Category:Polish mathematicians of Jewish descent[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.
There always have been a lot of subcats for Category:Jews by occupation. Some get deleted and others survive (eg by not being nominated). Anyway I don't think a well-run cfd should be recreating as a side effect a category previously deleted by cfd. Occuli (talk) 01:41, 5 April 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.
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. — ξxplicit 19:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Indiscriminate, posing BLP issues. There are no selection criteria here. Instead, it's an inconsistent listing of Playboy Playmates and models, Penthouse Pets, hardcore pornographic actresses, women who've appeared naked in films, and women who've been photographed in various stages of undress, without regard to the context. There's no explanation as to what "adult" means (and it doesn't seem to mean much more than that a Wikipedia editor believes he's seen images of the subject's bare breasts, or more); there's in practice no requirement that the categorization reflect the subject's occupation. Jaid Barrymore is included, but not Drew Barrymore; Claudia Lennear, but not Debbie Gibson. Some of the entries are inexplicable -- eg, Karen Lynn Gorney, Lissy Trullie -- at least in terms of the article contents. Most important, the BLP problems appear insurmountable -- this is a second generation subcategory of "American sex workers," and going far beyond the popular understanding of that term and creating inaccurate implications about a significant number of the listed individuals. In the past, I've cleaned up some of the more egregious inclusions (eg, a fashion model who once posed for a single published nude by Richard Avedon), but that's a fool's errand; there's nothing salvageable here. (There are a batch of related categories, mostly other nationalities, that can be resolved quickly after this is settled; this is by far the most fouled-up). Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I only see cleanup concerns here. Individuals should not be categorized by a one-off gig of any kind, so celebrities who posed for one Playboy issue should not be in this category. But there are definitely many individuals who are notable only as adult models, a career distinct from mainstream (fashion/runway, etc.) models in the same way that Category:Pornographic film actors is distinct from Category:Film actors generally. I notice there is no merge target proposed, so I don't know how the nom proposes to otherwise categorize them. As for the sex workers parent category, I can't say that's necessarily correct, but the article gives that term a potentially broad definition that would include models in sexual materials, not just prostitutes (a former classmate of mine who had worked as a stripper even called herself a "former sex worker" in class once. strange girl.). But regardless, the scope of the sex worker category structure is another matter to be discussed; I don't see that as a reason to delete this category. If that category doesn't belong as a parent, then remove it. postdlf (talk) 05:59, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 22:42, 5 April 2010 (UTC) Come with a good story and compact story and maybe we will buy it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.84.107.139 (talk)
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:split. — ξxplicit 21:16, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Most of the songs were written collectively by the Gibb brothers, commonly known as the Bee Gees, so a collective category is needed for those songs. Colin Peterson, Vince Melouney and Geoff Bridgeford were only briefly members of the group and were not involved in writing of the songs, so the category is really songs by the Gibb brothers, but as they are better known as the Bee Gees, the current title of the category is reasonable. Subcategories could be created for songs written by individual members, in particular Category:Songs written by Barry Gibb. Cjc13 (talk) 10:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, every other category in the songs by songwriter tree is split down to the writers, why should the two mentioned above be any different? Plus there are songs written by Bee Gees members but not recorded by the Bee Gees, so the Bee Gees tag wouldn't be appropriate. People write songs, not marketing names! Wish I'd never taken the easy way in the first place. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The comparison with Lennon/McCartney is incorrect, the corresponding category would be Category:Songs written by the Beatles members which is a redlink! Also, there is a separate article for the Lennon/McCartney songwriting partnership. Category:Songs written by George Harrison exists and includes songs written with Len/Mac, Beatles songs and songs recorded as a solo artist, ditto for Ringo Starr. The Mann/Weill category is problematic as both actually have song articles which they didn't co-write together and there is no supporting combined article. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS The Sherman Brothers have written all their songs together as far as I am aware, would be pointless to split them. --Richhoncho (talk) 18:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Save that even the BeeGees didn't give the songwriting credit to the band, but to each individual as shown here. I wish i hadn't created this category. BTW, a bit forward of you to create a new category which is the subject of a discussion? --Richhoncho (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The lists for Robin Gibb and Maurice Gibb are very similar and all of their tracks with articles in Wikipedia were collaborations with fellow Bee Gees. I created the subcategory to show I had gone through all the song credits and I thought it would help the discussion. Cjc13 (talk) 20:35, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support splitting out. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. In this case, even the creator (and sole editor!) has agreed that the nomination should be carried out, so I don't see why it should not be. Good Ol’factory(talk) 10:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as I don't think a bot can do this one, if the nomination is closed as split, I am more than happy to continue the editing started by Cjc13, at least that way I pay for my error, as it should be! --Richhoncho (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Split per nominator, clearer names which are more line within naming conventions. These songs were written by individual people. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:17, 25 April 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.
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 מישהוOd Mishehu 19:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match parent articles of Thunder Bay and Thunder Bay District, the word district is enough of a disambiguator for the two and there are no others that would have these sort of categories.. DJSasso (talk) 17:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. One that Djasso and I agree on! There are no other significantly large settlements called Thunder Bay nor any other Thunder Bay DistrictsMayumashu (talk) 00:08, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match titles of parent articles. Alansohn (talk) 02:19, 1 April 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.
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 (rename, really, since the target categories don't currently exist). -- Black Falcon(talk) 06:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This follows the other CFD I just posted. These categories don't warrant being sudivided this far. This also follows the naming scheme that has been in use for years with players in Canada such as Category:Ice hockey personnel from Ontario. DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agreed personnel covers players no need to subdivide, plus it follows prior naming schemes--Leech44 (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge – the Canadian scheme seems sufficiently divided. Occuli (talk) 15:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The reasoning is that most players go on to be notable for other things in the sport like being coaches or managers or referees etc. By naming it as personnel instead of players in eliminates alot of over categorization. I would actually rename those ones as well but right now just focusing on hockey. I would also note that the Category:American ice hockey players is a category involving positions played in the game (as Americans). Not where they are from, that is what the Category:American sportspeople by state takes care of which is what these would then be a subcategory of. Two different category trees. And as of right now there are 6 players in the category (I am sure there are others that haven't been cat'd yet though) which isn't a strong case for needing to seperate players from the coaches, referees, managers etc. -DJSasso (talk) 15:57, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the notion that most players go on to be notable for coaching or refereeing. It is simply not true. Of the 6 articles in the Maine category, one, Eric Weinrich, has been a coach. I doubt that it is a much higher ratio than 1 of 6 in any other category. On the notion that having only 6 articles in a category requires merging, WP:OC#Small makes no such claim. There is significant room for expansion. Lastly, we should be developing Category:American ice hockey people by state rather than destroying it. By doing this, you are hurting common categorization across all sports.--TM 17:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not destroying it, if you read my nom this is to go along with a renaming of that category. Just because other sports are poorly named doesn't mean we shouldn't start somewhere and fix all of them. I shouldn't have used the word most, but alot do go on to other positions in hockey. Also ice hockey has been categorized this way for well over 3 years. So I don't think this rename will hurt the common categorization across all sports anyways or something would have been done about it. If anything the fact that these categories are out of synch with the rest of its equivalent categories is the greater issue. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 31 March 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:American ice hockey people by state[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.
Yeah I forgot about that one when I put these two up. Probably should have waited, but wanted to get this up before Mayu went through the trouble of creating 52 categories. (or however many). -DJSasso (talk) 14:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mayumashu is nothing if not thorough and is probably heading towards 'Players', 'Coaches', 'Administrators' and 'stubs', by state, century and gender, which comes to 800 or so, max. Occuli (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've slightly changed the request for Minnesota from rename to delete since the other cfd has closed as rename. -DJSasso (talk) 22:15, 4 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Someone mention my name? No, in fact, I ve been (the) one in favour of 'by people' over 'by player' to be able to lump all notables involved within a single sport together and not have Category:Baseball umpires from Delaware etc. It is sportspeople, not sports personnel, and for good reason - personnel belong to an organisation and a sport is not an organisation (although it does have organisation, of course) Mayumashu (talk) 00:03, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personnel doesn't automatically mean organization. Personnel is a term you use for people that work in a certain profession. ie Medical personnel not Medical people. Information Technology personnel not Information Technology people. Using people is very bad english. -DJSasso (talk) 00:12, 1 April 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:University of Alabama at Birmingham personnel[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/rename as nominated. -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:02, 8 April 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:Privately owned Government companies in India[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.
Nominator's rationale: The title of this category is oxymoronic: if a company is privately-owned, it's not a govt company. However the category does appear to be for state-owned enterprises, so I suggest merging to the existing Category:Government-owned companies in India. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:35, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looking at the header for this category it appears that they are ‘Autonomous’ rather than ‘private’. Perhaps a rename to Category:Autonomous Government companies in India might be better than merge. I do not know sufficient about the Indian business model to say whether the distinction should be drawn between these businesses. The category is in any case in the wrong place – it should be a sub-cat of Category:Government-owned companies in India. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:29, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I know little of the subject, and agree that we have an oxymoron, but I think that BHG (in Ireland) and me (in England) should be very wary of seeking to impose our views of what can exist on a land as complex as India. I would support Twiceuponatime's suggestion or Category:Privately-run Government companies in India, both of which seem to fit the definition in the headnote better than the present title. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:00, 4 April 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 April 13#Category:Privately owned Government companies in India. — ξxplicit 20:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)