Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 August 31

< August 30	September 1 >

August 31[edit]

Category:Platinum Triangle (Los Angeles)[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Suggest we delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Hard to see how this category can grow beyond its current contents (with a main article that after three years is but a two-sentence unreferenced stub). Not much interest in this triangle, it would seem. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:59, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep as part of a pattern of articles and categories found in Category:Neighborhoods in Los Angeles, California. Size does not matter when patterns are involved. Hmains (talk) 02:30, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - small category with no growth potential. Its two sibling categories (for Hollywood and for historic preservation zones) do not constitute the sort of widely-accepted scheme contemplated as exceptions to WP:OC#SMALL. Lead article is more than adequate to link the contents. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 17:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not agree more. It's just plain silly to have a category for this area, which is not a formally recognized zone or neighborhood -- and certainly is not a widely used term. I no longer reside in Los Angeles, but I do live in California, and I've never seen or heard this term before. I was amused to discover that the great majority of G-hits for "Platinum Triangle" are actually for a different area located in the adjacent Orange County, Platinum Triangle, Anaheim, California. Cgingold (talk) 19:28, 5 September 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:Songs sampling previously recorded songs[edit]

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 September 12.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining characteristic, simly trivial, often hard to verify, indiscriminate information. See below for similar CFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:56, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agree with nominator. I created the parent category after my previous nomination of Category:Songs sampling Kool & the Gang songs resulted in KEEP. See WP:CFD/2010 Mar 1. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The parent, under a slightly different name, was deleted in an even earlier CFD. See WP:CFD/2009 Feb 26. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 00:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And similar categories were deleted in 2006. Delete as non-defining of the songs. "Songs by technology or technique" is fairly trivial. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:51, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom. The previous unanimous keep re Kool is rather bizarre as this is an incidental rather than defining characteristic. Occuli (talk) 10:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:22, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; speedy as G4 if at all possible. Sampling is a common and fairly standard musical technique now, no more inherently defining than any musical instrument that may or may not have been used in a song's recording. We don't, for example, have Category:Songs featuring mandolin, Category:Songs featuring theremin, Category:Songs featuring guitars, etc. — so we don't need this either. And going back to the old Kool & the Gang discussion, I just gotta say: if it's really true that most people now know Kool & the Gang more for their popularity among samplers than for their original songs, then I'm clearly getting fricking old. Bearcat (talk) 08:49, 3 September 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.

Songs based on other songs[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 both. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining category. Some of the articles here barely mention the song it was "based on" and others just say it uses a sample of the artist's song, which hardly means it is based on the other song. Maybe just upmerge to Category:Songs sampling previously recorded songs. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a defining characteristic. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Non-defining. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:52, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-defining category. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:23, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT. Bearcat (talk) 08:50, 3 September 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:Canadian Country Singles 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: delete both. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:BADCHARTS and this AFD, the Canadian country music charts published by R&R/Nielsen shouldn't be added to articles. This category no longer serves a purpose, as all the peaks in these articles have been removed for lack of verifiability. Also listing subcategory Category:Canadian Country Singles number-one singles of the year. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 19:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. per rationale. Nowyouseeme talk2me 19:11, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 10:34, 7 September 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:Slavic American Jews[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category and its sub-cats make no sense. First of all, they are extreme three-way intersections that don't serve much of a purpose except to overflow articles. Secondly, "Slavs" and "Jews" are distinct ethnic entities and not all Jews have direct Slavic ethnic influence. This list pays NO ATTENTION to religious observance. It is a purely ethnic list which houses nearly all individuals who had at least one grandparent that was Jewish and came from a territory that was AT SOME POINT under the rule of a Slavic nation. This does not make them SLAVIC AMERICAN JEWS, merely Jews. Further, the category is way too encapsulating: Christopher Guest is included in the Category:Russian American Jews because his maternal grandparents originated from a territory that was once Russia. It's silly and unnecessary. Soundsboy (talk) 17:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - At the moment I mainly want to point out that this category is purely a container category which is being used to group together half a dozen sub-cats; it's not being applied directly to articles. I also want to note that the category has not been properly tagged for CFD -- the template is totally screwed up. I would suggest starting over and trying to do it correctly; if you still can't get it right I'll be more than happy to help you. Cgingold (talk) 22:16, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Calling a Bukharan Jew who emigrated from the Russian Empire a "Slavic Jew" is an obvious nonsense (as if "Slavic Jew" wasn't enough). But it's exactly what happens when countries of origin (that is, countries as territorial entities and nothing more) are grouped based on their language or ethnicity, especially using a common demonym that has no use outside of the field of language/culture/ethnicity. "Slavic umbrella" (or "Romance umbrella" or "Gaelic umbrella" etc.) may be relevant only in matters of common language and culture. East of Borschov 10:49, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per East of Borschov. The subcategories of this are fine; the mistake comes when trying to group them together as 'Slavic people', when they may not be. Many Russian people are Slavs, but that doesn't necessarily mean Russian Jews are Slavs. Robofish (talk) 13:29, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted above, Jews and Slavs were two distinct ethnic groups. Were they not, life would have been a whole lot more safe for the Jews, I'd warrant. Except in cases of intermarriage (which this category is not meant to address) there were no Slavic Jews, just Jews who cohabitated in countries alongside Slavs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:34, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note This name was arrived at as a result of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_June_16#Category:American_Jews_by_national_origin. I know these intersections are meat and drink to CfD regulars so I'll leave you to it. Rich Farmbrough, 06:53, 6 September 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:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania to Category:Pittsburgh

Nominator's rationale: Change the category name to match the article, with resides at Pittsburgh. A number of sub-categories are already under this naming convention. GrapedApe (talk) 17:25, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We've been down this road before. All U.S. city categories including Category:Los Angeles, California, Category:Chicago, Illinois, and so on contain the name of the state. The article name is not the only governor of how categories should be named.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – per many similar cfds and rename any subcats which are out of synch. Occuli (talk) 23:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike Selinker, and because Pittsburgh, PA is not the only Pittsburgh (we've got one right here in California, and I'm pretty sure there are others). Cgingold (talk) 13:16, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is, however, the only one well-known enough to have a valid claim to the plain name Category:Pittsburgh in an encyclopedia. Bearcat (talk) 08:53, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. There's never any genuinely useful reason for a category not to be named to match its head article; if the name were actually ambiguous enough that ", Pennsylvania" was actually necessary in the category, then the article could never have gotten moved in the first place either. Bearcat (talk) 09:02, 3 September 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:Men known for their penis size[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Useless, subjective, will end up as a vehicle for porn actor promotion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not subjective; sources are required to place articles in the category. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Stonemason89 (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Large and small are subjective, I don't understand how one can claim that they are not. Changing this to a specific size would make the inclusion criteria arbitrary which would also likely result in deletion. Also the name of the category lacks precision. Is this for long/short or wide/narrow? If this is sourced, Listify before deletion if someone has the interest. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment While the articles are sourced, the length of each penis is rarely the actual subject covered.:
- The article on John Holmes mentions: "He was best known for his exceptionally large penis, which was heavily promoted as being the longest and thickest in the porn industry, although no definitive measurement of Holmes' actual penis length exists."
- The article on Matt Majors details the medical condition of his penis, him having Hypospadias.
- The article on Jeff Palmer mentions actual measurement. But the claim to fame for his penis is that it was used as a mold for sex toys.
- The article on Grigori Rasputin mentions a reputation of having "an unusually long penis". Compared to what?
- The article on Long Dong Silver has an estimation on the length of his penis. Based on the recollections of a photographer.
- The article on Lexington Steele has his own statement that "God blessed me with an abnormally large penis that allows me to make porno." Which says something about his religious beliefs but nothing substantial about his penis.
- The article on Vince Vouyer simply mentions: "When Vouyer first entered porn, he was known for several years for his very long hair, large penis size and chiseled body." Nothing really on its length. Dimadick (talk) 19:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - pretty much a recreation of the deleted Category:Men with unusually large penis. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion - perhaps instead of deleting, we could expand its scope. Might I suggest renaming it to "Category: Penis size"? That way, it would be for any article that relates to the topic of human penis size. Articles we could place into that category include ExtenZe, Enzyte, Penis enlargement, Micropenis, Stunt cock, Small penis rule, etc, in addition to Holmes, Long Dong Silver, etc. Stonemason89 (talk) 03:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is Category:Penis for the topic and people should be left out of penis-related categories (although it might be conceded that for a few of them their penis is indeed their salient defining feature). Occuli (talk) 10:47, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Stonemason89 Nowyouseeme talk2me 20:36, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Occuli. This is not defining for some of those included, and at the end of the day the others who are included are there essentially because of subjective appraisals. If any absolutely need to be linked the topic, a simple upmerge to Category:Penis could be done. And this is pretty much a re-creation of deleted material, in any case. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; recreation of previously deleted material. We don't categorize people by hair colour or eye colour, or height or weight; we don't categorize people by whether they have more or less than standard number of fingers and/or toes; we don't categorize men by the presence or absence of body hair, or women by the size of their breasts; and on and so forth. Generally speaking, we usually don't categorize people by physical characteristics of their bodies, and this isn't really a very useful exception to that. For one thing, it's a category that, with the exception of a handful of porn models, can only ever be applied on the basis of unreliable sources such as rumours and leaked sex tapes. So the only people who can ever be reliably added to it are those who are notable specifically for showing off their manroots in public — and we already have Category:Male pornographic film actors for that anyway. Bearcat (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and if possible, protect from recreation; this category or one like it has been deleted several times. It's the textbook example of an unverifiable category (not to mention one that raises WP:BLP issues). Robofish (talk) 13:25, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. CTJF83 chat 17:24, 5 September 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:State University of New York at Stony Brook[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:State University of New York at Stony Brook to Category:Stony Brook University

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match title of parent article Stony Brook University, which is already reflected in the title of the child Category:Stony Brook University alumni. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename (?) - I am currently working on articles related to Stony Brook University. This seems to be a more logical name, because it is the way everyone refers to the university. It is much less cumbersome. The standard is already mixed because we have Category:State University of New York at Stony Brook faculty but then we also have Category:Stony Brook University alumni. While the longer convention used for all the other SUNY schools, (such as Category:State University of New York at Albany alumni, etc, I feel this should be changed in this case, since Stony Brook is one of the major "flagship" SUNY university centers (along with SUNY Albany), and is usually referred to just as "Stony Brook University", not as "SUNY Stony Brook". This is reflected on SBU's website and administrative press releases.Danski14^(talk) 22:42, 4 September 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.

Byzantine people[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 both. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:2nd-century Byzantine people and Category:3rd-century Byzantine people to Category:2nd-century people from Byzantium and Category:3rd-century people from Byzantium or similar

Rationale: "Byzantine" usually refers to the Byzantine Empire (from 330 on), while here it is used for the citizens of the Greek city of Byzantium. In order to avoid any confusion, a rename should be in order. Constantine ✍ 06:08, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "Byzantines" prior to 330? Dimadick (talk) 19:13, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to avoid confusion.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, but as Category:3rd-century people from Byzantium (city) for extra clarity. Why is Saint Hermias here? Johnbod (talk) 03:42, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:25, 1 September 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:Wesley Clark[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for an American politician and military commander which unlikely to grow and currently contains only 3 articles. TM 05:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom; as I just said in the strikingly similar CFD for Category:Ben Cardin: there's simply no need for this category, as the two ancillary articles are well & properly linked from the bio article. Cgingold (talk) 14:06, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small, unnecessary and unlikely to expand. Robofish (talk) 13:22, 3 September 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 Mosques by Arab cities[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. — ξ ^xplicit 01:02, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lists of Mosques by Arab cities to Category:Lists of mosques by city

Nominator's rationale: Rename. No reason to limit this category to "Arab cities". Also fixing capitalisation. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. No reason to single out Arab cities. Dimadick (talk) 19:17, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Mosques by city since there are only two entries here. If more lists can be found then I'm okay with nom's rename suggestion. --Lenticel ^(talk) 00:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found and put two more in the category Category:Mosques by city. Hmains (talk) 02:46, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Joaquin008 ^(talk) 15:24, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. The category will have 6 entries, and certainly could have more in the future. Hmains (talk) 02:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Jerusalem is not an Arab city. It's a JEWISH one. Chesdovi (talk) 16:37, 6 September 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.