Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 30 September 1 >

August 31[edit]

Flags of Nepal[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 as per previous discussion, WP:OCAT#Small_with_no_potential_for_growth will allow for categories which are "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". This is such a category. --Xdamrtalk
Suggest merging Category:Flags of Nepal to Category:Flags by country
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Only one entry. The sole article Flag of Nepal is already in Category:National symbols of Nepal, so just need to upmerge it to the parent. This was previously nominated as a single-member category in 2007 and was kept as being part of an "overall scheme". (The contents have not changed since then.) However, not every country has a "flags of ..." category, nor is it useful if only one article is in it. The article can just as easily be placed in Category:Flags by country as the category can. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the merge (if any) should be to Category:Flags, as Category:Flags by country is a subcat scheme and should not contain any top-level articles (although it does). My own view is that Category:Flags by country should be fully implemented rather than dismantled via merges. Occuli (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Putting it in Category:Flags by country would at least separate it out from the other riff-raff and place it in a category that contains flags of other countries; i.e., it would retain the "findability" that was the apparent reason for creating the category. I don't see why that category couldn't contain articles as well as categories. To disallow it just mandates the creation of a bunch of one-item categories—an unnecessary level of categorization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:18, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there could be something else added to the category, I would be all for keeping it. It's been over 2 years and still only this article exists. Are there any other "flags of Nepal" that would warrant articles? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As part of the well-defined structure of Category:Flags by country. As long as the number of flags is non-zero, the category should exist to allow navigation through the parent category and other national category structures. Alansohn (talk) 21:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you (or anyone else) explain to me how such a navigation could not be just as easily accomplished by placing Flag of Nepal in Category:Flags by country? The proposal would actually appear to result in an easier navigation, since it would take one less click to get to the article, but membership in the parent categories would be retained. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:38, 2 September 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.

Football (soccer) people by century[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:
--Xdamrtalk 23:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Football (soccer) managers by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Football (soccer) players by century (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
and all subcategories.
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The century that a football player/manager played/managed in is not a defining characteristic of that player/manager's career. – PeeJay 21:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (and the subcats) and rethink. If we consider Sam Allardyce, already in 27 categories, is he now going to be in Category:20th century XXX for most of them and Category:21st century XXX as well for some of them? Just put him in Category:20th century people and Category:21st century people and leave the rest to Catscan. Occuli (talk) 23:48, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of schema Category:People by occupation and century. The intersection of occupation and century (may or) may not be significant enough for catting for it but a nomination needs to be from the top down. Mayumashu (talk) 01:02, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Says who? Why can't we just delete them (or not) on a project-by-project basis? – PeeJay 07:32, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Anyone looking at WP as a whole, I m quite sure. Deleting two sub-categories but leaving dozens of equal significance does nothing for making progress in sorting out categorizing on WP overall, which is what regular contributors at WP:Cats for discussion are, I hazard to say, striving for. Some such contributors support for catting people by century - when I nominated to delete Category:20th-century people by nationality and Category:21st-century people by nationality a few months ago this become apparent. Of these, some wish simply to have very general lists (such as User:Occuli, judging from the comments here). Others wish to sub-divide these by either nationality, occupation, or both, and amongst this group (of which I am presently one), there is debate as to how finely or broadly to subdivide. Mayumashu (talk) 00:53, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I really don't think you would obtain a consensus for creating Category:20th-century male football (soccer) defenders (as opposed to a non-consensus keep). This will still be an vast category when populated (as nearly all Category:Football (soccer) defenders are both male and 20th-century) so you will need Category:20th-century English male football (soccer) defenders, and then Category:20th-century expatriate English male football (soccer) central left-sided defenders etc etc. It seems an enormous amount of trouble for a gain that I cannot perceive. Besides, the occupation is 'football (soccer) player', not 'football (soccer) defender'. Occuli (talk) 10:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Quite! Regardless, Mayumashu has still failed to address the reason why this CfD was set up in the first place: the fact that the century a player played in is completely irrelevant. – PeeJay 20:20, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • Whether the century is or is not defining to a footballer's or manager's career is not the sole issue here, regardless of how the nomination is set. I happen not to disagree that the century a footballer or manager is active in is not that defining to that person's career (but neither is the place they grew up in or the exact year they were born in), but the same is true of many if not most occupations - a nomination, however, needs to take on the relevant supracategory pages. As to the point raised by Occuli, that by position still yeilds long lists, it s true - I would nt oppose an upmerge 'by player' only (even though I did create many of the pages by position), if/when such a nomination arises. Mayumashu (talk) 02:59, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • If you would be prepared to withdraw your opposition to this discussion and allow these categories to be deleted, I would consider starting a CfD to get the rest of the People by occupation and century categories deleted. However, I do still believe that this should be discussed on a project-by-project basis, as there's a hell of a lot of categories in there, and I'm sure that categorisation by century is pertinent for some of them. It definitely isn't pertinent to footballers, though, hence this nomination. – PeeJay 09:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of the overall structure of the parent Category:People by occupation and century. While the difference in play between the 20th and 21st centuries seems unclear now, the difference in style of play between the 19th and 20th centuries is a defining one. Alansohn (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. You could probably argue that there's a big difference between 1890 and 1990, but there was bugger all difference between 1890 and 1900. As I said, the century played in is not an important aspect, although there may be a case for pre-1945 and post-1945 players. – PeeJay 08:39, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - nominator is correct, not needed for footballers. GiantSnowman 11:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The century a person played is not a defining characteristic. The intersections of occupation and century and then on to more absurd lengths like Category:20th-century male football (soccer) defenders are trivial. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and all subcats and recommend that all similar occupation/century categories are CfDed as well. These century categories are perfect examples of overcategorisation. So what if an individual lived sometime in one arbitrary hundred year period as opposed to another. Is there any difference between a player who played in the 1990s and one who played in the 2000s? None whatsoever. There's much more difference between one who played in the 1920s and one who played in the 1990s. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:00, 9 September 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:Universiti Malaya[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:
--Xdamrtalk 22:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Universiti Malaya to Category:University of Malaya
Propose renaming Category:Alumni of Universiti Malaya to Category:Alumni of the University of Malaya
Propose renaming Category:Residential colleges of Universiti Malaya to Category:Residential colleges of the University of Malaya
Nominator's rationale: The main article relating to this category is called "University of Malaya". — Cheers, JackLee –talk– 17:11, 31 August 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:Zoids Anime[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:
Delete Category:Zoids Expansion Project
--Xdamrtalk 22:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Zoids Anime to Category:Zoids (6 articles)
Suggest merging Category:Zoids video games to Category:Zoids (3 articles)
Suggest deleting Category:Zoids Expansion Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (1 template)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation/small categories with no growth potential. The articles should all be included in Category:Zoids, while the template should be moved to the appropriate Wikiproject category. G.A.Stalk 15:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I have combinbed these three nominations as they are obviously related. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:56, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominations updated accordingly as no-one have commented yet.[1] G.A.Stalk 15:40, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth is the Expansion Project supposed to be for? —Quasirandom (talk) 19:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • A cat for for categories that may be used in the future.
      • A --. Uh. What? Okay, that one, delete as nominated. No opinion on the other two. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:20, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Too smalls to deserve cat for now. Maybe in the future if Zoids franchise grow to the critical state to warrant cat but that not for the years to come. This franchise is slower that Gundam. --KrebMarkt 05:55, 1 September 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:Ranma ½ superhuman characters[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 Category:Ranma ½ superhuman characters to Category:Ranma ½ characters. --Xdamrtalk 22:56, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Ranma ½ superhuman characters to Category:Ranma ½ characters
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation/small category with no growth potential: Category contains only 6 articles and the content is furthermore redundant to List of Ranma ½ characters. G.A.Stalk 04:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. — G.A.S (talk · contribs)
  • Delete/merge. The Ranma characters are in the process of being merged already, there won't be a need for the category soon. Even Category:Ranma ½ characters only has one non-list entry, and that will either also become empty or only grow to include two more characters (all the individual characters are currently mergeable, but 3 do at least stand the chance of demonstrating notability at some point if someone were to work on it). Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:08, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately my connection died when I tried to expand the previous comment. I had intended to go with something along the lines of Dinoguy's comment below. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:07, 31 August 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:Victims of American political repression[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. Irrespective of the fact that this category is part of a wider structure, it has not been convincingly argued that it is at all reconcilable with WP:NPOV. This calls into sharp question the entire basis of the parent category, Category:Victims of political repression by country, and its subcats. That, however, should be properly dealt with in another nomination. --Xdamrtalk 23:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Victims of American political repression (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Inherently, hopelessly POV and prejudicial. This came to my attention because Montana Freemen was added to this cat. I personally find that offensive. Now that's just an opinion of course, and so is defining them as victims of political oppression. I find it highly unlikely that any reliable sources would have defined this group in this manner. This was previously nominated as part of a mass nom which probably failed because there too many different cats included in it, so it is my intention to re-examine this one particular cat Beeblebrox (talk) 03:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Comment The original CfD discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 30#Victims of political repression — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs)
  • Delete, unless some objective criteria can be found for inclusion.   Will Beback  talk  04:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain There's no other category that encapsulates this idea, as important and convenient as it is to collecting this group in one place. Repression can be good or bad, it has a slightly negative connotation, but it's also highly dependent on the user's POV. Some rogue added the freeman to the cat, that's no reason to delete the entire cat., consider rewording 'repression', but it's a valuable category and we'll likely be back here in a few months anyway because people will want this information and it's a valuable cat to have. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.83.19 (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2009 (UTC) — 141.164.83.19 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Delete - wildly subjective category. One person's "political repression" is another person's "business as usual" or "upholding the law" or "defending the American way of life". Inclusion or exclusion will depend entirely on the opinion of the individual editor. Slaves, women, Native Americans, LGBT people, Jews, Irish, Catholics, CPUSA members, illegal immigrants, people convicted in the "War on Drugs", people who believe in an unfettered 2nd Amendment, etc. are just a handful of the groups for whom a credible claim of "political repression" could be made against the United States. Then, since this is not bounded nationally, we could have arguments for whether to include, say, the people of countries adversely affected by US foreign policy, from the Palestinians to pre-revolutionary Cubans to Iranians after the US-supported 1953 coup to Chileans after the 1973 coup to women who died in childbirth because of US reversals in family planning policies. Any American who ever lived under the threat of a sedition act could be claimed to fit here, anyone from the Hollywood blacklist to the teachers made to sign loyalty oaths. my mother refused to sign one in 1956 and was subjected to harassment because of it, is she a victim of American political repression? I could call and ask if you want. People of Japanese, German and Italian descent rounded up during WW1 and WW2. One could make an argument that every American who has lived under the Patriot Act has been the victim of political repression. The concept is so broad as to become meaningless for the purposes of categorization. Otto4711 (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The above delete nomination, while he may have some valid points, clouds the issue by introducing clearly not-notable persons. Even Randy Weaver, supposedly controversial here (but I didn't put him in, promise) is worthy of a page by himself, and so shouldn't this category group him with the other notable people who have clearly been the victim of repression? Every LGBT person/jew/catholic/CPUSA in America might think they're victims, but only when they're 1) notable and 2) actually had a notable act of repression exerted against them, would the category be appropriate. And the use of "American victims..." implies that these people are American nationality, not foreign people subjected to a cruel US foreign policy. In sum, I think common sense can lend a sustainable way to measure and apply this category well within the meaning, spirit and intent of wiki policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.164.82.106 (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain - as this is only a section of a larger category, Category:Victims of political repression by country, which has been kept after being nominated for deletion together with its subcats in April. It makes for great bias – and makes no sense – to pick out one subcategory to delete. Not all victims of political repression were Randy Weaver (whom I've just removed from the cat.) and the like – people have been arrested for and jailed for party affiliation, political belief, and anti-war "propaganda." (For instance, take a known figure like Eugene Debs – jailed simply on account of his denunciation of the First World War as a socialist.) Scholarly work has been written on the subject, so if the problem is inclusion of controversial entries, it can be dealt with by removing them from the category. Or – to deny any amount of possible evidence – does political repression exist, but has never been an aspect of political history in the United States? PasswordUsername (talk) 07:21, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the parent cat has the same problem, but I was deliberately trying to avoid a referendum on it. Of course there has been political repression in the United States, along with every other nation in the history of the human race, but as Otto4711 pointed out, the exact definition of the words "political repression" and "victim" for purposes of this category are hopelessly vague and open to personal interpretation. Do we put Aaron Burr in this category? Some would say yes, other would no doubt disagree. That's why it's no good. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If I may butt in, we've had the referendum on the parent cat, as recently as this past April, and it was kept. Deleting this category may provide a comfy solution for some American Wikipedians who object to a particular article or subcat being included, but it's wildly POV and inconsistent. Deleting is not a valid shortcut to either a) banishing the parent category or b) hashing out who belongs in this category, difficult as that process may prove to be. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:14, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Was Aaron Burr jailed for his controversial political belief or for his knowing violation of U.S. state law, as someone would reasonably interpret it? Is there a scholarly consensus in support of the former view? No.
How does your reasoning fail to apply to the other subcategories? Exactly this is what was discussed by the April AFD. PasswordUsername (talk) 09:18, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say my reasoning failed to apply to the other categories (it probably does in quite a few cases) but that this discussion should be about this one particular category and not a re-hash of the mass CFD nom in which it was previously kept. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Father Coughlin just got added. Wasn't sure whether he was the repressor or repressee!  :) It turned out the editor adding felt he was the one repressed. Just too subjective IMO. Thanks for nominating.Student7 (talk) 22:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • It seems as though people are now adding frivolous additions in violation of WP:POINT. There weren't any such stand-out eccentrities of this sort in the many months prior to this AFD and the Montana Freemen addition – which only happened on the day of the nomination... Indeed, as someone wrote on the AFD discussion for the whole set of political repression categories in April:

      "The nominator's rationale boils down to 'We can't decide inclusion because the criteria are nuanced and context-rich!' That's exactly the thing: we don't have to. Instead of having to do WP:OR, we have sources..."

      PasswordUsername (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • The entry for Father Coughlin was made by User:141.164.83.19, an SPA that appears to have done little but add the category to the article and vote to retain. Is one bad entry in a very large structure made by a disruptive editor actually enough to justify this or any other category? Alansohn (talk) 02:33, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As long as we're analyzing quotes, how about this one from your above comment "Was Aaron Burr jailed for his controversial political belief or for his knowing violation of U.S. state law, as someone would reasonably interpret it? " If we are required to "interpret" the facts and make our own judgements about who is included or excluded from this category, then it's no good. At what point is the line crossed between someone being opposed to a government policy and feeling they are getting the short end of stick, to them being "victims?" There's just too much grey area here for this to be a useful category. Coupled with the fact that "victim" is a loaded word, it is very difficult to see how this category could ever be freed of pov pushing additions and removals. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:37, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you were replying to me, not Alansohn. You unfortunately missed the second part of my answer – the clarification rests with the scholars, not Wikipedians. (And not just scholars in their off-the-day job careers as advocates.) Have you taken a look, for instance, at the names detailed in Political Repression in Modern America from 1870 to 1976, published by no less a printer than the University of Illinois Press (an institution known for its political science program)? Would you like more scholarly resources to further ground the project? Instead of questioning the common sense of political science scholars who deem – for instance – Eugene Debs a victim of political repression, you bring up the invented case of Aaron Burr (deemed a victim of political repression by whom?). How is this a meaningful exchange? PasswordUsername (talk) 02:46, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The category is inherently subjective and POV. Nutiketaiel (talk) 16:56, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep And prune where necessary, as a valid subcat Category:Victims of political repression by country. Having just lived though the Cheney Bush administration, it should be especially clear to all that the Americans are not somehow uniquely free from political repression. Also, as I understand it, the nom is to delete this category but leave in place Category:Political repression in the United States? If so, that makes no sense: if there is political repression in the United States, there must be victims; if they are notable victims, they should have articles, and a category like this to group them. If the nominator is 'personally offended' that Montana Freemen was added to this cat, then remove the category. I agree that including them here is offensive -- and that there is a legitimate concern about having this category abused by right-wing nut jobs who feel that they are being persecuted by ZOG, Obama, fluoride. or whatever. But that's the reality of the U.S. that we'll just have to deal with. Deleting the entire category on that basis is unfounded. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Far too POV to live. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:02, 9 September 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.

Songs by features[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 all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 23:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale. Amazingly excessive overcategorization. We already categorize featured artists under their own categories (ex: Category:Songs by Artist). No reason to have these extra categories that duplicate the purpose. — Σxplicit 01:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think the creator of the categories meant to title them "Songs featuring {artist}" so the titles don't really make sense. Even so they are redundant as stated by nom. MrBlondNYC (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization/duplication Skier Dude (talk) 03:58, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:45, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. This is a pig's ear of a scheme - I looked at In a Perfect World..., which turns out to be an album, not a song. So the category would be 'Category:Albums including at least one song featuring Trina. Amazingly excessive overcategorization is about right, and clutter can be seen in abundance at the foot of In a Perfect World.... The Last Kiss (album) is just as bad. Occuli (talk) 00:26, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Songs by features to Category:Songs by artist featured and Rename all the subcats to "Songs featuring Foo" The category captures a strong defining characteristic in hip hop music. Any examples of albums and other songs improperly categorized should be removed. Throwing out the entire defining category structure because of a misworded title or a questionable entry or two is just another baby with the bathwater situation. Alansohn (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - if a song is released by "Foo feat. Boo" then it's a Foo song and a Boo song and should be categorized as such. Categorizing songs by who's "featured" on them strikes me as akin to categorizing TV shows by guest-starring appearances, a form of overcategorization. Merge each of these to the appropriate "[Artist] songs" category. Otto4711 (talk) 04:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Songs featuring guest performers are already included in categories for both artists. These categories seem to refer to albums where the artist named has appeared on a few tracks. This seems to be overcategorization. Cjc13 (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I read the discussion above and was ready to say delete based on the discussion. But I decided to check a few categories first. Guess what? The ones I checked are empty so I think that makes the case to delete even stronger. 96.54.48.237 (talk) 22:08, 7 September 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:State highways inspired by US highways[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. --Xdamrtalk 23:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:State highways inspired by US highways (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Original research. Was M-10 in Michigan "inspired" by US-10 since it used to be part of US-10? M-227 because it was once part of US-27? It all seems like OR. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 01:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all of this is OR, for example California State Route 99 originating as U.S. Route 99 is well documented. However, OR or not, why does this deserve a category?Dave (talk) 04:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If the decision is made to keep, can we at least change "inspired by" to something more appropriate, such as "derived from" Dave (talk) 05:05, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and Dave. It's hard to say state highways are "inspired" by anything. I agree with Dave that the category should be renamed if kept. --LJ (talk) 05:41, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - smacks of WP:TRIVIA. While some (like West Virginia State Route 152 and West Virginia State Route 527, which were both former sections of US 52) are easily cited in various sources, others (like Florida State Road A1A and Florida State Road A19A) are a bit more problematical. Yet this is truly trivial. B.Wind (talk) 06:54, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While it seems cool to have a category for state routes that derive their number from a US route, this category seems trivial with some original research. Dough4872 (talk) 14:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Dave --Admrboltz (talk) 04:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are cases where a state highway number was clearly derived from that of a former U.S. Highway along its routing (CA 99 from US 99, NY 104 from US 104, and so on) and I think the original intent of this category was to categorize only those cases. However, even if this category is pruned to contain only those cases and renamed to a more appropriate name ("inspired" is a pretty poor word choice), I still think it's overcategorization. We really don't need a cat just for all state highways that replaced a U.S. Highway and took on the U.S. Highway's number. It is an interesting topic, but at the end of the day it's pretty trivial. I say delete. – TMF 06:48, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • This category was at one point titled "derivative highway designations" and included all highways that got their number from another highway (US 66 spawning SH 66, SH 66A, and SH 266 all would have been included). —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 19:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is an interesting category, but ultimately it's not a defining characteristic. While the highway names share a common characteristic, the highways themselves do not. Alansohn (talk) 22:08, 2 September 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:Kisielewski[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. --Xdamrtalk 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Kisielewski to Category:Kisielewski family (or delete)
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. The three articles in this category are about a father and two of his sons. If kept, needs to be renamed "Kisielvewski family", since this is a category for a family, not for anyone who happens to have the surname "Kisielewski". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:52, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - small, eponymous category not required for the material, which is interlinked through text. Otto4711 (talk) 03:57, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete -- the problem which this seeks to address is better handled by a disambiguation page. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:59, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. We do not need this. Debresser (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. Kisielewski does it better. Occuli (talk) 12:31, 1 September 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:Jaworski[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. --Xdamrtalk 23:03, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Jaworski (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of unrelated subjects by shared name. This is within the Category:Polish families category, but those in this category are just people who have the surname "Jaworski"; there's no apparent familial relationship and none discussed in the articles. Jaworski contains the list of people with this surname. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 31 August 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_August_31&oldid=1217916105"