Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 23 September 25 >

September 24[edit]

Category:Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route[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:Historic places on the Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route. If conversion to a navbox is desired, a renomination following the creation of the navbox might not be disruptive. The Bushranger One ping only 13:38, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? Also in this case there are multiple routes based on the article. So if the decision is other then delete, a rename is probably needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. That an army went past or through a place is not normally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a place (that existed previously), nor is being on a modern trail. DexDor (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We should have these only when we have lots of articles directly related to it, people like John R. Murdock (Mormon) and William Clayton (in the Mormon Trail case) who have notability intrinsically tied to it, and it was more than a one time use (the Mormon Trail may first be used by Brigham Young in 1847, but in one form or another it is used until 1868).John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but prefer Convert to Navbox - MILHIST/AmRevWar/sometimes NRHP guy here. I think the point is being missed, in that the trail's significance is directly derived not from the historical events that took place along it, but from the US government's recognition and labeling of it as.a National Historic Trail, and the specific labeling of these sites as historic sites along that trail. "Being a modern trail" can certainly enough to define a historic site, especially one that may have been long-forgotten without the trail. That being said, I hate categories and think they're practically useless to a general reader. I would say this should be converted into a Navbox for all sites along the trail, which have been identified by the NPS as being part of the trail. Cdtew (talk)
  • Rename to Category:Historic Places on the Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route. UNlike cases where I have voted for deletion, this category is being used to link historic sites, not villages and towns through which it happends to pass. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Peterkingiron, who makes a good recommendation (but "places" should be in lower case). --Orlady (talk) 16:29, 2 October 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:Rheinsteig[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The trail was not established until 2005.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete after checking that all items appear in the list in the maion article. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 28 September 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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of 198.228.216.168[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Runaround proper SPI investigation and dispute resolution created by an editor with serious misunderstandings of policy; see ANI. None of these dynamic IPs has ever been blocked. Someone not using his real name (talk) 21:41, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:HSOCK NE Ent 22:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport per nom and WP:HSOCK. GregJackP Boomer! 00:05, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport per WP:HSOCK and possible WP:COI by page main contributor. IP editor admits that his IP changes each time (no deception noted) in a complaint on the talk page of The National Council Against Health Fraud. Page slated for deletion's main contributor is noted elsewhere online, as largely involved member or supporter of the organisation.174.118.141.197 (talk) 01:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. As the populator of that category, I have no problem with it being deleted now. It served its purpose and the article was semi-protected from "persistent sockpuppetry". See the edit summary. The issue was an edit war in which the IP kept hopping from one IP to another during the same day (Sept. 11) and continuing the edit war. That is not allowed. It's an attempt to avoid violating 3RR, but it is the same person doing it and all admins treat them as one person and block for edit warring. In this case the semi-protection served the purpose of forcing them to discuss instead of edit war. Go ahead and delete the category as it no longer serves any purpose. As far as a COI, I have never been a member of the NCAHF, and the few times I have emailed Barrett I have usually been rebuffed. He's not always a pleasant person. I have never met him or spoken to him. I have no more a COI than anyone else who shares the same POV against health fraud and scams. That is not a crime. It's actually a commendable thing. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion. Good-faith creation of an invalid category. --Orlady (talk) 15:53, 25 September 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.

People by occupation from Mesa, Arizona[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. Euryalus (talk) 03:34, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Sportspeople from Mesa, Arizona to Category:People from Mesa, Arizona and Category:Sportspeople from Arizona
  • Nominator's rationale This is probably more borderline than the other categories, since although Mesa is a suburb of Phoenix, it has a very different culture than Phoenix. Mesa is also a larger city than Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania although this is a fairly recent development, and the Pittsbrugh category probably includes people who lived much of their lives in the suburbs. However I did end up removing about 5 people from this category that although born in Mesa seem to have not lived their much past that, being more clearly from Chandler, Phoenix or Gilbert. I also removed a few who it was not clear they had lived anywhere in Arizona much past birth, and a few who were in the category because they lived their while being professional golfers. It just does not seem this is big enough to justify the split.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:23, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose. These are sportspeople and they are from Mesa. BTW I have serious problems(and I'm not alone. A golf editor has reverted some half dozen edits of yours. If I had discovered them first, I would have done the same.) with much of the uncategorizing you've done recently. The consensus is a person being born in Foo has always qualified for being categorized 'People from Foo'. The same goes with anyone who has been a resident of Foo at some time in their life. I do agree that a person dying in a place is not necessarily a qualifier for being from somewhere but you have to be careful. Some notable people die at home. You want to change the consensus, bring it to WP:Categorization's talk page. I will be looking at your recent edits and reverting any that you did like Billy Mayfair and Mike Lee....William 00:23, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being a resident of a place has never been a reason to categorize. Being notable for what they did in a place might merit categorization. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seriously an athlete resides- which is living in--- a place while they win the Masters Golf Tournament, Cure cancer, or Create the best mousetrap isn't from that place? What place are they from. JPL wants to eliminate people from being from some a place if they haven't lived there long enough. We can't be from our place of birth or a place we lived at. Seriously this whole bunch of CFDs sound more like 'I don't like it' than any form of logic....William 01:32, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think this discussion is conflating two different things. One issue is what threshold of connection to a place should we use to determine someone is "from" there, and that's really not at issue here because this CFD should not determine that for any articles. The relevant issue is the intersection of where someone is "from" (with all the many things that can mean) with what occupation they had at some point and likely did not practice there. That this intersection here is mere coincidence rather than actually related is merely exacerbated by the often thin or brief connection people may have to that place. postdlf (talk) 02:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No the consensus if very much the other way around. If a person is born in one place and then moves somewhere else in 2 months, they are not to be categorized by the place they were born.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
For example Mike Lee (U.S. politician) should not be in the Mesa category. His parents moved away from Mesa when he was a year old. His having just been born there is not important enough to categorize him by. I know there is a guideline that explains this somewhere.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator. This is an irrelevant intersection, because in nearly all cases the sporting achievements of these people is unrelated to the fact that they are from Mesa rather than some place 20 miles away. Since that distinction is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic, we should not categorise as if it was defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment In Wikipedia:Categorzation of people it says "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." This would indicate that in general we should not put people in categorize for a place just because they were born there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The main issue here is this question. is the instersection of Mesa and being a sportsperson defining enough to categorize by. I say no. Specific location and being a sportperson does not seem to really be defining at all, and I actually wonder if we should have it for any place. However, there are some places Chicago, Illinois, comes to mind, where being from that location and being a sportsperson is a notable intersection. I submit that Mesa, Arizona is not such a place. That is the issue before us. I have thus struck all comments I have made that do not go directly to that point, although I still believe they are valid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request withdrawal (changing my !vote). Per my detailed request at CFD Sept 27: Actors from Beverly Hills, California, I ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination to allow a centralised discussion to reach a broad consensus.
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 27 September 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:UK BAP habitats[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 again at 2013 OCT 10 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 10

Nominator's rationale: That a type of habitat is mentioned in the UK's biodiversity action plan is not a WP:DEFINING characeristic of that habitat - especially where a habitat (e.g. deep-water coral) is not specific to the UK. Note: The list (in the United Kingdom Biodiversity Action Plan article) includes many things (e.g. Rivers) that clearly should not be in any country-specific category. Note: If kept, this category should be renamed to avoid the "BAP" acronym as it may not be familiar to many people. DexDor (talk) 05:11, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Populate but rename to Category:UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. -- This is a difficult one. If kept, it should be Category:UK Biodiversity Action Plan priority habitats. As I understand it, these are types of habitat that are scarce in UK, and thus require particular study and conservation. The problem is that most of the potential articles are red-linked. Others such as rivers and ponds are common in many countries and not adequately defined and for them it is a mere performance category. However Calaminarian grassland and Purple moor grass and rush pastures may well be useful to have in a priority habitats category. The fact that they are identified as priority habitats is likely to indicate that they are internationally scarce. Deep-water corals, also known as cold-water corals occur on the European Continental Shelf. The origin of the coral beaches on the west of Ireland and off Norway has only been recognised in the past 30 years: this is not the common corals of the tropics. I suspect that propulating the category better should not be too difficult, by converting some the red-links to redirects (or redirects with possibilities). For example Lowland heath is a nationally scarce habitat, but we have an article on Heath, which is a worldwide one and might be forked to provide such an article. Sorry, I cannot do this, as I am not qualified to. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 10 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 21:09, 24 September 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.

People by occupation from Scottsdale[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. Slightly more complex that some of the similar "People by foo" withdrawals because there was support for the upmerge from another editor. But the truncated discussion seemed otherwise heading for "no consensus", so the outcome would have been the same (effectively, that the category is presently retained) but without prejudice against a renomination if appropriate post-RfC (or without RfC if no RfC proceeds). Euryalus (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Actors from Scottsdale, Arizona to Category:Actors from Arizona and Category:People from Scottsdale, Arizona
  • Upmerge Category:Musicians from Scottsdale, Arizona to Category:People from Scottsdale, Arizona and Category:Musicians from Arizona
  • Upmerge Category:Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona to Category:Sportspeople from Arizona and Category:People from Scottsdale, Arizona
  • Upmerge Category:Writers from Scottsdale, Arizona to Category:People from Scottsdale, Arizona and Writers from Arizona
  • Nominator's rationale This has all the problems of the Modesto and Bakersfield categories, plus some more that are unique to it. Scottsdale now has approximately 220,000 residents. However in 1990 it was only about 130,000 and in 1980 it was 88,000. This means we will not find many notable people from her yet. Beyond this, Scottsdale is to some extent a retirement community. I found one person in a category who there was no evidence that they did anything but die here. At times these categories are more along to the lines of Category:Actors who retired to Scottsdale, Arizona never setting foot in the place while involved in acting. Beyond this, Scottsdale is a suburb of Phoenix. I am not sure whether we have ever figured out if Category:Musicians from Phoenix, Arizona only covers those from the city of Phoenix, or if it can stand in for anyone from Maricopa County, or is it covers just Phoenix in 1940, but in 2010 due to changes in transportation and spread of the unban sprawl it covers most of Maricopa County except maybe a few of the western parts of the county.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:43, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are a bunch of people in the sports category, most of whom are golfers, who maintain current residences both in this city and in some other place, often the other place is in Australia or England. Does someone really count as from somewhere if they only have residence there part of the year, and were raised elsewhere? I don't really think so, but I will leave those for someone else to review.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "people from [Foo]" categories have always been interpreted broadly, not just to mean where someone was born and raised but also anyone who lived there. I don't think that's necessarily a problem to err on the side of inclusiveness in that respect, except when they are intersected with occupation like this the categories become especially trivial and arbitrary. postdlf (talk) 21:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • But what about someone like Michelle Estill whose article literally only says that she was born there. The general interpretation seems to be being born in a place is not enough to make you from there on its own.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:26, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see both sides on that. I never lived in the city (or even county) where I happened to be born, and neither has my kid yet; in both cases, our birthplaces were determined by where hospitals were located. But I'd expect a list of notable people from a given place to include everyone ever born there even if they had no other connection (and birthplace is always listed in a biographical article if known), so I'm tolerant of it in the category structure as well. Again, I think it's less of a problem if we're just dealing with the straight "People from Foo Town" categories instead of these random hybrids. postdlf (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per my comments at the similar Category:People by place where they were born and/or at some time lived, and by occupation they engaged in at possibly some other place and at some other time CFDs on this log page. postdlf (talk) 21:09, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We generally avoid categorizing people by temporary things, residence seems to be something along those lines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Your edit[1] to Mike McCullough uncategorizing him totally from Scottsdale(either People or Sportspeople) and as a Golfer from Arizona is Horribly Wrong. At least 34 years of residence[2] in Scottsdale isn't temporary. I think its time you withdraw these nominations, which you started not long after a series of wrong edits involving People from Scottsdale or Mesa of yours were all reverted. Obviously you want to wipe out all people categories. 34 years in one town isn't enough to establish a person as from being there. So what is good enough?...William 17:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sportspeople, Upmerge rest. Sportspeople subcat big enough to be useful. Tewapack (talk) 21:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • How so? How does the size alone make it a useful category? postdlf (talk) 21:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Size is a criteria for keeping 'People from Foo' categories all the time. Supporting the upmerge of a Sportspeople category with over 60 entries when in the past the editor{BH Girl) supported keeping a town with five entries makes these CFDs look like a case of 'I don't like it'. This should go to WP:Categorization for a more thorough debate rather than have a small handful of CFD regulars set the policy....William 01:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That there is a minimum size expected for "people from Foo" (or any category, per WP:SMALLCAT) has nothing to do with this nomination, nor does it mean that any category with a certain number of members should be kept regardless of other considerations. What made you think these were nominated based on size? postdlf (talk) 15:50, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • @WilliamJE:, it's a bit rude to accuse me of "don't like it" in relation to a category about which I had not expressed a view.
            Substantively, William's argument is based on a basic misunderstanding of the issues involved, and on a confusion of necessity and sufficiency.
            There are many principles governing categorisation, set out in several guidelines such as WP:COP and WP:OC. One of those principles is WP:SMALLCAT: small categories are acceptable only in special circumstances. So if a category is very small, it will usually be deleted even if it is otherwise of a acceptable type. A good example of this is the tiny categories for small places; William does great work bringing those to CFD.
            However, the inverse is not true: a category is not acceptable just because it is big, and WP:OC is is full of types of category which are unacceptable even if they are plenty big enough. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:28, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • @BrownHairedGirl:Your supporting JPL but as I've pointed out in Actors from CT, his rationale for the CFD and it carries over to here too. Just read what I pointed out[3] to him here involving Mike McCullough. Another troubling edit[4] of his is this one to Misty Hyman where he moved her from Sportspeople from Mesa Arizona to Sportspeople from Phoenix Arizona when there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in Hyman's article to say she is from Phoenix but it does say she was born in MESA. Seriously, some of these edits can be considered vandalism and might be worth bringing to ANI....William 17:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • @WilliamJE:, it's better not to personalise the discussion. I am not "supporting JPL"; I am supporting a proposal to upmerge the categories. This discussion is not about whether any particular article is accurately categorised; it is about whether the category should exist at all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • When you chimed in on this CFD you said 'Upmerge per nominator' but nowhere in this nomination does he put together a rationale for upmerging. Tell me what it is? The population increasing? That one person was wrongly categorized? That it has something to do with Musicians in Maracopa County? That he thinks its a retirement community? Mike McCullough was playing golf out of Scottsdale for decades. Playing a pro golf tour is retirement then? Grace Park played the LPGA Tour too and was a resident from scottsdale at the same. Funny thing is, she's now retired from the pro golf tours and living in Korea....William 18:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sportspeople. Don't have an opinion on the rest....William 01:15, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question. Why? WP:NOTAVOTE, so please explain your reasoning based on categorisation guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Answer As I stated above, the nominator hasn't proposed a rationale for this CFD. The population increasing, That one person was wrongly categorized, That it has something to do with Musicians in Maracopa County which it isn't even Scottsdale or that That he thinks Scottsdale is a retirement community. None of those are reasons to merge....William 02:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That still doesn't explain why you distinguish the sportspeople from the others.
          And in any case, the nom has provided a rationale. You may not agree with it, or think it's invalid (and I think it's unhelpful that it includes so much irrelevant fluff), but it is there. Apart from pointing to other rationales on the same page, the nom points that Scottsdale is a suburb of Phoenix, which is a crucial point: what difference does it make to the career of an actor or sportsperson that they came from a particular suburb of Phoenix rather than from the city itself? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:51, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • The fact that it is a retirement community is not "irrelevant fluff". I have seen people put in Category:Actors from Detroit, Michigan, who acted from say 1960-1975, and first lived in Detroit in 1980. 5 years after they were actors. They should not be in Category:Actors from Detroit, Michigan if they were only "from Detroit" after they were actors. OK, that is really only relevant if removing all those people will get the category down below a given size. Still, do we want a category where most of the people would not have been so described when they were engaged in a given occupation?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per nominator. These are a set of irrelevant intersections, because in nearly all cases the professional achievements of these people is unrelated to the fact that they are from Scottsdale rather than (for example) in neighbouring Phoenix. Since that distinction is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic, we should not categorise as if it was defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Wikipedia:Categorization of people it says "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." This would indicate that in general we should not put people in categorize for a place just because they were born there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:56, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Evidently creating this CfD was one of the actions on my part that resulted in the creation of [[5]] as a result of which I have made comments related to categorization in that discussion. One that I think is most relevant here is the question, should we consider Category:Sportspeople from Scottsdale, Arizona to be a subcategory of Category:Sportspeople from Phoenix, Arizona. Having seen how Category:Actors from Cleveland, Ohio and its subcategories are actually used, it is clear that at least in the case of Cleveland, the occupation categories do not stop at the city limits. I do not see how we can realistically say that Phoenix stops at the city limits but Cleveland does not. Although I have come up with a better idea on some of these issues.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment After reading Wikipedia:Categorization of people#by place (I hope that link works, otherwise go to Cateogry:Categorization of people and scroll down to the by place section) it would seem to me that the directive is "do not categorize people by location and place" end of discussion. It seems to me to be suggesting that we should not have any intersection of place and occupation, that the intersection of occupation should only be with ationality. It says "Nationality is reflected by the occupation category (above), not country or county or city of residence." This is not how we are doing things. This may require a much larger discussion, I am not sure where or how. However, the specific issues with this category still stand, even if we allow place/occupation intersections in some cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request withdrawal (changing my !vote). Per my detailed request at CFD Sept 27: Actors from Beverly Hills, California, I ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination to allow a centralised discussion to reach a broad consensus.
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 27 September 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:Beauty Pageant hosts[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:12, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Beauty pageant hosts
  • Nominator's rationale This is a performer by performance category. People are not notable for hostoing beauty pageants. In general, people who have become noted for other things are brought in to host beauty pageants.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Contrary to the above, Bert Parks is notable for hosting beauty pageants. --Orlady (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But even Parks had lots of other occupations. John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I created this category so obviously I disagree with nominator's rationale or I wouldn't have wasted my time. "People are not notable for hosting beauty pageants... in general" is a contradictory comment, if it is "in general", and in general most who host pageants aren't primarily notable for that, then the nomination recognises that some are. As User:Orlady indicates with Bert Parks:

PAGEANT HOST, ACTOR PARKS DIES "Parks was best known as host of the Miss America pageant for 25 years" - Associated Press Obituary (syndicated)

"Bert Parks was one — he began as Saturday afternoon host in 1961 and remained with the program, off and on, for most of the '605. Parks was, at the time , best-known for hosting the Miss America pageant on television, but he also had an extensive radio career." - Dennis Hart Monitor 2003

What this source is telling us is that Parks was notable for the category under discussion and had a second fiddle in Category:American talk radio hosts. Now by the rationale of this nomination if a performer can't perform in 2 categories, then Category:American talk radio hosts should also be deleted since a lot of the bios in the category are 2nd or 3rd fiddle to other careers, such as TV hosts. Another is Bob Russell (television presenter) New York Times obituary "in 1955 when he began his 25-year-run as Mr. Miss America" or Eric Morley known equally for Miss World (which his wife owned) and as a character actor. It's probably primary notability internationally of Angela Chow also post the Morleys as face of the new sold-to-China Miss World competition, though she'd be notable in China for other things too; note that her Chinese show Good Morning China is a redlink. If this category is deleted then what about Category:Eurovision Song Contest presenters. Not a single one of these 89 bios is as notable for Eurovision as Bert Parks and Bob Russell were for Miss America, or the Morleys and Angela Chow for Miss World. Or Category:The X Factor (TV series) hosts Category:Idol (TV series) hosts Category:The Voice (TV series) hosts. In ictu oculi (talk) 03:38, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is the flaw of "other stuff exists". There are lots of categories that are in Wikipedia that really should not be. I would say that those you have identified should either be deleted or upmerged. We should not be categorizing by specific show hosted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:35, 30 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
My problem with that is that Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is an essay (i.e. a POV) which 8 times out of 10 cited serves to prove the exact opposite. In wikipedia, as per WP:AT title consistency "other stuff exists" is more often a valid than an invalid argument. Category:American talk radio hosts does exist, the existence of Category:American talk radio hosts does have longstanding consensus and the onus is on yourself as nominator to explain why Bert Parks, Bob Russell and Angela Chow cannot be categorized for the category they are most notable for (according to obituaries in the case of the 2 former, according to our article coverage in the case of the 3rd). A reply effectively saying "I do not have to justify consistency with established categories" is in my view not an acceptable answer to a fair question given the broader encyclopaedic issue of consistency at all levels. So if you say Category:American talk radio hosts should be deleted, then you should make a multi deletion proposal of both this category and that category, not just one. In ictu oculi (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:OC#PERF -- We do not allow performance by performer categorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As In ictu oculi has discussed, for some of the people with articles in this category, being a beauty pageant host was a major and long-time professional activity for which they are notable and that defines them. The fact that some of the other people in the category did this kind of assignment only once or twice should not prevent the category from existing. --Orlady (talk) 16:26, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the arguments already raised. As to keeping based on statements like best known as host of the, I find this seriously lacking as a reason to keep. While in some cases, it may be clear that a person is best know for something, in how many cases is this really defining? Frequently they get the hosting gig since they are notable. Also, I believe that in cases like Bert Parks, this happened at the end of a notable career and is best described at last know as the... Vegaswikian (talk) 23:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Bert Parks was host of Miss America for 25 years, starting at the age of 40. Outside of sports, age 40 is not generally considered the end of one's career. For most of those years, his name was very widely known in the U.S. -- and he was known as the Miss America host. His earlier work as a radio announcer (not a host, but an announcer) wouldn't be remembered by very many people. He also hosted some TV game shows (and is in Category:American game show hosts), but most of the game shows were short-lived and quickly forgotten. --Orlady (talk) 05:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – other wise; "People are not notable for being the president of the United States. In general, people who have become noted for other things are brought in to being the president of the United States" Christian75 (talk) 08:58, 10 October 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.

People from Modesto, California by occupation[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: result. Euryalus (talk) 23:14, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 27 September 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:Yorkshire Wolds Way[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:09, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? There was specific support in the old discussion to delete this trail category. Note that the list in the article includes places that are near to the trail. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A trail established in 1982 by government fiat is not a defining thing. This is not like the Oregon Trail or the Mormon Trail.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A list of villages along Yorkshire Wolds Way is useful for people planning to walk this footpath, but Wikipedia is not a travel guide, and being on the footpath does not appear to be a defining characteristic for the villages. --Orlady (talk) 18:18, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We should not have places on paths categories, as I have said on similar noms. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Orlady. Being on the footpath is not a defining characteristic for the villages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 2 October 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.

People by occupation from Bakersfield, California[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. Slightly more complex than some of the recent similar "People by foo" withdrawals because there was support for the upmerge from another editor. But the truncated discussion seemed otherwise heading for "keep" or "non consensus" so the outcome would have been the same (effectively, that the category is presently retained) except without prejudice against a renomination if appropriate post-RfC (or without RfC if no RfC proceeds). Euryalus (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly more complex that some of the similar "People by foo" withdrawals because there was support for the upmerge from another editor. But the truncated discussion seemed otherwise heading for "no consensus", so the outcome would have been the same (effectively, that the category is presently retained) but without prejudice against a renomination if appropriate post-RfC (or without RfC if no RfC proceeds).

  • Upmerge Category:Actors from Bakersfield, California to Category:People from Bakersfield, California (don't merge to Category:Actors from California, since so many are already in gender-specific sub-cats)
  • Upmerge Category:Musicians from Bakersfield, California to Category:People from Bakersfield, California and Category:Musicians from California
  • Upmerge Category:Sportspeople from Bakersfield, California to Category:People from Bakersfield, California (we can manually upmerge to Category:Sportspeople from California, but many are already in sport-specific sub-cats)
  • Upmerge Category:Writers from Bakersfield, California to Category:People from Bakersfield, California and Category:Writers from California
  • Nominator's rationale To begin with, this is largely a trivial intersection of place and occupation. Actors from Bakersfield are not cast differently, virtually all of these people are known for acting in other places, most are film and television actors, which means that their being from Bakersfield has nothing to do with their roles even if they appear in something filmed in Bakersfield, for example even if Diane Lane had grown up in Plano, Illinois (Which I don't think she did, but my point works), this would not be enough to make Category:Actors from Plano, Illinois a notable part of her background even though her role in Man of Steel (film) was mostly filmed in Plano, Illinois. Next, this leads to lots of small categories. Bakersfield overall if we combined all these, and assuming no overlap, would still end up with only abut 130 article in Category:People from Bakersfield, California. That is a small enough number that people can deal with it, so size alone does not compel division. I can see having Category:Musicians from Detroit, Michigan at least in theory because there is a clear idea that there is a set of forms of music (such as Motown) that come from Detroit, but I do not think we have Music of Bakerfield, California as an article. I think that also illustrates another problem with these categories. Is this for people from the city of Bakersfield, or do we put in anyone from Kern County, California on the argument that it is all the Bakersfield cultural zone, or do we use some complex time-space contour changing formula, so if someone born in 1880 in an outlying area who was raised there until they went to Hollywood to act would not show up, but someone born in 1980 in the same place who also did not start acting till they got to Hollywood would be in this category because we decide the place was Bakersfield in 1985 but not in 1885. On another note, I am not even sure how many of these people really belong. Too often articles list a place of birth, and then people categorize based on that. However, my older brother was born in Oakland, California, but he was raised in Macomb County, Michigan, so he clearly would not fit in Category:People from Oakland, California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per my comments at the below CFD. Note that these are also all the relatively recent creation of the same editor. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just to show how off some of the placements in this category are, Brandon Cruz was in 2 categories. As an actor who made his big break at age 5 in The Courtship of Eddie's Father where he was the title character, you would think where he is from might be notable. The problem is, his family moved out of Bakersfield when he was 2 months old. I am not even sure Liza Minnelli would be worth categorizing as an actor from a place that she was gone from at age 2 months, and she was very young when she appeared in In the Good Old Summertime, although in that case her role was so minor, that if she had died just after filming it she would not have an article, well, maybe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The issue here is not whether we should have any such categories. There are probably compelling arguments to have some, but I am not convinced such arguments work in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all. The number of people by occupation and place category has gotten right out of control, and needs a major purge. These categories are a particularly poor example, because Bakersfield is not a particularly big city: its population is only ~350,000, and it is only the 52nd-largets city in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Sixty seven sportspeople isn't sufficient enough for a category of its own?...William 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Reply. WilliamJE is confusing [[necessity and sufficiency.
        It is indeed plenty big enough not to raise any concerns under WP:SMALLCAT. However, there are many other factors in determining whether to keep a category, so merely big enough is a necessary condition, but not a sufficient condition.
        The problem in these cases is that these are a set of irrelevant intersections. In nearly all cases the achieved professional achievements of these people is unrelated to the fact that they are from Scottsdale rather than somewhere nearby. This applies to sportspeople as much as to the others, because a sportsperson can easily drive 30 miles to participate in a team somewhere other than where they live. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • BrownHairedGirlWe don't categorize Athletes as being from cities just because they play on that city's sports team. They are a sportspeople from somewhere then. Can't have it both ways....William 17:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Reply. I'm not trying to have anything both ways. I am just pointing out that occupation categories are an irrelevant intersection with very small areas, because the activity in question is not tied to that area. There is a significant difference between people pursuing an occupation when they live 1000 miles apart, which is why we sub-categorise occupations by country and by US state; there is not much inherent difference between folks who live 30 miles apart. They can get to the same places and can share the same local culture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Bakersfield is hardly a very small area. Its population is around 350,000. You support upmerging into Hartford Connecticut in another CFD. Hartford happens to be the state capitol. Let me point out again, Zumbrota MN population under 4,000 is good enough in your opinion for a people from category but Bakersfield at population 350,000 isn't good enough for a Sportspeople. If irrelevant intersection was applied, then Zumbrota would be folded into its county people category. Its a small intersection of a much larger picture.
            • Also "there is not much inherent difference between folks who live 30 miles apart. They can get to the same places and can share the same local culture." Japanese and Koreans, Palestinians and Israelis would beg to differ. In the United States, people on opposite sides of the Ohio River would have begged to differ 150 years ago....William 18:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • William, if you have evidence that there is a wall or international boundary around Bakersfield, please cite your source. Otherwise, please stop being silly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Can't explain JPL's nominating rationale or why you support it but call me silly instead. That says alot....William 18:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                  • William, I have done so already. Please read the first line of the nomination: "this is largely a trivial intersection of place and occupation". Then read my comments above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:53, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sportspeople, Upmerge rest. Sportspeople subcat big enough to be useful. Tewapack (talk) 21:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sportspeople. I haven't looked at the rest....William 00:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or delete all city based occupation cats. See my argument below as to the actors by city cats. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • So either we do not allow Category:Actors from New York City or we have to allow Category:Actors from Provo, Utah. That is not a good argument. This is a discussion of the merits of the specific category, not these categories in general. They works in some cases, they do not for Bakersfield.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, that seems to be your argument as well. How can you seriously argue that all of these smaller city cats violate the rules you state apply throughout this page, but somehow do not as to NYC or LA? Think about that. The absolute only reason would be SMALLCAT, which others on your team here like to say does not really apply as to the rationale for the nomination. As in, if we allow this at all, it has to be allowed for all, as long as it then meets SMALLCAT. Otherwise setting arbitrary rules as to which cities can and cannot have which is a serious problem. Aboutmovies (talk) 08:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Wikipedia:Categorization of people it says "The place of birth, although it may be significant from the perspective of local studies, is rarely defining from the perspective of an individual." This would indicate that in general we should not put people in categorize for a place just because they were born there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:01, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Request withdrawal (changing my !vote). Per my detailed request at CFD Sept 27: Actors from Beverly Hills, California, I ask the nominator to withdraw this nomination to allow a centralised discussion to reach a broad consensus.
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:00, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 27 September 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.

Actors by city in Connecticut[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. Slightly more complex than some of the recent similar "People by foo" withdrawals because there was support for the upmerge from another editor. But the truncated discussion seemed otherwise heading for "keep" or "non consensus" so the outcome would have been the same (effectively, that the category is presently retained) except without prejudice against a renomination if appropriate post-RfC (or without RfC if no RfC proceeds). Euryalus (talk) 23:29, 29 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge Category:Actors from Bridgeport, Connecticut to Category:People from Bridgeport, Connecticut and Category:Actors from Connecticut
  • Upmerge Category:Actors from Fairfield, Connecticut to Category:People from Fairfield, Connecticut and Category:Actors from Connecticut
  • Upmerge Category:Actors from Stamford, Connecticut to Category:Actors from Connecticut and Category:People from Stamford, Connecticut
  • Upmerge Category:Actors from Greenwich, Connecticut to Category:Actors from Connecticut and Category:People from Greenwich, Connecticut
  • Upmerge Category:Actors from Hartford, Connecticut to Category:Actors from Connecticut and Category:People from Hartford, Connecticut
  • Upmerge Category:Actresses from Hartford, Connecticut to Category:Actresses from Connecticut and Category:People from Hartford, Connecticut
  • Nominator's rationale This is really getting to be too fine a distinction, and basically seems to be in general the intersection of unrelated things. If the actors here were always notable for having performed in Hartford, Fairfield, Greenwich or Bridgeport, this intersection might work. However, in general these people acted in other locations. I am not 100% convinced the intersection of what state someone is from and acting is notable. However, that is an issue for a different time. The intersection of Greenwich and acting clearly is not. With those involved in television and film, it is not clear how influential the location on which they were shot matters. Henry Cavill and Amy Adams did not become Category:Actors from Illinois because much of Man of Steel (film) was shot in Illinois, and the actors in the transformers films did not become Category:Actors from Michigan because much of those films were shot in Detroit. Even with stage acting, the connection probably only works in some cases, not every actors who appears on Broadway should be in Category:Actors from New York City for example. On the other hand, if someone goes to New York City to appear on Broadway at age 17 and stays there for the next 20 years, they probably do belong in that category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per nom. This is category entropy at work, disintegrating categories into smaller and smaller fragments through the arbitrary intersection of unrelated facts. The "...from [place]" categories are broadly used for anyone who ever lived in that place, and so when they are intersected with occupation, it is mere coincidence as there is no necessary linkage between that place and the occupation they at some point engaged in. Note also that the creator of all these (all new within the past couple weeks) has created a lot more occupation/town categories and continues to create them; I've already had a conversation with him about his attempts to split the "[State] lawyers" categories (which are based on where they actually practiced) into "lawyers from [town]" (which just arbitrarily connects a place they lived with something they later did at some stage in their life). postdlf (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I love the expression "category entropy". Down this road lies madness. Yes, it looks like we are moving people from being in 2 categories, to being in 1. However, there are people who are legitimately from Greenwich and Hartford, and writers and actors (either screenwriters or novelists, or essayists or journalists or memoirists, or something else, fortunately no one has yet subdivided Category:Writers from Greenwich, Connecticut by what they wrote, but that may be the next step. For the record, I notified the creator of all these categories that we were holding this nomination. Back to my point, if someone is from more than one place, and does more than one thing, this type of category can lead to lots of clutter. I especially wonder about say Category:Actors from Palm Springs, California, since its actually content is closer to Category:Actors who retired to Palm Springs, California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:08, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge all per Postdlf. The number of people by occupation and place category has gotten right out of control, and needs a major purge. Dividing occupation categories into these tiny fragments impedes the use of categories for navigation, which per WP:CAT#Overview is their main purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all or delete all city based occupation cats. The question here is not about this specific state/city/occupation, but whether or not we should have city level occupation categories. Otherwise we are discriminating against cites based on what, size? As it is, there is no policy based argument against other cities having these. In the past, we generally have kept categories with at least 5 articles in them, and each of these passes that (not to mention the SMALLCAT argument has a caveat that it is also has no room to grow). The nominator misinterprets how we use these cats to diffuse, and not just at the city level. We have long used the state level cats to diffuse people based on their occupation, but not as to their occupation in a particular state. The fact is, these cats are "from" and not "of" cats (see the "chefs" by city cat which does use "of" for the alternative). As in Actors of New York City would be the odd inclusion criteria discussed by the nominator, and that is not what that cat is actually about. Thus, if someone is in the People from NYC cat, and they are an actor, then they get moved down to the actor specific category. Or writer, or artist, etc. There is no need to over think it, just look at the cat name. And per the CAT overview mentioned above "can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics". I think allowing people to browse by occupation helps people "quickly find" these, which is why they have been around for years (for the larger cities). So, wanting to get rid of the smaller cities is simply I don't like it at its finest. I could understand and support it for any cat with less than 10 articles in them, but outside of that, these pass the cat guidelines. Not to mention, does anyone think we are even half-way done with writing all the articles for notable people? I don't so the city level cats will continue to grow as we overcome the FUTON bias and more articles are written for older topics that meet the GNG or topic specific notability requirements. Aboutmovies (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. The nominator's rationale leaves much to be desired. A person who practices their profession mostly in one location, namely a sportsathlete who is a member of team, doesn't qualify for 'People from that location' unless they actually lived there. Are Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Mariano Rivera, or Mickey Mantle categorized as 'Sportspeople from the Bronx' because they played for the New York Yankees? No they aren't, nor are actors who worked on Broadway or Hollywood categorized as people from Manhattan or Hollywood. They are however allowed to be categorized from somewhere and that somewhere is where they were born and or raised or lived during their lives. We have actor categories from Connecticut. The nominator wants these folded back into that category but that only works if you're saying there isn't enough people for Actors from smaller localities than a state but he isn't. 'I am not 100% convinced the intersection of what state someone is from and acting is notable. However, that is an issue for a different time. The intersection of Greenwich and acting clearly is not'. If the intersection of Greenwich and acting isn't notable, the intersection of acting and Conecticut isn't either and the upmerging into Connecticut clearly violates the rationale of the upmerging in the first place because the same reason by the nominator to be used against 'Actors from Hartford' is valid for Actors from Connecticut. The nominator is arguing the reverse of Yankees and the Bronx I mention above. They can't be categorized as people from their work location because they don't live there but they can't be categorized as people from their living location because they don't work there. By that logic, most anyone isn't from anywhere because they don't live and work in the same location. The nominator's rationale is clearly lacking and the part about actors being categorized as actors from Illinois just because they filmed a movie there, doesn't apply here, and is actually rather silly in light of the logic being used for nominating these categories. He worked in Illinois, because all did there, but Connecticut he only lived there but didn't work....William 13:35, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I consider the occupation by state of origin categories to be a compromise, preferable to going down as narrow as individual towns intersected with occupation; I've always wanted to see the state/occupation categories deleted as well for all occupations that don't have an inherent nexus with a particular place (such as lawyers or politicians). It's otherwise arbitrary to intersect place of origin with occupation, and so occupation and "people from Foo" should be separate categorizations except where the location largely defines the practice of the occupation. I tried a "sportspeople in" category as a container for members of teams based in a particular place, and you !voted to delete it. postdlf (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"narrow as individual towns intersected with occupation". Do you understand that Hartford is the state capital? That Bridgeport is nearly 150,000 people. They aren't towns but cities. A state capital and one of the biggest cities in a region can't have occupation categories? Then you might as well argue no city can of any size.
Another thing- The nominator of this CFD started uncategorizing people such as Mike McCullough, Billy Mayfair, Mina Harigae. He didn't just remove the sportspeople category from, but uncategorized them totally as being from Scottsdale, Mesa, or Arizona, even though those are the places these people live in. To quote his McCullough edit 'Not from Arizona enough to be put in that states's golfers cat. His PGATour web profile gives his residence as Scottsdale Arizona. He's been living in Scottsdale Arizona for at least 34 years[6] but he is not from Arizona enough according to the nominator. The nominator wants to strip the state categories also of people who live in the state or even town. These CFDs are flawed because the nominator's flawed rationale and recent edits that are troublesome....William 16:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree with his outright removals and I and others have already raised the issue during CFDs. postdlf (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If these nominations are withdrawn, I undertake to open an RFC on the issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:58, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw so we can go to RFC It appears that there is a major issue here that we have no clear idea how to move forards on. There are lots and lots of issues involved here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- It seems to me that these are well enough populated to keep, but we need to avoid very small occupational categories for places. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 28 September 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:Pokémon trainers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is currently redundant after the reduction of character articles. TTN (talk) 16:34, 24 September 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:George Gershwin[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; users seem fine for there to be discussion regarding whether all the current contents are appropriately categorized in it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:19, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are 2 sub-cats and 7 articles, of which most are closely-linked. That's plenty for a category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:28, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per BHG. Oculi (talk) 10:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This category is being misused. We should not be categorizing people by who their sibblings were. The classic problem with this is it leads to category clutter. Generally we should not put other people in eponymous categories, something is definitely wrong when two people both get put in the category for the other. The sub-cats work, but this parent cat is not the way to go, putting someone who is notable as a singer in a category for her brother. What next, will we put Liza Minnelli in Category:Judy Garland and put Judy Garland in Category:Liza Minnelli. And if we do that, we will put Vincent Minnelli in both of them. WIll it stop there. Will we put Ben Affleck in Category:Jennifer Garner, but since Bennifer was at least originally the pairing of Affleck and Lopez, do we also put Affleck in Category:Jennifer Lopez. Or since Minelli is in a category for one of his wives, should he be in categories for his other wives, do we put Elizabeth Taylor or the Gabor sisters in categories for all of their husbands? If we allow this category which is cluttered by sibblings whose notability is not dependent on George to stand, what other categories will we have. Does Jeb Bush go in Category:George W. Bush?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Besides his three sibblings, who really if we want to group them like this should be placed with the article on George in an article Gershwin family, we have an article about a theatre named after George and Ira, that they seem to have no connection with, an award named after Gerschwin, and an asteroid named after Gerschwin. This would be like if in Category:George Washington we put article on Washington State, and Washington Township, Macomb County, Michigan, and the articles on all 30 or so townships in Ohio named Washington, and on and on. We should not be categorizing things by shared origin of their name. That is what their category is, except when it is what really should be a family cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for reasons given by BHG. JPL has some legitimate concerns about scope, but those concerns do not justify deleting the category. --Orlady (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except if we deleted all those things I have identified as not belonging, we would have one article in the category. Also, the fact that it has been so massively misused suggests it is not well named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per convention of Category:Philip Glass, Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, Category:Duke Ellington, &c. I know that's an OTHERSTUFF argument, but these composers came to mind first and have categories. Sure, the category needs cleaning up, but I don't think deletion is the solution. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but Purge -- The category is being used for family members and things named after him. This leaves us with a main article, a category for one album, and a category for his compositions. HOwever, I almost wonder whether it might not be better to merge the sub-cats here and have a single category: there is not enough for a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response You cannot merge the categories per WP:SMALLCAT: they are part of established schemes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:32, 28 September 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:Fitz and The Tantrums[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 2013 OCT 10 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:17, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content--subcats can be interlinked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as the most elegant way of interlinking its 3 subcats. Oculi (talk) 11:00, 24 September 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:WDL error[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. To tell you the truth, I can't make heads or tails of this and I can't tell if the issue discussed has been fixed yet or not. Feel free to nominate again. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We have several users on the talk page requesting this page be a red links so errors with this template are readily visible, and yet the page exists. The explanation provided is useful and the category would be baffling without it. Should there be a page here or not? Ego White Tray (talk) 03:11, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep until {{WDL}} and {{WDLtot}} are modified to show an error when the total does not equal the sum of WDL. why would you remove a tracking category before the problem is fixed? cart goes after the horse. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would accept that as an option is someone changes the template by the end of this discussion. If the editors that care about this problem don't have the time to edit the template, then we don't need the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally see the category as useful, provided that the template documentation explicitly says that errors go in this category. (I'll make that edit now) However, my nomination is mostly procedural, and I myself don't wish to place a vote on it, not being knowledgable enough. Ego White Tray (talk) 02:44, 25 September 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:Biathlon venues[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles currently in this category are about places (e.g. villages, military camp) where a biathlon event has taken place - that does not make biathlon a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the place. DexDor (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When towns show up in a venues category we are clearly using it incorrectly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:36, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- If used for towns, it is a misuse of the category (the town being a "performer"). It used for venues, it would have to be for thoise dedicated or aminly used for this sport, and I doubt there are any. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 28 September 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:Cities and towns on State highway 115[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:06, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being on a particular road is not normally considered to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a place and this form of categorization could lead to horrendous category clutter. For info: the category creator appears not to understand the difference between a category and a list. DexDor (talk) 02:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The state highway in question also doesn't even have its own article, but is just listed in a table at Highways of Tamil Nadu. If it ever does merit a standalone article, that's the place to list what communities it runs through. postdlf (talk) 16:38, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Being on a particular highway is not a defining characteristic of a town. Imagine the category clutter Los Angeles would have if it was.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:49, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is in the nature of a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 28 September 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:Women & the Silk Road[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the two articles currently in this category the Silk Road is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic and they are in plenty of other categories (e.g. Category:Women leaders of China). For info: The edit summary when this category was created was "New category, based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_and_the_Silk_Road -- which is pending deletion". DexDor (talk) 02:27, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We could in theory add Katarina Vilioni to this category. Except, I am not sure she is really notable enough to have an article. We know virtually nothing about her, and the article itself seems to be using her existence as a coatrack to hang a larger discussion of Italians in Medieval China on.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:37, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created this category. I did so because I saw a page of the same title being nominated for deletion. I assume it was deleted. The theme of the deletion was that there was no definitive way to cover the topic. I thought the author put good work into it, and I thought it was interesting. I disagree with DexDor that Category:Women leaders of China is the same. Women of the silk road is not getting in anyone's way, could be expanded with time, and is an interesting way for readers to associate women. I have zero vested interest in this, but this category as it is is more useful than it is a liability. BTW when I originally set this up, there were 3 women, as I recall. Dunno why it's down to 2 now. Wxidea (talk) 02:50, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Creating categories is not the way to preserve articles from deletion. The way to do that is to gather more sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per JPL. OR essay masquerading as category, and even if the topic was notable it still would not be appropriate to categorize that association in this manner. postdlf (talk) 16:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is essentially an article in category space. If the (potential) main article has bene deleted, it is all the more reason to get rid of this. I am deliberately not voting to convert it to an article, as it is not worth having as that either. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 28 September 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:Mexican super hero films: Mil Mascaras, El Santo, Demonio Azul[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 17:22, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Badly named and unnecessary category which currently contains articles about a variety of subjects (e.g. people and a type of film). DexDor (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between "Lucha films" & super hero films: 1st Lucha films indicate wrestling or fighting to win a bout. On the other hand, super hero films are films about heroes who protect & serve, such as in the Mexican film "Enigma de muerte" Mil Mascaras fights the evil Nazi played by John Carradine; I don't mean that Carradine is wearing tights & is bare-chested, like a wrestler, Carradine is playing the part of a Nazi who wants to take over the government. How does that relate to a "Lucha films"? Answer: It does not. Lucha films are about wrestling, not about saving a country or a beautiful woman as in the case with the "Blue Demon." Here, there is a werewolf who is murdering beautiful women such as Altia Michel The Blue Demon kills the werewolf to protect other females. 2nd: Super hero films were made during an era in Mexico when the Regent of Mexico City was attempting to "clean up" or moralize films. The Regent would not allow films to be shown in cinemas in Mexico City that were objectionable, immoral, or displayed sexual content. The reason I feel it is necessary to differentiate between Lucha films & super hero films is because Mexican culture HAS HEROES & American culture has heores, such as Iron Man, Wonder Woman, Green Lantern & so on, & Americans have wrestlers like Gorgeous George, & others, Americans are able to distinguish between wrestlers & super heroes, why then can't Mexicans have the same privilege? Chaos4tu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:20, 24 September 2013 (UTC) FYI The film producer Luis Enrique Vergara created Mil Mascaras as a character only for the movies & as a super hero. The person who was chosen for the part, Aaron Rodriguez was NOT a wrestler, he was a martial arts enthusiast who turned wrestler after the death of Luis Enrique Vergara. Chaos4tu (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:33, 24 September 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_September_24&oldid=1197940593"