Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 15 April 17 >

April 16[edit]

Category:Female American rock drummers[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: Double upmerge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting Category:Female American rock drummers to Category:Female drummers and Category:American rock drummers
Nominator's rationale: While the musician system sanctions triple intersections, there's no need for a quadruple intersection. Personally, I'm unconvinced we need the "Female drummers" category, but we do have other subcategories of Category:Female musicians.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 23:51, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Double Upmerge as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we allow gender categories only when the gender is relevant to the subject. Just because gender may be relevant to other musicians does not mean it has any relevance for drummers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The proposal should not be stated as a split, but double upmerge to the stated target categories, which I support. – Fayenatic L (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And when Twinkle allows the option of a double upmerge, I will start using that term. Hey Twinkle, start allowing the option of a double upmerge!--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:35, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Mike, you can either
    • Use Twinkle to propose a single merge, and then add the other category to the nomination, or
    • Do a manual nomination
    But it's not helpful for the written proposal to say something different from what you intended. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as creator This category is interesting. It will be used by people. Its existence is not causing any problems. The proposed upmerges will diffuse these articles such that the grouping is hard to recover. Whatever category scheme is prompting this reorganization can just ignore this category and be no worse off for it. Don't take the fun out of Wikipedia. Jason Quinn (talk) 18:56, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Female drummers are a noteworthy intersection; American rock drummers are a noteworthy intersection; Female American rock drummers is WP:OC. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:14, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- This is a triple intersection. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Category:Female drummers should be created before any subcats are contemplated. Oculi (talk) 20:46, 21 April 2012 (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:Female NASCAR drivers[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Female NASCAR drivers to Category:NASCAR drivers and Category:Female racing drivers
Propose merging Category:Female Formula Three drivers to Category:Formula Three drivers and Category:Female racing drivers
Nominator's rationale: Not sure that these gender-sanction intersections are defining enough to be categorised. Clearly by-sanction is defining (i.e. Category:NASCAR drivers), while gender+sport is significantly defining here (i.e. Category:Female racing drivers), but I'm not sure that (outside of, perhaps, Formula One) gender+sanction (Category:Female NASCAR drivers) doesn't rise to the level of WP:OC. And, accordingly, I propose that these categories be upmerged to their parents. The Bushranger One ping only 23:10, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split Double Upmerge as per nom. Mayumashu (talk) 17:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is another example of gender not being relevant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. Female racing drivers should exist, becauise they are relatively unusual, the majority bing male. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom and per Pterkingiron, to avoid the ghettoisation which is deprecated in WP:CATGRS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:01, 23 April 2012 (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:Victims of antisemitism[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 & rename to Category:Victims of antisemitic violence. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Victims of antisemitism to Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents
Nominator's rationale: The reason is that there is pretty much total overlap between the two categories. All victims of antisemitism were involved in an incident of antisemitism, and indeed, virtually all of the pages listed in Category:Victims of antisemitism are also listed in Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents. Category:Victims of antisemitism is also a very small category, with only 3 pages plus 3 subcategories, and the items do not have any unique qualities that would suggest that they and they alone be grouped together or that they do not fit with the Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents category. Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents is a large and comprehensive listing. Any expansion of Category:Victims of antisemitism would involve just adding things that are already in Category:Antisemitic attacks and incidents. QuizzicalBee (talk) 17:20, 16 April 2012 (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.

Philosophers by language[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 Category:German-language philosophers, Merge Category:Latin-writing philosophers to Category:Roman era philosophers, Merge Category:Urdu-language philosophers to Category:Pakistani philosophers, Rename Category:Arabic-language philosophers to Category:Medieval Arab philosophers. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Philosophers by language
  • Delete Category:Arabic-language philosophers
  • Delete Category:German-language philosophers
  • Delete Category:Latin-writing philosophers
  • Delete Category:Urdu-language philosophers
  • Nominator's rationale This is one of the few by profession categories that is also done by language. However as we can see, we only have four categories in this tree which shows that in general there is not a view that philosophers should be categorized by language. The general rule for by language categories other than translation ones is to only use them where there is not a general overlap of nationality and language. Thus we should if we do keep these categories purge the German and Arabic ones of Germans and Austrians in the first case (but not Swiss), and a whole bunch of nationalities in the second. Still, the Arabic-language might be a useful designation for pre-modern philosophers, and it clearly would work for those in the Ottoman Empire. However I am not convinved this is a worthwhile schema, but I am more convinced we need to rethink the schema. Urdu if kept actually might be applyable to any philosopher who did philosophy in Urdu. How to cover the intersection of Latin and the Roman Empire is trickier, since the eastern half of the Empire always did its literary work in Greek, so it was more the Swiss than the Austrian model. However with Latin we have the alternate problem "does it make sense to group together an 18th-century and a 1st century philosopher who both wrote in what they considered Latin". We generally break down Latin into sub-groups because it changed so much over the centuries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment currently for the Arabic-language philosophers only 10 of the potential 17 related nationality cats exists (assuming Category:Yemenite philosophers is for philosophers from Yemen) but other than Jordan and the non-classified countries are all in or very close to the Arabian Peninsula (Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates and Oman).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Arabic-language category now has only people who can not be easily identified with any modern country. It might be renamable/mergeable to Category:Medieval Arab philosophers. The moves did not involve the creation of any new by nationality categories for philosophers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Might need different results for each: Delete Category:German-language philosophers, Merge Category:Latin-writing philosophers to Category:Roman era philosophers, Merge Category:Urdu-language philosophers to Category:Pakistani philosophers,Rename Category:Arabic-language philosophers to Category:Medieval Arab philosophers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mike Selinker's nom. THe one I was hesitant about was the Urdu issue, but all of the people currently in the category lived for large portions if not all their lives in Pakistan, and most did most if not all their philosophical work there. The actual center of Urdu Culture before 1947 was in Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, but the category lacks anyone who died before the partition or who stayed in India after it, so it is functionally part of the Pakistani philosophers category. We should merge it without prejudice against creation of Category;Urdu philosophers of India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mike Selinker's alternative. I have checked that all the German-language philosophers are categorised by nationality (13 were not, but are now). – Fayenatic L (talk) 22:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Mike Selinker's alternative. There remains a large Urdu-speaking Muslim minority in India, but unless there are any philosophers among them, there is no objection to the proposal. I thus also agree with JPL's point. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Philosophy and language are closely-related, because the conceptual frameworks of language reflect philosophical differences. I suggest seeking input from WP:PHILO, who should have been notified by the nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I see that another editor has already notified WP:PHILO. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 23 April 2012 (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:Lasse Berghagen[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) 16:44, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lasse Berghagen (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Currently not enough material to warrant an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2012 (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:Italian Vedutisti[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) 16:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Italian Vedutisti to Category:Italian vedutisti
Nominator's rationale: Would be speedy C2A, but I can't find much evidence to show that vedutisti is a common noun (as I suspect it is). — This, that, and the other (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. I think vedutisti mainly reflects a topographical landscape movement of 17th century Italy; unfortunately, like many artistic movements the borderlines in time and style can get fuzzy. On the other hand, I think it is more descriptive of a type of painting than "Italian landscape painter", and has common use in multiple published titles and articles including Canaletto and the Venetian vedutisti Filippo Pedrocco, 1995 , Art international: Volume 11; Volume 11 James Fitzsimmons - 1967 "What, then, is the charm of these Vedutisti?" , Henri van de Waal, L. D. Couprie, Rudi Fuchs - 1975 - Jahrhunderts, Munchen 1969 Bibliografia della mostra dei vedutisti veneziani del Settecento. Palazzo Ducale 1967, Venezia 1968, Rome in the Age of Enlightenment: The Post-Tridentine... Hanns Gross - 2004 - Paesisti e vedutisti a Roma, 10-11. Lavagnino, "Roma nel Setecento," 19; Lavagnino, "La pittura," 27-28. ... Paesisti e vedutisti a Roma, 23; Barlow, Ideal and Classical Landscape, 23. , from a Googlebooks search. --Rococo1700 (talk) 03:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- the second word appears to mean view-ists, which does not need a capital. The term however appears to be wider than "landscpae painter". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 21 April 2012 (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 Police images[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, but move most contents into Category:The Police album covers. Singles covers are part of album covers categories per this discussion.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Police images (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:The Police album covers (which I am creating now.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response The former is tagged to be moved to Commons (and will be) and the latter should probably be deleted (I'm nominating it now.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:20, 18 April 2012 (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.

Sting 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: Speedy rename C2C/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Sting albums to Category:Sting (musician) albums
Propose renaming Category:Songs written by Sting to Category:Songs written by Sting (musician)
Propose renaming Category:Sting songs to Category:Sting (musician) songs
Nominator's rationale: Per main article/cat (the latter I just created). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:50, 16 April 2012 (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:Art game developers[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Art game developers to Category:Video game developers
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The "art game" concept is not sufficiently well-defined to be the basis of a category. Category:Art games was deleted on those grounds a few days ago. Pichpich (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. An art game is one that has been named either with the words "art game" or as a piece of art by reliable sources. How much more well-defined that WP:V can it be? Diego (talk) 15:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What do you do when 10% of the reliable sources use those words and 90% don't? Where do you set the threshold? When there's a fairly well-established definition (say shooter game) the problem can easily be avoided but a case like this one requires a lot of subjectivity. Pichpich (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't comparable with video-game genres, which are formulaic; this is like Category:Art films, an artistic category (which does categorize WRT subjective opinion of reliable critics); as long as the 90% of sources don't say that it is not artistic, we can tag it with the same property that 10% of the sources agreed with. (If some sources called it artistic and some others explicitly disagreed, we would reflect both views by WP:NPOV - but if there's only one reliable POV then it's safe to label the article with it). As long as the subjectivity comes from reliable sources and not from Wikipedia editors, we can use it as the definition criterion, as it's commonly done for anything artistic. Diego (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We don't categorize by name, nor by subjective opinions, even if they sometimes appear in reliable sources. A well-referenced list with commentary might be ok. LeSnail (talk) 21:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's well-defined enough for a list, why isn't it well-defined enough for a category? Diego (talk) 14:44, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because in a list there is room for discussion of why each entry is on the list with references both to reliable sources claiming that a game is an art game and to reliable sources claiming it is not. It is ok for the list to contain entries whose categorization as art games would be questionable, as long as the list explains what the various views are. Categorization however requires being able to make definitive non-subjective decision. LeSnail (talk) 02:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense. But then you can create a category where every entry has been unambiguously identified as "art game" by a reliable source. This only makes the category less inclusive, it doesn't completely avoid having it; that implies only that some entries in the list shouldn't be included in the category. The current inclusion criterion for the category is like this. Diego (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Category:Art game developers as a subcategory of Category:Video game developers; I think making this a subset shows the true relation between both categories better than a merge. Diego (talk) 15:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Category:Art games was deleted with 2 not-votes because it didn't have a well-defined inclusion criteron. We have a well-defined inclusion criterion now, which is the same that justifies the Category:Art films. Also this is not a game genre, not exactly, in the same way that "artistic movie" is not a movie genre. (Also "X was also deleted" is not a real reason for deletion, in special when the deletion discussion included just three people; I think Category:Art games should be re-created with the newly provided criterion). Diego (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I used "genre" in a broad sense. I don't actually mind having Category:Art games with proper inclusion criteria; I don't agree it's not well defined. I didn't see the CfD when it was up. The few thatgamecompany's games I dealt with were very clearly designated "art games" and I'm sure there are similar sources for other prominent art games. I would still oppose having "developer based on genre" subgroups. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 16:48, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, there's some common ground here; and I can see why you wouldn't like a category for "developers that have created a game on genre X", as it would include almost all companies in almost all genres. But how about a company that's reliably sourced as "video game company dedicated in exclusive to games in genre X"? I would say that Tale of Tales (developer) (the original company in this category) and Thatgamecompany have some special property that makes them a well-defined subset of Category:Video game developers (as specialiced in creating art games), and that property is documented at reliable sources, in the same way that Sierra Online and LucasArts were regarded as companies specialized in adventure games and EA Sports has a category just for sports games. Diego (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the inclusion criterion should be made more strict (the current one is all developers that had made an art game, it could be changed to developers with a career dedicated to them as referenced by reliable sources), but that would still be a specific inclusion criterion; the nom argument was that a well-defined criterion didn't exist (and now we can choose between two). Diego (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge we do not even have a category for art games because they are too hard to define. If we can not define art games, than we can not figure out who counts as having developed them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't need to define art games, we can use reliable sources to do that for us. And "it's too hard to do" is not a very good deletion/merging/removing-the-page argument. Diego (talk) 12:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment when "it's too hard to do" is how I express "it is too open to debate and not something that has an easy yes or no answer" than it is a good criteria to get rid of the category. Categories need to be something that can be answered with a clear yes or no. There is no consensus of what makes an art game for us to draw upon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:28, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Have some reliable sources called the game a 'work of art' or 'art game'?" Yes/No. What's difficult or subjective in that? Diego (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If that was a reason to not have a category, there wouldn't be any of these or these. How I hope the closing admin evaluates the coincidence of arguments with respect to current Wikipedia practice, and not the number of heads in the discussion - (administrators already know that, but commenters would do good to discuss how their objections would apply to the category if it is kept). Diego (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2012 (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:March of Time[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 Category:The March of Time films. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:March of Time to Category:The March of Time
Nominator's rationale: Rename to either Category:The March of Time (to match the title of the article The March of Time) or Category:The March of Time films if we want to be a little more specific about the contents. Pichpich (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you — I agree with renaming the category and I appreciate your proposal. If it's renamed "The March of Time," any images related to the radio series could also be included in the category. For now I'd advocate keeping it less specific. — WFinch (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a strong preference but he fact is that the category currently contains the March of Time films so I placed it inside Category:Documentary film series which will probably attract a number of readers to the category. If the scope of the category is wider, we'll probably lose this. Pichpich (talk) 03:16, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sold. I'd be very surprised if any separate articles for the radio series were ever created. The documentary film series category is a great place for MOT, since that's how it's principally known. — WFinch (talk) 11:48, 17 April 2012 (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:NCAA Division I FBS football ranking movements[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) 16:47, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:NCAA Division I FBS football ranking movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is being used solely to track pages that transclude a certain template. The correct way to do this is through the "what links here" tool. Categories like this, even if used as hidden, create unnecessary clutter. Pichpich (talk) 01:45, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm open for whatever but the thinking behind this was to have a category to view all sports teams with NCAA Division I FBS football ranking movements information. The category description should probably be changed and category renamed but I was having a hard time think about what to call it or how to describe it. --ben_b (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2012 (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:Ranking movements[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) 16:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Ranking movements (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete This category is being used solely to track pages that transclude a certain template. The correct way to do this is through the "what links here" tool. Categories like this, even if used as hidden, create unnecessary clutter. Pichpich (talk) 01:44, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I'm open for whatever but the thinking behind this was to have a category to view all sports teams with ranking movements information. The category description should probably be changed and category renamed but I was having a hard time think about what to call it or how to describe it. --ben_b (talk) 02:35, 16 April 2012 (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.

West Indian Communities in 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: Listify. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:West Indian communities in the United States
  • Nominator's rationale I hate to suggest this. A rename might save the category, but I have my doubts. The problem right now is there are no criteria on what makes a place a "West Indian Community". For example, Blue Hills, Connecticut is in this category. The article tells us Blue Hill with 23% of its population reporting Jamaican ancestry on the 2000 census longform had the highest percentage of people of Jamaican descent in the United States at that point. However that means that still 3 out of every four residents were not Jamaican. There is no evidence provided on the percentage of other West Indians, but there is no evidence that they were a majority of the population. So how much of the population of a place needs to be West Indian for it to be a West Indian community?John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:33, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify If more articles are created on the West Indian neighborhoods, then recreating the category might make sense. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify -- We have had similar discussions about places with hispanic communities, which ended off as those with a hispanic majority. If kept -- Rename to Category:Places in the United States with West Indian communities, but this feels to me far too like a performacne category. How many people make a community? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify. The inclusion criteria are too vague to make a viable category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:14, 23 April 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_16&oldid=1084319719"