Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 December 20

< December 19	December 21 >

December 20[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 single member is already in Category:Buildings and structures in the United Kingdom destroyed during World War II.--21:06, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Category:Buildings destroyed by Vergeltungswaffen[edit]

Nominator's rationale: One-item category with little scope for expansion - I don't think very many notable buildings were destroyed by the V-1 and V-2, and the only building in the category (more of a collection of buildings) doesn't even seem to have been destroyed. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:36, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to parent WWII category. I suspect that might be more items that might be added but the V-1 and V-2 weapons were less successful than hoped, partly because of misinformation fed back to the Germans by double agents, leading them to reduce the intended range and thus fall short of London. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:38, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Buildings 'struck' by V-Weapons and populate it. A lot of buildings were destroyed or badly damaged in South & East London by V weapons and none that I can think of are currently listed in WP. However, the title might need tweaking as, the SE being less densely packed than the city, it was often only part of the site which was destroyed. Also Vergeltungswaffen is referred to as V-weapons elsewhere. I note that 90% of the bombsites were residential or shops, which are unlikely ever to be classed as "notable" in that form, though many of those bombsites that were later developed into housing estates. See: here Many sites notable at the time (Dulwich College, Dulwich Picture Gallery, Norwood Cemetery chapel, Kingswood House etc.) although not all were rebuilt in the same way. A proper list would hint at how the area was, in effect, sacrificed to save the city of London. However if this group is not a respectable size in a month then remove it. Ephebi (talk) 18:48, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would make an interesting list, but category? Not really, no. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Like you I initially thought that upmerging was the right approach, but then stood back and thought that it would be worth while "collecting" them in some place. I thought about creating a list like this of notable sites, but they can't be two-way, and would never be finished. Letting it run for a month under the modified name would give us a chance to populate it. Ephebi (talk) 23:07, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to parent World War II category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2011 (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:Naturalized citizens of Ghana[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category, "Category:Naturalized citizens of Ghana", is flawed, why in the earth Kolins created this category in the first place is a mistery. Adam Larsen Kwarasey was not naturalized as a citizen of Ghana, because if someone was to be naturalized to gain Ghanaian or any other nationality they would need to have basic requirements for naturalization which are that the applicant hold a legal status as a full-time resident for a minimum period of time. Which is not the case for Adam Larsen Kwarasey as he has never ever lived in Ghana. The category is flawed that is why there is only one Wikipedia article linked to it, naturalization as a Ghanaian citizen is not common, Adam Larsen Kwarasey received Ghanaian citzenship when he was born in Norway via his father being born in Ghana, he was not naturalized, and I repeat that is why there is only one Wikipedia article linked to it. See here for Ghanaian citizenship law & nationality law --> http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3eda135a2.pdf. MarkMysoe (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now There are many other categories for naturalized citizens of other countries, so this seems to be an established categorization scheme. Additionally, that Ghanian naturalization may not be common would seem to warrant the inclusion, not the deletion, of this category. The issue here seems to be with the individual article, in which case I would suggest removing the category from the page and taking these claims to the article talk page. If that is successful, and if it's then an empty category, I defer to the judgment of others since I'm a CfD newbie and not as familiar with the deletion criteria. Cmprince (talk) 22:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems to me that this topic could be more than adequately covered by (the yet-nonexistent) Category:Immigrants to Ghana and its potential subcategories. However, it is part of the Category:Naturalized citizens by nation tree. But I do think that entire tree is unnecessary, and I believe the nominator is correct—it looks like Adam Larsen Kwarasey is not a naturalized citizen, but rather is more likely a citizen by birth. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. @Cmprince and Good Olfactory, I have tried already to Remove/Unlink the Wikipedia article of Adam Larsen Kwarasey from the category (Category:Naturalized citizens of Ghana) but another Wikipedia editor, GiantSnowman, keeps undoing my revision when I try to Remove/Unlink the name from the category. See here for the conversations about the issue --> User_talk:GiantSnowman#Adam_Larsen_Kwarasey and User_talk:MarkMysoe#Adam_Larsen_Kwarasey then finally Revision history of Adam Larsen Kwarasey. Then you now see why I am unable to Remove/Unlink the Wikipedia article of Adam Larsen Kwarasey from the category (Category:Naturalized citizens of Ghana). The category should be speedy deleted it is totally irrelevant and flawed. Adam Larsen Kwarasey received Ghanaian citizenship/nationality via his father being born and from Ghana, otherwise if Adam Larsen Kwarasey was naturalized as a citizen of Ghana or any other country he would need to have basic requirements for naturalization which are that the applicant hold a legal status as a full-time resident for a minimum period of time. Adam Larsen Kwarasey has never lived in Ghana so how could he be naturalized. The link that I provided in my first comment for the nomination to delete the category presents the source/website of United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees explaining the Ghanaian citizenship & naturalization laws --> http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3eda135a2.pdf, this source would now back-up everything and give proof to what I have been claiming that Adam Larsen Kwarasey was not naturalized as a citizen of Ghana and that he received Ghanaian citizenship/nationality from the day he was born. MarkMysoe (talk) 12:45, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close -- This is a legitimate category. This is not the right place to discuss whther its sole content is connrectly categorised. This will depend on the nationality law of Ghana. Details of this will vary between nations. Some nations do not allow dual nationality, so that if a person (say a Kenyan) asserts an entitlement to (say) UK natioanlity or is naturalised in UK following settlement, he (and by implication his after-born issue) do not have his original nationality. This would mean that the son of the former-Kenyan UK citizen would need to seek naturalisation to become a Kenyan citizen. I am not an expert on this, and my expample from Kenya may be wrong. Certainly, there was a case in the news a while back of an East African who claimed British overseas citizenship and thus forfeited his original citizenship. He was refused admission to the UK (having no right of entry) and was then refused entry to his own country, due to no longer being a citizen. He spent some time living in the airport departure lounge until a solution was found to his problem. I do not know what the situation may be for the descendants of Ghanaians who have been naturalised elsewhere. I am thus not voting on the particular case. If he does not belong and no one else can find a person to add instead, we may have an empty category, which will be deleted as a matter of course. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:34, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural close per the sound reasons stated by Peterkingiron. postdlf (talk) 15:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the one entry in the category is inaccurate. We should remove the category. I would remove the one entry, but removing the one entry would get people attacking me for emptying the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Mark, if you're going to mention my name at a discussion, it would be courteous of you to notify me. I've no opinion on the category itself; my argument is that there is no evidence that Kwarasey was a citizen of Ghana from birth other than the fact that his father is from Ghana. Surely this makes him eligible for citizenship (which he has obviously got at some point), as opposed to guaranteed citizenship. I'd advise we move the discussion about that from mine and Mark's talk pages, and onto the article talk page. Giant Snowman 23:00, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty - regardless of the correctness of the Naturalized citizens category tree, this category is now empty, with the sole disputed occupant having been removed with the agreement of the formerly objecting party (GiantSnowman). The category can be recreated if there are any articles for naturalized citizens of Ghana and if the community deems the naturalized citizens category tree worthwhile. 70.226.165.169 (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2011 (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:Conference USA future football seasons[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Overkill category that will likely become obsolete, assuming that the only article in it (East Carolina Pirates future football schedules) gets deleted at its AfD. The existence of this category also creates a slippery slope for other-conference future schedules to get made. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, even if East Carolina Pirates future football schedules is kept. Overkill indeed. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:15, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per WP:CRYSTAL. Cmprince (talk) 22:24, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Weiss Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 17:46, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Jweiss11. cmadler (talk) 18:03, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- But no prejudice against re-creation if there are ever sufficient articles to merit such a category. cmadler (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2011 (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:Articles edited but not created by User:Marshallsumter[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. There are no articles actually in the category; it is currently just a list of articles entered into category space. So I think we can just speedily delete it as an empty category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:41, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: I created this category when this editor's seriously problematic edits were first noticed. However this category was hardly used since there were easier ways to generate lists of what needed fixing. Plus, it's all been handled long since. Cloveapple (talk) 06:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and this category should have never been created in the first place. D O N D E groovily Talk to me 03:58, 21 December 2011 (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:Wunderwaffen[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:04, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a rather subjective classification, I believe - and one that is already well-covered in list form at Wunderwaffe. WP:OC based on "boy, it would have been cool if they'd been able to finish/get operational X", pretty much. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category header cautions against confusing these weapons with vergeltungswaffen, but then Category:Vergeltungswaffen is immediately listed as a subcategory. I don't see any references in the articles themselves that positively identify them as having been called wunderwaffen by the Germans, so there's no way to tell which are correct and which aren't. Cmprince (talk) 22:33, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment our article on wonder weapons includes vengeance weapons. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2011 (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:Military history of the United States (2000–2099)[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:21st-century military history of the United States. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Military history of the United States (2000–2099) to Category:Military history of the United States (2000–present) (or Category:Military history of the United States (2000–))

Nominator's rationale: Rename. 2099 is far in the future; we don't even know if the U.S. will exist then. For date ranges in categories in WP, it's far more common to see "(XXXX–present) or simply (XXXX–) for time ranges that are ongoing. See, e.g., Category:History of the United States (1991–present). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:46, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is another of the persistent attempts to split things by a present/past distinction. we had a mass cull of such things, may be a year ago. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Rename to Category:21st-century military history of the United States, in line with Category:21st-century military history and Category:21st century in the United States. I suppose the 1900–1999 category would need to change as well. I don'tsee how categorizing military operations and doctrines by historical period isn't appropriate and useful.- choster (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This suggestion sounds good to me as nom. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:26, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Choster - historical articles can and should be divided by time period. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:51, 20 December 2011 (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:Paintings by Matthias Laurenz Gräff[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: nonnotable artist (descendent of Wolfgang von Graben). work is tagged for transfer to wikimedia commons. after that is done, category should be deleted. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:43, 20 December 2011 (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:High-end audio manufacturers[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:High-end audio manufacturers to Category:Audio equipment manufacturers

also its subcategories:

Category:High-end audio manufacturers by country

Category:High-end audio manufacturers of Canada

Category:High-end audio manufacturers of Denmark

Category:High-end audio manufacturers of Germany

Category:High-end audio manufacturers of Japan

Category:High-end audio manufacturers of the United Kingdom

Category:High-end audio manufacturers of the United States

Nominator's rationale: This category and its subcategories are inherently non-NPOV: defining "high-end" requires an opinion and cannot be done neutrally. Propose merging this and its subcategories into the parent category Category:Audio equipment manufacturers. Cmprince (talk) 00:53, 20 December 2011 (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:Serial (radio and television)[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete There's a chance that the lone article in the category will be deleted before this debate is closed. But otherwise, this should be deleted because serials should be split by medium with Category:Serial drama television series (or related categories) for TV and Category:Radio drama (and related categories) for radio. Pichpich (talk) 00:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 03:08, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note The category is now empty. I'm not sure how that affects the process though. Pichpich (talk) 17:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That would make it eligible for C1 speedy. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:39, 20 December 2011 (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.