The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Speedy delete as empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Inexperienced user created a category instead of article. I have copied the text to an article. Cuddy Wifter (talk) 23:22, 28 February 2009 (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: Delete We already have the category Ufologist and I feel this is redundant and that the term "researcher" validates the activities of those tagged in some way, thus violating NPOV. Verbalchat 16:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You already have what category? Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What strange timing - I had just added 2 articles to this category, and was planning to nominate it for possible merging, but took a short break and... Voila! It turns up on this page... Kinda spooky, wouldn't you say?? :) Well, as I was saying, Merge to Category:Abduction phenomenon; all 3 articles are already included in the other parent, Category:Ufologists. I have no real problem with the term "researcher" as such, but it is small, narrow, and redundant. Cgingold (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - to Category:Alien abduction researchers. While I find the notion of alien abduction nonsensical, these people do research the phenomenon and it does not make them any more or less "legitimate" to categorize them as such. The name should be changed because abduction is ambiguous. Otto4711 (talk) 22:39, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, if kept it certainly needs to be renamed as suggested. But you didn't address the issue of redundancy, etc. -- I could possibly be persuaded. Btw, there are also two other related cats that need to be renamed in the same way. I was planning to raise this issue first at the main article, which itself was recently renamed to Alien abduction but should probably be called "Alien abduction phenomenon", imo. However, I suppose Category:Abduction claims should be taken to CFD without further delay. (Done.) Cgingold (talk) 00:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that the categories are redundant. All adbuction researchers may be ufologists but not all ufologists are abduction researchers. A reader interested specifically in abduction researchers shouldn't have to search through all of the ufologist articles to find them. Otto4711 (talk) 01:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
After further reflection -- in light of the fact that Category:Ufologists has 86 articles in it, which do completely swamp this small sub-set -- I am switching to Keep and Rename to Category:Alien abduction researchers. I have made the same argument myself on other occasions, and I'm glad to see Otto endorsing this rationale. (I just hope that my change of heart doesn't cause him to reconsider his position.) Cgingold (talk) 02:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I never change my mind after getting someone to acknowledge my correctness. Otto4711 (talk) 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this has nothing to do with Stockholm Syndrome, PTSD, etc researchers. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 03:55, 2 March 2009 (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:Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom: Bangladeshis are a large immigrant community in UK, so it is a desirable category. There is long precedent for this form. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:57, 3 March 2009 (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: DeleteWP:OCAT by shared surname, with no evidence given that any of these Barlows are actually related to each other. Bearcat (talk) 10:19, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, award poor marks for diligence in gathering together just 5 Barlows, and listify if necessary at the much more impressive Barlow (surname), not to mention John Barlow (disambiguation) which has 9 blue-linked Barlows. Occuli (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete as Occuli. This is the best means of bringing together all those of the same surname, soemthing that is really only needed for disambiguation purposes. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:00, 3 March 2009 (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 20:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: DeleteMostly overlapping categories. All of this information already exists as a list. If this is incomplete, please include all of the nominated categories included. TM 03:07, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the UK scheme is in my opinion an examplary demonstration of the synergy between lists (all MPs of a particular parliament) and categories (MPs with articles). I see no reason why it should not be carried over to Ghanaian MPs, who seem to be elected in a roughly comparable system. (I take it that a Ghanaian MP is just as notable as a UK one, although many articles are at present missing.) Occuli (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have absolutely no problem with all Ghanaian MPs having articles and I've even started several myself. Can you explain to me why the same information (MPS in a given parliament) needs to be in two different places? I'd be in favor of deleting the UK version as well.--TM 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the UK argument, & no doubt other similar cats. Johnbod (talk) 17:24, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the precedent for the UK and others. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/listify as no strong arguments have been presented for the keeping the UK equivalents and they violate WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. Tim! (talk) 17:42, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then Delete. This is what is apparently happening for the UK categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When they are complete. These Ghanaian ones are in early infancy. Occuli (talk) 15:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Vegaswikian wants the UK equivalents to be listified, but it is simply untrue to say "that this is what is apparently happening for the UK categories". The CFD which Vegaswikian opened relates only to one such category out of 54, and it has not yet been closed. I see no consensus to listify and delete even the one category which has been nominated, let alone the other 53 which have not even been nominated. I think it's very poor conduct to say that "this is what is apparently happening" when the CFD referred to has not been closed and when most participants oppose Vegaswikian's view. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:14, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As I read that discussion, several UK categories were already listified and since this is a major effort it will take time to do all of the categories. Is that not what was written in the other discussion? Vegaswikian1 (talk) 04:20, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct that lists are being constructed, and that this will take time. It was not correct for you to say that "listify and delete" has been agreed for those categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that categories are a better tool to get the missing articles created? Clearly this is a place where the list excels. Vegaswikian1 (talk) 04:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Per the UK discussion, categories are a very useful tool in building the lists, and in ensuring that the lists link to the right person. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These categories are a well-designed and workable tool in navigating the still-scanty coverage of the Ghanain Parliament. Per Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping. Instead, each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods" ... and "these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:21, 7 March 2009 (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.
Discussion moved to speedy as a mere typo issue. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Speedy rename to "Religious sees in Canada". --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:06, 28 February 2009 (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:Actor-athletes merge to Category:Sportspeople turned actors[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. While the consensus was to delete both, the latter one was not tagged. I have nominated Category:Sportspeople turned actors for deletion based on this discussion, so if the consensus remains, that can be deleted. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: it is not a long list so there is no need to limit it to those notable for play a sport and not for being notable for having coached, managed, or officiated one. All were notably involved in sport first and then politics (none were notable politicians first) 'Athlete' is problematic outside a Canadian-American context. Mayumashu (talk) 00:59, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as a trivial intersection of two professions. Many people have more than one profession over the course of a lifetime. Listify if desired. Otto4711 (talk) 05:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Which should also go. Otto4711 (talk) 22:35, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto as overcategorization on the basis of a trivial intersection. People who were both actors and sportspeople should simply be categorized in both category trees rather than in an intersection category. There seems to be no need to upmerge in this case, as all of the articles seem to be otherwise appropriately categorized. –Black Falcon(Talk) 05:22, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, merge as nom, but I am not sure we need it at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:01, 3 March 2009 (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.
