Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 June 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 29 July 1 >

June 30[edit]

Action film series[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:24, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Airport film series (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:A Better Tomorrow (film series) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Fantastic Four films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Indiane Jones films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jack Ryan films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Lone Ranger films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Mad Max films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:The Punisher films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rambo films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:RoboCop films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Rush Hour films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Transformers films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - small categories, the vast majority of which have no likelihood of expansion, with one or two that may get another entry if the studio should decide to squeeze another sequel out of a dying franchise. Film series articles tend to be strongly interlinked and many of these have navtemplates as well. Per a number of recent CFDs, if the category for the film series is unlikely to ever contain much of anything other than the articles on the films along with maybe an article on the series itself, no need for the category. Otto4711 (talk) 23:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- J Greb (talk) 15:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Checking three of the categories more or less randomly, the contents of my sample (Airport, Jack Ryan, Rambo) were all in at least one of the categories from your list, so the nominated cats are neither reducing categories on the articles nor diffusing the parents. Category:Action films has nine articles along with various sub-genre and chronological subcats. I don't think it's crystal-balling to assert that most of the film franchises nominated are dead (last Airport film 1979, last RoboCop film 1993, etc.) and for those who still have some life in them, the categories are still small with exceedingly slow growth potential (last Jack Ryan film 2002, next film is in development with a tentative release date of 2011). If there's a sudden rush of such films so that the franchises begin resembling, say, Category:James Bond films then re-creation is not off the table. Recent similar CFDs found here, here (one even Alansohn found unnecessary!), several here. There are more scattered back through CFD history but sadly our resident CFD historian hasn't collected them. Otto4711 (talk) 16:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any inference about your position on the general matter is your own. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this is a bad group nomination that looks more or less thrown together indescriminantly. little possibility of expansion certainly does not apply to all of them. There are a lot of Jack Ryan novels on which to base movies on. And any comic book that's been around for 40+ years has alot of material usable for exploitation into movies. As there's a Transformers film in theatres right now that is doing boffo box office, that hardly seems to characterize that franchise either. A proper argument for deletion should be appropriately presented for the appropriate categories. 76.66.193.20 (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That there is possible source material for a particular franchise does not mean that there will be any additional films made within that franchise, and assumptions along these lines are not justified per WP:CRYSTAL. The choice of categories to nominate was not indiscriminate but were instead based on a review of all of the categories within the action film series parent cat which IMHO are in the same vein as the many other film and film series categories deleted both recently and over the last several months to few years. Otto4711 (talk) 04:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That your argument is not based on WP:CBALL, but on the likelihood of more movies, and the fact that the franchises are dying shows that it is indiscriminantly thrown together. If you put together a proper argument for deletion, instead of a bad one, I would probably not oppose. 70.29.208.69 (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that I already explained that I reviewed all of the sub-categories in the parent and nominated those that match up with other similar and deleted categories, so your continued insistence on something that is not accurate or true is odd. Otto4711 (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator, even after seeing all the counterarguments. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some additional recent CFDs for film series here. Otto4711 (talk) 05:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • More here. Otto4711 (talk) 05:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and precedents; there are tons of these that have been done. Once I closed one of these as delete and an editor was upset because I had once nominated a category for a film series for deletion (xXx "series", which had two articles in it), so since I'm apparently tainted as a closer in this area I may as well vote along with how the consensus has gone. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These correctly group their contents, as per episode categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If an episodes category is small with little or no likelihood of expansion then we delete it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per discussion. In many cases, the navigation templates do a much better job by allowing navigation through all of the related articles and not just the films. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, none of those have more than 4-5 films, and most are not active series. That really is not enough films to justify it having its own category and, as Vegaswikian notes, they have (or should have) appropriate navigation templates for covering the navigation between related articles. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:02, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "small categories" argument; deletion will not be a detriment to the articles since they are already, as others have pointed out, very much interlinked through other venues. —Erik (talk • contrib) 03:38, 12 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per discussion. LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 20:40, 12 July 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:Major League Baseball players on the 2003 positive steroid test list[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy delete (had been emptied by time of close). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Major League Baseball players on the 2003 positive steroid test list (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category is based on an unattributed source that clearly states its content is "rumored" and "unconfirmed".  StarScream1007  ►Talk  21:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 21:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there anything stronger than Strong Support? This needs to be deleted speedily. Mlaffs (talk) 21:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support per nom, and more if possible per Mlaffs. -Dewelar (talk) 22:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as WP:BLP violation. Looks like it's already been emptied out, thankfully. Bearcat (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible support for deletion. The above votes have said enough. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Support for Speedy deletion for all the above reasons. Creator should be given a warning as well. Spanneraol (talk) 02:14, 1 July 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:Junior footballers[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. the wub "?!" 13:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Junior footballers to Category:Scottish Junior Football Association players
Nominator's rationale: Per discussion at WP:FOOTY. "Junior footballers" is imprecise, as outside Scotland that usually means young players who are not yet ready for first team football. Junior football has a different meaning in Scotland, as it operates in parallel to "senior" football (Scottish Premier League, etc). Players of all ages play in Scottish "junior" football. Therefore I believe that SJFA players is a more appropriate name for the category, which is worthwhile as it records participation in a notable competitive structure. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in order to clarify the category's purpose. пﮟოьεԻ 57 20:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per nominator. --Carioca (talk) 21:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename for consistency wth the governing body name. But would a career solely in the Juniors be sufficient for notability though? These players' notability is generally by virtue of prior or subsequent senior career (or in examples like Paul McGrillen some switches between). AllyD (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wouldn't be, as the Junior leagues aren't fully professional by any stretch of the imagination. It's additional information, i.e. "these notable player also played in the SJFA competitions". For instance, we have categories of players with clubs in the Highland League, eg, Category:Inverness Thistle F.C. players, or the various categories for players in the semi-professional leagues in Northern Ireland. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 06:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, I started the category for players who have played in fully professional leagues at some point in their career (thus allowing them to have Wiki articles, but have delved into the juniors at some point) Salty1984 (talk) 14:33, 6 July 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.

Indian Army[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 all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 21:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There was only one Indian Army during the World Wars. Its name was the Indian Army, not the British Indian Army. There has never been an organisation called the British Indian Army. We use Category:British Indian Army personnel to differentiate between pre- and post-independence personnel, but that is unnecessary in these categories. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Renames to more accurately reflect content of categories. Alansohn (talk) 16:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- That would break up the naming scheme. Why have the others Category:British Indian Army soldiers, Category:British Indian Army killed in action, Category:British Indian Army officers, etc? The main category above is Category:Military of British India, where even more "British Indian Army ..." are found, so seems pedantic to partially rename them here without more comprehensive review.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 05:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not really. Where the "British" prefix is needed for disambiguation that's fine. Where it isn't, as here, then what's the need for it? "British Indian Army" is not a name that was used, so why artificially add it? The article itself has thankfully dispensed with it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – the article is at Indian Army (1895–1947) so '(1895–1947)' could be added where clarification is needed (which it isn't in the nominated categories, assuming the dates of WWI and WWII are thought to be 'given'). 'British Indian Army personnel' is also ambiguous. (Category:British Indian Army killed in action is, apparently, a subcat of both Category:British military personnel killed in action and Category:Indian military personnel killed in action. Perhaps those not of joint nationalilty were immune.) Occuli (talk) 11:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (1) The Indian army consisted of Indian other ranks and British officers (2) there was another Inidan army in WWII, a corps in Japanese pay recruited from prisoners. My father (an Englishman) served in the Indian army during WWII. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed, but both officers and other ranks were members of the Indian Army - the officers did not belong to a separate organisation (many people seem to believe they were in the British Army - they were not, although many had initially been commissioned into the British Army before transferring to the Indian Army). There was indeed an Indian National Army, but it was not the Indian Army and was not called the Indian Army - even the post-independence Indian government refused to acknowledge its legitimacy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still think we need a disambiguator, either British or (1895–1947) for the WWII categories as although the post-independence Indian Army wasn't formed until after WWII, many senior Indian Army officer did serve in WWII. Also, given the confusion which would appear to exist over the cats this is useful to retain.Kernel Saunters (talk) 15:53, 6 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see the problem. They served with the Indian Army (the only one) before 1947 and continued to serve with the Indian Army (the only one) after 1947. It was the same organisation, just "under different management" as it were. The regiments retained their names and histories. There was no disbandment and reformation. The addition of a disambiguator is wholly unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 07:47, 7 July 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:Writers by award[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. the wub "?!" 13:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Writers by award to Category:Writing award winners
Nominator's rationale: Other similar categories in Category:Award winners follow the "FOO award winners" model: there's Art award winners, Architecture award winners, Film award winners, Theatre award winners, etc. I believe this category ought to follow the same model. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – this is a subcat scheme for Category:Writers. (Are all the subcats for winners only? Some are named 'recipients'. In any case it's enough for the subcat to include 'winners' in its name as the category 'Writers by award' does not appear on any articles.) Occuli (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep much clearer in the present wording. Perhaps we should revisit some of the FOO award winners categories, for the same reason. DGG (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The name "Writers by award" describes this category's contents better than "Writing award winners", since no writers are members of this category, only other categories of writers with awards. Debresser (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The current title more effectively describes the content of the category. Alansohn (talk) 21:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Journalism award winners is not a subcat scheme, but is a category with subcats and unsubcatted articles; and is thus not relevant to us here. Occuli (talk) 11:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proof by assertion is not a good argument. Category:Journalism award winners is indeed a "subcat scheme" of Category:Journalists, parallel to all others in Category:Writers and Category:Writers by genre. It is not a distinguished subcategory, and is not labeled as such. The fact that there are some dangling articles (not yet sorted in into separate award subcategories) merely means more work needs to be done. Similar to all other subcategories in this parent.... As I mentioned, CfD is certainly a place where a revised scheme of naming can be proposed, but this is not the appropriate method (bottom up, instead of top down).
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:37, 4 July 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:Slavic nations[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. Tiptoety talk 03:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Slavic nations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or merge. Essentially duplicates Category:Slavic countries. Indeed, that's the only line in its description:

See also Category:Slavic countries.

The only other similarly named category Category:Island nations is a {{category redirect}} to Category:Island countries. I doubt that's needed here.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep These are all articles on peoples not countries. There is absolutely no duplication with Category:Slavic countries whatsoever. Not all of them have a country, though some do. A rename to Category:Slavic peoples would make sense. WAS, you have an unfailing tin ear on these issues; why do you keep nominating in this area? This category has Bulgarians, the other Bulgaria. I frankly don't understand how an experienced user can fail to see the difference. "See also" does not mean "this is a definition". Johnbod (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I fail to see why you participate here, as you have nothing to say other than personal attacks. Its only parent is Category:Slavs. There already exists a sister Category:Slavic people that contains these in its subcategory tree. "Not all of them have a country"? There are no "Slavic nations" spanning nation-states. This is the odd one out, and there's no valid reason to keep it.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slavic ethnic groups is particularly amusing. Categories:Slavs -> Slavic nations -> Category:Slavic ethnic groups -> Slavs. Circular.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • WAS, I participate here partly to prevent lazy and erroneous nominations like this succeeding. Have you now abandoned the argument in the nomination? Category:Slavic people is a biography category; as far as I can see it does not "contain(s) these in its subcategory tree" - did you actually look? "There are no "Slavic nations" spanning nation-states" shows a depth of ignorance of Central & Eastern European history that that is truly stunning; I won't even start on that. Occuli's point is relevant; that category is a sub-cat of this one, & contains a larger number of small and historical groups. A merge to that is one option, but personally I think the current scheme, with the bigger national peoples in a higher level makes sense. But that isn't the nomination. The Silesians might sensibly be moved to the lower category, and the Estereicher, who certainly aren't a nation. Johnbod (talk) 13:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Occuli's point is ill-informed, as demonstrated above. Thank you for demonstrating that several of these articles are not "nations". As for the rest of your rant, it is essentially a 19th-century racist argument, similar to the Nazi rationale for a Jewish "nation". I reject that racism.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:55, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per with Johnbod, but not speedy. WAS said "I fail to see why you participate here, as you have nothing to say other than personal attacks." He somehow missed Johnbod's argument. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Entire argument for deletion is based on a false reading of the facts. Read the categories to see what is in them. They are not the same, as any English reader can tell. Hmains (talk) 04:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since you seem to be rather pedantic today: note that the nomination says "essentially", not "exactly". It is obvious that the articles/subcategories are singular in one, and plural in the other. As any reader of any language can tell.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – I am not convinced from the above that the nom is fully conversant with Slavic matters (or Tamil ones). I look forward to ill-advised forays into Kurdish and Celtic categories, or perhaps the Irish/Northern Irish ones. Occuli (talk) 11:13, 2 July 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:Slavic countries[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: keep. the wub "?!" 13:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Slavic countries to Category:Slavic-speaking countries and territories
Nominator's rationale: Rename and prune. A subcategory of both Category:Slavic languages and Category:Countries by language, it should reflect that in its name. Most others in Category:Countries by language are "-speaking", so rename to match.
Its current description:

The category includes recognized and unrecognized countries with the majority of population belonging to the one of Slavic language groups.

Wikipedia shouldn't be classifying "unrecognized" countries. Who decides whether a "majority of population" belongs to "language groups"? (Languages belong to "language groups", not people.) The description should be cleaned up, and could be limited to countries that have adopted a Slavic language as an official language, as currently stated in its parent: "To categorize countries per official language."
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Modified nomination to delete after discussion, as there are no longer any "Slavic-speaking" countries, it cannot be a member of Category:Countries by language.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a category is incorrectly parented a simple edit is the solution, not deletion. I will remove it from Category:Slavic languages. Occuli (talk) 11:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Slavic-speaking countries Keep per johnbod, remove non-countries, remove it from Category:Slavic languages (a country is not a language - {{catRel}} is the way to go) [done]. There is Category:Territories by language for sub-countries. Occuli (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment Since there is no language called Slavic, I'm dubious that "Slavic-speaking" is a valid term. WAS, if a category seems to be in an inappropriate category, the best approach is to consider whether it should be removed, rather than proceeding without thought to mangling or deleting the category to make it fit the parents. In this case the tree is a little odd, but the best approach would seem to be to create a new Category:Slav at top-level, redefine the current top-level Category:Slavs to contain just biographical categories, following recent precedents. As for the present category, perhaps Category:Slavic nations above could be repurposed, with current nation-states as a sub-cat? The nom says "Wikipedia shouldn't be classifying "unrecognized" countries" - well, yes it should somewhere if they have articles, but not under "country" categories, since the convention is that in categories "country"="nation-state" (in fact just one meaning of country). Where does was think such articles should be categorized? In fact all the articles in the main category are states, there are "former countries" as a sub-cat, which is unobjectionable, and Category:Russian-speaking countries and territories etc contain various sub-national but formal territories. I'm failing to see much of a problem here. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)Johnbod (talk) 15:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as per Occuli. Debresser (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless a better all-round solution is reached. Have you seen a Slavic-speaking person lately? Neither did I. I'm not sure that Slavic-speaking correctly identifies countries where Slavic languages (not one language) are spoken. And then there's the issue on non-Slavic countries where Slavic languages have official recognition. Austria and Kyrgyzstan recognize them but is it really what's intended? NVO (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. By the same token there should be Germanic-speaking countries or Romance-speaking countries... or not? NVO (talk) 19:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you have the wrong end of the stick as usual. Even you recognise that Slav matters should be grouped together, as in your nomination proposal. Why do my comments suggest "some POV greater Slav nation spanning nation-states"? Johnbod (talk) 13:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This obviously refers to those countries of eastern Europe where slavic languages are the main ones. Slavic is a language group. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is, called the Slavic languages. As pointed out above, Slavic-speaking no more works than "Romance-speaking" or "classical-speaking". Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 2 July 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:Finance by Country[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: speedied, debate not really necessary. Bearcat (talk) 14:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Finance by Country (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Messed up the capitalization, accidentally duplicated Category:Finance by country. Cander0000 (talk) 10:30, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Debate isn't really necessary; as an innocent mistake that you fixed as soon as you caught it, you can just {{db-author}} this. Consider it speedied. Bearcat (talk) 14:55, 30 June 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:Converts from Transcendentalist Movement to Roman Catholicism[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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Converts from Transcendentalist Movement to Roman Catholicism (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a small category with no potential for growth. The Transcendentalists were never numerous, and few ever converted to Roman Catholicism; and since Transcendentalism is a historical movement, there will not be any more converts. As it is, the category includes only a single article, Orestes Brownson. Therefor, I suggest the category should be deleted. --darolew 08:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Orestes is in enough categories and will not miss this one. Occuli (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:00, 30 June 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:Polynesian flora[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. The discussion points out many issues with the proposals. I think that it is clear that some type of rename is needed, the question is to what? Anyone interested is directed to the category talk page to discuss the issues and see if a consensus can be developed. If a consensus does develop there, a rename can be brought back here as soon as that consensus appears. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Polynesian flora to Category:Flora of the Polynesian floristic subkingdom
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is too ambiguous; "Polynesian flora" could mean the flora of French Polynesia (often informally called Polynesia); the flora of Polynesia; the flora of the Polynesian floristic region; or the flora of the Polynesian floristic subkingdom (see Paleotropical Kingdom for background on the floristic hierarchy). Hesperian 01:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Flora of Polynesia All of the other similar categories are named in this fashion. Whether we should be more specific in the naming would be worth a prior discussion among the specialists. DGG (talk) 13:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Flora of Polynesia per DGG. The note makes the scope clear, and there is a sub-cat for French Polynesia. Johnbod (talk) 15:44, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you looked at Paleotropical Kingdom you would see that there is both a Polynesian subkingdom and a Polynesian region. "Flora of Polynesia" fails to distinguish between them. Hesperian 23:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We have the usual problem of biological catgories that they do not fit nice politicql boundaries. Probably nosimple solution, but be imaginative. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment This is also the problem of biological categories having names that are also used for other purposes. For example, ethnologically New Zealand is part of Polynesia, whereas botanically New Zealand is a separate region. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is the point I am making here: that "Polynesia" might mean
  • Polynesia in the political sense (i.e. French Polynesia;
  • Polynesia in the ethnological sense;
  • Polynesia the floristic region;
  • Polynesia the floristic subkingdom
The counter proposal therefore does not address the problem. Hesperian 02:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That is adressed in the category note. If we moved to a global set of categories using this system, I might agree, but the terms are not generally very well known - to the general user I mean - and classifying only one part of the world this way does not seem sensible. Johnbod (talk) 00:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow you. There's an entire category tree dedicated to flora by floristic regions; see Category:Flora by region. This category has always been a part of that tree; it just had an ambiguous title. Hesperian 01:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - The category as it currently stands is stated to include Lord Howe and Norfolk islands (both part of the New Zealand floristic region and therefore the Antarctic subkingdom), New Caledonia (which is its own subkingdom and region) and Melanesia (part of which belongs in the Fijian region and part in the Malesian region, both in the Indo-malesian subkingdom, as well as in the Polynesian region). This means that simply renaming the category may not be the best option. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:49, 8 July 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_30&oldid=1144514304"