Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 14

< November 13	November 15 >

November 14[edit]

Category:Rotarians[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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is currently being used to categorize some of the founders and leaders of Rotary International, but there are also some articles in it whereby the subject has no greater connection to the topic apart from being a member of Rotary International. A category for members of Rotary International has been deleted before. If kept, I suggest we at least rename this to Category:Leaders of Rotary International or similar and include only those whose notability is due to the fact that they founded or headed Rotary International. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would there be any substantial difference between "Leaders of Rotary International" and "fellows of the Rotary Foundation" which is covered by Category:Rotary Foundation fellows? If not, then delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think (but I am not sure) that fellows of the Rotary Foundation are people who have received a Rotary Foundation fellowship—kind of like a scholarship. That seems like a garden-variety awards category and is of dubious value, I'd say. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:52, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - If that's what it is about, and if fellowship (money) recipients are not clearly defined in any article, then certainly it is not a suitable categorisation. Awards have to be very significant to be a basis for categorisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something, per nom. "Leaders of Rotary International" if no better solution is found. Johnbod (talk) 10:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
REname somehow, if kept to limit its scope. A general category for membership of a Rotary Club would be to bring in NN characteristics. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:38, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Rotary International leaders. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:44, 21 November 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:Miscellaneous international cricket[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Miscellaneous international cricket to Category:International cricket competitions

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There has been a general consensus to avoid "remainder" categories like this that categorize "miscellaneous" or "not otherwise categorized" topics. In such cases, the "left-overs" are just contained in the parent category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nomination. Artificially creating groups for the sole purpose of tidying a category tree is not useful categorisation. -- Mattinbgn (talk) 01:35, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sopport per nom. Nev1 (talk) 18:14, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category creator appears to have emptied out the category since this discussion was begun. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. That's correct. Decided soon after creation that it didn't fit the bill. The bot will remove it shortly. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:01, 18 November 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:Lakes with rumoured lake monsters[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 to list and delete. Dana boomer (talk) 20:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We don't categorize based on rumors. There is a very nice list at List of reported lake monsters. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I think this is appropriate to have in a list, probably not for a category since the level of notability the lake derives from the rumour varies enormously from lake to lake. For some, it is quite central to what the lake it known for; for others, hardly at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to list. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:45, 21 November 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 Munich alumni[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:University of Munich alumni to Category:Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich alumni

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match proper title of article at Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich. Editors should be able to take the title of the article and add the word "alumni" afterward to most simply facilitate the addition of such categories. Alansohn (talk) 22:06, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:52, 21 November 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:Introduced species sites[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. Dana boomer (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, arbitrary and unworkable, and founded upon OR. I doubt there's a place on earth that doesn't have an introduced species of some kind (plant or animal). And as best as I can determine, "site" has no established meaning in this context, but is instead a made-up term, so what constitutes an "introduced species site" is either based on some kind of original research or meaninglessly vague, thus leaving this category to either arbitrarily select a few place articles for inclusion just based on what someone bothers to put in, or to expand to potentially any city, country, region, etc. And I doubt that there are any places that are defined by their having introduced species extant. The list of introduced species is already organized geographically, so whatever information this category purports to collect is already out there in a useful form. postdlf (talk) 19:56, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I couldn't agree more with nominator. The 15 "sites" in the category as I write this are all over the place and it's a very eclectic list. I can see no possible link between Aammiq Wetland and Tongariro National Park, for example, making this category open to being randomly arbitrary. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I'M busy, but this should be Fun)-So the previous knows the word eclectic:... (I'm the author of the Category). the deal is this:
1.--the Nominator has a 'thing' going. He turned a personal note I gave to a reverter to Camrose, Alberta into this. (I don't, and won't read his nominator -cabal-driven, excuses...), but here's the deal about the Category:Introduced species:
2.--The category is underpopulated, (depauperate, to use a word as good as "eclectic"-(It's (eclectic)-a Barnstar Award-winning word, by the way). The category will remain underpopulated for the following reasons;
3.--One---List of intrudeced species, will never fulfull the need.-(This all began: I had to deal with 2-3 barrages about a "List" (there refs, not mine!)
The following lists should be made:
4-A.--There is a List of intruduced birds.
4-B.--List of introduced species-Islands
4-C.--List of introduced fish species-Lakes
4-D.--List of introduced fish species-drainage basins
4-E.--List of introduced species-mammals
4-F.--List of introduced species-domesticated animals, (i.e. mammals, birds)
4.G.--List of introduced species-mountain ranges, (i.e. or valleys, plateaus,..)

So you get the idea of being underpopulated. I can guarantee, that 2 years from now (after the cabal-cowboys-get-done). Either the category will be transformed, or the ONE big list will be transformed. (As the "expert" nominator said in my Talk.. No place on the planet Earth has not been affected. (And that's why I only found 2 mountain ranges, easily identifiable, living sites for a bird species, and a mammal.. ! -- Ruby Mountains, and Florida Mountains; I suspect at least 10 to 20 good mountain ranges must be on the planet, with good examples of established, introduced species.)... (so help this category out, and set the example for the next two years.)...(i.e. keep it underpopulated... if you do a search of "intoduced-lakes-species-fish", you will be amazed at the items NOT, capable of being put on a "List of introduced species".)...(author of Category).. (And if you are incapable of figuring out why theTongariro National Park and the Aammiq Wetland are precise examples for the category, then fellow wikipedians, and other Articles in Wikipedia, look out ahead.)... (author, of category)--....Mmcannis (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A site where something is introduced is that, the single place where something was introduced. By making it a category, we are saying that the introduction is defining for the site. A category is not capable of documenting that a species was specifically introduced there as to some other location and simply migrated to that location. While we may know that a specific species is not native, to claim that we know where it was introduced is generally unprovable. So I guess in the end, this category is subjective conjecture. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks-for not reading any of the articles. Each article, specifically tells, why the species was introduced, and the Resultant, of it. (I would expect that you at least look at 2,3,4 articles.... instead of making statements, based on (your) incorrect assumptions)-(because of not reading, or examining any articles).Mmcannis (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- much too wide-ranging to be useful. One might think of having this as a parent-only category, but this would lead to species articles being plastered with categories for places where the species had been interoduced. This is why we do not allow award and performance by performer categories. List-articles might be acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:43, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, WP:OC and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As for Mmcannis, please remember WP:CIVIL - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:48, 21 November 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:Atheistic actors[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) 21:17, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, non-notable intersection of occupation by religion (or lack thereof). This is the only occupation subcategory for atheists that is not about the subject's atheism (contra Category:Atheism activists, Category:Atheist philosophers). See also prior CFD deleting then-existing actor by religion categories. postdlf (talk) 19:16, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that there is a defining connection between lack of religious beliefs and acting. Alansohn (talk) 22:07, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; not a defining intersection. Category:Atheistic comedians is similarly suspect. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. McLerristarr | Mclay1 00:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
delete -- a NN characteristic for an actor, though very notable for a philosopher. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:45, 18 November 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:Black Rock region[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) 21:18, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Black Rock region to Category:Black Rock hydrologic unit

Nominator's rationale: Rename. While listed as a rename since the current name is not accurate in my mind, I think that deletion is the best choice. This area is one of about 3,000 USGS defined units. It would be much better for navigation to cover this information in articles about major units with sections for the subunits. I contend that being included in the USGS units is not defining for the articles. Note, this was created by a banned user. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a stub masquerading as a category. Why hasn't the description (and map!) been moved to article space? Is there any precedence on having or not having articles on each of these USGS units? postdlf (talk) 22:05, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Not likely to survive at AfD. So instead it arrives on our doorstep. They live longer when we are confused and don't support deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:11, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is just duplicating Category:Black Rock Desert. Kmusser (talk) 16:11, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't understand the need or purpose, especially given the existence of Category:Black Rock Desert, Black Rock Desert, the {{Black Rock Desert}} and the many pages linked from there. Some USGS hydrologic units might be notable, but it's hard to see how this one is--except maybe as an example of how artificial the units can be. Pfly (talk) 20:24, 19 November 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:Piano compositions[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 into Category:Compositions for piano. Jafeluv (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Category:Piano compositions as an incomplete duplicate of Category:Compositions for piano --Morn (talk) 11:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in case the first omits some contnets of the latter. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect. I can't say that I would always think of one over the other. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 15 November 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:Lakes of the Mojave Desert (California)[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. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Lakes of the Mojave Desert (California) to Category:Lakes of the Mojave Desert and Category:Lakes of California

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merge to both parents. I don't see how this improves navigation as a triple intersection. In addition, several of the most notable of these lakes need to also be included in Category:Lakes of the Mojave Desert since they spread across several states. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support, for reasons above.---Look2See1 t a l k → 05:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support' - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:49, 21 November 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:Recipients of the Jawaharlal Nehru Award[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete (already listified). Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete, per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Award winners — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This is an international award on behalf of the India government, mostly to interational figures. I do not think it is likely to be important enough to keep. List already exists at Jawaharlal Nehru Award. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Award by the government of one of the largest nations in the world to highly notable people. Beware of systemic bias. --NSH001 (talk) 15:37, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete and listify - can see the arguments on both sides. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 23:50, 21 November 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:Yuba River Basin[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 22. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Yet another USGS subunit that does not have a main article and the category is being used as the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:36, 14 November 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:Bear River Basin (California)[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: Relist, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 November 22. Dana boomer (talk) 20:03, 22 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Single entry category with unclear growth opportunities. No main article and the category is masquerading as the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:34, 14 November 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:Regions of the United States[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: Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:04, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Which type of region? political, physical, historical or other as listed in the template used in the introduction. Bottom line here is that there is no inclusion criteria. One could argue that splitting along the topics in the template might be a way to go. My question there is, would we need both the template and the categories? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this category, as a "layperson's sense of regions" cat. - without phyto-hydro-bio-eco-et al criteria that is well served in those disciplines own cat.s - so 'regular average readers' can find general encyclopedic region info. Can put a few links to the primary science based parent cat.s at page's top.---Look2See1 t a l k → 05:25, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as an appropriate parent for articles and categories grouping the United States into regions, a clear defining category and an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I'm not understanding the nom's problem with this category. "Region" is an informal term, but it's understood as such and that's its benefit here. It seems to me like a logical grouping of such unofficial subdivisions (whether cultural, geographic, or historical) of the U.S., to separate them out from formal (i.e., political) subdivisions such as states, cities, etc. So it's serving a useful sorting function, and I don't see it being misused. Really the only alternative is to reverse the sorting, by dumping all of this category's contents back into category:Subdivisions of the United States, and then moving all of the political subdivisions into a further subcategory, but that seems backwards to me. postdlf (talk) 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then we probably need to group these into political, physical, historical subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's already done to the extent it's feasible. There is Category:Former regions and territories of the United States. Political subcategories, i.e., political subdivisions, are already subcategorized by type within the base Category:Divisions of the United States, such as Category:States of the United States, Category:Cities in the United States, etc. And there is Category:Regions of the United States by state. Dividing it any more is neither necessary nor possible, because most, if not all of the included regions are defined by multiple aspects (i.e., the Midwest is a cultural region as well as a geographic one). Once again, I see nothing wrong with the current state of this category structure and I don't understand what you do. postdlf (talk) 22:38, 14 November 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.