Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 23

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 22 November 24 >

November 23[edit]

Gibson Generating Station[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) 09:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Gibson Generating Station
Nominator's rationale: Most power stations do not need their own category. The connection between this power station and its cooling lake can be stated in the article(s). Hugo999 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2010 (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.

Nuclear power plants in Alabama[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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Nuclear power plants in Alabama to Category:Nuclear power stations in Alabama
Nominator's rationale: “station” not “plant” is the usual term for nuclear power station categories, and for most power station categories (except hydro-electric?) Hugo999 (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Power Station is the UK term, but is it the US one? We should conform to local usage. There is another similar nom in this page. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:21, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The categories for US power stations (coal/oil/nuclear) all use "station" - see Category:Power stations in the United States (except for Category:Hydroelectric power plants in the United States). So most of the US subcategories (including nuclear) use "station" already Hugo999 (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In that case, I strongly suspect that those categories are wrong with regards to local useage. I've never heard them referred to as power stations ; it has always been power plants. Oppose. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 00:12, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Common usage seems to be power plants, with power stations receiving a good number of hits in the 'official' documents. So both are valid. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:08, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw: I am happy to leave the subcategories of Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States as Nuclear power plants in Alabama and (say) Wyoming; but they should be uniform within the main category. I had presumed that a decision has been made (in 2006?) to rename all the categories and subcategories to “power station” including for the United States. This will leave the US subcategories by state as “power station” (coal/oil/renewable/geothermal/solar/biofuel) and “power plant” (nuclear/hydro). For nuclear the breakdown by state would replace the breakdown by Regulatory Region (1-2-3-4) which was recently abolished. Hugo999 (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2010 (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:Christo-paganism[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: Redirected to Category:Paganism and Christianity Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:30, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to article Category:Christo-paganism to article Christo-paganism
Nominator's rationale: This category has had only two articles for the last 2 years, one of which (formerly Christian Wicca) was a virtually empty stub. It has now been rewritten as Christianity and Neopaganism with a fuller range of links at the end of the article. May I suggest that this category is deleted or changed into a simple redirect to the new article. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Christian/pagan syncretism needs a category, even if it is a small one. The alternative would be to upmerge. Articlising is for articles mis-created in category space. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I take your point and would be happy to see a category called Christian/pagan syncretism - but I think the name of the present one is both misleading and too narrow. A broader category named as you suggest could happily contain Christianity and Neopaganism, Christianity and Paganism and several other linked articles. However I am uncertain of the procedure or the markup for renaming or redirecting a category.... can you or anyone help, if this is a thing I can be bold and go ahead with? Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 23:34, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As no-one else has commented I shall go ahead and move this category to a more suitably broad one, which I will populate a little more fully. I'll leave this discussion a day or so and then remove my CfD tag if no-one else has commented. Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:19, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Damn. I just created a category called Category:Christian-Pagan syncretism only to discover that there is already an existing, well-populated category at Category:Paganism and Christianity which will do the job perfectly well and serve as an entirely appropriate home for the two articles previously under Category:Christo-paganism. I will now try and mend the mess I have created.... Kim Dent-Brown (Talk) 22:46, 24 November 2010 (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:Peninsulas of County XXX[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, without prejudice against immediate renomination. Since posting at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland apparently did not generate adequate participation, I'd like to suggest trying Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Geography and perhaps even directly contacting a few active users in Category:WikiProject Ireland members and Category:WikiProject Geography members. -- Black Falcon (talk) 00:28, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Peninsulas of County Louth, Category:Peninsulas of County Wexford, Category:Peninsulas of County Donegal, Category:Peninsulas of County Kerry, Category:Peninsulas of County Mayo, Category:Peninsulas of County Waterford.

Propose merging all these categories into a single category for the state Category:Peninsulas of the Republic of Ireland.
Proposer's rationale. These categories display a level of categorisation that goes too far. Most contain only 1 article. Only one contains 5 articles and thay suffers from categorisation schizophrenia - the same thing is listed as both a headland and a peninsula. When is a peninsula not a headland? Collectively, the articles in all the categories only number 11. This is quite a small number of articles even for a national level category. A discussion has been on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland "9 Peninsulas by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories" page since October 14th. There have been no dissenting comments on the discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Categories need to be tagged with Template:Cfm. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for same reasons I've given under #Category:Bays of County XXX.. jnestorius(talk) 19:17, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposed compromise. Taking on board the comments of jnestorius, may I suggest that the merger into a single national Peninsula category go ahead but, in addition, all of the Peninsula per County should be added to the county level category of "Landforms of County XXX". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:11, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this and next item into "Coastal features of County XXX". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2010 (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:Bays of County XXX.[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 18:52, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bays of County Cork, Category:Bays of County Clare, Category:Bays of County Donegal, Category:Bays of County Galway, Category:Bays of County Kerry, Category:Bays of County Mayo, Category:Dublin Bay.
Propose merging all these categories into a single category for the state Category:Bays of the Republic of Ireland.
Proposer's rationale. These categories display a level of categorisation that goes too far. Collectively, the articles in all the categories only number 28 with many duplicated between counties (where the bay straddles 2 counties). This is quite a small number of articles even for a national level category. The Dublin Bay cat only lists 1 bay with the other artivles being non bay featues within the main bay. Each article names the relevant county. A discussion has been on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ireland "10 Bays by County - proposed deletion of sub-categories" page since October 14th. There have been no dissenting comments on the discussion. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed compromise. Taking on board the comments of jnestorius, may I suggest that the merger into a single national Bay category go ahead but, in addition, all of the Bays per County should be added to the county level category of "Landforms of County XXX". Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:37, 23 November 2010 (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:Bathgate Thistle F.C.[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 18:51, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bathgate Thistle F.C. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small, eponymous category—containing only the main article and one subcategory (otherwise categorized)—for a football club. I could not find other content pages which could be added to the category at this time. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This does seem to be the structure adopted for other team-based categories, enabling the player sub-category and grouping into parent categories for Area and Sport. There is maybe a question as to whether the full category structure is appropriate for Junior teams - this is the only one to have a full category structure? AllyD (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Navigation could be preserved by placing the club article in the appropriate Sport in {place} category, which I see has been done. (Also, there is Category:Footballers in Scotland by club, though that is not subdivided by council area). From the club article, readers could navigate to articles about players and/or the players category (perhaps through a "See also" link to the category). -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2010 (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:Billboard Rhythmic Airplay number-one singles[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Billboard Rhythmic Airplay number-one singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Are songs that reach number one on this chart really defined by this achievement? It measures airplay on only 77 US radio stations and is not mentioned as a chart that should ever be allowed in WP:USCHARTS. If it's considered such a minor chart that it's not in the prose of song articles, it really shouldn't have its own category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep chart has its own article and a list of #1 singles like most other charts; I fail to see how it's not defining. Its omission from WP:USCHARTS is most likely an oversight. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:33, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this chart is featured in Billboard and is considered a BDS monitored chart. I see nothing wrong with it. TheOnly2 05:23, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, since this is a actual listing of songs that reached number-one on the Billboard Rhythmic Airplay chart, plus Rhythmic Top 40 is a very influential format so this category does play a factor in keeping reference on what song reached number one on this chart. Robert Moore 12:52, 2 December 2010 (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:Colorado coordinates svg in border states - 50 state svg error[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) 21:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Colorado coordinates svg in border states - 50 state svg error (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I have no idea what this category is and nothing links to it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:54, 23 November 2010 (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:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations[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, unfortunately, there was not consensus as to what. Recommend relisting. Kbdank71 18:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Lists of U.S. locations with large ethnic populations to Category:to be determined by consensus
Nominator's rationale: The concept of "ethnic populations" is problematic and is perhaps the result of the widespread tendency for people to use "ethnic" only to refer to ethnic minorities. Some of the articles in the category are about groups who are actually majorities in the location in question, however, so I'm not sure whether replacing "ethnic" with "ethnic minority" is an option. Suggestions would be welcome. Cordless Larry (talk) 13:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. By definition, most cities have a large ethnic population - the ethnicity in question being 'Caucasian', 'European', or whatever PC/non-PC term you wish to call it. And it's rather vague anyway - what would define, say, New Orleans as having a large ethnic population is rather different than what would define (tossing out random city name) Monrovia as having one! - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 18:04, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, every city has an ethnic population of 100 per cent because we are all "ethnic". Cordless Larry (talk) 18:09, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, openminded as to what it's renamed. Looking at the lists in this category, it does appear that they have something roughly in common, so I think it's a matter of just finding the right parent name for this category. "Ethnic" by itself is obviously incorrect and POV; "ethnic minority" would go a long way to fix that. postdlf (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to rename the main article in the category, Lists of U.S. cities with large ethnic populations along those lines, but it was subseqently moved again, on the basis that some of the groups in question are majorities in some locations. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:36, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That rather misses the point of listing where they are majorities, which is that they are minorities in the country as a whole. postdlf (talk) 21:01, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think the term "ethnic minority" can apply to a group even if they are a majority in a particular location, if they are still a minority nationally. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what else to call it, i.e. the existing category; the problem is there's no parameter for what "large" means....List of U.S. cities with significant Chinese populations, for example, includes places (lots of them) with only 1% or a few percent, hardly "large" or "significant". The issue with the "minority" terminology is that in too many places that's totally inapt, e.g. with Alaskan "cities" which are 90% Native Alaskan....an ethnicity isn't necessarily a minority; and even English ancestry can be in the minority.Skookum1 (talk) 22:29, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- How large is "large"? That is a POV issue on which editors will differ. If some one can provide a rational limit for the size that will qualify, this could be a valid category, but currently it is not a closed category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:17, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Isn't that a matter for each individual list to resolve? This is a parent category for such lists, which do exist in a significant number, and I think this category is more trying to just describe the lists than to apply its own judgment to them. postdlf (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • So true. I was just grouping them together when I created the category. I picked up 'large' from the names of several of the lists. Hmains (talk) 04:57, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep / Consider Rename The category appropriately groups articles and lists about ethnic communities. While most of the articles use the term "majority", the use of the word "large" in the title of this category makes the grouping seem much more arbitrary. While I believe that the category should be retained, consideration should be given to crafting an alternate title that would address the concerns raised by the nomination while appropriately grouping the articles included as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 20:02, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Lists of ethnic enclaves in the United States per the parent Category:Ethnic enclaves in the United States.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:18, 4 December 2010 (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:Generating Stations in Indiana[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) 21:48, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Merging
Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Generating Stations in Indiana and replace by main category Category:Energy resource facilities in Indiana (with subcats for coal, hydro, wind etc stations as appropriate), as the category “Generating Stations” is ambiguous and appears to be unique to Indiana. They are usually called “Power stations” (except for “Hydroelectric plants”). And the Tanner's Creek Generating Station in Indiana is not even in this category! Hugo999 (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2010 (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 directed by Robert Beaucage[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. We can follow the guideline for now and say if a sourced article ever is created, users will be permitted to re-create the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films directed by Robert Beaucage (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No corresponding article for Robert Beaucage. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 04:59, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doubtful. No reliable sources found anywhere on Gnews, just false positives. Also precedent is that "Xs verbed by Y" categories always get deleted if Y doesn't have an article, even if there is potential for Y to have an article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 05:31, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:FILMCAT - "A category for a director's films should be created even if they have only directed one film (irrespective of whether they are likely to direct more in the future), providing that the director already has an article." Unless, of course, the article for the director is likely to be created anytime soon. Lugnuts (talk) 08:01, 23 November 2010 (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:Electricity in the European Union[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose Renaming Category:Electricity in the European Union to Category:Electric power in the European Union to match a renaming for the countries in this category, eg to Category:Electric power in France. Hugo999 (talk) 03:56, 23 November 2010 (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:1994 architecture in the United States[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 18:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

1980

Propose merging Category:1994 architecture in the United States to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1994
Propose merging Category:1980 architecture in the United States to Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1980
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I am not convinced that we need to break out building completions by year by country. None of the structure completion categories are overloaded so this simply adds to making navigation difficult. If there is support, a number of other US categories would need nominating. Articles are or should already have a US building category parent. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:48, 23 November 2010 (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:Orchard[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Orchard, Singapore for clarity. The consensus was to rename, but not to what. Kbdank71 18:41, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Orchard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Guess what this is not about. If anyone wants to verify the articles, an upmerge to Category:Orchard Road might be an option. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:13, 23 November 2010 (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:Rotary Foundation fellows[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 awards discussions aren't much use here, because fellowships have their own scheme at Category:Fellowships that includes several categories on par with this one. Rotary's applicability for category status can't be judged in a vacuum. Perhaps someone should nominate all of those at once and see where people come down.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Rotary Foundation fellows (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Appears to be a category of people who have received a scholarship/award from the Rotary Foundation, and judging by the articles this is not a defining feature of the persons' careers. If a list is desired, I would have no objection to listifying. See Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_recipients for the applicable guideline. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify by all means, if desired. Certainly Delete the category. Rotary Foundation is not all that important, so that its awards cannot be. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep by all means. The Rotary Foundation is budgetarily the largest privately funded exchange program in the world, receiving $70 million in donations in 2003-2004 alone (http://www.rotary.org/en/AboutUs/History/TRFHistory/Pages/ridefault.aspx). Competition for the fellowships is highly competitive (I didn't get beyond the local level on the first attempt [in 1975], and the next year I was one of 17 at the district level--for one award). The Rotary Foundation experience has been "a defining feature" of the careers of many of the former Fellows (see, e.g., http://www.rotary.org/en/StudentsAndYouth/Alumni/ReconnectionsNewsletter/Pages/ridefault.aspx). The Wikipedia category, however, suffers from the fact that many former Fellows have yet to be put into the category (many profiles in Wikipedia are of Rotary Foundation Fellows, but only a fraction of them have been so categorized). I started into doing so, but, like the rest of us, I'm just a volunteer with a lot of other things to do. What the category needs is expansion, not deletion. At least hold off on eliminating this category until the issue can be notified to, and voted on by, a broad range of Wikipedians from various countries. Rammer (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I guess we need some sort of indication as to why this award is unlike all the other awards categories that are deleted persuant to Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award_recipients. A few awards categories are kept, like ones for Academy Awards and Nobel Prizes. Are you suggesting that receiving this fellowship is on par with these awards? Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe so, after the winner of an election was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize on the apparent basis of euphoria and anticipations. Fulbright and Rhodes (which also have categories) are well known. But Wikipedia has categories for fellows of programs such as Alexander von Humboldt, Guggenheim, Pew, Rockefeller, Sangeet Natak Akademi, Sahitya Akademi, among others. Are you suggesting that the Rotary Foundation is below the par of all of those?
Categorization should not be a replacement for use of Wikipedia's search function or for listifying, but the time being spent to build, delete, and later reconsider and rebuild categories could well be spent on writing and improving articles. I apologize for being this way, but I want to take a positive and constructive view of Wikipedians' contributions unless they are immoral, unethical, illegal, or dangerous.
Rammer (talk) 21:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you kind of avoided my question by taking a swipe at a third party. I won't avoid yours. But Wikipedia has categories for fellows of programs such as Alexander von Humboldt, Guggenheim, Pew, Rockefeller, Sangeet Natak Akademi, Sahitya Akademi, among others. Are you suggesting that the Rotary Foundation is below the par of all of those? As far as I know, those categories have not been discussed at CFD. Just because other categories exist and have not been discussed does not provide an adequate justification for keeping this one. In other words, it's not a fair comparison. The Nobel and Academy Awards categories have been discussed, as have hundreds of other ones that have been deleted. The ones you mention have not been. I view the standard you set (OK unless "immoral, unethical, illegal, or dangerous") as bit too lenient. In conclusion—I get a bit tired of people lecturing others on how CFD is a waste of time and it would be time better spent on working on articles. If there weren't so many god-awful categories created in the first place—ones that go precisely against established conventions and guidelines—CFD would not be necessary. But it is. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Rammer. - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 21:44, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly a listify. The entire awards structure has issues as a category. Better to keep most if not all of it as lists. 67.102.230.202 (talk) 06:17, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. I haven't seen here why we should ignore OC#AwardRecipients. --Kbdank71 18:33, 8 December 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_November_23&oldid=1140437351"