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. There is already a list of island high points so deletion is more acceptable. Based on the introduction this is for highpoint for each island. However there is no way to show this in a category so a list or a template is much more appropriate. If consensus is to convert to a template and no one else is willing to do this, I'll do that. Just have the closer let me know. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since we have a list. This is the type of thing where you want a list, so you can match the point with the island. Also since we could have high points per island and high points per country, this has depth that a list can delineate but a category can not. This is exactly the type of thing we want to make a list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:12, 4 April 2012 (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.
Delete categories are for things links by one use of a term, not by multiple nuanced uses of a term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:13, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete main article indicated in category is a disambiguation page. 70.24.244.198 (talk) 04:37, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Too broad/vague. Sounds awfully similar to WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. - jc37 01:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not helpful, and its current members have suitable alternative categories. – Fayenatic L(talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (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:American pornographic film actors of various ethnic descent (Iranian, Chamorro, Russian, Italian, Irish, Danish, Hawaiian, German)[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:upmerge all to Category:American pornographic film actors, except no consensus on Hawaiian category. That can be renominated immediately. I did not keep the Chamorro one since it contained only one person, but if there is a combined category later, that article can be added to it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the selected backgrounds do not seem to have significant influence on a career in porn. I agree thatWP:OC#EGRS is the relevant guideline. I grouped all of these into a single discussion for convenience, I hope eds are ok with that. --KarlB (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all to Category:American pornographic film actors, except the Italian one, which is well enough populated to keep, possibly also the Irish and German ones. AS to LeSnail's comment, can we find a shorter term? perhaps "Pacific descent". Peterkingiron (talk) 12:12, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe "Native Hawaiian descent", but I was hoping to make it broader. LeSnail (talk) 18:54, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Some, Merge Some, Keep Others I would delete the underpopulated European descent ones, and keep the non-European descent and Hispanic ones, as the race of the performers is an important aspect of pornography. (See the article Ethnic pornography for why). I also agree with merging the Hawaiian and Chamorros descent ones into a Pacific Islander category. Asarelah (talk) 00:39, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Race is an important aspect in porn, but nationality (and just descent, to boot) really isn't. There are 4 different niches/main genres in porn when it comes to race: Asian, Hispanic, Black and White. Any combinations other than those 4 would fail WP:OC#EGRS. Nymfhideliho! 17:52, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I was swayed by the argument that the (possible) defining attribute is race/ethnicity rather than national descent. Therefore:
That last one reflects the change in focus of the parent if this discussion is closed this way. It's tagged. - jc37 23:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not think anyone has demonstated that the ethnicity of these people is notable. I also have to say that jc37's plan strikes me as substituting "ethnicity" when he really means race. I oppose doing so as an unjustified and unwise couse of action. Ethnicity is not race, it can not be determined by physical apparence, race is a myth, and thus to assume that ethnicity/race has any connection to these occupations is to make a false assumption. Ethnicity is not race. To create such a limited number of ethnic categories where they are all standing in for races is to perpetuate the false equation of the two.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very strong opposition to the Chomorro and Hawaiian merger. There are three reasons for this. First off, Chomorros and Hawaiians are clear and distinct ethnic groups, and there is no justification for merging those two groups. Secondly, to merge them is to take us down the false path of race families that build up to the 3 great racial groups of Negroid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. That frame has been rejected by those who understand human genetics for over 40 years, we should not perpetuate it here. Thirdly, these are descent categories, which have very different inclusion rules than to ethnic categories. Someone can be of Chomorro or Hawaiian descent but not be ethnically Chomorro or Hawaiian. The proposed merger/rename would create a false framework and falsely force people into it who in some cases will not fit. This is a very bad idea. No one has demonstated that being Chomorro has any relevance to this occupation. The desire to keep the Chomorros and Hawaiians in a seperate group boils down to a desire to leave "non-whites" seperated from whites, it boils down to a forbidden categorization by race and strikes me as "racist" in the sense that it is built around classifying people by race at any and all possible occasions to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, here's what I did: I went to look at Chamorro, and found that it redirected to Chamorro people. When looking at that article I see that they are inhabitants of the Marianas Islands. And when looking at Pacific Islander, I find that the Marianas Island people are considered Pacific Islander. That said, I'd be just as fine to see the Chamorro one deleted, and the Hawaiian one renamed to either Category:American Pacific Islander pornographic film actors (for future categorisation as wanted) or just to Category:Hawaiian pornographic film actors (I dont't think that "American" would necessarily be needed in this case, but I wouldn't oppose it.) As for the rest of your comments, I honestly don't think anyone but you are talking about that. Did you look at the parent category to see that African-american and Hispanic-american and Asian-american categories were deliberately not included in this nom? Did you look at Ethnic pornography and see that it didn't list examples of national descent but of race/ethnicity? In other words are you just spouting off with ad hominem attacks on your fellow commenters, or did you actually do the due diligence? You'll please pardon my last question, but I found your comments to be incrediblypersonally insulting. - jc37 06:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Whatever the merits of a combined category for people of Pacific descent, "Pacific Islander" is not an adjective. It is a noun only. I would think the phrase would have to be "Pacific Islands (or Island) descent". Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As the word "native" can be used either as an adjective or noun, I was using that phrase that way as well. (Pacific Island native vs. Pacific Islander.) But I'll freely admit that was a presumption on my part, per Pacific Islander American. - jc37 06:34, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in any case no one has shown that the intersection of being of Chomorro ethnicity and being in this particular line of work is at all notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 15 April 2012 (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:Wikipedians interested in American history[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.
Has either of these been nominated for anything previously? Something seems vaguely familiar. (Though to be honest, I don't even recall creating the cat.) - jc37 01:02, 6 April 2012 (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: Not sure about this category, so I think it needs discussion: is being available for download in e-book format a defining characteristic of a book? Perhaps it was once, but these days a very large number of books have been converted to electronic formats. Although this category currently contains 151 pages, it could easily be expanded to many more. By comparison, we have Category:Audiobooks, but not Category:Books available as audiobooks (which would be at least as large, and is equally non-defining). If this category is worth keeping, it should be limited to books only available as e-books (or initially released as such) rather than covering all books which happen to be available in e-book format. Robofish (talk) 21:05, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The way things are going most new books are available as e-books. There is nothing inherently different in the book, it is just a different publishing format. Audio books on the other hand represent a translation of print to verbal format.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Waaaay too broad, to the point of soon to being universal, as noted. - jc37 01:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — as the category originator. At the time of creation, readers weren't 'On hand' so to speak and there were only a few publishers (Baen Books and the like) making content available in e-formats on a regular basis. In our discussions, the salient point was perhaps someone would want to use the list category to find other ebooks—the assumption being reading on a laptop. Editors obviously didn't join the congo line, and add books over time. IPad and kindles and Amazon jumping into the field have been game changers, so kill it. // 24.128.122.126 (talk) 07:27, 6 April 2012 (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:Wikipedian who like the Matrix series[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.
Delete. Longstanding consensus in this area is that 'Category:Wikipedians interested in X' is potentially useful as a category, but 'Category:Wikipedians who like X' is not. It's a subtle difference, but the idea is that the former contains editors who are actually interested in contributing to articles on the subject. (So for your suggestion, Category:Wikipedians interested in slavery would potentially be permissible, but seems a somewhat awkward name for a category.) Robofish (talk) 21:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per RevelationDirect. It's possible that a category like this could be used for collaboration. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We have found in the past that Wikipedians who like something may indeed have zero interest in collaborating on the topic. So renaming would mean potentially miscategorising Wikipedians. And noting that User:UBX/Matrixfan (a populating userbox) doesn't say anything about liking OR being interested in anything. - jc37 01:02, 6 April 2012 (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.
No... Also I don't agree that this should be deleted because religion isn't relevant to geography. I think it should be deleted because Category:Religion by continent and sub-categories already exist and are sufficient.--Karl.brown (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' however Mangoe's reasoning is not why. We have articles on specific religions in specific geographies, it is just we have another tree that organizes that, and this is an unused formation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "religious groups" is just too broad/vague a term for categorisation. - jc37 01:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no specific meaning, parent has rightly been nominated too. – Fayenatic L(talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (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.
Speedy as empty, unless it was purged for this nomination. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:43, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "religious groups" is just too broad/vague a term for categorisation. - jc37 01:02, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no specific meaning, parent has rightly been nominated too. – Fayenatic L(talk) 21:25, 9 April 2012 (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:Wikipedia templates needing music examples[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: Unused group of monthly cleanup categories. No idea which templates could ever need a music example, or why we would need a monthly tracking category if any ever appear. If deleted, please also remove from Wikipedia:List of monthly maintenance categories given month to prevent the creation of further empty month categories. Fram (talk) 11:10, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no one can seem to explain what use this is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 8 April 2012 (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: A redirect category that causes an unnecessary search result. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:00, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Wouldn't almost all category redirects create "unnecessary search results"? The point of them, as I understand it, is to allow someone who is unfamiliar with the exact name of a category to successfully add the category to an article even though the user came close to guessing the right name, but was just a little off. Is the category "Lakes in" or "Lakes of"? Not everyone knows off the top of their heads, but with this category redirect, the article will end up in the right category regardless of which form is added to the article. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:41, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this is a likely thing for people to try to find. I would have expected this to be the category name actually.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 4 April 2012 (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.
