Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 November 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 24 November 26 >

November 25[edit]

Category:Columbia University women[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. --BDD (talk) 17:49, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is not categorizing women who worked for Columbia University; it is categorizing (two) women who are alumni of Columbia University. Surely we do not want to start categorizing women alumni of certain universities as "FOO University women"! Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:27, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as well as the parent. There is nothing defining about being a woman and graduating from Columbia, I would venture more than 50% of the students are women these days.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 01:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Columbia University is a unique case, because it has Barnard College which is a constituent women's college, put not all female students at Columbia are part of Barnard. We can and do classify people for being connected to Barnard, but there is no reason to split this category by gender. We do not want to start splitting university categories by gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I can see nothing in WP:Cat gender which justifies splitting alumni by gender. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:19, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I hope that Columbia Univiersity is a non-discriminating institution. If this is about alumni, I do not see why we should need it. Oxford and Cambidge both have women's colleges, but that is not an excuse for splitting alumni by gender. They also now have mixed colleges. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The creator of this category was not notified of this nomination. XOttawahitech (talk) 19:18, 3 December 2013 (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:Individual antennas[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:16, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Buildings are not categorized under Category:Individual physical objects and the same should apply to other fixed structures. The articles currently in this category (only a tiny fraction of the WP articles about TV/radio transmission masts) are mostly in Category:Radio masts and towers in Europe etc - the exceptions are an article about a mountain (which shouldn't be categorized by usage) and an article about a military site with arrays consisting of thousands of individual antennas. DexDor (talk) 21:59, 25 November 2013 (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:Our Miracle[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. Wizardman 17:16, 14 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need a category for the two pages we have about this obscure manga. Brainy J ~✿~ (talk) 21:19, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I doubt that we need a category for one fictional work and its characters. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2013 (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:Animated television programs[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 is. -Splash - tk 19:53, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: They serve as duplicate categories. If you look at Category:Television series by genre, you'll see that it is more common to call a television show a "series" rather than a "program". In general, it would be nice to standardize television listings which are called "programs", "series" and "shows", rather interchangeably. Single programs are called "episodes" or "specials" so "programs" shouldn't be used for that category either. Liz Read! Talk! 21:05, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that Category:Television series by network is a mix of "series" and "programs". This should be fixed.--Cattus talk 17:31, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated. At present this is a proposal to merge a parent category to a child category. I am not sure we really know what is going on with series, programs, programming, and what ever other words are applied, but this merger will not solve any problems.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:19, 8 January 2014 (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:Princess Leia[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 19#Category:Princess_Leia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As with the recently deleted R2-D2 category, all the same reasons for deletion apply. Small category whose only growth potential comes from adding general articles for things in which the character appears. There are plenty of other categories, lists and templates for the contents that aren't problematic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to Images of Princess Leia or something similar, to contain the images, purge the rest. But what do you have against Star Wars??--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:47, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have anything against Star Wars (well, except the prequels) but it's an area that attracts a lot of material that, while hella cool and all, isn't encyclopedic. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 00:37, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of the articles are either about or directly related to the character. It may be useful to setup a subcategory of images, but that only adds to the size and scope of this parent. With new films in the Star Wars series on the way, a seemingly never-ending supply of ancillary material and content related to specific characters and a dedicated fan base, the potential for growth seems to be unlimited. Alansohn (talk) 18:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not enough stuff for an eponymous article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or merge to a wider category relating to the Star Wars fictional franchise. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 1 December 2013 (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:Linux kernel hackers[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hackers is a problematic term here, with many possible connotations. Programmers is more neutral. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2013 (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:C Sharp developers[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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We should not categorize people based on what programming language they use - especially one that is so common Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:34, 25 November 2013 (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.

Tintin[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 2#Tintin. – Fayenatic London 19:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article of the categories is The Adventures of Tintin. The films and books category should also follow the convention of Category:Works based on works. Armbrust The Homunculus 16:51, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then please change all of them to this format, not some of them. Surely you can see the inconsistency you are proposing above. I suggest the following:
Prhartcom (talk) 17:28, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only these need two need this change. The characters category follows the convention of Category:Comics characters by protagonist ("FOO characters"), the location category follows the convention of Category:Fictional locations in comics and Category:Fictional locations by series ("FOO locations"), the lists category follows the convention of Category:Entertainment lists by franchise ("FOO lists") and the images category follows the convention of Category:Images from comics (FOO images). It's not a good idea to rename the categories in a way, that makes them inconsistent with the sister categories in the mentioned categories. Armbrust The Homunculus 17:44, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well then, at some point someone obviously goofed. Prhartcom (talk) 23:46, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per original nomination, which makes good sense to me. – Fayenatic London 22:48, 27 November 2013 (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:African-American surgeons[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:African-American physicians. There is evident consensus to merge and all those who would merge agree on at least the target I've indicated. I do not see that there is immediate convergence on the double merge, however. -Splash - tk 19:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates the last-rung rule of WP:EGRS; as such this category would have a tendency to isolate African-American surgeons from their peers, as there aren't any other significant diffusing categories under Category:American surgeons. I understand that African-American surgeons are discussed as a group; however, one could make a similar argument for many medical specialties + ethnicity, even within surgical specialties. As such I think tracking this at the level of "African-American physicians", which could always be intersected with "American surgeons" will provide researchers with what they need while limiting the risk of ghettoization. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 15:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a defining characteristic that is an appropriate and effective aid to navigation. Researchers may well be willing and able to determine the intersection of various categories using tools to perform this task, but the loss of this defining characteristic harms navigation for the billions of non-researchers who use this encyclopedia. The note in the category's heading specifically indicates that every entry in this category "should also be placed in a neutral sibling or parent", which addresses the nominator's perceived concerns re "ghettoization". Alansohn (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last-rung rule is there to prevent structural ghettoization; if there are many other sibling categories (e.g. a whole set of categories of surgeons-by-state, or surgeons-by-speciality that is fully diffusing), then it's likely any particular surgeon will be in one of those as well. If the only way to deghettoize is to simply stick them in the parent, this is not likely to happen (and people will come along and remove the parent as a dupe). Having looked at hundreds of categories, the ones that violate last-rung-rule are almost always ghettoes, whether we label them to try to avoid it or not. The best solution is to delete.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 21:57, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Here the last rung rule should trump. Splitting to African-American physicians is enough. We do not need to further split by speciality. Category heading notes do not really help, because people do not have to read them before adding to the category. Anyway, the specific intersection of being a surgeon (as opposed to being a physician in general) and being African-American is not really that notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per JPL. As Alanasohn notes, external intersection might as well not exist for most readers, and their availability to the congnoscenti is irrelevant to our decision here. However, the no-ghettoisation principle of WP:CATGRS is an important one, and should be upheld. JPL is right to note that category heading notes are of little help in avoiding that, because non-diffusing subcats are so rare that the vast majority of sub-categorisation on the principle of diffusion using tools such a WP:HotCat which don't warn editors of non-diffusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 4 December 2013 (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:Republicanism in Thailand[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. The two keep arguments are convincingly strong, and tip the balance away from 'no consensus'. -Splash - tk 20:02, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Neither of this category's member articles discusses the issue in detail. The Lèse majesté article doesn't even contain the term, while the mention in the UDD article is descriptive of attacks by its opponents, and doesn't warrant categorisation. There may or may not be republican movements in Thailand, but as it is unconstitutional and criminal, it is unlikely that reliable sources would be available for a proper Wikipedia article any time soon. Paul_012 (talk) 15:48, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. 65.60.120.226 (talk) 07:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose, I agree that the two articles included had nothing to do with "Republicanism in Thailand", so I removed them, but I still think that this category should be kept around, because there were and are republican movements in Thailand, just because they're illegal dosn't mean they're not there (Colombian guerrilla movements are also illegal but they have their own category. Charles Essie (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT as part of a series under Category:Republicanism by country. At the moment, its only content is the biographical Category:Thai republicans, but so long as the subcat exists, this one is needed to maintain the integrity and consistency of the category tree.
    Note that the nom is wrong to say that because Thai republicanism is "unconstitutional and criminal, it is unlikely that reliable sources would be available for a proper Wikipedia article any time soon". Wikipedia has plenty of well-sourced articles in Category:Illegal organizations. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:28, 19 December 2013 (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:Recipients of the King Rama IX Coronation Medal[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also

These are commemorative medals, and were not given based on merit. They are thus not defining and don't serve Wikipedia's categorization purposes. See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 24#Category:Recipients of the 150 Years Commemoration of Bangkok Medal. Paul_012 (talk) 15:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Commemorative medals (as opposed to orders and decorations) do not warrant recipient categories. AusTerrapin (talk) 17:28, 29 November 2013 (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:Prehistoric Perciformes stubs[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 to Category:Prehistoric perciform stubs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Capitalization not needed for perciformes. Dawynn (talk) 13:14, 25 November 2013 (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:Winners of the Nykredit Architecture Prize[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. -Splash - tk 20:06, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having won an award is not normally a WP:DEFINING characteristic and lists are a better way to record who has received an award as they can include those who don't (yet) have articles and contain information such as year (see WP:OC#AWARD). I've checked many of the articles in this category and they are in more defining categories (e.g. Category:Danish architects). This category also places articles about companies (e.g. 3XN) in inappropriate categories (e.g. under Category:People by status). For info: There is a list at Nykredit_Architecture_Prize#Recipients. Note: This was previously CFDed in 2011 (for a different reason). For info: An example of a similar CFD is this. DexDor (talk) 06:53, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another award category we do not need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pre-eminent awards (either nationally or internationally) are defining for the individuals/corporations who receive them and could reasonably be expected to be referred to whenever the individual or company's achievements are mentioned in professional or historical narratives. The Nykredit Architecture Prize is a pre-eminent award in the field (one of the top architecture awards in Denmark and one of the most lucrative architecture awards globally). The categorisation under 'People by Status' has three separate intervening categories, all of which do not discriminate between individual award winners and corporate award winners; the issue in this respect is the assumption that all Category:Award winners are people - this is a much wider taxonomy issue than whether Category:Winners of the Nykredit Architecture Prize has a mix of corporate and individual winners and should be raised (separately) for discussion as such. Arguing lists are better is irrelevant per WP:CLN - lists and categories are both valid and have different advantages and disadvantages; from extensive experience in maintaining both, article editors don't always added their subjects to the appropriate lists (nor for that matter to the appropriate catgegories!) - checking out new additions to categories can be a useful starting point for updating lists and vice versa. I note that the broader debate surrounding WP:OC#AWARD is essentially an Inclusionism vs Deletionism debate and this renewed push for deletion advances no substantively new arguments compared to the original CfD which resulted in a Keep decision. This nomination is being pushed by active participants in the current rehash of the debate of WP:OC#AWARD at least one of whom has a stated agenda to abolish all award categories - a position which has not achieved consensus support in the four years I have witnessed it repeatedly re-raised (and is unlikely to so long as both inclusionist and deletionist editors still have the emotional energy left to keep entering the fray). Had I been aware of the CfD example cited, I would have defended that article on the same grounds. I am sympathetic to concerns about category clutter (which seems to be the underlying issue for many in the OC#AWARD debate), in practice that is unlikely to be a significant issue for the majority of architect/architectural company articles; in any case, this concern should be dealt with by a technical fix (collapsible category groups or similar - a suggestion I have previously provided). Whilst John Pack Lambert argues that it is 'another award category we do not need', this is presumptuous about how others use categories; the category traffic stats show steady usage of the category page (after allowing for the CfD generated spike), the numbers may not be high but that is consistent for non-mainstream subjects. AusTerrapin (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories like this lead to clutter and thus are likely to be more distracting than useful. Overall the whole architecture topic on Wikipedia suffers from overemphasis on awards, often pushed into leads and infoboxes, and cluttering the categories section.--ELEKHHT 20:20, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Yet another awards category. We have a list in Nykredit Architecture Prize, though it could usefully be improved by adding a column explaining what the winners won it for. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't see any evidence that this award meets WP:DEFINING. I checked the first 8 articles from the middle column of the category listing (Exner, Gehl, Hauxner, Ingels, KHR, Larsen, Lund, Lundgaard & Tranberg), and in only one instance (KHR Arkitekter) was the prize mentioned in the lede. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:30, 17 January 2014 (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:Recipients of the Order of Duke Branimir[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:33, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What awards a person has received is not normally a WP:DEFINING characteristic and/or not a good way to categorize WP articles (see WP:OC#AWARD). The two articles currently in this category are in plenty of categories for what the people did. For info: The people with articles in the category are listed at Order of Duke Branimir. DexDor (talk) 06:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we have way too many award categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- While this is a national award, I think we need to draw a line somewhere, particularly where the award is being made to non-citizens. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I believe that since it is a rare award it would be handy to list people who have been granted it. Since there has been a precedent for this elsewhere on the site, I believe it should stay. Hotspur23 (talk) 06:52, 25 November 2013 (UTC) (added from category's talk page) AusTerrapin (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This a state order. It has been common practice since 2004 for state orders and decorations to have an associated category or categories (where category diffusion has been applied) - see for example Knights of the Garter history. This does not usually apply to medals (unless they are a decoration issued in the 'form factor' of a medal - eg the Medal for Gallantry is a decoration issued in the shape of a medal rather than a star, cross, etc). Consensus has never been achieved to cease this practice. Per WP:CLN the fact that the two recipients currently listed in the category are also listed in the article is irrelevant. The fact that this order is awarded to non-citizens is irrelevant - no policy has ever been developed that renders categories legitimate or illegitimate based on whether they are for citizens, non-citizens or both citizens and non-citizens (as an aside, given the earlier argument from Peterkingiron was not clear on who this order is open to, both Croatian citizens and non-citizens can be appointed to the Order of Duke Branimir - the limited foreign langauge sources I found have many more awards being made to Croatians than non-Croatians, but this search was far from exhaustive). AusTerrapin (talk) 13:49, 17 December 2013 (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:The Helix (Dublin)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:48, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There does not appear to be enough appropriate content to justify an eponymous category for the topic. With the exception of the main article, the remaining content is clearly overcategorization of performers and performances by venue. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2013 (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:Pencil work by Indian artists[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 all. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:32, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A third and fourth category created to house the single article. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2013 (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:2000s pencil sketch[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. The category had already been emptied out of process] by User:Liz. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category was created specifically to include Sare Jahan se Accha (pencil sketch) but the article claims that the sketch was made in the late 1990s. An alternative to deletion would be a rename to Category:1990s drawings. Pichpich (talk) 01:09, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - one of several categories created for the single article. The breakdown of drawings by decade or individual year is a bit silly given the contents so I see no reason for a rename. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:08, 25 November 2013 (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:Pramod Kamble[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:49, 25 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete there is not enough material to justify an eponymous category in this case. Pichpich (talk) 01:05, 25 November 2013 (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 with Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet[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. – Fayenatic London 21:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete we do not categorize films by actor. Pichpich (talk) 01:01, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per WP:OC#PERF. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 03:13, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not categorize films by actor. This is actually the opposite of performer by performance, but is just as not helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We do not like performance categories. Even if we kept it (which we should not), it ought to be split, as this is a triple intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 1 December 2013 (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.

Clergy in America[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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We categorize people of the Americas only at the highest level, subdividing between North, Central, and South Americans, and sometimes into Latin American and Caribbean. In the absence of a category structure for people of the Americas by occupation, which would provide no added navigational value in my opinion, creating a structure of clergy in the Americas is premature. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:14, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't understand the rationale. Please explain in more detail. I see Category:Musicians by continent and Category:Writers by continent. Each has a category for its relevant continent. So you have musician and writers in America. Is this not a "category structure for people of the Americas by occupation"? The bishops are categorised by diocese, which guarantees that their place of work is in that continent, not that have to be nationals within that continent (although the two usually coincide). In the case of the Anglican bishops, you have sub-divisions by north, south and caribbean America. What's the problem here? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    That's just it, though... we don't have musicians and writers in/of the Americas. We have, instead, separate categories for the continents of North and South America. The Americas are not typically considered a single continent; instead, the name applies to the continents of North and South America. The reason that there is no advantage in creating a category structure for the Americas is that such a structure merely would serve as a parent to corresponding categories for North and South America. -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These are valid occupational categories. If you look at other professional categories, you'll see similar ones. "Category: Occupation + Location" is valid. And please do not suggest Category:American Roman Catholic clergy as 24% of Roman Catholic priests are not born in the U.S., they are are not "American", they just minister in the U.S., sometimes for decades. Liz Read! Talk! 21:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you've misunderstood the scope of these categories. They are not categories for clergy in the United States or American clergy, but for clergy in the Americas (i.e., North and South America). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:47, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The comments above do not address the substance of the nomination. We don't need group people by occupation at the level of "the Americas" generally—and certainly not before it is done for North America and South America. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "in America" categories. Any by-continent categories should use the same continents as other categories so that they can fit under Category:Religion in South America etc. DexDor (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Based on the nominator's clarification, I can now support the proposal, though without prejudice to creating similar categories for North & South America as appropriate. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This contains two empty categories for Argenina and Peru and an apparently small US category. This makes me think that the US one must be duplicating some other well-populated category. There must be an appropriate merge target somewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and split delete the empty cats, and then create Category:Clergy in North America unless a similar cat already exists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:03, 1 December 2013 (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/2013_November_25&oldid=1141927901"