerge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Double upmerge per nom. --Beloved Freak 17:54, 10 February 2008 (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:Jamaican-American singer-songwriters[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT by ethnicity. There are few pages in this category, and there's already a Jamaican American musicians category. One user created the Jamaican-American singer-songwriters category once, I nominated it to be merged into Jamaican American musicians and it was eventually merged, but the user recreated the category. Funk Junkie (talk) 19:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this race/ethnicity quadruple intersection category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorisation. --Beloved Freak 17:57, 10 February 2008 (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:Private Equity & Hedge Funds with financial ties to politicians[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Categorisation on the basis of a non-defining or trivial characteristic. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vague and otherwise problematic category. What are "financial ties to politicians"? Politician investments in those funds? If so, that's largely trivial. Politician sitting on boards etc.? Might be trivial, might be highly defining; it will be incredibly fact-specific. Politicians taking campaign contributions? Bribes? what? This appears to be using the category system to make a point, and the point would be better made by writing a properly sourced and referenced article that is not WP:OR. Categories working as subterfuge articles is never a good idea. --Lquilter (talk) 21:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lq Johnbod (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Lquilter. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague category that could not have clearcut inclusion criteria. Doczilla (talk) 09:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lquilter. --Beloved Freak 17:58, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and high potential for misuse. Let's not kid ourselves, this is a slippery slope towards Category:Private Equity & Hedge Funds with financial ties to corrupt politicians who are only too happy to give back to these Private Equity & Hedge Funds and pass laws that allow financiers to screw everyone in all impunity Pichpich (talk) 06:20, 11 February 2008 (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:Entities or Persons committing SEC Violations[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I personally think this topic could be better handled via a list that can provide sourced commentary and details, or in individual articles on the respective entities and persons, and so support deletion of the category. However, if it is kept, it ought to be renamed to Category:Companies convicted of SEC violations (or similar) and rescoped. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:18, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and articleify/listify - For one thing, this could be incredibly broad and is not time-limited, so it could pick up things which are not defining and even trivial in the life of a company or person. Much better to include as examples or small lists in appropriate articles: Securities and Exchange Commission prosecution, maybe; lists relating to notable SEC violations might include largest penalties levied; largest amounts involved; etc. --Lquilter (talk) 21:11, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and articleify/listify per Lq' like the recent law firms doing whatever it was one. Johnbod (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lawyers & Law Firms Found Guilty of Legal Misconduct, deleted per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 January 5. I probably should have linked to that in the nomination. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as OCAT, neutral on listification and if listified, please use something other than the present participle which turns this into a "current" category and probably only includes entities or persons we don't know are doing the naughty deeds. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete excessively broad category. We don't generally categorize by crimes short of conviction. Libel anyone? Doczilla (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2008 (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:Ramayana[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 discussion was reverse merge. Kbdank71 14:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Ramayana to Category:Ramayana epic

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'll admit I know basically nothing about Hindu mythology so I may be way off here. But the two categories strike me as being about the same Sanskrit text and reading the (two) articles in the first category, I fail to see the distinction between the two categories. Hopefully, more knowledgeable people can clear this up.Pichpich (talk) 20:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge other way to Category:Ramayana - They are the same thing, but the main article is rightly at Ramayana, so the merged category should go there. Category:Ramayana epic should be tagged too. Johnbod (talk) 22:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Strong keep - This proposal shows a lack of understanding of Ramayana. For example, which category should Ranayan be classed in? Neither, I would suggest. Okay, I am convinced by the arguments below.Sarah777 (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I don't claim to understand Ramayana but can you please explain how the two categories are distinct? What articles should belong to Category:Ramayana and which to Category:Ramayana epic? As for your example, Ranayan is classified in the category Category:Ramayana adaptations, itself a subcategory of Category:Ramayana epic. I'm a bit confused by your statement: can you, for instance, suggest an introductory line that could be placed in each category to explain their content? Pichpich (talk) 23:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! It is correctly in the adaptations sub-cat. Whyever not? Johnbod (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whyever not what? Sarah777 (talk) 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whyever not keep it in Category:Ramayana adaptations, since that is exactly what Ranayan is. In fact the two articles in Category:Ramayana are a translation (heavily shortened I believe) and a translator, for which there is already a sub-cat. But it has the better name. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: if that's not clear, let me note that I have no problem with the suggestion to merge to Ramayana rather than to Ramanaya epic. But Sarah, please tell us the difference between these two categories since you seem to know more about the topic than I do. Pichpich (talk) 03:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge per Johnbod. A merge is needed either way, and the shorter name is more intuitively obvious. -Sean Curtin (talk) 07:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge - The Ramayana is an epic, but there's no need to state that in the category name. That's like saying Category:Iliad epic instead of Category:Iliad. Also, we should merge Category:Mahabharata epic to Category:Mahābhārata for the same reason. (By the way, should we rename Category:Ramayana to Category:Rāmāyana, as that is considered the official IAST transliteration?) --Hnsampat (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge nomination for Category:Mahabharata epic to Category:Mahābhārata can now be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 February 3. Pichpich (talk) 01:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge per discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 17:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: relisting because Category:Ramayana epic wasn't tagged for a reverse merge. --Kbdank71 17:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse Merge per the reasons given by Gtrmp. Dimadick (talk) 20:47, 6 February 2008 (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:Leo J. Ryan award recipients[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:41, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete as non-defining overcategorization by award (also, unnecessary eponymous category for an award). This award for cult awareness activities, administered by the Cult Awareness Network, is not defining (and possibly not still in existence). The winners are all listed in the award page itself and those with wikipedia pages are all linked. Lquilter (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Serves a similar purpose as categories such as Category:Nobel laureates, which by the way, also has an accompanying list, List of Nobel laureates. Cirt (talk) 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A similar purpose, perhaps, but not a similar need; Nobel Awards are widely recognized as "defining" of their recipients. --Lquilter (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think this may be, as they are otherwise not too well known, unlike many award recipients. Most articles seem to mention the award prominently, except for Richard Behar, which oddly lists 9 awards but not this. Johnbod (talk) 23:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's true that as they are teachers, who receive relatively little media attention compared with, say, physicists and novelists (not to mention actors and models), the award is more prominent in their biographies. Still, I'm not sure I'd go with "defining" -- would it make or break their careers? Would most people know them as Ryan award recipients? Sadly, I feel that science teacher awards -- even long-lived, prestigious ones -- are not generally defining. YMMV, of course. --Lquilter (talk) 05:46, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete OCAT by trivial award, comparison to the Nobel prize speaks for itself. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC Doczilla (talk) 09:51, 7 February 2008 (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.

National Hockey League categories[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 discussion was rename all. Kbdank71 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

Nominator's rationale: Expand "NHL" to "National Hockey League" for consistency with all other National Hockey League categories. Reso lute 16:56, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom for consistancy. -Djsasso (talk) 17:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, parent category uses National Hockey League in full. --JD554 (talk) 09:22, 8 February 2008 (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:Entertainers with Bloods affiliations[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: BLP minefield that suffers from exactly the same issues as the now deleted Entertainers with Crips affiliations (CfD here). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for the same reasons in precedent. Zoporific 04:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Tasc0 ^{It's a zero!} 06:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There is already a partial list (each one sourced) of these in Bloods, which could be extended, BLP permitting. Carminis (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective, non-defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 14:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all the same reasons I nominated the Crips category. I should have thought to look for this one at the same time. Otto4711 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom for WP:BLP concerns. Snocrates 21:25, 10 February 2008 (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:Speciesism[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 discussion was delete. Kbdank71 14:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I don't think this needs a category. The article is enough. Rangek (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at what's in there now, I agree; delete. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 17:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The only entries that have ever been there are Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Humanism and Category:Monotheism. This seems tendentious and polemical to me. Delete --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Silly. Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Johnbod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:41, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The concept may warrant research, but we tend to create articles before categories. Not the other way around. Currently there is no article on the the treatment of animals by Isla, or Christianity, etch. Dimadick (talk) 20:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An inherently POV categorization. A similar category called "Speciesist articles" was deleted on 2007 SEP 25. Being "speciesist" is certainly not a defining characteristic of Islam or monotheism, etc. Zoporific 21:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV category. I remember deleting a similar category some time ago. Doczilla (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2008 (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:WikiProject Saint Louis Rams[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 discussion was rename. Kbdank71 14:43, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:WikiProject Saint Louis Rams to Category:WikiProject St. Louis Rams

Nominator's rationale: It should be St. Louis Rams, not Saint Louis Rams. Pinkkeith (talk) 02:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis Rams. – Black Falcon ^(Talk) 18:33, 8 February 2008 (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.