Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 11 March 13 >

March 12[edit]

Category:History of electronic engineering[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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:History of electronic engineering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains one article which hardly justifies an article lets alone being in Category:History of electronic engineering. There will be a need for a category at some point in the future (who knows how far....) but in my cleanup of related articles and categories there is absolutely nothing around at present that can be added to this category. There is not even a History of electronic engineering article. Finally, items of historic interest such as Astron (wristwatch) should not be categorised in "History of .." categories. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator ought to read WP:IMPERFECT some time. This category has one article in it because it was created only shortly before he tagged it for deletion. I created it because I was rather surprised to find that we didn't already have it, along with the histories of engineering and of electrical engineering.
This isn't "cleanup" - it's Alan off on yet another of his deletion sprees. "Cleanup" would begin by some shared discussion and agreement over just what the scope of these categories ought to be: then once that was agreed and publicised, then there could be a shared effort to clean up the discrepancies. As it is, this is a wholly subjective excursion by a single editor: they don't personally like the current use of these categories (unclear and mis-used as it probably is) and so they're deleting and de-categorizing anything that isn't nailed down. This isn't a nett positive contribution to the encyclopedia.
"items of historic interest such as Astron (wristwatch) should not be categorised in "History of .." categories. " If these aren't for items of historic interest, then just what do you think they are for? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My "deletion spree" is a means of improving WP and it needs a hell of a lot of improving. And note that an page can be put up for deletion at any stage after it has been created. The fact that it was created quite soon before I came across it is not relevant in a CfD. While the existence of one category containing one article does not make a lot a lot of difference in the millions of pages that readers come and visit it does have a small effect on the readership. If there are too many pages that are of no use to readers they will be dissatisfied with their "Wikipedia experience"
As for the Astron (wristwatch) it is too much of a remote connection to the history of electronic engineering that it should not be in Category:History of electronic engineering. Each article can be seen as being in a hierarchy and the wristwatch article is nowhere near the topic of the history of electronic engineering.
So are you suggesting that the thousands of edits I do should be discussed? This is a ludicrous suggestion which will slow down the improvement of WP, and besides the vast majority of my edits are uncontested. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to delete categories because they don't have enough entries (yet). At the same time, you're also repeatedly removing categories from the lead article of an eponymous category History of electrical engineering, contrary to our guidelines, with the edit summary "removed Category:Electrical engineering using HotCat. But it just clutters Category:Electrical engineering up with yet another article.)"
So what is it? Should categories be populated, or should they be empty? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is very black and white... -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:44, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guideline are just that - guidelines. They don't work in every situation so it is up to the discretion of the editor(s). In the case you mention, a guideline which is widely ignored, there is 180 odd articles in the parent category so that one extra is clutter and ends up amongst all the other articles. Makes for useless navigation which is what categories are supposed to be for. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Electrical engineering is indeed crowded and would benefit from re-structuring. Re-structuring can be done through diffusion into other categories, which is just what your removal of categories is working against. So you're happy to leave Shmoo plot, and hundreds of other valid but relatively low-importance articles, as categorized into Electrical engineering, but you're removing an article on a broad topic within it, its history? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is all way off topic for the CfD and it covers a multitude of issues but since we are all here I may as well continue. The way I see it, since the subcats come first they are effectively a higher importance that the articles that are in the actual parent cat. Category:History of electrical engineering is a subcat of Category:Electrical engineering so it it does not need categorising amongst the faff in the parent cat. Also if there are many articles that deserve to be in the parent cat and all of the subcat epynomous articles of the subcats are then thrown in navigation is made more difficult. I do want to see Category:Electrical engineering cleaned up and I made a bit of a stab at it. There is a lot of work needed over there. Radio frequency engineering and RF engineering need merging, a Category:Electrical engineering terms is needed etc. As an ex-electronics technician I have have sufficient knowledge but I am just busy enough with other WP projects at present. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather unreasonable. Andy Dingley created this category at 20:43 on 12 March 2012‎. Alan Liefting nominated it for deletion at 23:32 on 12 March 2012 - less that 3 hours after it was created. The ‎rationale? "Contains one article." It is completely unreasonable to give other editors so little time to notice the new category and populate it. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is an astonishing piece of hypocrisy for Andy Dingley to cite WP:IMPERFECT in his defence. He has been deleting my contributions because they are "imperfect" for some time. He calls them "inaccurate" or "wrong" but when I ask him to explain this, he is silent. Biscuittin (talk) 08:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Guy Macon, have a re-read of my rationale for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of your rationale for deletion. You unilaterally decided that "there is absolutely nothing around at present that can be added to this category", so you decided to nominate it for deletion without giving anyone any time to prove you wrong. Why the hurry? You could have simply watched the page and, if a week went by with no additions, nominated it then. In another one of your category deletion nominations you write "The category has been around for two years and no one, including the editor who created, it has bother to expand it" Stop and think: why did you consider that to be a valid argument? (I agree that is was.)
I would also point out to both of you that you are misusing this page, and ask you to both to stop doing that. This page is for discussing one thing and one thing only: whether to delete Category:History of electronic engineering. Statements like "off on yet another of his deletion sprees" and "when I ask him to explain this, he is silent", if they are made at all, should be placed on the editor's talk page or the appropriate noticeboard. You have both been around long enough to know that those statements do not belong here. Knock it off, OK?
OK, back to whether the page should be deleted. Yes, it is true that a page can be put up for deletion at any stage after it has been created. However, putting it up for deletion three hours after it has been created is excellent grounds for immediately rejecting the proposal and telling the nominator to re-nominate in two weeks. You didn't give me or any other editors sufficient time to add pages to the category.
You claim that "readers come and visit it" and "If there are too many pages that are of no use to readers they will be dissatisfied with their 'Wikipedia experience'." Please explain -- in detail -- exactly how you believe that these readers will arrive at the page. Clicking "Random Article" won't do it - that link never land you on a category page, That leaves only links to it There is the one link at the bottom of Astron (wristwatch) and the links listed at Special:WhatLinksHere/Category:History of electronic engineering. So that gets you, what, one visitor a year?
Finally, I refer you to some relevant essays:
Wikipedia:There is no deadline, advises:
"Don't rush to delete articles. We can afford to take our time to improve articles, to wait before deleting a new article unless its potential significance cannot be established. Wikipedia is not paper and has no need to work towards a deadline. There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to our standards eventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work, so what? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so."
Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state says:
"Time should be given for input from multiple editors to allow improvements to be made"
And Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress points out:
"Recently, people have been getting themselves in a panic because the quality of Wikipedia is not as high as they'd like it to be. Now this is a problem, certainly, for anyone who wishes to depend upon Wikipedia as a high-quality, reliable source of information. But to someone who wishes to write a free encyclopedia, it's not a problem. It's an opportunity, and that's what we're here for. Remember, there is no deadline." --Guy Macon (talk) 09:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please tell me what is "the appropriate noticeboard" for complaining about another editor's behaviour. Although I have been around for a long time I still find Wikipedia extremely confusing. My past experience is that, no matter where I put my complaint, some Wikilawyer will claim that it is the wrong place and try to pull rank on me. Biscuittin (talk) 10:09, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for discussing one thing and one thing only: whether to delete Category:History of electronic engineering. Please ask the above question at Wikipedia:Help desk. Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 10:18, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I support keeping Category:History of electronic engineering because it is likely to be required in the future. To assist the process, I intend to create the article History of electronic engineering from the relevant section of the article Electronic engineering. See also: Talk:Electronic_engineering#New_article. Biscuittin (talk) 10:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think an article on History of electronic engineering would be a great addition to the encyclopedia. There are a lot of things that could be covered; the Edison/Westinghouse DC/AC war, Analog computers, Tesla's inventions, etc. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The issue, as I see it, is that we haven't written articles about the history of electrical engineering; there are (from what I can see) biographies and articles about devices and so forth, all of which could be called "historical" only in the weak sense that since we only write about the past, everything we write about, other than abstract theory, is history. Mangoe (talk) 12:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the material I quoted above? The above opinion is in direct disagreement with Wikipedia:There is no deadline, Wikipedia:Potential, not just current state, and Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. Those are essays rather than policies, but they do reflect current consensus on the subject of killing newborn articles in the crib. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They are essays rather than policy or guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Mangoe - Did you mean electrical engineering or electronic engineering?
For both of these, we already have many articles that I would regard as appropriate for inclusion. The war of the currents would be a good one for History of electrical engineering For electronics, de Forest's triode valve and the transistor belong under History of electronic engineering as important individual developments. The difference between these two categories is the age of the category page itself: electronics hasn't yet had these articles categorized into it.
So which cat did you mean, and what was your precise point? That for electronics (the category for deletion here) there aren't yet any articles in it, or that for electrical engineering you regard the articles we do have as not being about "history"? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also note that one attempt to expand electrical history by creating a category to group Early electric motors has itself just been tagged for deletion on this page. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have added two of these to Category:History of electronic engineering. I'm not sure about interrupter - it looks like an electro-mechanical device to me. Biscuittin (talk) 14:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think Cat's-whisker detector and Metal rectifier are other possible candidates for inclusion. Biscuittin (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than add individual articles, I've added Category:History of radio as a sub-category. Biscuittin (talk) 15:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That category is not about history of electronic engineering. The more appropriate page is Invention of radio which I have now added. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw as nominator. In retrospect I had not cast the net widely enough when looking for suitable articles to populate the category. I have found a category and an article that are suitable. Out of all the others that have now been added there are only a few that are suitable but I will continue that discussion at the talk page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any chance that I could get you to agree to avoid nominating hours-old pages for deletion? I would say that if it doesn't meet the criteria for a speedy deletion, it should be given a week or two for editors to discover and improve it. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I cannot make that assurance. As I have admitted I may have been a little hasty in this case. Anyhow, I don't think I often come across newly created categories. What I would like from seasoned editors is that if they create a category they should then populate it rather than expecting another editor to chance upon it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Your words say that what you would like from seasoned editors is that if they create a category they should then populate it, but your actions say that what you would like from seasoned editors is that if they create a category they should then populate it within three hours of creating it. Your refusal to wait a reasonable amount of time is bad for the encyclopedia and against consensus, and you should expect a vigorous effort to stop you if you continue the practice. I am going to leave it at that and not comment any further; clearly further attempts at persuading you will be futile. --Guy Macon (talk)
May I now remove the CfD tag from the category? Biscuittin (talk) 09:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. Especially since the proposal already had some support. This discussion needs an admin to review it and do the close which involves more then removing the CfD tag. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sure I've nominated categories when they were 3 hours old, when I felt that they were ill-conceived and no amount of time was going to change that. Alan's withdrawn the nomination, leave it that. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:History of electrical engineering. I'm not convinced that the fine line being drawn in the difference between these two categories helps the readers. If you earn a degree in electrical engineering you cover everything that is included in electronic engineering. Even the main society in this area, IEEE, just supports both. I see keeping this as causing more problems since a case could be made that most of the category contents belong in Category:History of electrical engineering. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then should we merge electrical engineering and electronic engineering too? The IEEE might cover both disciplines overall, but they still maintain the distinction even in their name. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has stalled. Could we find a way to make a decision please? Biscuittin (talk) 10:06, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I intend to remove the CFD tag from Category:History of electronic engineering if there is no further discussion here in the next three days. Biscuittin (talk) 10:49, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't. The tag will be removed by the closing administrator or it could be relisted. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:09, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Who is the closing administrator? Biscuittin (talk) 12:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The administrator who closes this discussion. Since it is still open, we don't know who it will be. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 19 March 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:Machine Fault Diagnosis[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 to Category:Mechanical engineering. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:36, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Machine Fault Diagnosis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Contains two article and one redir. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 23:20, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to ? A look at the main article shows a list of mechanical faults, some of which form the other members of the category. It looks as though that list is what can be categorized, rather than a category of diagnostic techniques, at least at present. Mangoe (talk) 12:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the topics in the main article would lend themselves to a category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 18:38, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Cat:Mechanical engineering. Smallcat. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:06, 23 March 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:Instructional dance 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:47, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Instructional dance songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't seem to be a notable categorization of songs. Difficult to verify, not overly relevant to the content. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:19, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.
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:Self-reflexive 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. - jc37 02:49, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Self-reflexive songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: No article on the topic, difficult if not impossible to verify. Also totally ludicrous that Self-reflexive song REDIRECTS TO THE CATEGORY. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 22:18, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as part of a group of categories. It is a subcategory of Category:Self-reflexive works and is covered by the article Self-reference which defines the term and has a section on self-relexive music. The redirect should be changed to Self-reference#Music. Cjc13 (talk) 23:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have just checked all the articles in this category. Song for Whoever is the only one which contains a reference for the claim of self-reflexiveness, and most of the others don't even mention self-reflexiveness. So at present, this is a one-article category padded out by original research.
    Self-reference#In_popular_culture is completely unreferenced.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems to make sense as part of the family of these categories, which serves a useful purpose. It would surely make more sense to propose to delete the whole family, rather than one category within it, although for me that would also be a "keep". On the points made above, many other categories do not have (or need) an article dealing with the identical topic. To say "difficult if not impossible to verify" is surely incorrect: self-reflexiveness is a characteristic like any other, actually quite a prominent one, and should be easy to verify. For citations, secondary sources are needed, but if a song is notable enough to have an article then there will need to be reliable sources dealing with it and there is no reason why they should not cover the point. It does indeed seem odd that Self-reflexive song redirects to the category. In my view that is harmless in itself, but for the redirect to be included in the category is comically circular: the category should be deleted from the redirect. If this was recently a one-article category it has been populated since then. If there has been any original research, I do not see that that should affect the question of whether this category serves a useful purpose or not. Moonraker (talk) Moonraker (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The category is currently populated only through original research, and if the WP:OR categorisations are removed, then category would fail WP:SMALLCAT. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For all I know "populated only through original research" may be correct, but it seems rather likely that the same is true of a great many Wikipedia categories, if not most. SMALLCAT is not really about the existing number of articles in a category. In "Small with no potential for growth", the potential for growth is surely what matters, and this category plainly has that potential. Moonraker (talk) 03:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Where is the evidence of that potential for growth? All but one of the articles included in this category are unsupported by a reference, and that means massive potential for shrinkage when the improperly categorised articles are removed. --22:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
  • Per WP:CAT#Categorizing_pages "Categorization must maintain a neutral point of view: categorizations appear on pages without annotations or referencing to justify or explain their addition; editors should be conscious of the need to maintain a neutral point of view when creating categories or adding them to articles. Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:55, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A sensible policy, but I do not see that this category fails on either of those scores. I think you are just explaining the policy? Moonraker (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If there's nothing in an article about a song that would justify its addition to the category, then the addition of the category to that article is by its very nature "controversial". Thus, categories populated by this type of original research are very problematic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I Bet You They Won't Play This Song on the Radio and The Song That Never Ends are clearly self-reflexive from the title, and similarly for Your Song. The discusion of the lyrics will indicate where a song is self-reflexive. Cjc13 (talk) 12:58, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's so obvious, just add some citations (or even one) to support it. That the whole point of WP:OR—to prevent users from adding information that they "know" is "true" but cannot substantiate with sources. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Song for Whoever includes this reference[1] which includes the term in relation to the song. Cjc13 (talk) 13:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and as has been pointed out above, it's currently the only one that is so referenced. Are there any references that can be added to the other articles presently in the category that would justify the category being placed on the article? If not, we're dealing with a one-article category, hence the potential relevance of WP:SMALLCAT. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but it is part of a larger scheme with parent category Category:Self-reflexive works, with examples given in Self-reference. There clearly are more than one example of self-reflexive songs. Cjc13 (talk) 21:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Clearly" according to what and by what standard? Your own knowledge? Uncited statements found elsewhere in Wikipedia or on the Internet? The obvious truth? Or are we talking about reliable sources that say they are? The article you link to is a smorgasbord of uncited information that may actually be WP:OR. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here is an article about self-reflexive songs including a list of examples.[2] Also there is an article called "Self-reflexive songs and their readers in the late 14th century" that is listed online.[3]. (There is also a song on YouTube called "Self-reflexive song".[4]) This shows there are songs which are self-reflexive.Cjc13 (talk) 21:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You cite a link to a a blog and to a Youtube video as evidence, but neither are reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is evidence as regards this discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 13:44, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This reminds me of something Lionel Hutz once said. (Judge: Mr Hutz, do you have any evidence at all? Hutz: Well, I have plenty of hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence.) What you have provided is "evidence" in the same sort of way that hearsay and conjecture are "evidence" for a law court to consider. In other words, yes—it's evidence; but they are extremely unpersuasive to the point of being almost useless. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is part of a reasonable scheme, and has plenty of potential for growth. Needs cleanup per BHG but that is no reason to delete. LeSnail (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the evidence of that potential for growth? Only one of the articles currently in the category has any reference to justify its inclusion, so what I see right now is a huge potential for shrinkage. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a recognized genre; anyone come up with some good refs that the industry considers this a genre? Are there Grammies for this? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:28, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This has major WP:OR and sourcing problems. Delete if no other sources can be found—a one article category for only one song that can be sourced as "self-reflexive" is not particularly helpful. My opinion might change if there are a glut of sources for other songs that have just not been added to relevant articles yet. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Also Wikipedia:Categorization states that categorization is to, ... identify the defining characteristics of an article's topic. So quite plainly, if the lede for any article, including songs, does not give something as a defining characteristic, then it can't be defined or categorized as such. In the articles I read in this cat there is no claim that any of the songs were self-reflexive, nor enough information to ascertain that a song might be self-reflexive, One of them didn't even mention what the lyrics were about at all! How can that song be included in the category, even assuming good faith? This problem exists for all categories 'by lyrical content,' more so because many songs lyrics are not face-value meanings but use allegory, metaphor and every other literary device. In other words the lyric writer might know what they meant (but not always) when they wrote the song and the listener will know what they think the song is about, but there's too much gray between the two points for any useful categorization. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The whole thing seems to be a big pile of WP:OR and WP:POV, and those arguing for keeping the category seem wholly unconcerned about the fact that only one of the articles in this category has a reference to justify its inclusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete basically agree with the four opinions above. The whole Category:Songs by theme subtree is a catastrophic mix of OR and categorizing according to trivial characteristics but the present category is particularly problematic because it's so poorly delineated. Pichpich (talk) 20:49, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • One day—one day—the sort of person who finds editing Wikipedia to be an entertaining hobby is not going to find the subject of recursion to be so hilarious as to insist on propagating it wherever possible. The degree to which this category requires original research to populate it makes it too controversial to belong in a neutral category system. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:26, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Self-reflexion is not about recursion. Cjc13 (talk) 12:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: My Iron Lung has been added to the category. The self-reflexive lyrics are discussed in the article, (see also this webpage[5]). Cjc13 (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the article offers no reference for the self-reflexive claim, and the link that you provide above (to http://www.greenplastic.com/radiohead-lyrics/the-bends/my-iron-lung/) is a fansite, which is not a reliable source: see WP:USERGENERATED. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Note. The My Iron Lung article is about an Extended Play, not a song. So it's inclusion in this category is wrong. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:03, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The article is about both the EP and the song. There does not seem to be any reason to think that the information given by the site quoted is inaccurate. Cjc13 (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So you would categorize albums by one of the songs contained on the album then? --Richhoncho (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Eps are more like singles than albums. Cjc13 (talk) 13:31, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There are eight tracks on this particular EP, which one is supposed to be self-reflexive? This is a rhetorical question, no need to try to reply. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Only the title song, which was also a single, is analysed in the article. Cjc13 (talk) 20:26, 25 March 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:Central Election Commission of Ukraine[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Central Election Commission of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category contains one article and one subcategory (which itself contains one article but has the potential to expand). Highly unlikely that more articles could be added here. Green Giant (talk) 22:13, 12 March 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:Former countries in Serbia[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 & upmerge to Category:Former countries in the Balkans and Category:Political history of Serbia. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Former countries in Serbia to Category:Former countries that existed in the territory now known as Serbia
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. This is utterly anachronistic. We can't claim that e.g. the Kingdom of the Gepids was a "former country in Serbia", because there was no Serbia at the time. Similarly, tagging Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia as a "former country in Serbia" is, well, a bit ridiculous, because the reason for the inclusion is the fact that the region of Syrmia became part of Serbia after KoCS was already gone. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:21, 12 March 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:Early electric motors[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 to Category:Electric motors. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:10, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Early electric motors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No defining characteristics for the topic and per WP:SMALLCAT -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:13, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They're defined quite simply as those early designs that played a part in the historical development of electric motors, but have no significant role as useful devices today. As to the numbers, then there are dozens of potential candidates for that simple definition and I wasn't aware that it was now a policy to fully-populate a category before it could be created. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:32, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categories, being a black and white classification, should have clear demarcation for topics that are included. I am not convinced that the category has a potential to grow. The three articles in the category would be far better off in linked from a History of the electric motor article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:52, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Categories, being a black and white classification,"
Welcome to MediaWiki. They aren't. Categorization in MediaWiki is not ontological. It automatically builds a navigation structure, but it doesn't define memberships, identities or attributes.
I also note that the nominator has now jumped from targeting one category to slating three referenced non-stub articles for deletion and merging as footnotes into an overall article on electric motors. Yet at the same time he has also (quite rightly) tagged electric motor as a potential split, to manage its already substantial size. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What???? What do you mean by "slating three referenced non-stub articles for deletion"? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Corrected what might have been confusing grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not simply delete all categories, as you've clearly never liked them. We could replace all categories with hard-coded links from list articles (a pull model) rather than annotating the articles themselves for categorization (a push model). Of course we'd never be able to maintain that for a site with more than a few dozen pages... Andy Dingley (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am not suggesting the deletion of all categories. You are making a fallacious black and white style argument I actually like categories which is why I spend a lot of my time prowling around in them and fixing them up. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The offered definition is a bit fuzzy. What does it mean if something has "no significant role as useful devices today"? What is a significant role? It must mean something more than having some role. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously a definition of scope is up for improvement. I think even "some" role would be enough (for exclusion), implying that they're still made and still used as more than lab curiosities. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
So, it's for electric motors that were made but are now obsolete, or at least no longer produced for anything other than museum pieces and the like? How would we set a cut-off date for what is early vs. what is not? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any need for a date, merely the functional grouping of "what seemed like a good idea at the time, but either never went anywhere, just couldn't be made to work, or has since gone the way of the buggy whip". One of these, the mouse mill motor, did have a significant use for a while as part of automatic telegraphs. If you check your local telegraph office, they might still have one. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:21, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to press the issue too far, but couldn't an electric motor be developed tomorrow that by the end of this decade would meet those requirements? That would certainly not be an "early electric motor". Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:26, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quite possibly, and in another century we might regard that as an "early" design too. I just don't see that the semantics of "early" are causing any problems here. Alan's point is that the scope isn't clearly stated, which is a reasonable point, but easily fixed. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think the potential for problems are there, because even with the scope as defined and this discussion I'm still confused as to how exactly one would determine if a particular engine is "early" enough. Categories are rarely unclear in scope to their creators, but that's part of the problem—we don't all have access to your thought process when it was created, and it's unclear what scope was intended then or now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can't see how we can have a clear inclusionary criteria using the current terminology of the category name and proposed definitions. "Early" is problematic for me—see the discussion above. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:22, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to :Category:Electric motors. Which designs are "early" and which are not is a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:08, 15 March 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:Mobile phones by country[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Mobile phones by country to Category:Mobile phone industry by country
Nominator's rationale: that is what is in it. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:16, 12 March 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:Electronics introduced in 1992[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 to Category:1992 introductions. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:34, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Electronics introduced in 1992 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not part of a series. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 19:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Poor rationale. If the problem is with the series being incomplete, then complete the series. A valid rationale would be that there was something wrong with the category, of itself. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are things that are of far greater that WP needs which I would rather work on. The category has been around for two years and no one, including the editor who created, it has bother to expand it. Also, deletion is not permanent. I am not saying there is something "wrong" with it. That is a subjective appraisal. I am saying that we don't need it - at least not yet. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "There are things that are of far greater that WP needs which I would rather work on. " I agree - so why not do them? Instead you seem to be finding excuses to delete anything related to "History of engineering" categories, on the grounds that they're not yet perfect. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's probably best to not make this discussion a debate on what users should or should not be doing with their limited WP editing time. Let's focus on the nomination as opposed to what the nominator has or has not done/should or should not do. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Asking to have things deleted is a way of improving WP. Are you suggesting that I should not attempt to improve topics relating to the history of engineering? And I agree with Good Ol’factory that we should concentrate on the WP. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:28, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:1992 introductions, part of an existing scheme. Tim! (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:1992 introductions - no real reason to have a seperate subcategory that isn't part of its own tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:29, 22 March 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:Election agencies in Albania[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 & rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Election agencies in Albania to Category:Election commissions in Albania
Nominator's rationale: Both of the articles in this category use the form "election commission". Green Giant (talk) 18:40, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Rename I wonder if this might just be a translation issue from Albanian but will go along with the articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I did think it might be poor translation but the main website appears to use this translation in its English pages ("Central Election Commission") with occasional use of the plural (i.e. "Elections"). Green Giant (talk) 17:36, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge. The two pages now in the category appear notable. It seems very unlikely that any of the hundreds of local election commissions is notable in itself, and if that is so then the category fails WP:SMALLCAT: small and with no potential for growth. Moonraker (talk) 21:30, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename since there are two - central and local, deletion should not be an option, nor upmerging, which comes to the same thing. I do not speak Albanian and cannot comment on the correct translation, whether agency or commission. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:12, 15 March 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:Short story collections by Stanislaw Lem[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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:46, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Short story collections by Stanislaw Lem to Category:Short story collections by Stanisław Lem
Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename, to match the author's article. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:37, 12 March 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:Victoria schools[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Victoria schools to Category:Victoria schools, Singapore
Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify the scope of the category as relating to the two schools in Singapore: Victoria Junior College and Victoria School. The latter term is ambiguous (see Victoria School (disambiguation).
Eponymous categories are permitted only in certain circumstances (see WP:EPONCAT), but it seems to me that the topics in this category are closely-enough related to the school to justify the retention of this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. 'Victoria schools' could be all manner of things. Oculi (talk) 14:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Agree -- (talk) DragTian (UTC)
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:Featured articles on Mathematics Portal[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 & move to talk page. There's no certainty on the name which is best handled in a future discussion. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Featured articles on Mathematics Portal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or move to talk-page. We don't classify articles by which portal(s) display them. If kept, it ought to be renamed to something like Category:Articles selected for use on the Mathematics Portal see below because not all of these articles are "Featured Articles" in the WP:FA sense. It might be that a parameter can be added to {{maths rating}} to achieve this. NB there is a related MfD at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Mathematics.2FFeatured article template. BencherliteTalk 13:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but put on the talk page. "We don't classify articles by which portal(s) display them"? Why not? I can see reasons to do this, for internal purposes, but this means that the categorisation should either be hidden or on the talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to talk page or make hidden, per SmokeyJoe. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've found {{U.S. Roads WikiProject}} (the WikiProject banner used on talk pages of articles) which has a switch allowing it to populate Category:U.S. Roads portal selected articles. (I thought I'd seen something like it somewhere!) So moving to talk page is preferable to making it a hidden mainspace category, and a better rename might be Category:Mathematics portal selected articles. BencherliteTalk 17:18, 13 March 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:Old Victorians - Singapore[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: Split as proposed. Jafeluv (talk) 11:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting Category:Old Victorians - Singapore to Category:Victoria School, Singapore alumni and Category:Victoria Junior College alumni
Nominator's rationale: Split, for 5 reasons:
  1. To categorise these former pupils by the schools which they attended, rather than by their membership of an alumni association
  2. To clarify that the category relates to schools, rather than to people of the Victorian era (see Category:People of the Victorian era‎)
  3. To include in the category names the titles of the head articles: Victoria Junior College & Victoria School, adding a disambiguator to the later term because it is ambiguous (see Victoria School (disambiguation))
  4. To conform to the "Foo alumni" convention of Category:Alumni by secondary school in Singapore
  5. To follow the approach taken with many other ambiguous "old Fooian" categories, such as Category:Old Victorians, which was renamed at CfD February 22 to a descriptive format Category:People educated at Victoria College, Jersey ... and also the 141 "Old Fooian" categories renamed this year at 42 separate CfD discussions
There is a fundamental problem with this whole type of collective name, as expressed most eloquently by Moonraker (talk · contribs) in another recent discussion: "there are very few references anywhere to people educated at a particular school (including this one) as a group". That's exactly why these "Old Fooian" terms don't work well for category names: they are rarely used, and therefore unknown to the general readership for whom Wikipedia is written. Splitting this category into these two new descriptively-named categories solves that fundamental problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:23, 12 March 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:Physician Assistant programs in the United States[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: Listify. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Physician Assistant programs in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete and possibly turn into a list. We shouldn't categorize universities according to the programs they offer. First it doesn't really correspond to a defining characteristic of the university. Second this would quickly lead to serious category clutter because universities typically offer dozens of programs. Pichpich (talk) 11:34, 12 March 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:Trade unions of Hong Kong[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:47, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Trade unions of Hong Kong to Category:Trade unions in Hong Kong
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Left out in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 23#Category:Trade unions of country. 61.18.170.143 (talk) 11:29, 12 March 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:Celebrities who were born in London's St Joeseph's Hospital[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Celebrities who were born in London's St Joeseph's Hospital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't generally categorize people by place of birth city, let alone by specific hospital. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. I have seen countless references to celebrities places of birth, I think this subject may be of interest to people, with Justin Bieber, Ryan Gosling, and Rachel McAdams all well known A-list celebrities having the same hospital of birth in an otherwise not well known city of London, Ontario .Pumkinhead001 (talk)

Note: if you google this issue, you will see countless references to this topic. (http://www.thelondoner.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2839542&archive=true), maybe it's not as significant as an alma mater, but still an interesting coincidence Pumkinhead001 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:23, 12 March 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. WP:OC#TRIVIAL excludes place of death, and I can't see how place of birth is any different. Also "Interesting coincidence" sounds a lot like a trivial intersection (WP:OC#TRIVIAL again) --Northernhenge (talk) 19:15, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification WP:OC#TRIVIAL does not exclude place of death. It points out that trivial intersections at death are not encyclopedic. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • note although you don't see place of birth as different from place of death, it is not stated in oc Trivial, that is your interpretation, by this logic we can also dismiss as trivial, school attended, degree obtained..ect. What I feel makes the place of birth somewhat significant is London not being a major metropolis for movie and music production such as New York, L.A.
But that these people went on to be quite well known is somewhat of a phenomena.Pumkinhead001 (talk) 21:07, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would agree that place of birth and place of death are both generally inappropriate for categorization. I would also say the same for school attended and degree obtained. Reasonable users could disagree on these points. But holding my view doesn't mean the information should not be mentioned in an article about the person. It just means I don't view these factoids as "defining" for the person of the type that categories are meant to capture. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete because of that prefix "Celebrities".
If there are articles for people capable of being categorized, then they're presumably notable - and that's enough.
As to whether "... by hospital" is significant, then it's not something I have any interest in or would make use of. However nor is it my role to tell other people not to do so, provided that they can adequately source it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:07, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OC#TRIVIAL, which says: "If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely that it is a trivial characteristic." The fact that someone was born in a particular town is usually a fairly insignificant characteristic, but the question of whether people were born in one hospital rather than another one in the same town is no way a "defining characteristic"; it is trivia which could easily be omitted from the article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:33, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial.--Bbb23 (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – we have deleted country of birth, so 'hospital of birth' is less than trivial. (I have never seen 'hospital of birth' mentioned in an obit in a respectable publication.) This seems to be St. Joseph's Hospital in London Ontario, which is not even mentioned in St. Joseph's Hospital. Oculi (talk) 09:57, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only similar one I can find is Category:Kibbutzniks. Whatever the merits of that category (debatable) this one is clearly trivial. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:12, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non-defining. This smacks of publicity stunting. Axem Titanium (talk) 01:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:People from London, Ontario. There are lots of thisngs wrong with this category: who si a "celebrity" is a POV issue; the hospital is in London, Ontario, not London, England; it is much too specific: we do not usually have place of birth categories, as this is usually NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Artists from London, Ontario , please change my vote. I think "people " from London Ontario is way too broad, Should Justin Bieber be in the same list as some guy who is a city councillor? Love or hate Bieber, he is world known, also the rest of the named people. Pumkinhead001 (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note also would distinguish for example Hume_Cronyn_(politician) from Hume Cronyn the actor, to illustrate my point.Pumkinhead001 (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify within London's St Joeseph's Hospital. 218.250.159.95 (talk) 08:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not do births by hospital categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 17 March 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:Events at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Events at the 2011 Southeast Asian Games to Category:2011 Southeast Asian Games events
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Consistency with Category:2009 Southeast Asian Games events‎, Category:2007 Southeast Asian Games events‎, Category:2005 Southeast Asian Games events‎. — Paul A (talk) 03:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. There is no point in having two categories. Biscuittin (talk) 15:27, 12 March 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:Madrigals[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: withdrawn per comments below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Madrigals to Category:Madrigals (music)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Madrigal is ambiguous. I suggest renaming to match the article Madrigal (music). (I note that this is apparently not speedy-able under C2D due to this recent change to the criteria. This is a set category, not a topic category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Better to rename the article What is now madrigal (music) is the primary sense of the word and ought to displace the present disambiguation page. Mangoe (talk) 05:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I see now that there is an ongoing discussion to move the article. Since at this stage it seems likely to be moved, it's probably best to withdraw this nomination. I will renominate if for some reason the move doesn't happen. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:59, 12 March 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:Glees[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 rename C2D. There seems to be some confusion about the modification recently made. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:59, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Glees to Category:Glees (music)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Glee is ambiguous and Glees is a place in Germany. I suggest renaming to match the article Glee (music). (I note that this is apparently not speedy-able under C2D due to this recent change to the criteria. This is a set category, not a topic category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 12 March 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.

Anime of YEAR categories[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Change naming scheme from Anime of YEAR to the more common YEAR anime . This makes the naming consistent in Category:Works by type and year and simplifies my extraction program. — Dispenser 01:44, 12 March 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.

Manga of YEAR categories[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Like above, change naming scheme from Manga of YEAR to the more common YEAR manga. This makes the naming consistent in Category:Works by type and year and simplifies my extraction program. — Dispenser 01:44, 12 March 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:Rounds[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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:00, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rounds to Category:Rounds (music)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rounds is ambiguous and the relevant article is at Round (music). (I note that this is apparently not speedy-able under C2D due to this recent change to the criteria. This is a set category, not a topic category.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:36, 12 March 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:Conference National players[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 rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Conference National players to Category:Football Conference players
Nominator's rationale: To comply with the standard naming convention for categories of this nature. It should refer to the league (Football Conference) rather than the specific division (Conference National). Category:The Football League players is an example of this. Mattythewhite (talk) 01:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - per nom. Makes perfect sense to include the Conference North and Conference South with the Conference National, similar to what's done with Football League. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - as per nom. Cover all three divisions, and not just the highest. --Jimbo[online] 00:26, 13 March 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:Tinnosbanen[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 merge C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:03, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Tinnosbanen to Category:Tinnoset Line
Propose merging Category:Railway stations on Tinnosbanen to Category:Railway stations on the Tinnoset Line
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. Tinnosbanen redirects to Tinnoset Line. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy move to match article name (article was renamed years ago, but the category was not). Arsenikk (talk) 07:33, 12 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_12&oldid=1138396740"