Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2 October 4 >

October 3[edit]

Category:Sonic Youth side project albums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sonic Youth side project albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. These have been created and deleted before. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:31, 3 October 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:Films shot with Panavision Cameras[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films shot with Panavision Cameras (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete For a number of reasons, this isn't a defining characteristic. It's true that Panavision cameras were very influential but that doesn't mean that individual films are easily associated with Panavision cameras. It's quite telling that the only film currently in the category is a direct-to-video children's film that absolutely nobody remembers for its stunning Panavision cinematography. Note also that even assuming that expert eyes can really detect such things, the subtle mark of the 1970's Panaflex Lightweight has nothing to do with the subtle mark of the modern Panavision Genesis so a category encompassing all Panavision cameras doesn't make sense. Pichpich (talk) 23:27, 3 October 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.

Novels set in Columbia[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:39, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: I think the correct category for novels set in the country of Colombia (ie not in Columbia) is Category:Novels set in Colombia but as most novels set in the the South American country are in the other category I would like confirmation! Hugo999 (talk) 22:01, 3 October 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:JVC Records albums[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 the only reason given for deletion is clearly no longer applicable. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:JVC Records albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: redlink record label —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • One would think that such basic pre-work as searching Wikipedia to see if said redlink could be pointed anywhere would be a prerequisite to a CfD predicated on the company being redlinked. Suffice to say that's no longer the case. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 21:08, 4 October 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:Ambeon[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. Jafeluv (talk) 09:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ambeon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: One page, one subcat. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:48, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories and subcategories should be each for more than one page or subcategories for categories. In this case, the cats are being useless.Curb Chain (talk) 23:07, 3 October 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:Girona[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. See also Category:Salamanca (city), which is so named to distinguish from Category:Salamanca Province despite the city's article being at Salamanca.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Girona to Category:Girona (city)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To disambiguate from the province with the same name. Mayumashu (talk) 17:54, 3 October 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:Hungarian exonyms in Transylvania[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: Speedy delete per CSD G5. Elockid (Talk) 01:59, 19 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hungarian exonyms in Transylvania (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: It seems odd to have a category and a group of subcategories only containing redirects, with no chance of containing articles, since article titles will continue to be in Romanian. This material is better handled as a list, such as List of Hungarian exonyms (Mureș County). 174.62.173.107 (talk) 17:48, 3 October 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:UruguayProject maintenance pages[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:18, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:UruguayProject maintenance pages to Category:WikiProject Uruguay maintenance pages
Nominator's rationale: The convention for internal WikiProject categories, with the exception of assessment categories, is to use the full name of the WikiProject – in this case, WikiProject Uruguay. See here for background. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:20, 3 October 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:Cities of the Sassanid Empire[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:28, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cities of the Sassanid Empire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Similar to the Ottoman Empire category; bad idea to categorize cities by their former countries -- anyone ready to categorize all pre-April 1865 incorporations in Dixie into the Category:Cities of the Confederate States of America for example?. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to support anyone researching the Sassanid Empire, which would also apply to Carlossuarez46's other examples.--Northernhenge (talk) 21:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom—definitively not a good idea. There is no overall scheme for categorizing cities by former countries or empires they were once a part of. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 4 October 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:Bishops of Orense[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: revert to Category:Bishops of Ourense. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:19, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Bishops of Orense to Category:Bishops of Ourense
Nominator's rationale: Merge Actually, this is more like a revert of a renaming that was done out of process. All articles on this topic use the spelling Ourense: Ourense, Roman Catholic Diocese of Ourense, Adam (bishop of Ourense), Province of Ourense and so on. Pichpich (talk) 15:04, 3 October 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:11 September births[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. G4 and WP:SNOW. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:51, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:11 September births (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Trivial characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 14:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defining characteristic. No less trivial than say the year someone was born. How is Category:1950 births any less trivial? Note other Wikis have cats for dates of birth for people. Lugnuts (talk) 16:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    If I put some person in front of you and ask "do you think this person was born in 1950?", don't you think that's an easier question than "do you think this person was born on the 11th of September?". Two people born in 1950 have a similar age. The information carried by the year of birth, while limited, is still significant. The day of birth carries nothing. Suppose we play guess the person. This person belongs to the categories American film actors | Living people | Best Director Academy Award winners. What additional information is most helpful, "1956 births" or "January 3rd births"? (by the way, if anyone else plays along, I think there are matches born in 1930, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1955) Pichpich (talk) 23:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Well, a certain amount of concern is understandable. This category was created by an editor who has been on the English encyclopedia for less than a month. There are no interwiki links on the category page to indicate where else it may be in use. It would add 365 new categories, to be applied to god-knows-how-many bio articles. I may yet !vote to delete; not sure yet. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I've added no less than nine inter-wiki links to this category. Lugnuts (talk) 18:38, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely trivial and quite different from the years of birth which set some historical context that we can understand that Martin Luther and Martin Luther King are separated by centuries, rather than one was born in November and the other in January which tells us nothing. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Well, that didn't take long. Carlossuarez46 has very quickly nudged me off the fence. Yes, I would agree that this a textbook example of WP:OC#TRIVIA. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the category reflects a significat date. Is there a Category:Christmas births or Category:25 December births? If so, on what rationale. If not, wouldn't that be notable about the person. How about a cat for Category:29 February births? Seems reasonable. In fact why not 366 category pages like this for the "god knows how many "biography articles for the commonly held interest of who was born on this date in history? Obotlig (talk) 18:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • — Note to closing admin: Obotlig (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why is September 11 a "significant date"? Because of 9/11? D. H. Lawrence, who's in this category, was born on September 11, 1885. You really believe it's retroactively defining? Don't get me wrong: I'd !vote delete for a category for people born on 9/11, for WP:OC#TRIVIA, too. But are you arguing that 9/11 makes a September 11 birthdate in the 19th century defining? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      Just a random date that was picked to start the ball rolling. It just so happens to be known now for what happened on the date. Still don't see it being any less trivial than people born in 1950. Olav Aaraas and J. M. Aaron Rashid have NOTHING in common apart from their year of birth. Lugnuts (talk) 19:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      But they do, as the ideas of the times often affect each other.Curb Chain (talk) 19:37, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Trivial, as aboveCurb Chain (talk) 19:05, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – manifestly trivial. Occuli (talk) 19:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete (CSD G4: recreation of previously deleted content) - This is overcategorization on the basis of a non-defining characteristic, as it was when 'people by date of birth' categories were rejected in 2005, 2006, 2007, January 2009, April 2009 and 2010 (yes, the decision was endorsed). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:15, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Consensus can change... Lugnuts (talk) 19:23, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    That's very true, but I've seen no indication that it has or should (the latter is my opinion, of course), since the arguments still are much the same as they have always been. To add to my reasoning of WP:OC#TRIVIA, I will echo Carlossuarez's comment that year of birth can indicate the period into which someone was born, which can be significant, but date of birth conveys no information other than a general notion about when the ovum was fertilized. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:51, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Shawn in Montreal: most of the tenants were born (and many died!) long before 9/11/2001, and it's not retroactively important. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So all the deletion votes think our Commie-Ruskie friends are wrong too? Disgusting. Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes?Curb Chain (talk) 11:55, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per comments above. There are many significant dates in history (6 June, 6 Aug, 12 Oct, 7 Dec, most dates...), but a category for one of them isn't necessary or relevant. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:54, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - surely (if there's really a demand for this) it would be better to try to generate it from metadata, not rely on editors remembering to categorize each biography page.--Northernhenge (talk) 21:47, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That same logic could be applied to year of birth/death... Lugnuts (talk) 06:27, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per many consensus decisions. How many times do we have to go through this? Every time a single editor decides it would be a good idea? It's been endlessly debated and these are always deleted. Just work on the list at September 11 to present this information. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok that makes perfect sense. I wish someone had pointed out the births list on September 11 to begin with. Thaks to all. I support the Delete now. Obotlig (talk) 07:32, 5 October 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:Non-human primates in culture[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. There's no reason a category like Category:Fictional people couldn't go under Category:Fictional primates, for example.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:30, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Non-human primates in culture to Category:Primates in culture
Propose renaming Category:Fictional non-human primates to Category:Fictional primates
Propose renaming Category:Individual non-human primates to Category:Individual primates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 19#Category:Individual non-human mammals - I believe that the same reasoning equally applies here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:25, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. While the phrase "non-human mammals" is pretty rare, it's actually quite common in popular literature about science to read about "non-human primates". Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:21, 21 October 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:Suicides by occupation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. I normally wouldn't close a debate in which I'd voted, but this discussion is now six weeks old, and everybody else who can close it seems to have passed on the opportunity. That said, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to look at the comments below and discover there's no consensus. It does seem from the discussion that a lot of people think this well intentioned division has spun out of control, so further nominations to reduce the clutter might meet with greater success.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:33, 17 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
And its subcategories
Rationalle: WP:OCTrivial: Intersection of two unrelated traits. Note that cases where a reasonable connection may exist, such as for special reasons (i.e Category:Spies who committed suicide), or possible means (Category:Drivers who committed suicide), are not included in this nomination to avoid it from becoming a WP:TRAINWRECK. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all – these are indeed good examples of WP:OCTrivial: intersection of two unrelated traits. Occuli (talk) 10:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as being a defining attribute to the subject. Ian Curtis - musician who committed suicide. Richard Farnsworth - actor who committed suicide. Chris Benoit - wrestler who committed suicide, etc. 11:09, 3 October 2011 (UTC)
  • "No-one is suggesting that suicide is not defining." Well clearly someone is. Seems like your also hounding all the people who disagree with your delete !vote too. Lugnuts (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And I have purposely excluded several where a case could be made that these traits are related - for example, I excluded Category:Spies who committed suicide, where (for example) Sarah Aaronsohn committed suicide because she was a spy. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:01, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So all spies committ suicide/all crows are black? Lugnuts (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that. What I said is that if a spy commits suicide, there is likely to be a connection between being a spy and committing suicide in that case (such as, for example, a dead person can't be tortured into revealing information about accomplices). If a farmer does, there is less likely to be a connection, making it a trivial intersection. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Farmers and suicide is more common than you think. This, this, this and this wiki article, for example. Lugnuts (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have not hounded anyone; I am merely pointing out that the arguments of both you and DGG have no bearing on the present nomination. Occuli (talk) 19:03, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all possibly a few may be unnecessary, but most of these clearly are appropriate, containing people for whom this was defining; besides the ones mentioned: academics and its subcategories and related categories , writers and its subcategories and related categories (journalists, political writers, etc.) e.g. Yukio Mishima-- who is almost as famous for it as for his writings, priests and related e.g. Gareth Bennett, students and subcategories--some of the articles are even titled Suicide of .... , diplomats and related, entertainers etc., chefs e.g. François Vatel-- who is notable primarily for his suicide, artists etc. . Vincent van Gogh--there's even an article Vincent van Gogh's death actually about the suicide itself, it's so notable. For every one of these there are at least some for whom it is a defining category. Ones I know less about , like athletes, presumably do also. The presence of Van Gogh among the people listed and the student articles titled Suicide of... show this a mass nomination that cannot be disposed of in this fashion. In view of the examples, though, I call upon the nom to withdraw the CfD altogether. (I recognize this was originally a CfD for Mathematicians, where the opinion was given it applied to others also, but the nom. said they did select these categories, not all possible ones.) DGG ( talk ) 11:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assumption is that all these people will be in another of the plethora of suicide categories. Yukio Mishima is an excellent example of the fatuity of this scheme, as he is in 4 or 5 different occupation/suicide categories (as well as Category:Suicides by sharp instrument) – these are just random intersections of no consequence whatever. Occuli (talk) 12:30, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, he did have several different occupations--this is no different than any other category: most articles are in several for the different aspects.It's like complaining he's in Japanese novelists, Japanese poets , & Japanese short story writers. People are interested in suicide for reasons other than the instrumentality. Why is it irrational , for example, to want to see all the articles about students who committed suicide? No consequence whatsoever = IDONTCAREABOUTIT. "Random" is a word with a meaning. Suicides by occupation is the opposite of random: comprehensive. DGG ( talk ) 13:08, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: At least most of the subcategories. The argument here seems to be suicide is notable, which no one is arguing against, therefore any category that relates suicide with anything else, even if there is no actual connection, should be kept. Some of the categories in the list are laughable violations of WP:OCTrivial. What criterion is being used to to decide which professions are included in this list? We have "Farmers who committed suicide", "Housewives who committed suicide" why not "Animal trainers who committed suicide", "Parking lot attendants who committed suicide"? All the arguments above do is show there should be a category of "People known for having committed suicide". If there is some provable connection between a particular profession and suicide then I can see keeping the corresponding category, but I far as I can tell nothing like this has been established (maybe "Samurai who committed suicide"). We don't have categories like this for other causes of death, e.g. "Artists who died from heart disease", "Musicians who died of old age", so it seems like the main purpose of categories like this is to pander to a sick desire for morbid reading rather than provide encyclopedic knowledge. This kind of thing belongs in tabloids, not in Wikipedia.--RDBury (talk) 14:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I've probably added a few filmmakers who have committed suicide cats in my time, I think. But when I survey the range of suicides by occupation cats, it's hard not to see this as overcategorization. We do subcategorize suicide victims by several different ways, but occupation seems to me to be OC. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivial intersection - I cannot imagine articles of the form Occupation and suicide for any of these could meet verifiability and notability guidelines. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, per DGG and Chris Benoît. Stefanomione (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Help me. Have those suggesting keep looked through these subcategories? Has anyone attempted to clean out at least those that are not suicides? Has anyone attempted to remove the articles for which this is not defining? A quick look shows both of these are out there and may very well outnumber anything that is left. In many cases we have a simple statement that a person in a specific occupation committed suicide. No indication that the occupation was related in any way. If kept, how is this not going to remain a maintenance nightmare? If needed, this does sound like something that should be a list with sources as to why this is defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all sometimes the occupation is the reason for the suicide so to say they are unrelated is a bit of a misnomer. -DJSasso (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • That does not help me with my question above. But it seems to argue for a rename to Category:Occupation caused suicides to clarify the purpose of the tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • And merely the existance of a connection doesn't necessarily make for a non-trivial intersection. Lets take the case of Dudu Topaz, who is a "television personality who commited suicide". The sequence of events is: He was suspected of hiring people to attack other television personalities, who were (to some degree) his competetors. He was arrested, and committed suicuide in prison. I'm willing to say that if he did hire these people, he would definitely belong in the category of "criminals who committed suicide"; however, the connection with him being a TV personality, I believe, is too indirect to be a notable intersection. Note that he does show up in this scan, even though he isn't in Category:Television personalities who committed suicide. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 16:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note The intersection of suicide with some occupations is notable (e.g. Sylvia Plath effect, soldiers who commit suicide.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:52, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - perhaps selected amount not nominated - on the evidence of the last two comments - the Death WP project [1] was created because of the chaotic nature of material about death and related topics were spread around the place - this collection of suicide cats seems to be the legacy of when there was no project - I can see there are good faith aspects of the delete argument for the majority of the categories to be gone - and perhaps some feedback to the project http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Death to ascertain the criteria for keeping some of the items not up for CFD would be an AGF way of specifying why some cats have been left and why the rest are going... SatuSuro 10:39, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all As per concurring comments above. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The vast majority of these are trivial intersections. We certainly should not have so many completely indiscriminate examples. A rather vicious circle here in that one particular trivial example was procedurally kept on the grounds that the whole topic should be considered, and yet you're going to have editors saying "keep all" if any of them are notable (or indeed "keep all just because" in the case of half of the above comments). Given that most of these are junk, I'd rather they were all done away with and then selectively recreated as category:notable work-related suicides or the like. The current titling encourages editors to categorise all suicides by profession and this is plainly wrong. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:58, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was looking for something sensible to say but couldn't quite figure out how to put it. But Chris just put it very nicely and I'm in full agreement with him. For the most part, these intersections are no less trivial than Category:Suicides of people born in 1975. Pichpich (talk) 16:03, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Seems like a prime example of trivial intersections. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Trivial intersection. I do recognise that there may sometimes be an occupational background which leads to a suicide but these categories are generalising something, creating a correlation that in most cases is not there. For the sake of a small number, we are lumping a much larger number into a given category: this is undue weight. - Sitush (talk) 20:13, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - per the above comments in favour of keeping. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 09:27, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - I found this CFD through Category:Mathematicians who committed suicide, which I think is a good example of a trivial intersection. I don't see the connection there, and I just don't think there's a need to break down suicides by occupation in most cases. There are a few exceptions which can be dealt with on a case-by-case basis, but in general these seem like unhelpful categories. Robofish (talk) 21:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin - Peterkingiron had expressed an opinion in an earlier discussion that this whole tree should be deleted. Note that this user has not expressed any opinion in this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:26, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all for now, at least because some of these categories are essential to other category trees. For example, Category:Priests who committed suicide is an integral part of Category:Priests by cause of death, and deleting it will surely leave the latter incomplete. Additionally, I also find the keep arguments for some other categories that have been made by others sound and worth listening to. May I suggest, instead of nominating dozens of categories all at once, nominating them one at a time so that each one of the categories may be given a proper hearing and due scrutiny? 69.122.93.90 (talk) 10:44, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The case made to keep is not convincing based on the maintenance to retain the few articles where this may not be a trivial. For the vast majority of entries this is clearly a non defining trivial characteristic and they are in these categories because the categories exist. For the handful of entries that might have this as defining, they can be included in a list where the references that would support that fact can be provided. Keeping to upmerge non defining characteristics seems to be retaining the problem and spreading it rather then fixing the problem. While these may in fact be left overs from before some editors started cleanup in this area, the fact that these have not been addressed is not a reason to keep, it fact, it may well build a stronger case to delete. Categories need to be unambiguous and terms like 'sometimes' clearly make it clear that the inclusion criteria makes for ambiguous inclusion criteria. Better off in the long run to delete, create lists and if someone can create clear inclusion criteria that does not create maintenance nightmares and excessive categories on articles of people with multiple occupations, then limited recreation can be allowed. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin Please show clear consensus for deletion, if one exists. Thanks. Lugnuts (talk) 06:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all with no prejudice towards recreation of needed categories. A purely coincidental, trivial intersection. Priests, composers and cyclists do not commit suicide differently due to their profession.--TM 16:50, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most as trivial. If there is no notable connection between profession and suicide (as in the case of architects) this is just distracting category spam. Keep those categories where a relevant connection can be demonstrated. --Elekhh (talk) 22:48, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There's no one-size fits all approach to this. Some are possibly trivial, but some are not so. Each one should be discussed on its own. Lugnuts (talk) 07:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest keeping at least Category:Cricketers who committed suicide - this may be a significant intersection, with english cricketers having twice the average suicide rate[2] and at least a couple of books [3], [4]. We need to distinguish between categories where there is a notable intersection and where there isn't.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:13, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nice (and interesting) work, Nigel! Lugnuts (talk) 08:05, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on the same basis as Nigel Ish suggests - I came here from the cricketers category too, it's a well-documented phenomenon in that profession. Some of the others are less clearcut, but I can see a case for keeping them. I can imagine plenty of people looking for similar cases to Robert Enke and Justin Fashanu via the footballers category, for example. EJBH (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A necessary way to subdivide the Suicides category, which would (unfortunately) be massive otherwise. I think there's some room for combining some of the smaller categories, though. Some merge nominations might be useful.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:32, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • DeleteGenerally very little link between profession and suicide. Bevo74 (talk) 11:35, 24 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Which has obviously been disproven by the comments above. Lugnuts (talk) 17:29, 24 October 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Statistically, there's a link, but that's not what I meant, to me it's a trivial intersection. Unless it's a highly unusual method of committing suicide, nobody becomes notable just because they've killed themself. They were notable because they were a Hollywood star or a powerful politician and then they died in a certain way. Bevo74 (talk) 07:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion on the CfD (leaning on delete, as I doubt anyone commits suicide out of a single cause). Note that what you present is not suicide caused by being a programmer, but one caused by being fired/unemployed - Nabla (talk) 22:44, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • So is your suggestion to remove the category programmers-who-committed-suicide and replace it with people-who-committed-suicide-after-being-fired-or-becoming-unemployed? Ottawahitech (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am simply stating that in my opinion your argument was self-contradictory. - Nabla (talk) 16:58, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All on the same basis as Nigel Ish suggests - although I came here from the professional cyclists' category too, it's becoming more well-documented the nexus between performance enhancing drug abuse and mental health issues, including suicide, lamentably (and only a fraction of the victims are categorized so far)...Joep01 (talk) 04:43, 3 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All --Jeff79 (talk) 01:07, 13 November 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:Conservative parties in Norway[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Conservative parties in Norway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. There are only two parties included. Also it is questionable whether one of them is conservative. The Progress Party is considered a right-wing populist party. TFD (talk) 03:59, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Progress is right-wing populist and conservative. Reliable sources state as much[5].

    This cat obviously passes WP:OVERCAT. The cat has tremendous potential for additional members. I predict that the Breivik incident will bring renewed interest to Conservatism in Norway and this cat is essential in covering the growth of these articles. – Lionel (talk) 04:44, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep – part of the scheme Category:Conservative parties by country. Occuli (talk) 08:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No such requirement is found in parallel groups of categories. And it is likely that most editors would consider "right wing" to be inclusive of "conservative." Unless you intend to nominate all categories with only 2 members, I think this is a poor example to start with. Clearly the Coastal Party, Christian Conservative Party, etc. could also be put in this category if your argument is that it is not yet fully inclusive of the set of parties which would fit. Why not add the other members of this category rather than ask for deletion? Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:53, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Given the existing structure, it would even be ok to have a single entry. That being said, we should probably get rid of Category:Conservative parties by country altogether. Conservatism doesn't have a precise definition and tagging any party as conservative requires a lot of subjectivity. Who should decide that the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada was a conservative party and not a progressive party? The meaning of the political term "conservative" also varies quite a bit from place to place. David Cameron's policies would be considered very pinkish by American conservatives. Pichpich (talk) 02:41, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If these categories of parties are kept we should also list ALL parties in the main “Political parties in Foo” category which would be labeled with . This would avoid the need to hunt through several subcategories and sub-subcategories for parties of unknown type eg “Conservative political parties in Foo”, “Far-right political parties in Foo”, “Green political parties in Foo”, “Liberal political parties in Foo”, “Far-left political parties in Foo”, “Socialist political parties in Foo”, “Social democratic political parties in Foo” and “Communist political parties in Foo”; each with their own subcategories eg Maoists or Trotskyists. And the 19th/20th century Liberal Party (UK) of Asquith and Gladstone would probably count as Conservative now. Hugo999 (talk) 04:48, 5 October 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:Baldwin acting family[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. We do habitually categorize families, it turns out. Whether this one is worth categorizing is open to debate, but there's no arguing that the category has a place in our system.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:13, 22 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Baldwin acting family (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No main article and they are all in the same generation, so they will be interlinked easily. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:32, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the essentially closed nature of the category, it does seem pretty absurd to bother having a whole category for four entries. We don't habitually categorise families and families composed of famous actors are not obviously an exception to this. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:15, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no different than any other family cat. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:24, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • And since when did we habitually create categories for every family? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Response As I pointed out above, they are all within the same generation and there are only four of them, so any one of their articles will say, "He has brothers X, Y, and Z" in the lead. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:41, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT - 'Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members'. I think this qualifies, as this isn't a category with great potential for expansion. As Koavf notes, they're all linked to each other already anyway. Robofish (talk) 21:28, 6 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_3&oldid=1095844038"