Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 March 16

< March 15	March 17 >

March 16[edit]

Presidential administrations follow-up[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. the wub "?!" 14:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is the follow-up to a recently closed discussion for renaming presidential administration categories to "Presidency of NAME". There the Obama, Washington, and George W. Bush categories were renamed to this format; the rest are now nominated to conform with this format. See the previous nomination for rationale and a full discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support as a clearer, less ambiguous name for the categories. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 04:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support but comment as the proposed rename seems to narrow the focus of relevant sub-categories and member pages from events occurring during or associated with a particular administration to events associated with the office of the president and white house itself. If this narrowing of the scope is not an intent behind the rename then a better rename would be to Category:Presidential administration of .... --Marc Kupper|talk 19:09, 20 March 2009 (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:Films with posters designed by Bill Gold[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This seems like a trivial aspect of the films. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A category for articles about the posters themselves would probably be just fine -- if those articles existed. But I don't think we have any other cats like this. It adds to category clutter, and also opens the door to other relatively trivial aspects of films (use your imagination). Also, the edit history suggests that the creator really did not understand the proper use of categories. Cgingold (talk) 19:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial characteristic, performer by performance. Otto4711 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In the unlikely event that any of these film posters were somehow so notable that it qualified for a separate article from the one on the film it advertised, then "posters designed by Bill Gold" could potentially be an appropriate category for the poster articles. But there's absolutely no need for it on the articles about the films — they're already listed in his article, which is all that's necessary here. Textbook WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 02:54, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:02, 18 March 2009 (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:Crises[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. the wub "?!" 13:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can this category be saved? - at first glance this appears to be overcategorization by shared name. There would seem to be little relationship between for instance Midlife crisis and Global warming (except I suppose those little red sports cars tend to have a big carbon footprint) or Chinese word for "crisis" and the 2008 Bulgarian energy crisis. Inclusion criteria is also problematic as the media can label one upheaval as a "crisis" while naming a similar upheaval as a "burst bubble" or a "severe downturn" or what have you. OTOH, we do have several potential sub-cats and while I'm not a sociologist there likely is some relationship between say, economic crises and energy crises. So, what to do? Otto4711 (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no chance making people agree what does belong here (Oxygen crisis?). Categories are not tags. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This one is a little tricky. Most of the articles currently listed need to be removed -- and Category:Environmental crises is on its way to being merged with Category:Environmental issues. That leaves Category:Energy crises and a handful of articles about different types of crises. Perhaps a rename to Category:Types of crisis or Category:Crises by type would do the job. Cgingold (talk) 20:26, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to Category:Abuse where everyone thought they knew it when they saw it. Don't we know a crisis when we see it? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and that the criteria for inclusion are not clear cut nor can they be objective. --Marc Kupper|talk 19:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've been thinking about what to do with this one, but I can't come up with anything that avoids the problem that this is grouping things together pretty much because they are called "crises" by someone, but in many cases there is nothing to otherwise connect the things. Sometimes there is a connection, but other times not. How would we define the category, except by suggesting that it is for things that are labelled a "crisis"? Delete as categorization by shared name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:58, 22 March 2009 (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:Native American actrees[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: speedy delete: empty; Category:Native American actors exists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Misspelled title, empty category. Hqb (talk) 19:21, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom & per unnecessary race/ethnicity category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete misspelled category and actor categories are not differentiated by gender. Actually categories by race/ethnicity do exist and are valid. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Misspelled empty categories don't actually need to go through a week's worth of debate. Bearcat (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (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:Radio 4 Thought for the Day Presenters[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 (list now created). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is an overly narrow intersection, better suited to a navbox template or list (if anything) in my judgement. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 18:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – it's a defining characteristic for its programmes. Eg I've Never Seen Star Wars (radio series) is on BBC radio 4 and nothing else. Category:BBC radio programmes has 300+ articles and fully subcatting into 1, 2, 3, 4 would be an excellent idea. (BBC Radio 1, 2, 3, 4 have distinct purposes and target audiences.) It also places the programmes in Category:BBC Radio 4. Who is going to produce the navbox and what is its remit (current, past)? Why is upmerge not suggested? PS the category is not tagged. Occuli (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC) [Nom was Category:BBC Radio 4 programmes.][reply]

~~The would-be templateer can consult the substantial list at List of BBC Radio 4 programmes. Occuli (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]

YIKES. Hey, I really had ya goin' there, didn't I?? You must have thought I had lost my marbles! LOL - Somehow, I copied & inserted the name of the parent category when I set up this CFD section -- even though I had, in fact, properly tagged the correct category. (No doubt Otto will have a field day with this.) Cgingold (talk) 19:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Maybe Otto will not notice. Occuli (talk) 19:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto doesn't care. Delete - performer per performance overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not defining for any of these. (I think a presenter just does it once, so there are 300+ presenters per annum. The article Thought for the Day is not very clear on this.) Occuli (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & don't set up a template either, though there are many fewer than 300 pa, with many regulars, Lionel Blue etc. Johnbod (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listfy and then delete -- There are many regulars. Thought for the day is a short feature in the Radio 4 "Today" programme; I do not think there are equivalents on other networks. However I think a list would be better, if we have anything at all. After all we listify (not categorise) performance by performer, which is really what this is about. However, plain "delete" might also be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems like pretty thin stuff even for a list. Is presenting the Thought of the Day seen as some sort of honor or coup for the person presenting it? Otto4711 (talk) 21:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK - I have taken advice, I have now turned this into a list at Thought for the Day. I did wonder whether this was better served as a list than a category. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:59, 20 March 2009 (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:TV Tic-tac-toe[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overly narrow category. Tic-Tac-Dough, three versions of Hollywood Squares, and a pricing game on The Price Is Right. Somehow I don't see this as being a useful category. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 23:52, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vaguely-strengthed rename to Category:Tic-tac-toe television programs along the lines of the similar "TV shows based on games" Category:Poker television programs and Category:Blackjack television programs. I won't weep bitter tears if this gets deleted but people interested in researching TV shows based on games might find it useful. Otto4711 (talk) 00:34, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Organizes similar articles for navigation purposes by a defining characteristic. Adequate content for category with no reason not to anticipate future expansion. Alansohn (talk) 01:56, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure that defining is the right term, but a template might well be better for expansion, especially if some articles are missing and need to be created. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What future expansion? I'm pretty well versed in game shows, and I know for a fact that we've had no other tic-tac-toe games besides these ones. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 17:48, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listify and then Delete - This seems rather similar to WP:OC#SHARED. But in this case, it's not the name that's the same, it's a game show (or a game on a game show) which happens to have a tic-tac-toe theme. It would be like having a category of every game show which used a Wheel of fortune of some kind. (Which would include everything from the spinning wheel in The Price is Right, to a roulette wheel.) Or for that matter, imaging a category for all game shows which used playing cards in some way. (Joker's Wild, several TPIR games, Card Sharks, and quite a few others...) Or how about dice? Or or or... So, as I noted, listification, so that the usage within the game show venue can be explained/described for each instance. (And would also allow for referencing.) - jc37 09:14, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't analogous to game shows that use particular pieces of equipment, which I agree would be overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 00:39, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They all don't use the same diagram? - jc37 04:35, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I'm saying is that Tic-tac-toe is a distinct game and these are based in that specific game, whereas game shows like High Rollers or Yahtzee (game show) incorporate a particular piece of gaming equipment but don't draw from a common source game and so couldn't be included in a "Game shows based on foo" category. I really don't care that much but a list of five is a little silly (a category of five is also a little silly but there are the parallel categories noted above). Otto4711 (talk) 07:29, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If that's the case, then we need to dramatically increase the number of pages under Category:Quiz shows. Consider that most game shows involve some question of trivia to receieve a "benefit" (such as a prize, or an "X in the center square").

And I don't think watching players in a casino at a blackjack or poker tournament should be directly categorised with the "game show" located on a studio set with contestants.

There are innumerable themes to game shows, and that includes games which a specific show (or part of show) may be based upon. The wheel of fortune being a good example. How many games involved a spinning wheel of chance. Spin the wheel, and gain the result of the spin. That's a game.

And by the way, yacht (yahtzee) is based upon the game of poker... So are we going to start categorising based upon game derivations? - jc37 01:27, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Quiz show is a redirect to Game show so we might want to look at Category:Quiz shows to see if that's the best name and/or structure. Your comments do not address the distinction between a television game show based on a game and a television game show that uses a particular piece of gaming equipment. Fortunately, we do not categorize televised poker or blackjack tournaments as game shows (they are in Category:Poker television programs and Category:Blackjack television programs, sub-cats of Category:Gambling television programs, a sub-cat of Category:Television series by genre and not part of the Category:Game shows structure at all) so your concern there doesn't enter into things. If there are a large number of game shows that are actually based on the Big Six wheel rather than simply using it as a piece of gaming equipment (Wheek of Fortune being based on hangman, not the Big six wheel) then I see no problem with categorizing them as such. I am unaware of any shows that are based on the Big six wheel rather than simply using a wheel-like piece of equipment, so this should not be an issue. Otto4711 (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I used those examples, because you note them as examples in your initial comments.

Also, A single game may be based upon several games. The game show wheel of fortune being one such, having aspects of more than one game.

As for equipment vs. game, it's the use of the equipment. I pick up the dice and use them/interpret results. The action vs. the objects in a state of being.

What is tic-tac-toe but a grid in which some symbols may be placed? The grid and the symbols are "equipment", just like the cubes with dots/pips, just like the demarked spinning wheel, etc.

If it's the usage of the objects and then the subsequent interpretation which makes them a "game", then it would seem that your argument falls apart. (Actually, no matter how I look at it, your argument seems to fall apart...)

Incidentally, there are some excellent books on the derivations of games out there. They make for some enjoyable reading (I've done so myself : ) - jc37 10:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said that I'm not arguing for this category from a game show perspective so why you continue to try to bring this back to what equipment game shows use is unfathomable. I am suggesting using this as a category that parallels other non-game show related categories for other types of television programs (that are not necessarily "game shows") that present or are based on a particular game. Otto4711 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2009 (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.

Characters in German novels[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: no consensus. the wub "?!" 13:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Just don't see the need -Just looks like overcat to me. Also include the "Characters in German novels by century" category within it. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:34, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or discuss the whole of Category:Characters by novel (or indeed Category:Novel characters by novel, which is surely the same thing). Occuli (talk) 16:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do see what you mean. The parent contains a number of categories based on nationality; however the category talks about "by novel" when the content are all categories "by nationality" - a real mess bigger than I thought - but certainly not keep. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is a mess. (It's the nationality of the novel, apparently, not the character.) Category:Characters by novel has been given just one parent, Category:Characters in written fiction by work. All very odd. Occuli (talk) 18:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There's nothing common between the young Werther and the adventurer Kara Ben Nemsi Effendi. It is NOT mandatory to include every valid category (characters in Kafka's novels) into some parent supercategory invented only to have a parent. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ocat. Do the characters' works' origins define the characters? If so, and we've decided that the characters' fictional nationalities are validly categorized (see the DRV drama of Category:Fictional Americans), so what's next Category:Fictional Americans in German novels? And does that mean novels from Germany? from the territory that became Germany in 1870? Or its present borders? Or German-language novels? Too much OCAT and ambiguity to boot. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The language/nationality of a novel is probably almost as significant as the century as a first order division--the German novel is a separate tradition from the French or the Italian. That;'s how undergraduate courses are organized. Thats how journals are organized. That's how serious bookstores are organized. That's how larger libraries are organized. That's how many people think of them. That one or two people here don't think that way does not mean it isnt valid. If one thinks novels are important at all, every valid distinction where there are enough members is appropriate. There are very few here yet--reason why we need mroe work in this area, not less. As Occuli implies, we need more categories here, not fewer. DGG (talk) 04:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that is already catered for by Category:German-language novels not this character based, nationality focused, badly parented mess. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This seems to be a good way of finding characters that are connected. There are a lot more German characters out there, so I am surprised that this category is unpopulated. Of course, the novel by century can be removed for right now until there is a larger population (and multiple centuries, of course). However, this page can definitely have more added. There is no reason to delete this rather common way of categorizing. Ottava Rima (talk) 04:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, this should really be Category:German fictional characters or somesuch! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Characters in novels are different then characters in fiction. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in novels are characters in fiction. Otto4711 (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As British are humans, but we don't have one large generic category for just that. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:13, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't we? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of being snide, read the page you link and see the subcategory "People by place". Thus, you are 100% wrong in addition to being completely incivil. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:48, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't snide—it was an actual surprised reaction to your contention, which startled me because of it's obvious incorrectness. We certainly do have "one large generic category" for humans, and that is it. It is not limited to a "people by place" category—that is but one subcategory of it. The big category is a parent category of the "people by place" one, and so in my view the big one is in fact a large generic category that can hold a variety of subcategories, including that one. I don't think the fact that subcategories exist eliminates the bigger category's nature as a large generic category. Of course, it's possible we're interpreting your words in different ways. But rather than assuming others completely understand your point and are therefore being snide, you could assume that either (a) you were wrong, or (b) your meaning was unclear or misunderstood. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stated that we don't have -one- category for all of it. That was obvious. You link to a section that has many sub categories which prove you wrong. Regardless of whatever intent, it should not have been done for thousands of reasons. Your continuance on the matter only verifies that your original comment was snide. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not obvious, and your meaning was unclear to me. That's why I stated that perhaps you should assume that your meaning was unclear or misunderstood rather than assume snideness at every turn. And, once someone tells you that they weren't being snide, it's also then best to assume they are telling the truth rather than reading into the further comments more and more snideness. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unclear? Really? "we don't have one large generic category for just that." We - the community, don't - as opposed to "do", have - state of ownership, one - single, large - big, generic - broad in range, category - a type of classification. Is there one broad category and only one? No. It is broken down into hundreds of little categories. It is impossible to be clearly, but your continuation of this only continues to verify the above assessment. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure why it's so hard for you to believe that someone could misunderstand what you meant. There is more than one meaning for most of the words you used, especially when used in combination. You needn't be embarrassed about that fact—but it is unnecessary (and probably inappropriate) for you to continue to assume that I must have been being snide, even when you've been corrected on that point several times now. Somewhat ironically in the circumstances, I don't understand the first part of your final sentence. (The part that goes, "it is impossible to be clearly".) Is it possible you made a typo? Or am I just being snide? :) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Outdent - if you weren't being snide you wouldn't have continued after I made it clear that you were wrong. So, take the hint and drop it. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will drop the issue—probably as soon as you stop telling me what my attitude and intents were and are. If you can't restrain yourself, I suggest you try to take your own hint and drop it yourself, since I can't reply to silence. Heaven forbid that anyone admit that they can be misunderstood, however. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is the fifth unnecessary and incivil response so far. Was your whole reason for being here as such? Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand now. It sounds like someone's trying to be offended. Carry on. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - categorizing fictional characters by the country of origin of the fiction in which they appear is just silly. Otto4711 (talk) 17:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As is saying something should be deleted for being "silly", which is a very arbitrary and subjective remark. Thankfully, closing admin ignore such comments. Ottava Rima (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is just Otto4711 shorthand for saying that the category and its parent are mixing "apples and oranges" and / or the value of categorization of character from novels by its nationality is still to be demonstrated. Characters by "their" nationality might be of more interest but not in the parent category of "characters by novel". There are no articles or categories in it that are "characters", "by novel". real mess this! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 18:57, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lancelot in British stories is still a character in British fiction even though he is French, so your rational and the original dies. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope - you just didn't understand it. What you say is not an answer to what I said. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can say that all you want, but until you can contradict my above statement about Lancelot, you have no grounds here. You cannot delete a category because of opinion. You need to have a good reason. There is a need for these categories, which has already been proven. So, state whatever you want, but you haven't done anything to prove anything you've said yet. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's comments and per "Otto4711 shorthand". The type of work a character appears in does not define the character. Category:Fictional German people would make more sense than this, and even that one was (controversially) deleted after CfD. That category could perhaps be re-created after a DRV (I wouldn't oppose such a proposal, and it's succeeded with Category:Fictional Americans), but this is a step beyond that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when? Huck Finn is definitely an American character. Your statement seems to lack an actual understanding of how fiction works and lacks a true oppose rationale. The closing admin should note that. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when what? The fictional people nationality categories were deleted some time ago, then the American one was re-created. You may be unaware of the incident, but I remember it distinctly. I closed the discussion and deleted them. Otto protested. It was all fun. (However, I suggest you don't try to assess how much a user knows about fiction based on brief comments at CfD. It could be interpreted by some users as being somewhat snide.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The nationality of the fictional people matters not. The nationality of the writer where the fictional person comes from does. Holmes is a British character. It doesn't matter if -he- is British. He is a figure from British literature. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:13, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter directly to this discussion. My point, however, is that this is even more trivial, in my opinion, than categorizing fictional characters by the character's nationality. The less trivial categories were deleted. Ergo, the more trivial ones should be also. You don't have to agree with the reasoning, but there's no need to impugn others' level of knowledge because of an argument that is selected. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can say it is trivial, but as I pointed out with Holmes, we all know that he is a character that is connected to the UK and is British regardless of his actual nationality. That is a very important determiner and is culturally important. Since you are unable to contradict that, your response means nothing to this discussion. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest we be a little more wary of announcing whose comments are and are not relevant to the discussion. Personally, I think all opinions are welcome and important, regardless of their viewpoint, because that's how WP works. Everyone would probably appreciate it if you would acknowledge that, either explicitly, or at least implicitly by not trying to marginalise others' opinions you disagree with. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You can state whatever you want, but if you wont stay on topic, that only undermines any thing you are trying to say. Right now, you are continuing to put up empty speech and not actually discussing the issues. Such a thing is completely inappropriate. All arguments you have attempted to make have been contradicted. Claim marginalization all you want, it wont mean that you are correct, nor will it mean that you will get your way. As Julian has stated before, this is a clear case of "I dont like it" and your attitude only verifies that. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've already said what I think, and I see that you have too (numerous times). I'm not concerned at all with refuting your arguments, mostly because I think they speak weakly for themselves, and the self-contradiction within them more than accomplishes what I otherwise could. At this point, the only comments coming from you that worry me in the slightest are the ones that suggest that (1) you know the intentions of others or (2) that others' opinions are irrelevant or should be ignored. Whether I "will get [my] way" on one particular CfD isn't something I worry too much about, generally. It's quite easy to tell what users are personally invested in a particular category. For this one, it ain't me. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is rather obvious that you are. I, for one, haven't had any connection to the category. However, you are crusading against it and the rest. How odd. And here you are, still responding and not refuting. Why? For one so not invested, you have responded probably 10 times more than what would show that. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:01, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Crusading", eh? It's possible you aren't familiar with how I comment at CfD, and that variety of categories I comment on. This one would probably rank somewhere out of the top-500 in discussions that I really care about (substantively, that is). I do care more when editors suggest that others' comments are irrelevant though, which is why I persist. Frankly, I don't care about your substantive arguments. I do care about how you treat others. That said, it's possible, maybe likely, that I've mistaken your rhetorical enthusiasm for incivility. If so, I apologise—but would point out that repeatedly stating that others' comments are irrelevant is a bit over the top and usually unnecessary. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, pending clarification from the nominator, as the current nomination is essentially a matter of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok - what clarification would you like? I am personally open to being persuaded - however the variety of argument here and the confusion of debate suggests that the naming of the category, its content and the naming of its parent etc. are confusing at best. The main thing here is a good and substantive rationale for the category type "characters by nationality of novel" idea which doesn't appear to have caught on as there are so few in the categories so far. If, the cat remains (and its companions for other nations) it should at very least have it's parent renamed. Also an earlier observation I made was why should "character by nationality of novel" be of greater interest than the nationality of the character. Why not by "character by nationality of work" which would be a top level for all types of media. As I say at very least the parent is misnomer and is this potentially very large category tree been argued for elsewhere successfully. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A category "not catching on" is not supposed to be deleted. It is supposed to be populated. And character by nationality of work would have hundreds of thousands of pages. We have poems, novels, short stories, etc, as part of fiction. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments of the keepers. German literature is unquestionably a major subject, & no real reason has been brought forward why novel characters in it should not be categorised. No one is suggesting national splits within the category. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 19 March 2009 (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.

Subcategories of Category:Kalvan 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: upmerge all. the wub "?!" 13:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books in the Kalvan series
Category:Characters in the Kalvan series
Category:Former Princedoms of Hos-Harphax
Category:Princedoms of the Great Kingdoms
Category:Zarthani
Category:Zarthani Great Kingdoms
Category:Zarthani Great Kings

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Kalvan series shouldn't be deleted, but all of its subcategories are fairly redundant and useless -- there was apparently a whole series of stub articles that have now been merged and redirected away. AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all subcategories. The only one with a significant number of articles remaining is Category:Books in the Kalvan series, and that one's not needed either - the books are all included in Category:Kalvan series anyway. Robofish (talk) 03:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 15:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: none of the subcats were tagged. I've removed the tag from Category:Kalvan series since that is not nominated and tagged the subcats. --Kbdank71 15:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all - to Category:Kalvan series just in case there's a stray article that hasn't found its way there already. Otto4711 (talk) 00:35, 17 March 2009 (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:Dermatologic pharmacology[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. the wub "?!" 13:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dermatologic pharmacology to Category:Dermatological preparations

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category should be renamed based on extended discussions at WT:PHARM:CAT regarding the categorization of pharmacology articles. Please see WP:PHARM:CAT for more details. kilbad (talk) 13:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support. The new classification scheme has been discussed for more than two months now at WT:PHARM:CAT: it is only just now being implemented. The proposed renaming had consensus support during he discussions. Physchim62 (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. --Scott Alter 13:59, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, need consistency among the categories. -J04n (talk) 17:58, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This makes good sense. There's no reason to use a somewhat jargonistic term when plain English actually describes the contents a little more accurately. Cgingold (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is ever simple: I'm wondering whether this rename allows for all of the contents of Category:Acne treatments. As has been pointed out in the renaming discussion for that category, not all of the treatments are actually "preparations". Cgingold (talk) 02:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question - As long as we're on the subject, I just placed a couple of poison oak/ivy remedies in this category, and I also added Category:Skin care as another parent cat. I see a number of articles for skin care preparations in that category, some of which could probably be transferred into this category. Could somebody take a look at those and determine which would be appropriate and which wouldn't be? Cgingold (talk) 03:06, 17 March 2009 (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:National Hockey League players born in the Southern hemisphere[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. Tiptoety ^talk 16:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Place of birth is not defining, nor is which hemisphere a person is born in.TM 13:28, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. Bizarre category. Occuli (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not rush to judgement here: consider the possibilities if we were to add in the season of birth as well. That could be very entertaining - not to mention confusing! :) Cgingold (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nondefining. Maralia (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ice hockey players are rare south of the Tropic of Cancer 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as OCAT. "Ice hockey players from (Country)" is fine, but we truly don't need to categorize them by hemisphere. Bearcat (talk) 16:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- They should be categoriesed by country, not hemisphere. If this produces excessively small categories, I would suggest the use of continents. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as there appears to be no interest in categorizing by season of birth, I have decided to endorse Deletion. Cgingold (talk) 01:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 18:02, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Place of birth is not defining. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 18 March 2009 (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:Paranormal writers[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. the wub "?!" 13:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Writers on paranormal topics and Category:American writers on paranormal topics, respectively. As was pointed out in the CFD below for Fortean writers, it's not the writers themselves who are "paranormal" (though I suppose some may be). Rather, it's the topics that they write about that are termed "paranormal". I think the proposed name gets the job done nicely. Notified both creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 18:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Bearcat (talk) 03:01, 17 March 2009 (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:Fortean writers[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: no consensus--Aervanath (talk) 05:52, 5 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Merging to Category:Paranormal writers and Category:American paranormal writers, respectively.

Rationale: Not only are these categories substantially redundant to the Paranormal writers categories, the problem is compounded by the difficulty in specifying who is to be considered a "Fortean writer", and how those writers might be distinguished from their Paranormal cousins. Equally important is the fact that "Fortean" is not a familiar term for most readers. The net result is that maintaining both sets of categories, far from being helpful to readers, merely introduces an element of confusion, imo. This is reminiscent of the problem that was created by the existence of both Category:Anti-war activists and Category:Peace activists, which was resolved by merging the latter into the former, because the similarities were deemed to be so much greater than the differences that it didn't make sense to maintain both. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 03:34, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Category:Fortean writers actually existed before the Paranormal writer categories. I think the scope of the former is slightly easier to work with, since "Forteana" can include anything that could be considered paranormal, plus borderline-paranormal topics like cryptids (which are dismissed by mainstream science, but probably wouldn't necessitate a paradigm shift if they were found to exist). That said, I agree that many readers may not be familiar with the term "Fortean", so I'm not really sure what to do here. Zagalejo^^^ 08:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as Fortean investigations of "anomalous phenomena" are somewhat different from "the paranormal". AllyD (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be very helpful if you could elaborate on how they are "somewhat different" -- and then, please try to address the concerns that I laid out in my rationale. Thanks. Cgingold (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I should have been less abbreviated. Picking up the "agnostic scepticism" characterisation of the Forteans (see the Charles_Hoy_Fort#The_Forteans section), I'm dubious about whether writers on the Paranormal could be so described? There has also been a breadth of interest in Fortean Times (for example, regarding the moral panics in social work circles around "satanic child abuse" 20 yrs ago) which goes well outside any Paranormal categorisation. So can F be a subset of P? AllyD (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this reply, it helps to focus the discussion. What occurs to me is that, while most so-called "Fortean writers" deal with subjects that come under the "Paranormal" umbrella, and can thus be included in Category:Paranormal writers, there may in fact be a very few who only ever write about topics that clearly fall outside of that heading. Putting that together with the fact that "Fortean" is a specialized term that's not all that widely known -- along with the problem of overlap -- it seems to me that it would be much better to have a List of Fortean writers, rather than a Category. Cgingold (talk) 21:44, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Category:Paranormal writers seems a poorly named category, as "paranormal" is not a quality of the writers themselves (to my knowledge, unless one takes some of their more outlandish claims seriously). If anything, it would be better renamed to something like "Writers on the Paranormal" though that is so vague as to beg the question of whether it has value? AllyD (talk) 16:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not a very well-formed name. I was so focused on the issues I outlined in my rationale that I overlooked that -- which is actually pretty amusing considering that I then went on to have some fun at the expense of Category:Astronomical historians! ~~(see above)~~ So yes, this one could use renaming, too. [see above] Cgingold (talk) 20:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kbdank71 13:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As I said in the previous discussion, I don't feel that "Fortean" can be subsumed into "Paranormal". However, following on the original discussion's misgivings by Zagalejo and Kbdank71 about the Fortean label being obscure, an alternative home might be to merge into the already existing Category:Fringe science? The seems less of a conceptual squeeze than forcing the Forteans into tight paranormal shoes? AllyD (talk) 22:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Category:Writers on paranormal topics and Category:American writers on paranormal topics already exist (thanks to the nom immediately above), with the fortean cats as subcats. (No opinion on upmerging.) If anything, the subcats of those two paranormal cats all may need renaming. (In this example, these are, I presume, those who write about fortean phenomena, not those who might be a member of the society, or even writers who may claim to be forteana phenomena themselves : ) - jc37 09:36, 25 March 2009 (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:Visitor attractions[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 Erik9 (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitary inclusion criteria. Gilliam (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This category was discussed last year. Cgingold (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No it isn't. Johnbod (talk) 12:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the whole tree. No clear criterion what does belong here and what not, half of articles could end up in the tree. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 20:16, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most countries have official lists in fact - there are 6,500 in the UK apparently. Johnbod (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the subcats are mainly container categories, see eg Category:Visitor attractions in England which has only handful of articles at the top level, the rest subcatted via specific criteria. Occuli (talk) 20:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Occuli. Lugnuts (talk) 07:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- They might be called "tourist attractions". There may be POV issues over what should be in/excluded, but I do not think that need prevent us keeping them. They will be buildings, areas of land, etc. open to the public and seeking to draw in tourists. This is a vast category tree and I see no reason to prune it. Each category should only be a parent to numerous subcategories. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is not only a reasonable and notable category in its own right, as per Johnbod's comment above, but is also very useful for automatic article categorization for article maintenace bots. -- The Anome (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2009 (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:20th-century Episcopalians[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. Tiptoety ^talk 16:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Purposeless intersection: 20th-century memebers of the "Episcopal Church in the United States of America" or the "Scottish Episcopal Church" but not of the many other releted "Anglican" churches. Do these people have anything in common that other Anglicans do not?

Note that there are already also the much better Category:20th-century Anglicans and Category:20th-century American Episcopalians.

By the way, while someone else created the "Category:20th-century Anglicans" and thou it is sorta empty at the moment, I hope to use it some and think it can wait until then. Carlaude ^(talk) 07:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - (upmerge not necessary) - should Category:Episcopalians be added for the same reason? It is gathering together categories whose names happen to contain 'Episcopal'. (This is PastorWayne aka Estherlois again.) Occuli (talk) 12:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apart from the issue presented in the Episcopalians/Anglican issue. We have this recurring nth-century Religion problem. Many people live in more than one century, so are Queen Elizabeth, her kids, and nearly all their kids, 20th century Anglicans and 21st century Anglicans? 20th century people is sparsely used are all bio's now categorized by year of birth, year of death (or living people), and by each century that their life has traversed? This is getting overly cat clutter for bios again. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as categorization by shared name (per Occuli). (And Occuli I would agree with you that Category:Episcopalians itself might be a bit sketchy on the same grounds. Better just to include them as by-nationality Anglicans, I would think.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. On a related note, I recently went through Category:20th-century national presidents and removed a "presidents of" category for pretty much every damn country in the world that (1) has a president and (2) still exists today. How can these be subcategorized as 20th-century presidents when many of the people were exclusively 19th or 21st century ones? This whole century issue is a bit of a mess-creator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:53, 19 March 2009 (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:Angolan-Portuguese[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. the wub "?!" 13:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Angolan-Portuguese to Category:Portuguese people of Angolan descent

Propose renaming Category:Portuguese of Brazilian descent to Category:Portuguese people of Brazilian descent

Propose renaming Category:Cape Verdean-Portuguese people to Category:Portuguese people of Cape Verdean descent

Propose renaming Category:Portuguese of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent to Category:Portuguese people of Democratic Republic of the Congo descent

Propose renaming Category:Portuguese of Guinea-Bissauan descent to Category:Portuguese people of Guinea-Bissauan descent

Propose renaming Category:Portuguese of Irish descent to Category:Portuguese people of Irish descent

Propose renaming Category:Mozambican-Portuguese to Category:Portuguese people of Mozambican descent

Propose renaming Category:Spanish Portuguese people to Category:Portuguese people of Spanish descent

Nominator's rationale: Clarify confusing, neologistic double-barrelled ethnonyms and standardise "Portuguese people" instead of just "Portuguese"). cab (talk) 07:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support The suggested naming has become the standard for wikip categories of 'fooian people', where fooian is a nationality in the sense of citizenship, 'by their ethnic or national origin(s)' Mayumashu (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary OCAT. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom -- There is long precedent for category names in this format. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:32, 18 March 2009 (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:À la recherche du temps perdu (novel)[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 (without prejudice to future recreation). the wub "?!" 13:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Only two entries. If there is consensus to keep it, please change the title to 1.) remove the unnecessary disambiguation and 2.) reflect the name of the main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category could extend to 8 entries if a page was created for each of the books and could then perhaps become a useful navigation device. But there is already a Marcel Proust Navbox which performs the same role - even if it is currently under-populated with only one novel pointing to anything other than the series page (surprisingly, Albertine disparue, IMO the least of the series?) AllyD (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category could extend to many more if, as ought to be done , an article were made for each important character. That we do not have articles for even the individual novels is an example of what's wrong with Wikipedia--we should be fixing it, not giving up on it. DGG (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Recognizing that a category is not currently warranted is hardly "giving up", despite the hand-wringing of my esteemed colleague. The categorization system is meant for articles that already exist. It is not designed to point out what a shining star might emerge if only someone would get to work. The existing navbox serves the function, through redlinks, of letting editors know about missing articles. Character articles would not go directly into this category so the possibility of such articles is irrelevant to this discussion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without prejudice to recreation at some point in the future. The 2nd article dates to 2006, & so this seems a long way away. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 17 March 2009 (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:Spaniards in the Holocaust[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: relisted on 23rd. Kbdank71 13:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Spaniards in the Holocaust to Category:The Holocaust in Spain

Nominator's rationale: To match the convention of similar country subcategories, and also to broaden the category's scope to include non-biographical articles. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I was about to sign off on this to make it consistent with the other sub-cats, but after checking out the very limited contents, I'm not entirely certain what to do -- or whether this category should even be kept at all. To begin with, I was a little doubtful about the Holocaust having extended into Spain. It turns out that the sole article, about the Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, has a fairly short passage in its section on inmates about a group of Spanish Republican prisoners (not necessarily any Jews or Roma among them) which was transferred to Mauthausen during WW2. That's all. No hint of anything involving the Holocaust per se in Spain. The lone sub-cat is for Spanish Righteous Among the Nations -- again, Spaniards -- who in this case really did have connection with the Holocaust, but not in Spain as far as I can see. In short, there's nothing that would support the rename proposal, which would be rather misleading. And I really don't think the category is warranted for the two items it holds -- especially since those inmates weren't strictly speaking part of the Holocaust, and there are no other categories that I'm aware of for concentration camp inmates by nationality. Cgingold (talk) 19:10, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Holocaust was not in Spain, but in the German Reich. Possibly Rename to Category:Spaniards and the Holocaust or something like that. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:35, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I would basically agree with the direction that Cgingold took in his comment: I can't see that this category is really necessary or justified. Nothing much would be lost without it. But if kept, judging by the contents I definitely don't think it should be renamed to a "in Spain" category. If kept I would think "Spanish people" would be more appropriately used than "Spaniards", since we use that form generally as in Category:Spanish people. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:59, 19 March 2009 (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:Holocaust by country[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 per nom Erik9 (talk) 15:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Holocaust by country to Category:The Holocaust by country

Propose renaming Category:Holocaust in Norway to Category:The Holocaust in Norway

Propose renaming Category:Holocaust in Poland to Category:The Holocaust in Poland

Propose renaming Category:Holocaust in Romania to Category:The Holocaust in Romania

Propose renaming Category:Holocaust in Transnistria to Category:The Holocaust in Transnistria

Nominator's rationale: To match the main article and category (The Holocaust and Category:The Holocaust) and the majority of similar subcategories in the category tree. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 07:07, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've pointed out elsewhere the need to include "the" as an integral part of the name in categories like these. So Rename All per nom. Cgingold (talk) 18:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2009 (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 by university[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. the wub "?!" 14:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by university to Category:People by university or college

Nominator's rationale: To match the parent Category:Universities and colleges. This is a test nomination for all [People] by university in [Country] categories; if it passes, I will nominate the remaining categories for renaming. Creator notified using {{subst:cfd-notify}}. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, and all the rest as well. (I noticed this issue in the course of the recent related CFD, but haven't had the time to take care of it, so I'm glad to see that Black Falcon has taken on the job.) Cgingold (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd prefer it if both this and the parent were renamed to Category:People by tertiary institution/Category:Tertiary institutions. "College" is ambiguous, referring to tertiary education facilities in some countries, secondary schools in others, and a mix in yet others. Grutness...wha? 21:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's an interesting point -- but I'm not persuaded that it's actually a problem when "college" is used in conjunction with "university", as it is in the super-category. It would be problematic as a stand-alone term, but my sense is that readers will construe the word correctly as long as it's paired with "university". As for "tertiary", that term is rarely used in the US. "Post-secondary" is far more commonly used -- but it's still not as good as "Universities and colleges", imo. Cgingold (talk) 08:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with Cgingold on this one; the potential ambiguity of "college" in this case is adequately addressed by pairing it directly with "university". "University (and/or) college" is actually the least problematic option when it comes to international clarity — we truly couldn't just go with Grutness' suggestion above, but would have to use the much more unnecessarily complicated Category:People by tertiary or post-secondary institution and Category:Tertiary and post-secondary institutions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Are you in fact endorsing this proposal? Cgingold (talk) 01:17, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's certainly preferable to simply mentioning universities. There is an additional problem with the proposed new name, though - what about Technical institutes and Polytechs? They are also tertiary, but are not universities or colleges. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Leave alone -- College in some places refers to secondary institutions, eg Eton College, Sixth form college. In UK, Further Education Colleges no longer offer degree courses: those offering degree courses were amalgamated into Polytechnics, which have since become universities. However, "Universities and Colleges" may perhpas do as a parent container category, but it should not be applied rigidly. If this goes ahead, can you also sort out things like "people associated with Trinity College, Dublin", by finding a simpler name to over faculty, fellows, alumni, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The only exceptions in follow on work, should be for countries where university or college don't mean a post secondary school. In those cases, the categories need to reflect the correct local usage and they should be in the appropriate category trees and not in this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2009 (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:Current spaceflights[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: relisted on 23rd. Kbdank71 13:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Current spaceflights to Category:Spaceflight

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I'm proposing this as a merge, but in truth, I believe that this one should be deleted. I'll see where consensus forms. In addition to the issues with using the word current, it also fails WP:POV since the criteria for inclusion is flights that are currently being covered in the media. Not sure how the list of spacewalks fits in, and that may be gone by the time you check. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - we have plenty of other categories for current events. --G W… 07:41, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom; we have few current categories and for good reasons. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:15, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Spaceflights - I agree with the idea of eliminating the current/former distinction but not with the idea of scattering articles about individual flights in amongst the general articles on spaceflight, which would be a barrier to navigation for those interested in the flights but not necessarily the mechanics or general history. Irrelevant to this nomination, I think breaking down spaceflights by decade of launch would be a good addition to the project. Otto4711 (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose this appears to be populated by the {{current spaceflight}} template. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:51, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That begs the question of do we even need to do a merge. If they are already listed in the template, do we also need the category? If not, then a delete is a reasonable alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Lots of categories are populated by template, why have any of those categories then? 76.66.201.179 (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Such an issue is decided case-by-case; there's no generally applicable rule. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can't find a source right now, but including encyclopedic categories in a template is not recommended. The reason is that it causes mis categorization since the templates tend to wind up in articles that don't belong in the templates categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Nor can I (find a source for that), but what you say sounds good to me, in the sense that it makes sense. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, or preferably rename to Category:Spaceflights per Otto if possible. The main thing is we should get rid of the current/former distinction which is explicit here. It's quite simple to make the template not apply the category, so I think that's an irrelevant concern. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in addition to my previous comment, this should have been made a hidden category when that system was introduced. I would ask that this be relisted for another week in order to gauge support for retaining it as a hidden category. --G W… 17:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have now added {{hiddencat}} to prevent it from appearing on articles. The fact that this is a project category not a content category means that it is exempt from the issues with the word "current" and the POV issues. It is a pity that I did not realise that this was the case sooner. --G W… 22:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per GW, and also echo the suggestion that this should be a hidden category. -MBK₀₀₄ 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is - the category is being used, and is being found useful. Neither the nominator nor any other editor seems able to provide a compelling reason to change anything at all about it. (sdsds - talk) 23:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC) P.S.: Oh! Did the original nominator intend to propose merging this category into Category:Spacecraft? That would be an entirely different question! (sdsds - talk) 23:13, 21 March 2009 (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.

Related bands[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. Tiptoety ^talk 17:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. More categories for "Foo-related bands". This is an inappropriate categorization first because it's vague, but secondly because it's categorizing bands by one (sometimes two) participants' previous participation in another band. We don't try to establish such "band family trees" in categories, and almost invariably the article about the band in question will mention that one its members, so-and-so, was previously a member of Iron Maiden, etc., so there's really no need for such a category. Note also that "Def Leppard related bands" is nominated here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it is vague and will lead if fully implemented to an enormous hotch-potch of categories. Gogmagog alone is in 6 of them at first glance and will be in many more after scrutiny of the entire careers of its 5 members. (Is this OR and/or synthesis?) Occuli (talk) 12:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – per nom, not meaninful categories
Delete per nom, and what does "related" here mean? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is for all intents and purposes Category:Bands with which one or more members of another band performed which is a variety of performer by performance. Lists, which can be broken down by band member and include relevant dates and other information, would be vastly superior. Otto4711 (talk) 00:52, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have A Modest Proposal: Why don't we just make things really simple and apply the Six Degrees of Separation rule? That would allow us to put every single band on the planet all into one ginormous category called Category:Bands related to other bands. Cgingold (talk) 01:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A good idea. Next, we will revive Category:Things, populate it, and use it as a parent. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not Category:Things. The proper parent is Category:Kevin Bacon. Otto4711 (talk) 15:35, 18 March 2009 (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.

Politicians[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 per nom, upmerging the defunct diplomatic missions in houston. no consensus to delete the politicians from categories or to add the state to the council members categories. Would recommend if that is desired to renominate those specific categories. In addition, would also recommend in future to break apart nominations such as this to deal with one change per nomination. Kbdank71 13:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming: Category:Berwyn, Illinois politicians to Category:Politicians from Berwyn, Illinois

Propose renaming: Category:Politicians from Cincinnati to Category:Politicians from Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming: Category:Chicago politicians to Category:Politicians from Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming: Category:Cook County politicians to Category:Politicians from Cook County, Illinois

Propose renaming: Category:Los Angeles politicians to Category:Politicians from Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming: Category:Politicians from Pittsburgh to Category:Politicians from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming: Category:Seattle politicians to Category:Politicians from Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming: Category:Members of the Baltimore City Council to Category:Baltimore City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Members of the Cary Town Council to Category:Cary Town Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Chicago aldermen to Category:Chicago City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Columbus, Ohio city councillors to Category:Columbus City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Cincinnati, Ohio city councillors to Category:Cincinnati City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Dayton, Ohio city commissioners to Category:Dayton City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Detroit city councillors to Category:Detroit City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Members of the Durham City Council to Category:Durham City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Honolulu, Hawaii city councillors to Category:Honolulu City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Members of the Indianapolis City-County Council to Category:Indianapolis City-County Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Las Vegas city councillors to Category:Las Vegas City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Los Angeles city councillors to Category:Los Angeles City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Nashville, Tennessee city councillors to Category:Metropolitan Council members (Nashville, Tennessee)

Propose renaming: Category:New Orleans Councilmembers to Category:New Orleans City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Oakland, California city councillors to Category:Oakland City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Portland, Oregon city commissioners to Category: Portland City Council members (Oregon)

Propose renaming: Category:Richmond, California city councilmembers to Category:Richmond City Council members (California)

Propose renaming: Category:Sacramento, California city councillors to Category:Sacramento City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:San Diego, California city councillors to Category:San Diego City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:San Francisco Board of Supervisors to Category:San Francisco Board of Supervisors members

Propose renaming: Category:San Jose, California city councillors to Category:San Jose City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Seattle city councillors to Category:Seattle City Council members

Propose renaming: Category:Diplomatic missions in Los Angeles to Category:Diplomatic missions in Los Angeles, California

Propose renaming: Category:Defunct diplomatic missions in Houston to Category:Defunct diplomatic missions in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming: Category:Diplomatic missions in Houston to Category:Diplomatic missions in Houston, Texas

Propose renaming: Category:Diplomatic missions in Honolulu to Category:Diplomatic missions in Honolulu, Hawaii

Propose renaming: Category:Diplomatic missions in Chicago to Category:Diplomatic missions in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming: Category:Political conventions in Baltimore to Category:Political conventions in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming: Category:Political conventions in Chicago to Category:Political conventions in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming: Category:Political conventions in Philadelphia to Category:Political conventions in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming: Category:Political conventions in New York to Category:Political conventions in New York City

Nominator's rationale: I'm trying to match "City, State" formatting, but there are a lot of possible choices for formats. My thought here is that names of organizations like "Chicago City Council" don't need state names, but "Chicago" does. Other options definitely welcome. (Political conventions added the next day. New York category done solely to disambiguate from the state.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concern - "Foo politicians" could mean either "politicians from Foo" or "politicians who represent Foo" so renaming the generic "politicians" categories could leave us with people mis-categorized. Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, that's kind of why I wanted to change it. It's an interesting argument: because the category name currently includes two possible meanings, we can't make it more specific because we don't know which ones people meant. Not clear if I agree with the approach (or even if Otto does), but it is a valid concern.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:55, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not saying don't rename the categories. I'm saying decide before renaming them what the scope is and formulate a non-ambiguous name that reflects it. Otto4711 (talk) 08:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. I seem to recall a discussion about this in the past. Someone was adding 'politician from' instead of 'people from' when the individual was a politician in any other place. Kind of make the category useless if you do that. Having said that I'll say rename the politicians categories and add an introduction that makes it clear that the category is limited to those who actually were politicians in that jurisdiction. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename but make sure every city name includes the state name with it. The nomination has it about half and half Hmains (talk) 02:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The rule for category names is that they have to match the actual title of the article on the relevant city: i.e., if the city's article is at Chicago rather than "Chicago, Illinois", then the categories get named "Chicago", but if it's at Peoria, Illinois rather than "Peoria", then the categories get named "Peoria, Illinois".

At any rate: delete the general "politicians from city" and "politicians from county" categories as WP:OCAT; we simply do not need to subcategorize "People from city" by occupation. Members of a specific government body such as the city council, fine, but we absolutely don't need "Politicians from Berwyn, Illinois" at all. Rename city council categories as proposed; I may have created some of them myself, in accordance with the (lack of) naming convention in place at the time, but a consistent convention is a good idea. For the diplomatic missions, it would appear that all of them already conform to the match-to-article rule as currently named, so do not rename.

We do not, however, need separate subcategories for defunct diplomatic missions in a particular city — for one thing, there wasn't even a category for defunct diplomatic missions in the United States as a whole until I created one just now; the Houston city category was instead being filed directly in Category:Defunct diplomatic missions, where its only sibling categories were Category:Defunct diplomatic missions of the Philippines and Category:Defunct diplomatic missions of Switzerland. I'm sure Houston's a nice city, but it's not that special among world cities. So upmerge Category:Defunct diplomatic missions in Houston to Category:Diplomatic missions in Houston and Category:Defunct diplomatic missions in the United States. Bearcat (talk) 03:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge Category:Defunct diplomatic missions in Houston per Bearcat. Not convinced that we need these by city at this time. After thinking about this for a while, I'm leaning very strongly to converting the missions to a template by country represented and deleting those categories. Sorry for the problems this will create on closing. Might I suggest that the closer take action where there is consensus and renominate the others after splitting them into groups of like categories. This nomination in hindsight covers too many different topics. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed. This does seem needlessly specific. Missions are made from countries to countries, and it doesn't really matter where in the host countries they are.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:57, 21 March 2009 (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.