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 per nom. Ruslik_Zero 15:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. This category seems to be cutting things a little too fine. Zagreb is not one of the 200 biggest cities, I don't think, so that enters into it too - it might be allowable to have this category for London or New York or whatever (although as noted even that was disallowed), but even if we did Zagreb would probably be below whatever line we drew. Herostratus (talk) 17:46, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. I nominated New York and see no reason for any city category.--TM 03:48, 9 February 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.
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. Courcelles 05:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per comment immediately above. However, Toronto is much bigger than Zagreb - it is probably one of the 50 largest cities in the world, I think. Nevertheless, while large, it is not not New York or Seoul or Mexico City, and wouldn't make any reasonable "cut" if we did allow this category for the very largest cities, in my opinion. Herostratus (talk) 18:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge per comments above.--TM 03:51, 9 February 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:American actors of European 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.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge all. Courcelles 04:34, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm nominating this batch as an irrelevant intersection per WP:OCAT. Tina Fey already has three on her article, and yet it would appear all three are utterly irrelevant to her career. It's very rare to be "typecast" per your European heritage and there's no evidence that these actors ever have been. Bulldog123 06:10, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I agree that this is way overdoing it and creates categories that are fairly meaningless in the real world. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all, per nom. Jayjg (talk) 01:24, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:American people of Slovak descent etc. I disagree & can see the usefulness of pointing out actors of Slovak descent. I've read that both Angelina Jolie and Paul Newman have/had Slovak descent. I can see a youngish person, teens or so, finding this encouraging because both Jolie & Newman are/were considered drop-dead gorgeous & talented. Stjulienlepauvre (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC).[reply]
Upmerge per Occuli. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. One's descent has little to nothing to do with their acting career in most cases. I can see a case for actors of Italian descent, as they are often typecast in certain roles but it is not so for most ethnicities.--TM 03:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. It is not the sole purpose of categorisation to inform our readers about the nature of the article itself. It is my understanding that categories "should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles" and whether or not they are relevant to individual actor's careers is not the point. BenMacDui 19:31, 10 February 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.
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) 06:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary, underpopulated category (2 entries and 2 user pages). Unclear criteria for inclusion. What exactly is a Child dance musician? AussieLegend (talk) 04:34, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's in both Category:Child musicians and Category:Dance musicians. The parent categories explain the criteria for inclusion in them, but this does not and the criteria for the parent categories does not explain the criteria for this category. Is it a child under 18 who performs dance music, a child who is a musician that dances, a dance musician who performs for children? It's not clear and, as there are only 3 articles in the category it is underpopulated. Wikilinking every word in your response doesn't help either. --AussieLegend (talk) 00:53, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's a child under 18 who performs dance music. And I will contribute more articles to it. MickWithoutGlasses (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't see why being under 18 and making dance music is something that should be categorized. There isn't as far as I know any great difference in the way that people under 18 make dance music and the way that people over 18 do. I Want My GayTV (talk) 01:20, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not clear why this intersection is notable. Also awkward title that would not have any external sources substantiating it. Bulldog123 07:26, 6 February 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.
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:Delete. As it stands right now, this cat is an Irrelevant intersection of a religion and an occupation. I think it may have initially started off as a category for writers who also write about Roman Catholic theology but has since spun out of control and included people like Cormac McCarthy. Jack Kerouac, and Chuck Klosterman... none of whom are notable for writing any type of Roman Catholic-oriented religious writings or essays or w/e. Right now this cat is the only remaining occupation/religion category in the Category:American Roman Catholics that doesn't have to do with theology. Another option is to prune the list and rename it something like Category:Roman Catholic religious writers. Bulldog123 04:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with the principle - rename and prune, perhaps to Category:American writers on Roman Catholicism. Writers who happen to be Roman Catholics is a trivial intersection, unless their religion has a significant influence on the way they write. Divorcing Graham Greene or G K Chesterton (not Americans of course) from their religion would hardly be appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 5 February 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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Basins is ambiguous. While the Congo basin might be clear to many as to what is intended, renaming to follow all of the other drainage basins seems reasonable. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:05, 4 February 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:Continental basins of the North Sea[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 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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Besides the obvious basins is ambiguous, these renames would follow the other categories that drain into the various seas. Did you know that we also have oil and gas basin articles on the wiki? Vegaswikian (talk) 01:16, 4 February 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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Basins is ambiguous and these appear to be drainage related from reading the articles. I guess trees like this make the point about doing away with the generic basins categories since that would 'force' editors to do a better job of identifying the type of basin the article is about. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:52, 4 February 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.
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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:28, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom; and delete the two articles. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom; and delete the two articles. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:22, 4 February 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.
