Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 10 January 12 >

January 11[edit]

Category:-gate[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 per WP:CSD#G4 as a re-creation of deleted content. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:-gate (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't believe that we categorize by the ending of an article name. And if we did I don't see how the use of gate is somehow defining. There is a list so deletion would not loose any information. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom and per WP:OCAT#SHAREDNAMES; has been deleted at least three times before under different names: 1, 2, 3. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete We don't need to re-argue this one- the concept has been repeatedly rejected. G4 and let's be done with it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -gate means litle more than scandal. Wizzy…☎ 22:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the Watergate scandal, many political scandals have been dubbed Foo-gate. This is a shared characteristic, that journalists saw fit so to dub them. But rename to Category:-gate political scandals
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:Classic psychology books[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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:12, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Classic psychology books to Category:Psychology books
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent (or other appropriate subcategory), POV and reliant on OR. The category does not present a clear definition of what would constitute a "classic" psychology book, nor is there one evident. It includes 19th century works as well as more contemporary ones, so it isn't just based on age, which would be more objectively categorized with express dates anyway. It also includes both academic texts and works for popular audiences. On top of the lack of definition, the label "classic" in this context also implies praise (i.e., important, formative of the field, worthy of remembrance and study), which is likely to be controversial rather than factual and objective (I found it while reading The Bell Curve article of all things). postdlf (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge as there appears to be no way to distinguish which books are classics, although I would support several in this category for a reading list on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 21:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I've read a few of these, and wouldn't really disagree with the label of classic- but that's irrelevant. It's POV, and we usually don't do subjective/POV in categories. No exception here. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom and per WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. In any given field, I'm sure that anyone who knows the subject could draft a list of "classic" titles; the problem is that most of them would come up with a different list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Psychology books and its sub-categories give more precise placement opportunities than the "Classic" category. AllyD (talk) 20:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to Category:Psychology books to avoid POV and WP:OR. --BelovedFreak 21:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nominator. What does it matter that one work is "classic" and another is not, as long as it is notable? And who is to decide what is considered "classic" anyway? Debresser (talk) 18:48, 16 January 2010 (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:African Nations Cup[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:African Nations Cup to Category:Africa Cup of Nations
Propose renaming Category:African Nations Cup qualification to Category:Africa Cup of Nations qualification
Propose renaming Category:African Nations Cup squads to Category:Africa Cup of Nations squads
Propose renaming Category:2006 African Nations Cup squad templates to Category:2006 Africa Cup of Nations squad templates
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The competition has been known as the Africa Cup of Nations since 2006; therefore, the category relating to the competition and all its subcategories should be renamed to reflect the correct name of the tournament. – PeeJay 20:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename per nom. It makes little sence to have the main article under the current name for the competition and the categories under a different, out-dated name. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Outdated name, change the category name. We ought to consider making this a speedy criteria. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming all for consistency with parent category and to update to new name.--BelovedFreak 21:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-name all: to match updated title of parent article. -- BigDom 21:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming all I myself moved some templates for previous CAF competition to the correct naming. Gabinho (talk) 22:04, 13 January 2010 (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:Recipient of the Order of St. George[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 other ones mentioned would need to be nominated in a new discussion.. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:23, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest renaming this to Category:Recipients of the Order of St. George (plural form) and merging Category:Order of St. George recipients into the renamed category.DonaldDuck (talk) 13:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely, makes sense. Sadads (talk) 14:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support rename to standardize wording and use larger category on an ongoing basis. Alansohn (talk) 18:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Category:Order of Merit for the Fatherland recipients
Category:Order of St. Alexander Nevsky recipients
and Category:Order of St. Vladimir recipients be added to the nomination to be renamed. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2010 (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:Stalinist propaganda films[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. I've also indiscriminately moved the four included articles to Category:Soviet propaganda films as some have suggested below; someone actually knowledgeable on the subject should double check to see which ones belong there. postdlf (talk) 15:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Category:Stalinist propaganda films nominated for deletion as unproved WP:POV. The category title includes American films in which Stalin played no role in writing or directing or producing. Would The Song of Bernadette qualify as Vaticanist propaganda?
  • Agree, population is really bad or not carefully filtered. Sadads (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about renaming to Category:Soviet propaganda films of the Stalin era. The problem is that which films are propanganda films may be a POV issue. If that is a problem merge to an apporporate category of Soviet films. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Soviet propaganda films. It's POV-enough to label some films as propaganda, but that's outside the scope of this nomination. Let's not compound the error by trying to decide which are Stalinist and which aren't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment BHG would be right, had the films here been Soviet propaganda films. But three of the four of them are Hollywood productions, sponsored by the US government in order to support the Soviet Union's participation in WW II, They are films of pro-soviet propaganda, not soviet propaganda. North Star and Star of Russia are quite general, not specifically Stalinist. Mission to Moscow is the only one that could be called pro-Stalin propaganda and is based on a book by the US Ambassador to Russia, an American corporate lawyer of remarkably peculiar views. The fourth, Bezhin Meadow, was banned by Stalin. It seems to have been an attempt to write ostensibly Stalinist propaganda in such as way as to give the opposite effect. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category contains four films. Only one (Bezhin Meadow) could be considered as Stalinist but was never shown during Stalin's lifetime. The other three films are US productions during WWII, which are already in the category Films about Stalinism, of which this category is a sub-category. --Dodo19 (talk) 15:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure, but this does seem worthy of its own categry. A merge along the lines of User:BrownHairedGirl seems the best idea for now. Debresser (talk) 18:46, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the point is that some American films were WWII "war propaganda" films, but that does not mean they are Stalinist or even Soviet propaganda, per se, even though interests were aligned. If anything Category:War propaganda films would be more accurate. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2010 (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:Ships of Patrick O'Brian[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: listify. The current scheme makes it appear that we are categorising real ships as fictional ships, which is not even wrong. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ships of Patrick O'Brian (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. All except HMS Polychrest are real ships, so should not be categorized in Category:Fictional ships. Further, real ships should not be categorized into the categories about fiction written about them. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 10:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I follow your first point, but not your second. I looked at one and the O'Brian book is mentioned, so why not just remove this category from Category:Fictional ships and just leave it in Category:Novels by Patrick O'Brian. The real ships would be in two categories, a fictional and a real one. I support keep. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ships included are the one's commanded by Jack Aubrey and are altered considerably in their history. They become fictional ships when they are integrated into the plot of the series, though the inspiration for the ships themselves has some historical value. The category is a defining characteristic because the Patrick O'Brian books are perhaps some of the most important English literature in the late 20th century, setting the standard for historical fiction, as Tolkien's Lord of the Rings did for Fantasy, or Asimov's writings did for Science Fiction. The category is significant in defining the cluster of articles related to the Aubrey-Maturin series and Patrick O'Brian's literature. I suppose it could be renamed Commands of Jack Aubrey, however I left it broad so that the categories would not have to be duplicated for some of his lesser works. The argument about the exclusion based on the non-existence of other categories is not exactly true, check out Category:James Bond gadgets and firearms. (The other suggested categories are not made, because there hasn't been much in the way of work on that cluster of articles.) Sadads (talk) 12:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question "the Patrick O'Brian books are perhaps some of the most important English literature in the late 20th century". Do you have a reference for the source for that POV? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is not an Aubrey category, this is an O'Brian category. It is not called Category: Ships of the Aubrey-Maturin series. And I highly doubt your statement that this is the most important English language literature of the late 20th century, in fact, I would hazard that most people would doubt that statement. Already, alot of people think that Harry Potter is the holder of that distinction... then there are those winners of the Nobel Prize for Literature that are in English, etc... And there is no corresponding category for CS Forester - Category:Ships of C.S. Forester does not exist. And Horatio Hornblower is easily more important that Aubrey-Maturin. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually there is a Category:Hornblower ships --Dodo19 (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
At present at least, it's only being used to categorize articles on fictional ships that only exist within the Hornblower books, not real ones. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but that isn't the same as this, since that's restricted to a fictional universe, and it only contains fictional ships, while this category is almost exclusively real ships, and is an author based category, not a fictional universe based one. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the category has some value Surprise for example continues to be used in the novels long after the real ship was sold out of the service. Sophie was based on Speedy, and is entirely distinct from the real HMS Sophie, did Leopard actually sail to Suatrlaia with convicts aboard and nearly get wrecked in teh Antarctic after sinking a Dutch ship of the line?. The key is that it's a way that reader's are conceivably going to be looking for the ships. David Underdown (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- a couple of the articles that I checked had got a section on the fictional ship. However this raises the question of how far the ship described in the novels is actually the real ship. I suspect that the real answer may be for all the sections on the fictional ships to be merged into a single article. This in turn probably ought to be merged with the article on the series of books. Alternatively, perhaps H.M.S. Sophie (fictional) should be a redirect to the novel featuring it. If a ship features in two novels, the redirect should be to the article on the series. Perhaps the list of novels in that article should be converted into a table, giving the names of the ships which Aubrey commanded. The subject needs work, but this should probably end in delete - but perhaps not yet. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The novels are based (and sometimes even named) after the ships, and are the defining characteristics. The introductions explain the differences with actual ships. since we are going to cover important fiction like this is considerable detail (though of course not the level of a fansite), this is within scope and appropriate. It's just the exact opposite of what the nominator thinks: real ships should indeed be placed into categories for notable fiction based on them. That's the sort of thing people come to Wikipedia to find. The principle for exclusion here seems to be: if it's the sort of thing people would come to the web to find information on, it doesn't belong here, since we intend to copy the expectations for an old-fashioned school encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - If Category:James Bond gadgets and firearms is of value then this certainly is. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep' This is a meaningful defining characteristic that unites these articles for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A list article or a template could do that... 76.66.197.17 (talk) 05:45, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Great. Every category in Wikipedia could be replaced by a list, why delete only this one on that basis? Alansohn (talk) 18:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. The categorisation of real historical entities in fictional categories is a quite unnecessary blurring of the line between fact and fiction, and sets a very bad precedent: how many other historical entities are we going to categorise by their role in fiction or in video games? Please think carefully about this, because a lot of historical people, entities and events have been the subject of fictional portrayals, and if we start doing this we could end up with a lot of fact-by-fictional-portrayal categories. "People fictionalised by [[Robert Harris (novelist)"? "People portrayed in film by Henry Fonda"?.
    The ships are defining characteristics of the novels, but the novels are not defining characteristics of the ships, which existed as notable historical entities long before the novels were written. A list need not be just a bare list of entries, but could add a little more context, such as by setting out which ships were covered in which novels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The only comparable past CFD I could think of was for Category:Characters in Paradise Lost, which categorized subject matter elsewhere established (whether you characterize the Judeo-Christian Bible as ancient myth or ancient religious scripture) by its portrayal in one work of fiction, though a significant work of fiction no doubt. Generally I agree with the principle argued by BHG above, that it's a bad idea to categorize fact by its portrayal in certain works of fiction, but reasonable exceptions may be arguable, such as historic individuals portrayed in Shakespeare (perhaps there was a CFD on point, I don't know), some of whom may be best known to modern readers through that portrayal. Is the Maturin-Aubrey series of similar significance to ships, I can't say; I've read a few and know they are highly regarded, but I don't know ships or the British Navy as subjects in their own right. There is a definite floodgates concern even with this specific subject matter, given that there are many other works of fiction about the British Navy that cover the same early 19th century time period, such as the Horatio Hornblower series. So where do you draw the line as far as what merits categorization? And categorizing in this manner may be inappropriate pandering to the awareness of mainstream readers of contemporary fiction, at the expense of the longer view of a scholarly perspective. I see that WP:SHIPS has been notified, so we can expect some informed opinions on these issues as they pertain to the specific subject matter at hand. I do think whether this category should exist is purely a matter of the significance of the ships' portrayal in the books to the ships as subjects, rather than the significance of the ships to the books. postdlf (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have looked at all the articles and all except for HMS Pomone (1811) and HMS Raisonnable (1768) have a mention of the O'Brian novels in the article. These two should be removed from the category, unless material on the novels is added, and the category, as I say above, should be removed from Category:Fictional ships, as they clearly are not. This would leave it entirely in Category:Novels by Patrick O'Brian. It is perfectly reasonable to keep it if it is within the novels category tree and the articles have material about the ships. --Bduke (Discussion) 21:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As above, I think that this category should be deleted . However, if it is to be kept, it should renamed to something which clarifies the relationship between fact and fiction. How about Category:Ships fictionalised by Patrick O'Brian? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree about the proposed change of name. Everything should be done to make it clear that this is about fiction, in a tree of categories about fiction, but there is no reason to delete it. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or if it is kept, rename to a more descriptive title, to make it clear these are ships that appear in a fictional context. The current title implies an actual relationship between O'Brian and these ships (that the historical ships were in some way O'Brian's?), whereas of course they existed centuries apart. A reader unfamiliar with O'Brian may well be confused. O'Brian's books create an entertaining mish-mash of the actual histories of these ships. Some ships appear under their names and are relatively similar to their historical counterparts, others are quite different. Similarly their exploits are modelled on a variety of ships and commanders, the Leopard of Desolation Island (novel) takes a large part of the events of HMS Guardian (1784) under Edward Riou, though the name is changed. Is Guardian one of O'Brian's ships? Is Riou one of the Category:Patrick O'Brian characters? The latter certainly not, so why should Guardian be on of 'his' ships? And why should the real Leopard be? O'Brian has cobbled together an entertaining history of ships and created a fictional career that only vaguely represents the history of the real Leopard, just as the career of the fictional Jack Aubrey is modelled on the exploits of many of the leading British naval figures of the times. I wouldn't expect to see 'Category:Battles of Patrick O'Brian appearing on Battle of Trafalgar or similar, nor 'Category:Naomi Novik characters' appearing on Horatio Nelson, 1st Viscount Nelson. Let's keep the subjects of these articles separate to the fiction written about them in the categories, and refer to notable and interesting references in popular culture where appropriate in the articles. Benea (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On another note, what makes these 'Ships of Patrick O'Brian'? That Aubrey commanded them? Served on them? That they play a significant role in a book(s)? That they are mentioned by name? That part of their career was used to create part of the plot of a book about a different ship entirely? HMS Bellerophon (1786) is mentioned in at least one of O'Brian's books, and this is noted in the article. But is she one of his ships therefore, and does she belong in this category? Benea (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify Real ships shouldn't be grouped by their fictional exploits, but this would make a perfect list when accompanied with prose and analysis. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. As I looked into the category, I don't see a reason to keep. However in reading some of the keep arguments above, it appears that there is a need to retain some of this information. So creation of a list showing the ship, the captain and the novel's name seems to be the most reasonable approach. One issue with the category is the odd inclusion criteria of ship names used for a novel and captained by one person. If this somehow winds up being kept, it definitely needs a name that describes the contents. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:55, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify per nom, Benea, BHG, and Vegaswikian. We typically don't categorize real people or things by their inclusion in fictional works. Such a system could easily be extended to other stuff, and I don't think we want to go there either. It also creates the anomaly of having real ships within the "fictional ships" category tree, which is an added complication. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can see where you all are coming from, I would not be particularly offended no matter the outcome. Sadads (talk) 14:36, 25 January 2010 (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:Governorates of the Grand Duchy of Finland[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Governorates of the Grand Duchy of Finland (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Category appears to have been the subject of a dispute at Talk:Provinces of the Grand Duchy of Finland, and was blanked and emptied out-of-process, but now one article has been added to it again. It should either be deleted or re-populated, but at this stage I have no preference between the two. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It was agreed that the provinces do not need different articles for different time periods, e.g. pre-Finnish indpendence and after. Therefore, the category is not needed. See Talk:Provinces of the Grand Duchy of Finland for the consensus on the merges. --Pudeo' 13:07, 11 January 2010 (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:International sports programs[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., עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:10, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:International sports programs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Vague category with the potential to grow uhelpfully huge, because its inclusion criteria will inevitable fail either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE or WP:OC#ARBITRARY. Does it include programmes broadcast in more than one nation? Programmes showing sports from more than one country? Programs produced by a collaboration between broadcasters from different countries? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:46, 11 January 2010 (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:Current Big 12 football stadiums[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: RENAME to Category:Big 12 Conference football stadiums. NO CONSENSUS to delete. postdlf (talk) 15:52, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Current Big 12 football stadiums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorise by former-and-current. There is already a list of these stadiums at Big 12 Conference#Conference_facilities, and template {{Big 12 Football Venues}} helps navigation between the articles. We could just rename it to Category:Big 12 conference football stadiums, but since it's superfluous for navigation I see no point. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Big 12 Conference football stadiums This is a clear aid to navigation using the category system. No individual who believes that "superfluous for navigation" is a valid argument for deletion should be participating at CfD, given that it is in direct conflict with Wikipedia guidelines on the subject. Alansohn (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • As with the other documents he refers to, it would be helpful if Alansohn would actually read WP:CLS, which I presume is the guideline he is referring to. WP:CLS says that categories, lists and serial boxes can coexist, not that they have to ... and it would be patently absurd to create a corresponding category for every navbox or vice-versa. Furthermore, WP:CLS is a guideline: as such it describes current practice, rather than enforcing a particular approach. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • A simple reading WP:CLN encourages the coexistence of lists AND categories. Put up or shut up: Is there a "superfluous for navigation" anywhere in policy as a justification for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please do be civil, Alansohn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Is there a "superfluous for navigation" anywhere in policy as a justification for deletion? Or is this just an admin pushing a complete BS excuse for deletion? Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I really don't care about the outcome in this CFD (sports is not my forte) so I'm not offering any judgment on the deletion rationale offered, but I'm curious about the premise from which it seems you're operating here: do you think Wikipedia participants in an XFD discussion are prohibited from arriving at a consensus to delete any kind of content, on the sole basis that the consensus is based on a deletion reason not previously codified in a policy or guideline? And if so, why? postdlf (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I'll feed the troll here: First off, the sole proposed reason -- "superfluous for navigation" -- is in direct conflict with Wikipedia guidelines on the subject. Not even the newest noob should be offering this as a reasoned judgment here (or anywhere else) as a justification for deletion, let alone someone who has been entrusted with the responsibilities of serving the community as an admin. If Wikipedia decisions are not even based on any shred of guidelines or policies, all we're left with is WP:IHATEIT, and a blatant acknowledgment that CfD is just a joke of a popularity contest. Alansohn (talk) 19:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and long consensus not to categorize by "current". Thanks to Levineps, we already ridiculously overcategorize U.S. college football venues by team; no need to group it further into larger categories by conference, unless we undo everything Levineps has done and start from scratch. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Clarification: and do not rename as suggested. (added because of possible confusion as to the meaning of my initial vote) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is the characteristic defining? Is this an aid to navigation? Alansohn (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In its current state, no and not really. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • "In its current state, no and not really"?!?!? A "problem" that can be resolved by a simple name change for what is a blindingly obvious feature of these stadiums ought best be fixed by a rename not deletion. This is typical CfD game disruption at its worst. Alansohn (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You didn't ask me about my opinion of the proposed rename, and I didn't volunteer it. I'm trying to direct as few comments as possible to you, Alansohn, because you are consistently rude and uncivil at CFD when you disagree with editors, administrators in particular. Your behaviour doesn't change when faced with any of kindness, returned hostility, administrative blocks, administrative rebukes, or humour. I think it's time to turn to other remedies. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You saw the proposed rename offered and still chose to delete. What objection do you have to the rather simple solution of renaming to remove the word "current"? Why not try to resolve the problem in the least disruptive manner possible via rename? And why not do so without the oogie-boogie threats of "other remedies"? Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • Because I don't think it's defining. People disagree; it's normal. We'll get to the oogies and boogies in due course. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Really!?!?! 12 stadiums custom built solely for use by each of the 12 teams in the Big 12 Conference, covered in the parent article along with a template, but this fact is not defining? It's probably the most defining fact about these stadiums. What definition of defining (or more accurately, not not-defining) are you using that this does not meet? Alansohn (talk) 22:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Really. Somebody sees one of the stadiums (say a tour guide or something), I don't think they're likely to say—"... and here's a Big 12 Conference stadium." They're more likely to say—"... and here's the University of XXX football stadium", or "... and here's where the Aggies play", etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Big 12 Conference football stadiums. I've looked at several of the articles and being a 'Big 12' venue is mentioned prominently in each. So it is a defining characteristic and so there should be a category. Occuli (talk) 01:34, 12 January 2010 (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:Coaches of the 1932 Olympics[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Coaches of the 1932 Olympics to Category:Olympic coaches. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Coaches of the 1932 Olympics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I found this single-article category in the list of uncategorised categories, and added parents to it. However I can't find any other categories of olympic-coaches-by-year, and I'm not sure it's a good idea. Unless massively sub-categorised, it will be lumping in Canadian equestrian coaches with Kenyan athletics coaches and Japanese sailing coaches. Those people don't have much in common, so I suggest an upmerge to Category:Olympic coaches. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole system of categorising coaches at the Olympics looks undeveloped, judging by the 17 articles so categorised- off of the top of my head I can think of a dozen or so more that belong. We categorise Olympians by which Olympics they competed at (though we sub-cat by sport), so the same system could be developed for coaches. Right now, it's not- it's just a one article category that should be much, much better. I could justify keeping this and deleting it... so, no real opinion, but a lot of words! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 02:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • But how many olympic coaches are really notable? The athletes gets lots of coverage, but in the coverage I have seen there is very little about the coaches ... so I dunno whether the category has much potential for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Notable and could be expanded. And similar categories could be created for other years. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic of the coaches involved and an appropriate means of navigation using categories. Alansohn (talk) 23:37, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is currently no structure for Olympic coaches by sport, or by nationality (except for one) (note: by nationality could be tricky if there is confusion as to whether it's referring to the coach's nationality or the country's team for which she coaches). By year makes sense factually but seems to me a less useful way to group these, particularly given that there are only a total of 24 articles in Category:Olympic coaches and its two subcategories. Are there more applicable articles currently existing that are uncategorized? Or are there many more articles we expect to be created? WP:ATHLETE just provides notability guidelines for athletes, not coaches, so I don't know if there is an accepted standard for whether Olympic coaches are presumptively notable. And even if so, until those articles are written do we maintain a spotty -by year category system that will not have more than one or two entries in each subcategory? Do we categorize based on the articles that exist, or the articles that we expect to eventually exist? I think the former way is more useful, so I'm leaning towards upmerging for now, without prejudice to recreation later. postdlf (talk) 14:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. It is not a part of a series and for now there is no reason to have this category. If at some point in the future we need to split the parent, then it can we can decide how to split the category. And remember that the other option to splitting, by country might make more sense. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:53, 29 January 2010 (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.

Supreme Court cases by year[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/Merge Category:2006 United States Supreme Court cases and Category:2008 United States Supreme Court cases to Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court and Split Category:2005 United States Supreme Court cases to Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court or Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court. This is not an early close, the relisting firmed up where the consensus to rename was. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:2005 United States Supreme Court cases to Category:United States Supreme Court cases and Category:2005 in United States case law
Suggest merging Category:2006 United States Supreme Court cases to Category:United States Supreme Court cases and Category:2006 in United States case law
Suggest merging Category:2008 United States Supreme Court cases to Category:United States Supreme Court cases and Category:2008 in United States case law
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. Dividing the SCOTUS cases by year in this manner is a great detriment to navigation. It is necessary to be able to browse all of these articles alphabetically because case law articles are often extremely variable in possible titles, due to the often complex names of litigants, and to all the different ways in which litigant names can get abbreviated or shortened. Being forced to search through these by year as well as alphabetically is just not helpful, particularly given that well organized chronological lists exist, both by court term for the past decade and by case reporter volume for the entire history of the Court, and the fact that SCOTUS cases will be by far the bulk of entries in the U.S. case law by year categories. So anyone who wants to search in that manner can. postdlf (talk) 09:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral for now. In general I dislike the current tendency to chop up all categories chronologically, because it can be a serious impediment to navigation, so I was initially inclined to support this proposal for upmerger. But now I'm not sure.
    Having spent a number of years working on issues where I needed to check a lot of UK law cases, I support the nominator's concern to ensure that cases are organised in a way which facilitates those who want to find a particular case. He is right that names of cases can be complex and variable; the order of parties can be reversed as one side appeals the other's victories to a higher court, and some of the parties can change their names (business merge or rebrand, people adopt a new name on marriage, parties can drop out or be joined to the case, etc). However Category:United States Supreme Court cases currently contains 1,823 non-list articles, with a further 35 in these two categories. That's ten pages of category listing, which strikes me as being a hard-to-use-tool if someone is looking for a judgment by imprecise name (e.g. "I think someone named Snodgrass was one of the parties"). In that case, searching ten category pages for "Snodgrass" is a pain-in-the-neck; I'd prefer one long list. However, one long list covering 200 years of cases would be unfeasibly long, so I don;t think that works, so some form of subdivision seems preferable. That could be by year, by decade, or by Chief Justice; but I don't know enough on the subject to decide.
    So I think the best thing is to ask WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases for input, which should have been done by the nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oops! I see that the nominator has already asked for input from WikiProject U.S. Supreme Court cases. Grovelling apologies for not checking properly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:02, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think one of the goals in categorization should be to avoid forcing users to browse through too many different variables at once, and to instead give them multiple options by which to find articles or browse between related ones. The trick to that is different levels of generalization associated with each variable; here, case law by court only alphabetically, and case law by year only by country. And we already have lists of SCOTUS case articles by term, by Court (defined by the presiding Chief Justice, e.g., "the Roberts Court"), and by reporter volume; lists are the best way to organize the same data in multiple, highly picky ways. So my preference is to leave Category:United States Supreme Court cases undifferentiated chronologically. Browsing through ten alphabetically organized pages for a particular case name is a lot easier than having to click in and out of multiple year-specific categories (particularly with Template:CatAZ aiding the alphabetical search). But I'd consider subdividing by Court to be the lesser of the possible evils. postdlf (talk) 16:04, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are thousands of articles for U.S. Supreme Court cases and thousands more to be created. There are multiple structures and means of navigation, and grouping such articles by the year the case was decided allows readers to navigate across similar articles and to aid in finding the information they are seeking. Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep way to many Supreme Court cases. Makes it easier to find by year.--Levineps (talk) 03:39, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom. The usual way to search for these is by name, not by year. This is an impediment, not a help. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do it by court, Anyone who is looking for a specific case (aside: is likely using something besides Wikipedia.), will know the general time of the case, so divide them up by Chief Justice, and then put in brackets the years each category covers. This would produce 17 usable categories, instead of either 1 or 220 useless ones. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:25, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Any thoughts on how to name such subcategories concisely yet accurately? postdlf (talk) 13:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are no duplicated surnames in the List of United States Chief Justices, so I suggest either "United States Supreme Court cases under surname" or "United States Supreme Court cases under Chief Justice surname". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think I'd prefer Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court, etc. At any rate, people actually do study and compare these cases by Court, and it is likely that someone looking for a case article will know under what Chief Justice it was handed down. So that makes sense and could be helpful. By contrast, individual years are not a helpful way to navigate and sort, particularly given that the Court's calendar is organized by term (from October to October), not by calendar year. The only time a specific year is really helpful is to distinguish between different opinions with the same case name and different opinions within the same case at different times. So I'd support creating that structure and merging the years (here, all Roberts Court years) there. But regardless, this discussion need more informed input for this from other SCOTUS project members; I think I'm the only one so far to participate here. And I'd like to again urge that no more of these -by year categories be created while this CFD is pending. postdlf (talk) 15:14, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree that Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Warren Court, etc is a better wording than my proposal ... and agree even more than input from WP:SCOTUS members would greatly help improve the quality of any decision made here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I think by court term might be a little confusing with the court changes, I think by terms or by year is the best way to do it.--Levineps (talk) 18:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
              • Could you elaborate? You said that by term both is and isn't the best way to do it. Did you mean to say you thought by presiding Chief Justice would be confusing? If so, why? And why do you think by year is the best way? postdlf (talk) 14:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                • Umm, like take the current court(by Supreme Court Chief Justice)- Souter/O'Connor are out while Sotomayer/Alito are in, so you did not have the same justices for each case. I think by year is the easiest since it's chronological, im not sure if theres a perfect system. There needs to be a better structure than the current system of just listing all the articles, when there is over 1000 articles.--Levineps (talk) 15:16, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Though, when discussing the SCOTUS, the associate justices involved aren't considered that important. Most people even passingly familiar with the court would know the term The Warren Court. The current system is the most arbitrary of all, as the year a case is handed down is meaningless- the court matters; the author of the majority opinion matters; and the term matters. (SCOTUS terms are not set to the calendar year. They begin in October) The author would be useless, as it would produce nearly as many categories as we have now, and would manage to make finding a specific opinion more difficult. By court and by term, I think either is valid, though by court would be smaller, and I generally prefer fewer, somewhat larger categories when feasible. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Why is there such an aversion to the two simple words "no consensus"? Given how close this and so many other discussions are, why do we try to drag these discussions out until there's a borderline credible case for a close (usually waiting for another vote for deletion before closing as delete), rather than close as no consensus when it is clear there is none? Alansohn (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Partly because other editors who like complaining about how CFD is broken have pushed fairly hard for more relistings of category discussions prior to a "no consensus" result. You who think the system is broken can't have it both ways. As the other editors have pointed out, a relisting hurts no one and can only possibly help. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • There are over 90 open CfDs, relist 'em all and come up with a guideline for when they're closed, instead of just waiting for one more delete vote. The persistent failure to close as "no consensus" is a big part of why CfD is broken. Alansohn (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Maybe you should just let people do what they've volunteered to do and not find a reason to complain about how they do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Good Ol’factory, don't deprive him of his fun. It's much much easier to whine about people who try to do something than to do anything yourself, such as actually think enough about a category to say anything other than "keep as defining characteristic". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Mmmm, OK. Personally, I see nothing wrong with an admin relisting a discussion. As a complaint it seems frivolous at best, disruptive of CFD at worst. If you really have a concern about the relisting, Alansohn, it seems to me that the individual admin's talk page would be the logical place to take your worries—or, if it's a more general concern, to WT:CFD. Doing it here just disrupts the relisting and may discourage others from commenting. If disruption like this keeps up, we'll need to do something to remedy it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sometimes there is no consensus yet. An admin does not have a requirement to close a discussion simply because time has run out. If you look over at AfD, some items are relisted 3 or more times! It is harder to close as no consensus when there are multiple alternatives presented. Clearly in cases like that, and this is one, there is a consensus to change, but the issue is to what. By keeping the discussion open on the current list of discussions, maybe a consensus will develop and we will not leave an undesirable category to exist until it is nominated again. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, provided it's done the right way (changing my !vote, which I should have done before). From the discussion above it seems clear to me that the best way to group judgments chronologically is by chief justice, and I think there is a consensus for that. Most chief justices served for a number of years, so most years do not need to split. In the case of these three categories, Category:2006 United States Supreme Court cases and Category:2008 United States Supreme Court cases should be bot-merged to Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court, while Category:2005 United States Supreme Court cases should be manually split between Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court and Category:United States Supreme Court cases of the Roberts Court. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support re-categorizing these by "court" (chief justice) (not by year) as suggested above. If we're not going to change it to by chief justice, I still support my previous vote, which was a simple upmerge. I don't think "by year" is a good idea for these. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging/splitting all by chief justice. There will be too many year categories to be helpful; on the other hand merging the lot would give a category so large that it would need splitting. I hope than any other annual categories can be similarly dealt with. Mind you I am only an Englishman. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merging/splitting all by chief justice, named as BHG notes above. This is a far better solution than by year and an acceptable compromise to me if we must divide the parent category chronologically. postdlf (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2010 (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:Gian Lorenzo Bernini[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. We don't create eponymous categories for people unless there's a good reason to do so, and it seems no such reason has been presented. Jafeluv (talk) 15:28, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gian Lorenzo Bernini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unless populated, only creates an extra level of categorization before Category:Works by Gian Lorenzo Bernini is reached. Either populate with non-works articles or delete. I'm not sure what it could be populated with, otherwise I would do it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The category works by Bernini just exist.User:Lucifero4
  • Weak keep per my argument in a previous discussion, that "I can not disagree with Good Ol’factory's argument, but it does make sense to keep a category for the author and another one for his works. Just for proper categorising." Debresser (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why though? What does the eponymous category contribute? Not every author or artist has an eponymous category—only where they are "necessary"—so why is deleting an unnecessary one a problem? It's not like it will create a hole in the category tree, because there are thousands of artists and authors who don't have them. ... Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this, but upmerge Category:Works by Gian Lorenzo Bernini, which is the level of categorisation that is unnecessary. I suppose that needs a fresh nomination. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You'll have to explain that one a bit more. There is a well-developed tree for "works by..." by author and artist, but no well-developed tree for eponymous categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – there is the sole parent Category:Categories named after artists. This (with 1 subcat and no other articles) is clearly in breach of OCAT:EPON or whatever the shorthand might be. ('Works by' is beyond reproach.) Although I don't see that it creates 'an extra level': extra between where and where? It does create an extra way of finding 'Works by' via Category:Categories named after artists. Occuli (talk) 10:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • An extra level at the "top". Most "works by ..." categories don't have a parent eponymous category that only contains the "works by..." category and the main article. More than anything, it just creates confusion as to why this artist has an eponymous category in Category:Categories named after artists but all the others don't. (The guideline is at WP:OC#EPONYMOUS.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a parent for works by the author. Alansohn (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, that's a good description of what the category is, but it doesn't really provide any rationale for either keeping or deleting it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • AS I said above (though differntly expressed). This category is useless, but its subcategory "works by ..." must be reparented, perhaps by giving it the parent of that underdiscussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is a long-standing consensus that we do not need eponymous categories for artists simply to serve as a container for the head article and "Category:Works by foo". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG. Gian Lorenzo Bernini should be included in the works category as the lead article. There is no need for this extra categroy layer especially when eponymous categories like this are generally deleted. I think a position to go against previous consensus needs to be explained in detail and gather a new consensus. Lacking that, a split decision should default to previous consensus. Note that a delete with the artist's article being retained in the remaining category looses nothing! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:12, 19 January 2010 (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:Cuban-Americans[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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:40, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Cuban-Americans to Category:Cuban Americans
Nominator's rationale: "Cuban-American" is an adjective. "Cuban American" (as demonstrated by the article) is a noun. This is a list of nouns, not adjectives. — the Man in Question (in question) 08:05, 11 January 2010 (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:People with Celiac Disease[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. Jafeluv (talk) 14:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People with Celiac Disease to Category:People with celiac disease Kalervo (talk) 22:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Come again? Either delete it or consider creating more in the same vein? I'm scratching my head at this one. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he was being bitterly sarcastic about the recent proliferation of categories that divide other categories for people by century. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • BHG gets it- when sarcasm is used in my presence, go all out or I'll totally miss it! That said, "People by disease" isn't a great idea for a category, and strikes me as a bit of OCAT for most of these, so, delete Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion - Many of the reasons posted supporting deletion seem, to me, to actually support my reason for creating it (people don't know what it is; they don't associate particular people with it). It's a little known but very widespread condition; there are only five people in the category so far because that's all I've added so far. I created the category in an effort to increase awareness, but if that isn't in line with Wikipedia standards, I would certainly support deletion. My mistake. (FYI, I don't associate people's year of birth, religion, or ethnic heritage as "defining" of the people, but those seem to be valid categories. I thought this fit as something comparable to those.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankie08 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Frankie. I'm sure you acted in good faith when you created the category, but categories are not a device to "increase awareness" of a topic; they are just a navigational tool. (In fact, as a broader point, nothing in wikipedia should aim to increase awareness; as a tertiary source, wikipedia covers things which are already notable).
      Anyway, thank you for commenting here, and for being so open to the discussion. Some editors feel attacked when a category which they created is nominated for deletion, and it's good that you understand that a deletion nomination is not a personal attack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:20, 14 January 2010 (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.

Filipino to Philippine[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 January 25#Filipino to Philippine. postdlf (talk) 16:03, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominated categories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a follow-up nomination to this nomination. The Philippines Manual of Style states:
  • Philippine is generally used with inanimate objects. Example, Philippine National Anthem or Philippine Senate.
  • Filipino may be used with either inanimate objects or people, though preference swings towards the latter. It is also the name of the national language.
Accordingly, I have nominated the inanimate object categories that use "Filipino" for a change to the preferred "Philippine". Although using "Philippine" is not a required hard-and-fast rule, I think it would be beneficial to use the most common adjective in these cases. Some categories that use "Philippine" as an adjective already exist; they are not listed here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Most are pretty much textbook MOS issues, so support all but those three. The other three seem like they could go either way; but since we tend to talk about gods as if they were people in English, I tend to say leave those three alone. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2010 (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:Climate change organisations based in Australia[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. Jafeluv (talk) 15:34, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Climate change organisations based in Australia to Category:Climate change in Australia
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Climate change in Australia. Over categorisation. Not likely to be highly populated and there are no equivalent cats for other countries. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge for all the reasons given by nominator. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – there is Category:Climate change organizations (with a substantial US subcat) to which this should at least be upmerged. Occuli (talk) 10:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Category:Climate change organizations currently contains 90 articles outside of the United States sub-category, and given the prominence of the issue, that figure is likely to grow. This Australian sub-category should be seen as the start of a subcats-by-nation system for groups such as this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep to allow continued subcategorization based on home country of these organizations in the parent. Alansohn (talk) 17:09, 18 January 2010 (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:Walls of Recognized Content[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Wikipedia lists of recognized content. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Walls of Recognized Content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Special prize for anyone who can explain in English what this category is for. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, some people thought it was useful. That does not mean it is a good idea. I'm still confused about what this is about. Apparently it has something to do with a listing of a project's recognized content. But why does this need to be a category? Vegaswikian (talk) 04:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that there is a list of articles with a project's scope. But where does the wall come into it, and what does the "recognised content" mean? I can guess, but it would be much better if the category creator could point to a coherent explanation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
'cause these pages were introduced to people as Walls of Recognized Content? It's not broken, so lets leave good-enough alone. Headbomb {ταλκκοντριβς – WP Physics} 15:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is broken, because the category name does not make its contents clear. I don't who these pages were introduced to as "Walls of Recognized Content", but that's not how they are titled. Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Recognized content doesn't use the word "wall": it looks like a list, and it is a list, so why not call it by the simplest and most obvious term?—Preceding unsigned comment added by BrownHairedGirl (talk • contribs) 17:30, 11 January 2010 (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/2010_January_11&oldid=1138393892"