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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OC. Ample precedent here, here and elsewhere that individual watersheds such as this are not significant enough to merit a category. We don't have a parent article and there's but a single article in the category. Moreover, the continued creation of such watershed micro-categories in the face of consensus against them seems to me to be a case of WP:POINT. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:00, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Is a port even a watershed? So the user comes back from a ban and then we are back to nominations to delete what they just resume creating. Maybe a category topic ban can be proposed to save everyone a lot of work? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hillsborough River and Tampa Bay could also be added, along with articles about smaller tributaries... if only someone would write them. Yeah, I guess there's not much reason to keep this category. Zeng8r (talk) 23:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
week keep On second thought, there actually are plenty of articles that could go into this category, and Tampa Bay could be considered the parent article. I have no idea about the existence of other watershed / drainage basin categories, but if they're common, then this one should stay.
Keep. Actually, working on Florida rivers is something I've done and will do, and this is, IMHO, a potentially quite useful category. Rename to "Tampa Bay drainage basin", perhaps? - The BushrangerReturn fireFlank speed 23:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tampa Bay drainage basin, but I think this one is OK, it's a larger area than the USGS HUCs and it's not duplicating a river category like a lot of those were. Kmusser (talk) 19:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On reflection change to Delete, I think it could work as an article, but not as a category without a parent article. Kmusser (talk) 00:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Let's get a main article first before we start on the categorization of stuff by this feature. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and lack of main article. --Kbdank71 21:13, 16 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.
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, and may I remind all participants to comment on content, not the contributor. If you feel like you must argue about whatever, take it elsewhere. Kbdank71 21:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a census designated place in Humboldt County that does not merit a category of its own. Any and all of the items for discussion in this place can be better located in the Arcata, California and related cat. Norcalal (talk) 10:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Articles proposed, but not yet written MAY make it a viable cat? Really? Myrtle Avenue ends before the Census designated area of Bayside begins. The museum above does not exist and the area is widely considered part of Arcata. Norcalal (talk) 18:23, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Norcalal, if you update the Bayside, California with a sourced statement that says it is a subsection of Arcata--currently the article makes the opposite claim--I'll change my suggestion based on logical grouping. Potential articles do weigh into my consideration for whether the cat has room for growth if the assertion is that the cat is underpopulated/nonviable. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The opposite claim? The article states a fact that the area is partially annexed to Arcata. This area is comprised of homes and a few businesses stretched along a rural secondary route between Eureka and Arcata. The fire district, school systems and policing are mostly grouped in with the City of Arcata. Editors with little understanding of the region demand that I disprove that it is separate. There is little there to be separate. Search Google and add a couple churches and roofing company and it will still be a waste of space. This could be handled as part of Humboldt County cat or the City of Arcata cat. Its a mistake to create and/or support the development of categories on CDPs and junk up the encyclopedia. There is little importance at an encyclopedic article level for a neighborhood like this to have a cat. Ridiculous. Norcalal (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article states that Bayside is half in Arcata, half in unincorporated Humboldt County, making inclusion in either cat problematic IMHO. I have googled Bayside and think there is room for growth of new articles beyond the current 3 which is a valid criteria per WP:SMALLCAT. While I don't favor cats for every CDP (see below), I'm not blindly opposed to all CPD cats either. We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:42, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The investment in a place you know nothing about is remarkable. I am glad you have taken this on to honor its notability and development. Please work as hard as you like to fill the cat and make it indispensable to all the masses who want to follow the CDP. Just because someone created a CAT does not mean it is notable. But being vested, I suggest concerned editors knock themselves out. I await with bated breath, particularly, as you publish amazing articles about this fascinating neighborhood. Norcalal (talk) 23:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – seems to be an 'unincorporated community'. Upmerge to a larger unit, eg county. Occuli (talk) 19:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Very, very, weak keep and I reserve the right to change my opinion. Being an unincorporated community is not a reason to delete a populated place category. Category:Arcata, California would not appear to be a good merge target unless all of the items here are actually in that city and that may not be accurate for Jacoby Creek Charter School District. The other option which could be used for an upmerge would be to the overpopulated Category:Humboldt County, California which could work if the items find homes in subcategories there. If kept, the parent categories need looking at. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
irrelevant to discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Civility: Norcalal, deleting my comments on your talk page with "No interest in sanctimonious holier than thou editors" was an unexpected approach: {Keeping Things Friendly Norcalal, my contributions on the Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 3 are submitted in good faith, and I agreed with one of your two nominations. While I'm pretty thick-skinned, I think the tone that the conversation has taken should be avoided because it can discourage newer editors. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:53, 6 December 2010 (UTC) }[reply]
Seeing this here, feels like if I don't accept a schooling from you, based on your opinion, then you are gonna come here to tell on me. Your Good Faith was not a part of my criticism above. Demanding that I take a schooling on my own talk page related to your opinion and the attempt to say that you work from high ground (defense of "new editors") is simply something I am not going to accept. Getting irate about it here has little to do with improving the article or supporting a reason for an unpopulated cat. Many editors "stop by" the North Coast articles, raise hell over some issue, and then never return to deal with the maintenance of what they demanded. Its not a requirement here to stick around and populate a cat but generally the cat would be more sensible if it followed the existence of a number of articles on a better developed or more notable subject. Improving usability of Wikipedia by seriously considering the actual relevance and utility of the changes I objected to was my only goal, which was frustrated. Passion here can make things messy for a bit, but it always gets resolved and the article always seems to benefit. Defending a new category for its own sake despite the existence of few articles to populate it made no sense to me and still doesn't, especially in this case. The fact that one can do a google search and find possible related things does not populate the category. This discussion led to a new view from a third party that helps move toward an overhaul of the issues of cats in the region. I am going to stick around and work on all those issues, whether or not any other editors do. Even if the discussion was heated at one point or another, I considered the matter done yesterday when I posted my last very short comment above. It is time to move beyond this bump in the road in world that is not always neat. Norcalal (talk) 03:01, 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This neighborhood, a census designated place is part of Greater Eureka, California. There is no need for this category. Norcalal (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Did a best effort search to see if the cat can be populated. There are only two articles with absolutely no room for growth.RevelationDirect (talk) 14:12, 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.
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. Kbdank71 21:14, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest disambiguating to match article Drugs (band). (Not a category for albums about, or inspired by, drugs.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Confusion for those of us who are old enough to sort of remember the 60s but have never heard of the band! Montanabw(talk) 05:38, 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:Transgender and transsexual people, pre-1900[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Division by an arbitrary cut-off point. If divisions by timeframe is done with people, it is always done by century, not by a single cut-off date. There are not enough articles in Category:Transgender and transsexual people to require subdivision by century. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Only 11 articles and nothing of particular historic significance happened in GLBTQ community in 1900 to justify this as a cutoff, either. I suppose if the main cat is huge a splitoff based on the development of surgery or something, but this appears to be category clutter. Montanabw(talk) 05:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support: I'm OK with 11 articles but, clicking through them, there's no clear common thread outside of the main cat. Most of them are American (if you include Native Americans who lived in what became the USA) but not all and I don't see why 1900 works as a cutoff.RevelationDirect (talk) 10:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merge "pre-1900" is division by century, so I fail to understand the nom. 11 vs. 136 is a split that's worth preserving. These pre-1900 people would be lost within the greater volume of the 20th century onwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To create a by-century division, it should be Category:19th-century transgender and transsexual people. "Pre-1900" is not limited to one century--it applies to all of recorded history up to 1900. As the category definition says, "This is a category for transgender and transsexual people who lived before the 20th century." The choice of where to place the cut-off is arbitrary when you are only creating two sets of pre-cut-off and post-cut-off, unless the date is somehow significant or a turning point in the history of the topic. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
By-century categories are fine with me if users want to create them and they really think that they will be helpful (I have my doubts), but I do object to arbitrary cut-off categories like this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:04, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I too don't understand the arbitrary cutoff. --Kbdank71 21:16, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Divide by century -- However, I am not sure of the merit of combining transgender and transsexual. The former (also called hermaphrodites) is a physical condition due to a genetic abnormality; the latter is either the result of cross-dressing or of surgery - something quite different. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge don't understand the cut-off either. Hekerui (talk) 09:22, 23 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.
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, empty. Kbdank71 21:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose per Occuli. Nominator is an experienced editor and should know better than to empty a category before nominating it for deletion. This is not acceptable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm actually not all that up to speed with category stuff, its been probably two or three years since I messed with them. I probably should have used the dbempty tag for a speedy delete, but I didn't find it until after I'd listed it here. There were only about five articles in the cat, I think. Mea culpa. Even experienced editors are sometimes not up to speed. As far as the sportspeople by sport cat, this one was particularly useless for the parent one, with so few articles in it. Maybe that could be linked to Category:Horse trainers by nationality or something. WPEQ has no category for every single person in the field, because unlike basketball or something, we have so many disciplines (rodeo, horse racing,etc., all have separate "stars" and all the stars have their own cats) I would hope deletion doesn't hinge on my good faith screwup. Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Follow up: I added Category:Sportspeople by sport to Category:Equestrians, which should at least solve the empty subcategory problem. Montanabw(talk) 03:30, 5 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.
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:put it all back. I've restored the contents and relisted the nomination here--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repopulate and keep – this was a perfectly sensible subcat scheme with plenty of articles (see Google cache). In any case it is completely out-of-process to empty a category and then take it to cfd. Occuli (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose per Occuli. Nominator is an experienced editor and should know better than to empty a category before nominating it for deletion. This is not acceptable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, I'm actually not all that up to speed with category stuff, its been probably two or three years since I messed with them. I probably should have used the dbempty tag for a speedy delete, but I didn't find it until after I'd listed it here. Mea culpa. I would hope deletion doesn't hinge on my good faith screwup. On checking Occuli's cache, the point was that this cat was really quite incomplete and this was in part because we don't have subcats for ALL types of Equestrians -- horse show riders, rodeo riders, oh, there are dozens of "types" of riders that we could add, but no group, and based on existing articles, they'd have about 4-5 each. I think it's category clutter. It just made a lot more sense to move them all into Category:Equestrians, which isn't a hugely out of control category, size wise. Many of the horse categories are a mess, this is sort of a start to consolidate the overcategorized stuff into the parents, and then, as needed, resort. Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 5 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.
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:put it all back. I've restored the contents and relisted the nomination here.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Repopulate and keep – Category:Equestrians looked like this before this unilateral out-of-process rearrangement. It is simply a matter of opinion which is better. (The nom seems to think a subcat is an article.) Occuli (talk) 11:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose per Occuli. Nominator is an experienced editor and should know better than to empty a category before nominating it for deletion. This is not acceptable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Per above, I'm actually not all that up to speed with category stuff, its been probably two or three years since I messed with them. I probably should have used the dbempty tag for a speedy delete, but I didn't find it until after I'd listed it here. As in equestrians by type (and Occuli, that's the link to a different cat, this one was even smaller), there were maybe 2 or 3, maybe 4 at most in here. Mea culpa. I would hope deletion doesn't hinge on my good faith screwup. Montanabw(talk) 03:11, 5 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.
