Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 August 25

< August 24	August 26 >

August 25[edit]

Category:Ang TV[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of performers by performace. The category is simply grouping actors who appeared in the TV series Ang TV. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:29, 25 August 2011 (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.

Fantaserye and telefantasya[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 rename/merge C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:28, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging Category:Fantaserye to Category:Fantaserye and telefantasya

Propose renaming/merging Category:Telefantasya to Category:Fantaserye and telefantasya

Nominator's rationale: Rename/merge. I propose merging these two categories into a single new category. The concepts are treated together in our article Fantaserye and telefantasya and the two terms are essentially synonymous, so there is no need for separate categories. I suggest the two existing category names become category redirects to assist. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 25 August 2011 (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:Paintings of people crossing geographical features[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not a useful categorization of paintings - "people crossing geographical features in art" is not a topic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Images of people crossing geographical features. When people cross a geographical feature in a painting or photograph, they usually (almost always in the case of paintings) do it for a very good reason such as conquering a country. As we are not Commons, we currently have only 12 images in the category. Therefore it seems appropriate to rename it so as to extend its scope. I believe in many use cases for the category a good photo is just as useful as a painting. Hans Adler 22:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure about that. 'Images of' has been used for categories of images. These appear to be articles about notable paintings. So the proposed name appear to be inaccurate. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Hans Adler. It's no more useless than any other category. If you want to find a painting of somebody crossing a geographical feature where would you look otherwise? Yomangani ^talk 23:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why would I be looking for painting of someone generically "crossing a geographical feature"? Basically my point is that, as Hans Adler points out, we are not Commons, and our aim is not to help people find superficially similar-looking paintings - that's why we don't have, say, Category:Female red hair in art or Category:Accidents in art. If someone was proposing that the paintings of Washington, Napoleon, and Suvorov be grouped together as some sort of non-diffusing subcat of the military art categories, I'd understand that, but just grouping all of these together - the military folk, St. Christopher, Isumbras, the Red Sea - is superficial and non-encyclopedic. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:26, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A totally trivial relationship between the art categorized together. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:44, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete far too narrow and there is no real notability of the subject matter; why not Category:People who have crossed geographic features without having been painted while doing so, so I can include myself for crossing the Bay Bridge?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Violates WP:OC#TRIVIA, imo. Also, per Roscelese, who points out the vital differences between a commons category and one on this project. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:23, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorizes paintings' names and narrow intersectionCurb Chain (talk) 00:10, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems too narrow an intersection and doesn't result in a useful linkage between related items. Orderinchaos 00:08, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. OK, it was a joke. I still think it's a cool category, but I'm surprised it lasted this long. Bishonen | talk 12:40, 29 August 2011 (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:Australian Film Institute awards[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 merge C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:30, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Australian Film Institute awards to Category:Australian Film Institute Awards

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The awards are called the Australian Film Institute Awards so the related category should be the one with the capital 'A' on Award (although the category with the lowercase 'a' has more entries). Boissière (talk) 21:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've just noticed that these awards are now called the AACTA Awards so perhaps there should be a new Category:AACTA Awards instead. Boissière (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On reading the awards article a bit more carefully it seems that this name change has only just gone through and there have been no awards ceremonies under the new name (the first is in January 2012 apparently), so I think that my original request is still correct and any potential rename to the new name should wait until then. Boissière (talk) 21:14, 27 August 2011 (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.

People by school parent categories[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 the alternative. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:44, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Nominator's rationale: Successive CFDs have veered away from using the terms "pupils", "students" or "alumni" to the form "People educated at [School name]" for schools categories in both Australia and the United Kingdom. The Australian school categories were all switched in this CFD. The British categories have been changed in a succession of CFDs including this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one (upheld at Deletion Review), this one, this one, this one, this one, this one, this one and this one. This leaves the question of what to title the parent categories to match the contents; since both countries are using the same format for the individual categories it makes sense to consider them together. This discussion has suggested "People educated in [Placename] by school" as a workable form for the parent categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As several others below have suggested there is the alternative order of "People educated by school in Foo" which may be better. The changes would be as follows:

Extended content

Timrollpickering (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. Despite all the discussions and repeated requests, no third-party evidence has been provided to indicate that there is a problem with using "pupils" for all schools in the UK. The only evidence is anecdotal and there has been evidence presented to contradict it, eg BBC. "Former pupils" or "Former students" is the equivalent to "Alumni" and thus is more consistent with the parent category, and the American and Canadian categories. The proposed names seem so contrived and do not conform to WP:Commonname. Cjc13 (talk) 22:48, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support. As indicated above, the categories themselves have been renamed over many different discussions and it is time to close this off by renaming the parent categories. Cjc13, it is time you recognised that you are in a very small minority (possibly of one) and accept the changes rather than struggling on to the bitter end). --Bduke (Discussion) 23:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am just registering my disagreement with the changes and the reasons for my being against the changes. This is meant to be a discussion and consensus should not mean trying to intimidate and suppress opposing views. Cjc13 (talk) 11:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I now support the alternative of Category:People educated by school in Australia rather than Category:People educated in Australia by school and so on for all the others.--Bduke (Discussion) 02:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It makes sense to rename the parent categories now that most of the subcategories have been so renamed by consensus. Eventually, when you see consensus veering a definite way, it's quite a noble thing to accept or even embrace the consensus, even if you disagreed with the original idea. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Wouldn't "People educated by school in Foo" be more correct? The governing angle of the categorization is the institution, not the country.- choster (talk) 00:28, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a very welcome effort at rationalisation by Timrollpickering. He and others look to have broken the back of the farcical "Old Gits" cats, and I look forward to the day of their final victory. Ra ra ra! --Mais oui! (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slight alternative instead - Category:People educated by school in Fooian, etc. Per User:choster and that Distance learners would seem to be left out by this naming - less of an issue with secondary as opposed to tertiary education, but still Mayumashu (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no objection to that alternate order. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support – I would also support 'alumni', using the word from the upper reaches of the category structure (so that Category:Alumni by secondary school looks consistent). [I have no reason to believe that the 'Old Gits' are about to crumble, however.] Occuli (talk) 15:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Per several I also would prefer the alternative name "People educated by school in England" etc as this is the pattern everywhere in Category:Alumni by secondary school. Occuli (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support, brings these categories into alignment with everything else, good location-neutral wording, nothing not to like about this proposal! :-) Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

It is not in alignment with the parent categories and the American categories. Using "Former pupil", the equivalent to "Alumni", would be more appropriate. Cjc13 (talk) 11:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative. "People educated by school in England" puts the school in England, not the educatee. But either way is really fine with me. (I also think we have not broken the aforementioned back.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems a reasonable proposition which better accommodates the real world situation than the present setup. Orderinchaos 00:07, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support alternative "People educated by school in England" per Mike Selinker. Thryduulf (talk) 11:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The changes do not seem to following any Wikipedia naming conventions. This discussion and this one show that there has been significant opposition to the changes made so far. In both cases the changes only went through because the closing editor was in favour of the changes, in my opinion contrary to Consensus policy. Despite all the discussions, there is no evidence that "Former pupil" is inappropriate for the UK categories. "Former pupils" and "Former students" are direct equivalents to "Alumni" which is used in the parent categories. Cjc13 (talk) 12:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Given the recent consensus decisions, to me it looks a lot like an emerging or a new convention. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:14, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - There was no interest in using it for Canadian schools in this discussion, so it would be an odd convention that only applies outside of North America. Cjc13 (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - So you would support 'Old Boodlefoodleians', unknown in N America, being changed. Excellent. Occuli (talk) 14:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, what I mean is that I do not think that this proposal represents any sort of convention, old or new, but is merely a whim of some individuals who do not like the Old Fooian format so are trying to mess up the categories for the UK and other countries with these proposals. What I would support is the use of the Old Fooian format for schools in other countries such as Australia where such names are in use. Cjc13 (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        I suppose "consensus" in the eyes of the stubborn will always be unprincipled "whims". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:59, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: The words "educated at" imply that attendance at any school for which a category can be created amounts to an education, whereas "pupils", "former pupils", "alumni", etc., make no such value judgement. Also, there is no global consistency, so per Cjc13 the "one-size-fits-all" names are not in line with WP:Commonname. I see no problem with using "pupils" for the United Kingdom, it is the most natural term. Moonraker (talk) 23:33, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- None of the individual schools categories now uses "former pupils" following these two CFDs. This change will bring the parent categories in line with the bulk of the contents. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:45, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:Consensus can change. Cjc13 (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2011 (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:San Antonio City Cemetery No. 1[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 G7. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Created in error - should have been "Category:Burials at San Antonio City Cemetery No. 1". I am unable to do a Move, so I request deletion. I will already created the correctly worded category. Maile66 (talk) 20:11, 25 August 2011 (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:Pinky Dinky Doo[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:03, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough to support an eponymous category. Only distinct articles are those for its creator and the main character, which easily navigate from the eponymous article. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Seems unnecessary, given the contents. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 08:13, 31 August 2011 (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:Posthumous works[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Posthumous works to Category:Works published posthumously

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the rename is a more accurate description; it's not the work that died but the creator of the work. It is also inline with the most directly related article, List of works published posthumously. Another alternative is Category:Works released posthumously. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 19:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination also includes the following. Term "published" vs. "released" was used based on the category's definition of inclusion, but I support whichever is more appropriate for the medium.

Rename also the works were "published" posthumously, not writen or in other ways made posthumously (at least with books and poems, songs and films it is harder to say because of unclear indications of who exactly died.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The songs is clearly linking it to the singer, although this ignores the fact that some songs were written by someone but never officially and definatively sung, so why we link to the singer and not the writer of the song is worth discussing. The films section says "director and/or creator" that seems an even more unclear set of rules.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The song category does seem to be a bit different. It is the recording of such songs, not the songs themselves, that are being released posthumously if we are to go by how the category is being populated. Unless it is split between "published" for songwriters and "released" for recordings. Maybe this one requires further discussion at WT:SONGS. Thanks. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom.; with technology, I can see works actually made posthumously ("Unforgettable" duet with Nat King Cole & Natalie Cole was posthumously made after Nat's death). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Good call. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:26, 26 August 2011 (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:Ancestors of Elizabeth II[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: What next? Ancestors of Josef Stalin? Ancestors of Brigitte Bardot? Ancestors of Donald Duck? Mais oui! (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Duck is fictional by the way. And who's Brigit Bardot? nymets2000 (t/c/l) 19:16, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-defining for article subjects, and not particularly useful - people interested in the descent of Elizabeth II can read about it in her article and in the two other articles devoted specifically to that purpose. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll revert the edits I made. nymets2000 (t/c/l) 19:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm done! nymets2000 (t/c/l) 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no reason that this is a defining characterization for Edward VII. Having a given great-granchild hardly seems a useful way to categorize anyone. Beyond this limiting it to only great-grandparents and more recent is just arbitrary. It is not a defining characteristic for these people and the criteria for inclusion are entirely arbitrary.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I question whether this is a useful or encyclopedic categoy. Is she much more important than other current or passt monarchs? As with some other monarchs, if you go back a while her ancestors include a lot of past nobles and monarchs e.g. most of the monarchs of England, Scotland, and several monarchs of other European countries. When she dies (which may not be that far away) do we remove this category or replace it with ancestors of Charles III? Do we include the dubious claims that she is descended from ancient Israelite or Trojan kings? PatGallacher (talk) 20:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per long-standing consensus not to categorize people for being ancestors or descendants of another person. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:52, 25 August 2011 (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:Townships in Monmouth County, New Jersey[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 by nominator. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:49, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category is unnecessary; and not populated. This will cause more work for editors to fill it up, and other counties do not have this type of category. The main category, Townships in New Jersey, is sufficient. Tinton5 (talk) 19:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep Work to do is not a criteria for deletion. I will be populating this and all other such township categories for New Jersey, as I am already done/doing for other US states. Hmains (talk) 02:19, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Already populated and a perfectly logical way to group municipalities. Alansohn (talk) 03:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I withdraw my nomination. Since they are now populated, if somebody could close this and my vote now would be keep. Tinton5 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2011 (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:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae[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 rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumnae to Category:Chapin School (Manhattan) alumni

Nominator's rationale: Renominating Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_31#Alumnae. This is the only US category of the "alumnae" form. I think it can be dealt with speedily now, but I wanted to give a chance for new debate here, at least for a couple days.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both for consistency and because in current usage alumni is the functional singular and plural for both genders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with other similar cats of all-girl schools. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per previous discussions. Occuli (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2011 (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:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:50, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Alumnae of Cheltenham Ladies' College to Category:People educated at Cheltenham Ladies' College

Nominator's rationale: Renominating Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_July_31#Alumnae. This is now the sole category in Category:Former pupils by school in England that doesn't use "People educated at (X)" or "Old (Xs)." I think it can be dealt with speedily now, but I wanted to give a chance for new debate here, at least for a couple days.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 13:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to agree with other non-old FOO cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to agree with other cats for UK schools. The tag on the cat page had rename to "People who attended ..", so I corrected to "People educated at ..". --Bduke (Discussion) 23:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It actually uses "Former pupils" on its website[1] so a change to Category:Former pupils of Cheltenham Ladies' College would be more appropriate (as it would be for similar categories). Cjc13 (talk) 23:11, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with other students-of-UK-schools cats. This resolves the alumni/alumnae issue nicely. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for consistency with the other UK schools categories. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per above. --Mais oui! (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per many similar previous discussions. Occuli (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2011 (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:Minor league baseball outfielders[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A completely unnecessary split. I have argued in the past that split by position and league, i.e. Category:Major League Baseball players by position is a bad idea; the solution we found for every other sport (Category:Association football strikers and not Category:English Premier League association football strikers) is much better. Moreover, the whole category Category:Minor league baseball players is poorly thought out because each player is already in usually multiple subcategories for his team. Anyway, sorting by type of league and position does nothing but overcategorize and add clutter.--TM 11:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2011 (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:The Tribe 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of performers by performace (actors appearing in the TV series The Tribe). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomCurb Chain (talk) 07:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 25 August 2011 (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:Categories named after towers[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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Needless proliferation of "meta" categories. Editor2020 (talk) 02:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I assume the nomination is for deletion (it is not specified above)? If so, I would think an upmerge to Category:Categories named after buildings and structures would be a more appropriate proposal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also upmerge to Category:Towers which is lacking the subcats here. Hmains (talk) 02:34, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Not all of the articles in the categories are about towers so that upmerge is not appropriate. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - All are towers, or at least come within the subcategories of Category:Towers. Category:Skyscrapers is a subcategory of Category:Towers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    - Is B-25 Empire State Building crash a tower? The issue here is the content in the subcategories of Category:Categories named after towers and if they belong in Category:Towers. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      - I don't think that's the issue at all; at least that's not what I was referring to. It doesn't take a CFD to remove a parent category. The issue of whether all articles in a category need to be able to be appropriately categorized into all its parent categories is an irresolvable side-show. (There are good arguments on both sides.) My point was that all the categories are named after towers. I wasn't referring to the all articles in all the categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:43, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question. I'd like to see somewhat more of a justification for deletion. Something of the nature of "there are lots of categories" seems like a particularly bad reason. Why is this category nominated, rather than some or all of the many other "meta" categories? Why not the others in Category:Categories named after buildings and structures? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to towers. We have Category:University of Arizona as a subcat of Category:Universities and colleges in Arizona even though the category does not contain articles on universities. This is part of the odd rules for categories that are named specifically after something. We categorize based on the thing the category is named for, even when the contents of the category do not fit in the categories. This definantly makes sense when we have a category when the things are clearly that. On the other hand we should not put any of these categories in Category:Buildings and structures completed in 1929 or whatever specific year they would go in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for my reasons above: it's one of a series and why is this category being cherry picked for deletion rather than some or all of the other many "meta" categories? If the nominator could present a more detailed rationale, I could perhaps be persuaded otherwise. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Good Ol’factory. It has many sibling categories which are not being deleted. 'Needless proliferation' is not a reason to delete; one must state why it is thought to be 'needless'--something that has not been done. Hmains (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2011 (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:NZ on Air Funded Show[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 rename C2A/C. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NZ on Air Funded Show to Category:Television programmes funded by NZ On Air

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category needs to be pluralised and the capitalization fixed. Also, referring to a television programme as a "show" is an Americanism that is is best used, if at all, only in category names that refer to American television. I also suggest reformatting the name for clarity purposes. This category is for television programmes, but NZ On Air also funds non-TV material. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:55, 25 August 2011 (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:Tiny Pop shows[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 06:53, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Tiny Pop does not produce original programming. We don't categorize TV series by every network or channel they happen to appear on; doing so is overcategorization. A list of programmes that Tiny Pop broadcasts is listed in the article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomCurb Chain (talk) 07:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categorize shows by creator, not by every channel that showed them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 25 August 2011 (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.