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. postdlf (talk) 16:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This looks like a meaningless intersection per WP:Overcategorization. Is "Jewish eugenics" a particular sort of concept, or is this just a random categorization providing an association of a subset of individual people known for their pro-eugenics views with the subset's membership in the Jewish ethnic/cultural category? If it's the latter, what actual helpful or scholarly purpose for Wikipedia might it accomplish? Anti-Nationalist (talk) 23:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no significance to the intersection of Jewish nationality and the profession eugenicist. Debresser (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jews aren't a nationality in the normal, standard English usage of the term, even if one follows the received view of the "Jewish people" as a distinct cultural, religious, or ethnic entity, since "Jewland" isn't a country, as America, Germany, Britain, and Russia are. If the category were "Israeli eugenicists" I wouldn't be seeing the categorization issue. But this is analogous to a category like "Eugenicists of Irish descent." Which IMHO is a no-no per WP:Overcategorization. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 18:35, 13 November 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: To match parent article, Qt (toolkit), as QT is ambiguous. — ξxplicit 23:18, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 12:52, 13 November 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. It's still unclear what should be put in the category. But, more to the point, the 99. anon will put any people, organizations, events, slogans, campaigns, protests, movies, murals, postcards, neckties, samplers, stained-glass windows, tattoos or categories which, even tangentially relate to mitigation of global warming. Unless anons can be prevented from adding articles to this category, it's unmaintainable, even if there were an appropriate definition. However, I cannot imagine an appropriate definition, so it would probably be better to delete the category and start over. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 18:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and heavily weed: I suggest a rename to something like "Climate change activism" or "Global warming activism", and to weed out all of the cruft. This could then run parallel to some kind of weeded science-ey category, perhaps a weeded "global warming" one. Every category on this topic, in fact, looks really crufty, and I've just started running into 99.X's additions of random tangents to them. Awickert (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But wait... even if I go through and organize the categories, every Fred, Jane, and Harry will add their favorite things to "cat:global warming", so maybe completely not worth the effort. Awickert (talk) 20:58, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion. I found the category useful. It certainly needs to be better organised in subcategories (like many other categories). A guideline or even discussion on what qualifies and what doesn't on the category's talk page might help cleanup and maintenance. Elekhh (talk) 20:37, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would only help if the anon 99.* were prohibited from adding articles or categories to the category. They are still (as far as I can tell, randomly) adding articles. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 09:36, 14 November 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.
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:38, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator.--Staberinde (talk) 15:16, 13 November 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.
Subcategories of Category:Rolling stock 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:Rename all per nom. --Xdamrtalk 15:16, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (1) WP:NCCAT suggests that in ‘by country’ categories, it should be “Rolling stock of Foo” rather than “Fooian rolling stock”; (2) It is “Rolling stock of Foo” on Commons, so not having to remember two different forms is an aid to users; (3) Avoiding the adjectival form of country names is an aid to users for whom English is a foreign language.
Rename all per nom to align with naming conventions. Sjakkalle(Check!) 16:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match standard naming convention. Alansohn (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No ObjectionSv1xv (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator. Debresser (talk) 17:39, 12 November 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:Living performers of Christian music[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep as administrative category. --Xdamrtalk 15:20, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Do we really need "living people" subcategories for each individual occupation? Delete as WP:OCAT, sez me. Bearcat (talk) 09:41, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - these are all talk pages so it should be renamed to reflect this (an admin cat of some sort). Occuli (talk) 13:14, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This category is added by the {{Christianmusic}} template. I have put a notice on that talkpage. Apart from that I agree with the nominator that we don't need a category for this. Debresser (talk) 17:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as cat creator: Is this causing any harm (yes, I know where that links)? I don't know if this category is hurting anything, but I do know that it's been helpful for me, and I created it so we could keep track of and protect BLPs within a certain WikiProject. No need to go and create a "living person" cat for every occupation, sure I agree, but this isolated one is useful. Too bad categories can't operate in the userspace. JamieS93 19:30, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In response to User:Occuli, I agree that some kind of renaming (if possible) would be good. As it stands, it looks like a mainspace category, when in reality it's an inter-project cat. JamieS93 19:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: My original objection was based on the fact that, as acknowledged by Jamie S93, it "looks like a mainspace category" — so I'm willing to withdraw the nomination if the desire is to maintain this as a project category. Bearcat (talk) 03:15, 14 November 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. — ξxplicit 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Darwinek (talk) 12:06, 15 November 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:Locomotives of the Bodmin and Wenford Railway[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. — ξxplicit 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match standard in parent category. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 11 November 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. — ξxplicit 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to match the name of the main article and to remove the hard to enter abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Darwinek (talk) 12:06, 15 November 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. — ξxplicit 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to match the name of the main article and to remove the abbreviations for three different languages. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:12, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Darwinek (talk) 12:06, 15 November 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. — ξxplicit 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Remove abbreviation and match category name to name of the parent article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Darwinek (talk) 12:06, 15 November 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. — ξxplicit 06:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Remove abbreviation and match name to name of the parent article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 14:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Darwinek (talk) 12:06, 15 November 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:Tall buildings and structures in Paris[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. Most of the buildings are already in the skyscraper category where it is appropriate. Chimneys are not skyscrapers since they are not inhabited as I understand the article. Les Invalides is an interesting inclusion since it appears that it is included in the category because of the church. So that article probably needs to be worked over and the categories moved to the individual articles. I did some of this, but it is not complete. So in the end, this category is pretty much a duplicate of Category:Skyscrapers in Paris when all is said and done. The list seems to be the best solution here since it can explain all of these differences. The discussion did not make clear why a tall building is different from a skyscraper or needs to be in a category with them. Chimneys and towers have their own category structure. The do not delete opinion was based on the failure to notify certain users. This is not a valid reason to abort a discussion based on any policies or guidelines that I am aware of. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:46, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Undefined inclusionary criteria. How tall is "tall"? Selecting a defined height would be arbitrary. No comparable category for other cities or locales exists. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Skyscrapers in Paris The issue has nothing to do with "undefined inclusion criteria"; the problem is that it overlaps with its child category Skyscrapers in Paris, which in turn is one of 86 categories worldwide in Category:Skyscrapers by city. The inclusion criteria for all 86 of these categories is equally undefined, subjective and arbitrary, and the parent article Skyscraper emphasizes that "There is no official definition or height above which a building may clearly be classified as a skyscraper." If there is a genuine insistence that WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and WP:OC#ARBITRARY requires deletion of any category it should be used to wipe them all out rather than applying arbitrary rules in subjective fashion. Alansohn (talk) 14:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
But they are not all skyscrapers - some are tall structures (eg a chimney). The skyscrapers are already in Category:Skyscrapers in Paris. Occuli (talk) 16:51, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no definition of skyscraper anyway, but there will have to be some cleanup to put skyscrapers with skyscrapers and all the others in buildings and structures. Alansohn (talk) 19:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Even a C-list God would have divined from my comment above that some tall buildings are and some aren't skyscrapers. Your powers, already dim, are appearing sub-mortal now. Oh Unmighty one, what is the cutoff that makes a building officially a "skyscrapter" [sic]? Lol. Alansohn (talk) 22:03, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno, but let's not compound the problem by merging. Or we can merge it, in which case the articles will be removed. Incidentally, I think the hilarity of the God joke may be waning. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This whole line of humor finds me rolling on the floor, laughing out loud. If only there were some sort of abbreviation for that phenomenon. While I was just riffing on your claim of being God, it's never seemed to bother you when you were actively trying to ridicule other editors together with your admin buddies. Is there any standard here that applies to you, or just the usual double kind? Alansohn (talk) 21:14, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I have no idea what you are going on about. You are very funny, though, no doubt about that. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The related list is sufficient and the structures are already included in other categories for buildings in Paris. Cjc13 (talk) 23:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete without notifying the talk pages of the memberpages, and the memberpages of its one subcategory, and the four non-minor editors of the category, and then relisting. Not even the creator of the category seems to have been notified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Notifying the category editors is optional, although recommended, and notifying the talk pages of the member pages is not recommended. Commenting on the talk page of a {{catmain}} article might be appropriate. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 15:05, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For this category, for this discussion, *I* recommend it. Are you referring to the rules that keep the general editorship community uninvolved? Why should editors who are interested in tall buildings and structures in Paris not be advised that there is this discussion? Do you know better than them? Please see WT:CSD. For whatever reasons, interested editors do not have categories on their watchlists. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know who does and does not have a page on their watchlist? Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In reading Wikipedia_talk:CFD#Increasing_openness_and_transparency, I get the message that editors with an interest in a category fail to get the category added to their watchlist. They add the link to the category to individual pages, bt don't edit the category, so no action adds the category to their watchlist by default. Also, for whatever reason, wikiprojects have not been putting banners on category talk pages, so again, the editors who watch over their wikiprojects don't, by default, have the categories on their watchlists. I don't know this, I surmise it. It seems that these discussions are well attended by CfD regulars, and poorly attended by editors who regularly edit the pages in the category. What I know or don't know isn't the point. The point is that I believe that more effort needs to be made to engage editors interested in the pages being categorised before a non-representative set of editors decides to delete, and that in this case I believe that we shouldn't delete without evidence that editors interested in the categorised pages have been informed of this discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you're worried about it, maybe you should do the legwork of notifying everybody you surmise isn't watching. I surmise that if editors care about a page they will add it to their watchlist and not rely on other editors to tell them what they should care about. Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:20, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I made a some effort in relation to Category:Traditional/folk music world-wide. That little bit of effort confirmed my expectation that notifying according to a formula is much easier said than done. Also, I am not certain that this idea of notifications is the way to go. I’d like to see what others say. Noting Category:Alumni of the University of Cambridge by degree, it is a good thing that I didn’t go ahead and start posting notifications on all those pages. I think that encouraging subject-interested editors to take interest in categories related to their subjects would be a good thing. I also think that CfD discussions would benefit from the input of subject-interested editors, even if they are not normally concerned with categorisation. In this case, I read your nomination as a little ambivalent. If so, then notifications might be in order, if they are not always so. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was ambivalent? Not in my own mind. It seems fairly clear cut to me. I'm not sure what a specialist in tall French buildings could add that would be some "missing fact" that would change the analysis. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:01, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You asked "How tall is "tall"?". Perhaps there is some obscure specialists answer? FWHM<Height? Do you have no doubt in your mind that this category should be deleted? Are the merge and rename possibilities below consideration? Even if yes, yes, it is still better to invite involvement from the subject-interest editors even if just for their education. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rhetorical questions, anyone? Asking how tall is "tall" was meant to point out that if a set height were selected, it would be arbitrary. If you are concerned about notifying the creator, I encourage you to invite. I used to regularly notify category creators, but I received many complaints after having done so, so I stopped. It seems that most users just don't care. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:38, 14 November 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 21#Category:Action on climate change. postdlf (talk) 13:01, 21 November 2009 (UTC)