The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: this category page collects all things Aromanian, not just people but language, culture, etc. Mayumashu (talk) 19:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support seems a logical solution, though I have to admit that I had not heard of this ethnic group. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I understand and agree that the current title is less than perfect, but the singular is even more unclear. Is there any precedent for how we name categories for ethnic groups? Alansohn (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom; this is how it is usually done - see for example Category:African American (and why is there no redirect from the hyphen-ed version?) Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would support 'topics' as well Mayumashu (talk) 02:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. Kbdank71 17:04, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Comics websites" makes no grammatical sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrMarmite (talk • contribs) 19:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The names for these categories is consistent with books, magazines and documentaries about comics. While the previous consensus is probably too narrow to be binding in any way, the result is both reasonable and recent enough to justify maintaining consistency with other categories within the same comics structure, even if this is in conflict with the websites structure. Alansohn (talk) 23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the problem with the rename is that it would then suddenly include all websites which include comics. This category is specifically only for those websites which are about comics. - jc37 07:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 16:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an overcategorization deprecated here. I also have doubts over reliable sourcing of its entries and also that we do not do this, as far as I can tell, for any other musical artist, however influential. And I don't think we should do so. Rodhullandemu 14:20, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per rationale. Should every bio page have categories of all the musicians of which it is claimed they are a fan? MrMarmite (talk) 14:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, simply because no other musical artist has such a page does not prevent us starting one for Morrissey. And I can find sources for several of the featured people that have claimed to be Morrissey fans. (Midnightblueowl (talk) 14:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
Clear Delete per nom -- the only fans that should have a category are the kind that blow air! Perhaps we should add a line or phrase to WP:OCAT on the specific issue of fan categories, since this seems to come up from time to time. Cgingold (talk) 15:06, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a defining characteristic, also categorization by opinion. Otto4711 (talk) 15:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unless their main claim to fame is being fans, I don't see the use of such a category. Dimadick (talk) 16:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per deleters. Johnbod (talk) 16:21, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, completely trivial category. Just because you can source a fact doesn't mean you get to create a category around it, not to mention that an individual's favorite musicians, without more, won't even merit a mention in their article. Postdlf (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a rather narrow category that hardly seems defining. Alansohn (talk) 23:13, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 16:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The articles in this category are not commonly defined as "baby boomer toys" (particularly as their popularity is mostly cyclical), and seem to have been grouped based on personal recollection/original research of what toys were popular with baby boomers, rather than a grouping of all toys released during this period. There are already categories for toys by year of release, so in my humble opinion, this category has little encyclopedic value. Somno (talk) 13:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, just like the template, this category is purely OR and has little useful value in grouping like items nor navigation. Its purely based on a single editors memories and personal opinions of what "baby boomer toys" are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk·contribs) 14:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Ugh - something needs to be done with this category but I don't have the expertise to figure out precisely what. Currently it's capturing everything from competitions which apparently have some official affiliation with organizations which may or may not be actual governing bodies (such as PACE) to TV game shows that have a "quizbowl-like" format but may have no other affiliation with the sport/competition to international competitions which do not appear to have anything at all to do with "quizbowl". I'm at a loss as to what combination of actions may be needed to establish some kind of organizational structure. Otto4711 (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Quizzes for students , with a tv sub-cat carved out, might be the way to go. America & India seem to be the hot-beds, so could have national sub-cats. Johnbod (talk) 16:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How aboutCategory:School and University quiz shows. Quizbowl is I assume a US brand for this. Some one will need to go through and weed the category (i.e. recategorise) of any that do not quite fit this name. In Britain there have been some on radio; others on TV. University Challenge is (I think) the only one currently running here. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In fact most of these are not broadcast in any media. Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Consider Rename I know what this category is intending to capture, but I agree with the nominator that I'm not sure that the current title is appropriate. I don't know if Quizbowl is trademarked or operated in any central structure, but even if this is the right title for an article I don't think it should be the category title. Nothing hits me as "the" correct title, but variants of the ones proposed such as Category:Quiz shows for students, Category:Student quiz shows, Category:Student quiz shows and competitions might be more generically appropriate for a category. I offer this as a toss up for 10 points, and ask the judges to consider if these answers are correct. Alansohn (talk) 15:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To repeat, most of these are not "shows" on tv or radio at all. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. Kbdank71 17:03, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge - small category with, based on the apparent absence of non-nationality categorized Asian journalists, shows unclear growth potential. Not part of a "television journalists by continent" structure and I don't believe that such a structure is necessary. Otto4711 (talk) 05:53, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - (I assume you meant to say "presence" rather than "absence"). I saw this category a while back, and while it is perhaps somewhat odd, I decided to leave it alone, since that seemed better than dumping the two articles back into the parent cat. It also occurs to me that this category can serve as a parent for the half dozen sub-cats for Asian nationalities. (Btw, I was happy to see that you finished the job that I started on when I set up Category:Television journalists by nationality.) Cgingold (talk) 13:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I meant absence. A cursory look through the parent cat doesn't indicate that there are additional articles for Asian journalists who aren't already in one of the Journalists by nationality subcats. Since it appears all the Asian journalist articles except these two are already in a by nationality structure and since I don't see the need to set up additional "by continent" categories (don't we usually restrict those to geographic features?) I don't see much utility in he category. Better would be to find sourcing for the two journalists currently in it that establishes their nationality and recategorize them there. Otto4711 (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see -- absence from the parent cat. Thanks for clarifying -- I had trouble parsing your sentence. Cgingold (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- As I come to this there is one person in the category Bernard Lo, educated in America; has worked in Hing Kong and now working for Bloomberg TV Asia, but it does not say where. Any one (like him) in this category should be assigned to some appropriate national category, and the category then removed. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge It's unclear if this is meant to include television journalists in Asia regardless of ethnicity or television journalists of Asian ancestry regardless of location (a la "Asian Reporter Tricia Takanawa" of Family Guy). Either way, the category seems a bit narrow with only one entry and an upmerge seems appropriate, regardless of the answer to my question, unless anyone can explain what entries should be populating this category. Alansohn (talk) 15:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete, precedent seems valid, and per discussion, there does not appear to be more than (at this count) three people who this would be defining for. Kbdank71 17:02, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Spell out the initials and don't capitalize the common noun. Stepheng3 (talk) 04:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - similar to the many categories that have been deleted for people by television network and the categories for sports by TV network which were deleted for improperly categorizing people by network affiliation. That this is a print outlet makes it no different from being a television network. And yes, I am aware that there is a structure for people by journalistic outlet. That structure should also be examined and most or all of it dismantled. Otto4711 (talk) 05:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Expand abbreviation per nom, if retained. No view on retention, but if not retained it should be upmerged to perhpas to Journalists. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The precedent from people by network comes off as a rather poor decision and a rather poor indicator for this catgeory. That Walter Cronkite is grouped here as well as in Category:Dutch Americans, Category:American bloggers, Category:Amateur radio people and Category:Space advocacy, but not by the CBS network he was definingly associated with for decades seems to make a mockery of what the purpose is for categorization. The far more relevant issue is WP:OC#Small. There are only six articles in the category and not many more then Helen Thomas and Martin Walker (reporter) really belong here as their UPI employment being defining. Given that the category appears unlikely to grow, and disregarding any perceived precedent, the category should probably be deleted. Alansohn (talk) 22:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Just because Cronkite isn't in the CBS category doesn't mean he doesn't belong there. Also there are more UPI reporters than are in the category, they just have not all been added. At the time that I made it I ran out of time to add all the ones I could find and I was hoping other editors would contribute as well. Also news organizations, such as UPI, are constantly getting new reporters so the category can and will expand. I do support the rename, my original naming was a bad one. Macfan14 (talk) 18:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm willing to be convinced that this category is viable. Are there many more reporters who have a defining connection to UPI? If there are, I am more than willing to reconsider. As of now, the category is rather small. Alansohn (talk) 05:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 16:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename to expand the abbreviation and follow the pattern of Category:Assassinated United States Presidents. However, I'm not sure whether it makes sense to capitalize president here. Stepheng3 (talk) 04:31, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with, knock wood, no immediate chance of expansion. There is no office-holders who died in office structure outside this category and I'm uncertain of the need for one. I think we could stretch a small point and list the four presidents who died of non-assassinated causes in the assassinated category as text, e.g. "an additional four presidents died of natural causes:...". Otto4711 (talk) 06:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. The assassinated ones should be a sub-cat of this, which would only leave 3 here. If kept Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 16:39, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Kbdank71 16:49, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An article created in Category space, with only one member. The scope is unclear. Stepheng3 (talk) 03:32, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no clear scope is established for the category, inclusion criteria would probably be impossible without running afoul of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Category:Chartism already exists to capture material related to that political movement. Otto4711 (talk) 03:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unclear scope and POV to boot. --Rodhullandemu 16:41, 31 October 2008 (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.
Relisted on 2008 NOV 10. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2008 (UTC)