Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 22

< May 21	May 23 >

May 22[edit]

Category:Black 'N Blue albums[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. — ξ ^xplicit 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Black 'N Blue albums to Category:Black 'n Blue albums

Nominator's rationale: Caps, to match main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:05, 22 May 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:Medical fiction[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 May 30#Category:Medical fiction — ξ ^xplicit 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Medical fiction to Category:Medicine and health in fiction

Nominator's rationale: I've just created and populated Category:Medicine and health in fiction, and I've just found this almost empty and abandoned category, which really falls into the same area. Fences&Windows 19:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would say fiction about health is distinct from medical thrillers, etc. Medical experimentation, medical lawsuits, angels of mercy, etc have little to do with health (other than dying); while immortality, TB, AIDS fiction have less to do with medical than health. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:35, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's practically empty, and is subsumed into the new category. What's the point of keeping it? Your distinction between medical fiction and health fiction is not as good as distinction as you suggest. Fences&Windows 20:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think it is rather distinct, and as for not being populated, that's because it needs populating. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:35, 24 May 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:Health and fitness[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 May 30#Category:Health and fitness — ξ ^xplicit 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Seems redundant to other categories like Category:Health, Category:Exercise, etc. Seems to only exist for the purposes of a portal, but it's not being used and isn't necessary - probably as it's so vague what the category is meant for. Fences&Windows 18:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's a WP:WikiProject Health and fitness... 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:46, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't stop the category being vague and worthy of deletion, does it? Fences&Windows 20:04, 23 May 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:Critically endangered species risks[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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Similar to some of the creator's other categories on this CfD page, this category makes an WP:OC#ARBITRARY argument that Gulf of Mexico oil spills are risks for "critically endangered species." My reply: once a species has reached the stage where it is groupable under Category:Critically endangered species, there are no end of risks to the species' continued survival, oil spills just being one of a myriad. Let me just add that if my CfDs of User:Nopetro's categories seem like piling on, User:Cgingold has already raised these issues here, to no avail. So CfDs would seem to be the next logical step. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally arbitary. Might as well add Human and Asteroid to the category. Fences&Windows 18:27, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – User:Nopetro seems to be inventing ill-named categories for each of the many effects of the BP oil spill. We will have Category:BP shareprice downside risks next. Occuli (talk) 01:10, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- On that note, his Category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill has only one valid article, on the spill itself. The other three category contents are: an article on the Deepwater Horizon platform, one on the oil field on which it sits, and a kind of turtle. If no one nominates this one, I will. This editor seems to feel that categories can be used to create associations between things. Hopefully the comments at these CfDs and Cgingold's advice to him will act as a guide for future category creation. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - On second thought, I for one will leave Category:Deepwater Horizon oil spill to see how this growing disaster will play out. I think there's a likelihood we'll have more articles related to the spill before it's over -- if it ever is. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Really, is a social and politic disruption. See http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/24/us/24moratorium.html?hp . Of course, some people than before of the disaster was not worried (about externality in all the senses), now is very worried about the public opinion and because must/have to work in other energy field. --Nopetro (talk) 10:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons that Shawn in Montreal has ably explained. Nopetro appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose & function of categories. Cgingold (talk) 00:18, 26 May 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:Celebrity offspring[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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just created, no apparent usefulness. No well-defined inclusion criteria; neither "celebrity" nor "famous people" is much better than a subjective term. Fundamentally indiscriminate, not falling under any of the recognized standards for appropriate categories. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - category is way too vague and not very useful. --Logical Fuzz (talk) 16:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a specious category based on vague criteria that singles out inclusion in an arbitrary grouping. Adds no substantive value to the articles upon which it is placed. That these individuals are celebrity offspring is well covered in each article already. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above comments. Royal broil 03:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can we consider renaming? It's poorly named but the idea is clear enough.Mangoe (talk) 16:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:OCAT; not, in and of itself, a defining characteristic that links the categorized (afflicted?) individuals in any genuinely meaningful way. Bearcat (talk) 04:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- notability is not inherited. The children of celebrities are NN, unless notable in theri own right, so should not have a category. The concept seems to be that the notable subject is the child of notable person, a sportsman, actor, etc. The headnote excludes politicians (but why?). "Celebrity" is too broad to provide a meaningful category, but it might be possible to draw together (separately) members of acting dynasties, sporting dynasties, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 26 May 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:Syndicalist women[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 May 30#Category:Syndicalist women — ξ ^xplicit 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Syndicalist women to Category:Syndicalists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to Category:Syndicalists per WP:OC#ARBITRARY. While I'm generally in favour of occupations by women categories where relevant, being a syndicalist is not an "occupation." Furthermore, an inspection of sibling categories in the parent Category:People by political orientation reveals that in much larger category trees for Communists, Fascists, Socialists, etc., no women categories exist. I can't see a reason to make an exception for this tiny category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'd expected when looking at the category to find the likes of Milly Witkop or perhaps Federica Montseny, but the sole article in the category, Nicole Notat, doesn't appear to be a syndicalist in the sense of Category:Syndicalists and the Syndicalism article - just another trade union leader now a CEO? So moving her out the category seems reasonable, and can leave it null and void. AllyD (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, one can change the personalities. Notat is not only a CEO, is an institucional politician. And a similar category exists in the French Wikipedia. In any case, it is important know there are also females in this fields. So, I am going to outcategorinzing Notat and include the proposed by you. In which category include the trade union female leaders?. Regards --Nopetro (talk) 10:36, 24 May 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:Fishing bans[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. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 17:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The articles and categories herein are not about fishing bans. It simply groups some oil spills which have necessitated halts to fishing operations, and an article on the NOAA itself. Fishing is more likely to be "banned" in areas due to declining stocks, but I am not aware of any articles on such bans. Unless bona fide articles on fishing bans exist, this category only serves to further muddy the waters. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:58, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – it is ridiculous to categorise Deepwater Horizon oil spill as a 'Fishing ban'. It would have to be something like 'Incidents leading to fishing bans'. Might as well categorise a volcano as a 'Flight ban'. (I see the same creator is ahead of me - see Category:Volcanic ash clouds for various non-clouds.) Occuli (talk) 01:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I've nominated Category:Volcanic ash clouds for deletion. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 12:12, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I strong agree to rename to Category:Incidents leading to fishing bans --Nopetro (talk) 11:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for the reasons that Shawn in Montreal has ably explained. Nopetro appears to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose & function of categories. Cgingold (talk) 00:18, 26 May 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:Fiction by topic[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. — ξ ^xplicit 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Fiction by topic to Category:Topics in popular culture

Nominator's rationale: These seem to cover the same area, simply under different name. The dividing line between "in popular culture" and "in fiction" is blurry to say the least. A merge would consolidate this area, avoid duplication, and aid navigation. Fences&Windows 15:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A new title could be Category:Topics in fiction and popular culture. Fences&Windows 15:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Fiction is clear. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:36, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You might think, but lots of the popular culture items include fiction, and in reality these categories and their contents differ in name only (depending on whether the article/category creator chose "in fiction" or "in popular culture"), which is not a useful distinguishing feature. Fences&Windows 20:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Popular culture includes movies, TV shows, and so. Fiction only includes books that are fictional. It's a useful category. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support What Truthkeeper88 says does not appear to be the case, given the presence of e.g. The Producers (2005 film) in Category:Adolf Hitler in fiction and The Dresden Files (TV series) in Category:Magic in fiction. Because they do in fact overlap in treatment, I support. Munci (talk) 07:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Quite right, fiction does not exclude fiction not written in dead-tree novels. Films, TV and comics are all 'fiction'. You'll notice that there are few topics and categories for which there is both an "in popular culture" and "in fiction" entry, showing how they are redundant to each other. Fences&Windows 15:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Fiction is clear as above - what on earth is popular culture. That is the one that is not clear. Should we have measures of what create popularity! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose --Fiction is precise. Popular culture is imprecise. When I first edited in WP, many articles had a "popular culture" section, in which editors collected trivial literary, film, political and other allusions to the subject. These were essentially dumping grounds for trivial (non-encylopaedic) trash, and were long ago (and rightly) deleted wholesale. We should not give occasion for any such additions to be made in furture. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:20, 26 May 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:Science fiction concepts[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Science fiction concepts to Category:Science fiction themes

Nominator's rationale: This category seems redundant to the larger category, Category:Science fiction themes, so only serves to clutter up category space. It could be merged in, included all its non-redundant content and categories. If necessary, the target could be renamed to Category:Science fiction themes and concepts, but I doubt that's needed. Fences&Windows 15:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose concepts like faster-than-light travel clearly is not a theme, while dystopian worlds controlled by robots is more theme. 70.29.210.155 (talk) 04:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The categories can be merged to aid navigation and avoid duplication. Why do you actually want them separate? Fences&Windows 20:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support especially since the main article on "themes" is in the "concepts" category. Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 24 May 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.

Baseball players 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.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. As an administrative note, I will release these to the bot slowly over the next few days. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Major League Baseball players from Alabama to Category:Baseball players from Alabama

Nominator's rationale: Rename. per consensus names for sportspeople by state, i.e. Category:Basketball players from Alabama and previous CfD.TM 12:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. This change will allow these categories pick up the non-MLB players (Negro league baseball players and minor league players who never appeared in the major leagues). These non-MLB groups are too small to justify separate categorization by state. BRMo (talk) 13:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- why not create Category:Baseball players from state with Category:Major League Baseball players from state as a subcategory and leave the non-MLB players in the parent category? With this schema there is a loss of information. older ≠ wiser 14:22, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playing in Major League Baseball and being from a particular state is a non-notable intersection of unrelated facts. Does being from state X have anything to do with the fact that they played in one particular professional baseball league? By simply sorting them by state and not by state and professional league, we end the possibility of dramatic over-sorting, I.E. Category:American Association players from Texas or Category:National Football League players from Texas.--TM 15:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and BRMo. This does create a possibility to add these categories to non-MLB players. The idea to have this be a parent category for MLB players is also a good idea. Right now, the only parent category is "Sportspeople." --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as well. The standard format for alike cats is not to differentiate by league Mayumashu (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support standard is to not differentiate based on league. -DJSasso (talk) 21:00, 24 May 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:Wikipedia topic guidelines[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. — ξ ^xplicit 20:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Dupe of Category:Style guidelines of WikiProjects Gnevin (talk) 10:42, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you move the entries into the other category? It's good to alert people to recent changes so they can make an informed decision. That said, I'm fine with this. Fences&Windows 18:30, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, any page that had {{Subcat guideline}} with the parameter "Topic guideline" had that template removed by Gnevin and replaced with the above-mentioned category. Going by the edit history, the following pages had their categories changed:

-- Nifboy (talk) 15:55, 25 May 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:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Theater[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 June 4#Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Theater. — ξ ^xplicit 01:25, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Theater to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces

Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific Theater to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces

Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the South Pacific Theater to Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces

Nominator's rationale: UpMerge. Up merge to the sole parent's parent since the parent is already nominated for up merging. By creating these subcategories it creates the impression that the other subcategories in the parent are not in the Pacific theater. Another option would be to create Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Pacific Theater but I'm not convinced about the utility of that particular category. I do hope this is the end of nominations in this area for a while, but the deeper you dig, the more problems.Vegaswikian (talk) 00:28, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

keep/create/delete/merge as follows: The US Army and so the USAAF had two theaters in the area: 'Pacific' and 'Southwest Pacific' so keep Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Southwest Pacific Theater; create Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Pacific Ocean Theater; delete Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the Central Pacific Theater and Category:Airfields of the United States Army Air Forces in the South Pacific Theater; place all the subcat and articles in the two categories that would remain. Upmerging everything to a single worldwide category does not allow us to place these articles into Category:Pacific Ocean theater of World War II and Category:South West Pacific theatre of World War II which we certainly ought to do to complete the contents of those latter categories. Hmains (talk) 02:20, 26 May 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.