Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 17 June 19 >

June 18[edit]

Category:Numeric epithets[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) 22:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Pointless category, which groups only superficially related items, such as Nine Sisters, Seven deadly sins, One-line joke, and 666 (?). Staszek Lem (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization based on characteristics of articles' titles rather than their topics. This category is a mish-mash of people, objects, places, works of fiction, concepts, disambiguation pages. A limited version of this category, such as for numeric metaphors or the use of numbers as a narrative technique (see Category:Narrative techniques in epic poems, might be viable; however, the category as is does not appear to be salvageable. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- It's a convenient way of grouping things together which share relevant characteristics, and are quite common in some cultures (Chinese numbered policies etc.). It doesn't (or shouldn't) include random book or movie titles with numbers in their names... AnonMoos (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, sure, explain this to Three Little Kittens. And Chinese Numbered policies is the same collection of trivia as a (possible) list of all articles about "Top Ten Most Bestest in something", which is a great feature of American culture, Ten Things (Not) To Do in an Elevator. Oh, and zero tolerance policy missing. And why discrimination against books? They are no more random than Gang of Four, verily it is quite random that they were not Gang of Five. This primitive numerology is amusing, but nonencyclopedic. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Zero tolerance" is not an epithet. Do you know what a linguistic epithet is? And Chinese numbered policies is a notable tendency in official Chinese governmental enactments/propaganda over several governments during most of the last century. AnonMoos (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon. I can't see how this is anything other than WP:OC#SHARED. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Black Falcon and WP:OC#SHARED. Category:Chinese numbered policies should also go. Oculi (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep but purge, to focus on the subject of numeric epithets.--KarlB (talk) 15:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "purged" "numeric epithets" is just as a random category as what it is "unpurged" now. Why not "uncountable epithets" or "military epithets" or whats not? Staszek Lem (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as 'categorisation by shared name', which is Not Of The Good. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:55, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless. Brad7777 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 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:Singers awarded knighthoods[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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:17, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename as Singers awarded British knighthoods in line with similar categories, i.e. Category:Actors awarded British knighthoods and Category:Actors awarded British damehoods. Quis separabit? 14:15, 18 June 2012 (UTC) Moved from WP:Requested moves by BDD (talk) 16:00, 18 June 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:General VG character subboxes[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) 22:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Tiny, largely unnecessary category which could stand to be merged into the parent category, as all of these templates are 'infobox templates', if not themselves infoboxes. Izno (talk) 15:37, 18 June 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:American roman a clef novels[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. All of these are in a different "American novels" subcategory, so no loss of association with America will occur.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 'American roman a clef novels' is a subcategory of 'Roman à clef novels'. I do not see how a vague association to American literature sets some novels apart from other roman à clef novels. --RPgzLp (talk) 14:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)*Merge per nom. A split by nationality would be warranted if Category:Roman à clef novels was overpopulated, but with less 70 articles it is still quite a ways from that situation. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:51, 18 June 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:Ivi Adamou[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. The Bushranger One ping only 21:31, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per the guideline on eponymous categories. The whole category currently consists of two templates and an image subcategory. Even if the albums and songs categories were included, it would still be a little thin for an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 11:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most important literary award in the German languaage. So not appropriate for deletion. --Anthrophilos (talk) 09:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete per nom and per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. In response to Anthrophilos, this category relates to a person not an award. Even if it did relate to an award, the importance or otherwise of the award is irrelevant. Categories are a navigational device (see WP:CAT#Overview), and even if this award was the most important award of any type in the whole universe, it does not alter the fact that the category is no help to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep; now has 3 categories; and even if readers can navigate to everything through the template, this is of some use to editors as a route to the sub-category of images. – Fayenatic London 08:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – 3 subcats (thus generally kept in recent years); likely to increase as Ivi Adamou is in her teens. (The comment of Anthrophilos pre-dates the nom and is presumably misplaced.) Oculi (talk) 10:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for tracing that. It was added here (re Georg Buchner prize) and was left within this section in error after it was added again where it belongs near the foot of this page. – Fayenatic London 13:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - images are not an appropriate subcat for an eponymous category as it acts as a folder for pics rather than aids readers with additional articles about the topic. With really only songs and albums as child cats, this is overcategorization per WP:OC#Eponymous. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:21, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG. Steam5 (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete weponymous categories are discoraged unless there is material that belongs directly in the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:22, 28 June 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.

Hockey 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:35, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hockey alumni categories

All of these categories are for ice hockey players of teams. The C2B applies because it is the standard convention to use "players" when it comes to being an alumnus of an athletic team, plus it's very confusing when "alumni" is used because that would denote an educational institution. C2C applies because the parent category for all of these is "Western Hockey League players." I'd also like to point out that these were created in 2005, well before the standard naming conventions came into place. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy discussion
    • Oppose all. These categories refer to junior teams, of whom their graduated players are considered alumni.[1]. The categories are at their proper terms.Resolute 19:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Except "alumni" in Wikipedia refers to People educated at Foo, not Players who played for Foo. Although "alumni" might be the official term, here it is ambiguous and confusing, and thus we need to go by bothWP:COMMONSENSE and what the standard for the category tree is, which is Foo bar players, which is clear, unambiguous, and understood by all. - The Bushranger One ping only 19:14, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Alumni" refers to people who have graduated. Junior leagues consider former players to be graduates of their organizations. That you wish to unnecessarily and incorrectly limit the terminology to refer to educational institutions alone is arbitrary, fails to reflect real world usage and is hardly a common sense approach. Resolute 19:26, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Hardly a common sense approach"? Take that rhetoric back to your hockey mafia. The entire reason I even became aware of these categories is because I saw one on an MLB player's article I wondered what school it was referring to. The common sense thing to do is keep all player categories uniform, not because your pedantic "real world use" is only used by the league itself. I guess we should rename Hulk Hogan's article toTerry Bollea too. After all, he's legally Terry Bollea, who are we to decide that his official entry should be a stage name. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Knocking down strawmen does not lend strength to your argument. My objection stands, and I would add that perhaps a 30 category speedy rename request is bad idea if you do not understand the purpose behind the terminology. Maybe next time you should come discuss it with the people who maintain the category tree, and if you feel unsatisfied with the answer, to go CFD. Becoming upset because your opinion does not mesh with that of others is not productive. Resolute 19:49, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • I do understand the terminology quite clearly as a matter of fact, which is why they were brought here. 100% of all alumni categories on Wikipedia have been for educational institutions up until this asinine amateur hockey league thinks it's graduating students. By all technicalities they can still be alumni of the program (definitionally speaking) but by all common sense accounts and naming conventions on Wikipedia they'replayers. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
                • No, they think they are graduating hockey players. And since it has already been noted that these categories have existed just fine for seven years or longer, then it is also incorrect to claim that "100% of all alumni categories have been for educational institutions". That you find this terminology to be asinine is also irrelevant. Nor is the use of the word "alumni" exlcusive to this one league. This is a standard across Canada's junior system:[2],[3],[4], [5], etc. That you don't like this usage of alumni does not make it incorrect. Resolute 00:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would also note that your proposed merge regarding the Victoria Cougars seeks to merge the alumni of the junior team that existed in the 70s-90s into a category for the players of a professional team that existed in the 1910s-20s. Resolute 19:12, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can see my mistake there, so I'm willing to concede that merge, but that's because of the lousy description jobs done by the hockey editors in what those categories are even for. The confusion could have been avoided with clear-cut descriptions of who specifically belongs there and at what level of competition.Jrcla2 (talk) 19:44, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Absolutely, and that is a correctable oversight. Resolute 19:50, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I do believe these have also been to Cfd before and were kept at the alumni name so would have been ineligible for speedy renaming. I also note the merge for the Winnipeg Warriors would also be incorrect for the same reason as the Victoria Cougars. Would have been helpful to talk to the project that maintains the tree before jumping to this action. -DJSasso (talk) 12:41, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't need permission to do anything on Wikipedia, and when I nominated them I didn't think for one second that a hockey league could honestly think it graduates players, so I completely stand by my decision to cfr them and do so without talking to the hockey project. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:08, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • You don't need permission, but simple courtesy would have done you well. Especially given an entire category tree named this way should have caused you to think for a second. Resolute 13:15, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Where did I say you needed to ask for permission? It is generally considered good practice and courtesy to discuss changes that affect multiple pages. The fact that all of the categories were named a certain way should have given you a second to think maybe there is something here I don't understand and I should ask someone who might know more. Essentially teams in the junior leagues in Canada are considered hockey schools. It some European countries they are literally called schools. I believe soccer also does this in the Europe although I believe they use the word academy. -DJSasso (talk) 13:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Seems like it's time to put this up for a full nomination again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moved to full CfD, and support the rename. This is a outlier in all the sports categories. It is the only place where players are referred to as alumni, even though there are hundreds of minor league, college, and amateur categories of sports players for other sports, and all of them end in "players." I think it's time we stopped pretending that these are special cases, and standardize them to the way we do all similar categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a whole bunch of nominations related to this, in which it will be difficult to find a clear direction: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. In them all, I argue for players, and Djsasso and Resolute argue for alumni. That seems unlikely to change this time around either.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:16, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - "Players" is standardised, clear, and does not cause confusion. "Alumni" may be the official name, but it's Category:Bill Clinton, not Category:William Jefferson Clinton. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am curious to know why you think your Bill Clinton strawman does anything but contradict your argument. You seem to be saying that we should use the common name, which is exactly why I oppose this rename attempt: "Alumni" is both the official and common name of junior graduates. Resolute 13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Alumni" is the official term, but it is not the common term used to refer to "sports players who played for". - The Bushranger One ping only 23:56, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is the common term used to refer to graduates of the junior hockey system. I posted a half-dozen real world links below and can post many more. Your decision to arbitrarily restrict the usage of the word stands counter to Wikipedia's principles of NPOV and defies its place as a work that references real-world usage. Resolute 00:44, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per Category:Billings Bighorns alumni: "the following is a list of players who played for the now-defunct Billings Bighorns". Alumni (or graduates) is not a term used or understood globally for ex-players of a sports team. Oculi (talk) 09:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I'm a part of the evil 'Hockey mafia'. Players is clear and unambiguous.Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Frankly, the only reasons presented thus far are WP:IDONTLIKEIT and "we always do it that way", neither of which is a valid argument. Junior hockey leagues that graduate players consider their former players to be alumni. This is the term used across the Canadian junior system, and is the term in standard real world usage: [6], [7], [8],[9],[10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Using "players" at the end of these categories is the standard for professional hockey players, yes. But these categories do not refer to pros. They refer to junior organizations that serve as development programs for the pros. There is no need to move away from the common name simply because some Wikipedians dislike how it upsets their arbitrary limitation on how and what defines an alumnus. Resolute 13:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We always do it that way" is absolutely a valid argument. It's the basis for CfD, in fact.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • For accuracy then, "We always do it that way, even though it is incorrect." Resolute 18:30, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I would have to agree that so far the only arguments presented so far are IDONTLIKEIT. Junior hockey teams are considered hockey development schools for their players. Common usage is very clearly that they are are alumni of their organizations. I agree its standard to use players for professionals however as mentioned by Resolute they are categories for non-professionals. I should also note the two merges that are mixed into the nomination are to merge two different teams players together, a professional team and a junior team in both cases. -DJSasso (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I would be curious to know if the nominator plans to properly tag these categories for this CFD. Also, I trust that when you do so, that you will remove the two suggested merges from the debate, since they are very obviously incorrect. Resolute 14:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a link from the speedy nomination. That should suffice.--Mike Selinker (talk) 17:43, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator for clarity and consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator for clarity and consistency. Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 18:21, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all for consistency. I recognize that there is a particular terminology used by these teams/leagues, but we don't necessarily have to use that terminology if it is potentially confusing, which it can be. We should be all able to agree that they are players just as much as they are alumni, so I don't see what the point is of the nasty tone of some of this discussion. I'm a dyed-in-the-snow-wool Canadian who has played and watched hockey for much of my life, but I shake my head over issues like this. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update. In all this, I didn't notice Resolute and DJSasso's excellent points about the Winnipeg and Victoria teams being inaccurately tagged for merging in the original nomination. I have fixed those errors in the nomination. Thanks to them for pointing that out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:49, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hate to be pedantic, but the new names you put would be a problem also because the league the pro teams played in were also the WHL. I would be suggest making it so that the old pro team player categories are dabbed by years active (which is often done in cases where the league would be the same) and then do the same to the alumni cats with the years they were active. While making the undabbed cat a category redirect. That being said of course I still prefer it as it is currently. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If Resolute is allowed to !vote twice (per his oppose in the speedy and now his oppose in the CfD) then I officially am going to chime in twice also. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:40, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He didn't vote twice, he objected to your speedy. And is now opposing the Cfd of which you are still technically the nominator. There isn't a double vote other than yours (not that it really matters but this seems like a petty tit for tat move). That is why the speedy discussion is in a collapsed box as it is separate from this discussion. -DJSasso (talk) 11:29, 20 June 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:Esperantist of the Year[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. The Bushranger One ping only 00:43, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains individuals who have been honored as 'Esperantist of the Year' by the magazine La Ondo de Esperanto. I believe that it constitutes overcategorization by award: although the award is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in three of the biographies, it does not appear to be of the caliber (e.g. Nobel Prize, Academy Award) that is usually required of award-recipients categories. Neither listifying nor upmerging is needed, since a full list is available at Esperantist of the Year#Laureates and all member articles already are in Category:Esperantists or its subcategories. (Category creator notified) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The category Esperantist of the Year is clearly defined by the criteria of WP:COP and not redundant or overlapping with other categories. There is no subjectivity or dispute about whether individuals properly belong to the category.
    Everyone upon whom the prestigious award of Esperantist of the Year is bestowed is a person of extraordinary accomplishment, and their achievements merit documentation. The criteria for making a list versus a category do not, in my opinion, rule out doing both; that is, also maintaining the category which Black Falcon has proposed for deletion. The designation of "Esperantist of the Year" is neither trivial nor one requiring frequent notes to explain the inclusion of a particular category member, and the number of individuals in the category will always be self-limited by definition to no more than one for a given year.
    Maintaining the category is a useful way for a person having read the biography of a distinguished Esperantist to readily look up another similarly distinguished Esperantist. The award is certainly more significant than Academy Award winners, which is essentially a popularity contest for people and films of widely varying quality.
    — Objectivesea (talk) 10:00, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per OC#AWARD, award categories are reserved only for awards of particular international significance, and this award comes nowhere near the required level of significance. Objectivesea is correct that this category is not subjective, but while subjectivity is never acceptable in a category, objectivity is not sufficient; we do not keep categs for everything which can be objectively categorised. The list at Esperantist of the Year#Laureates is quite adequate, because the article on each recipient should include a link to the Esperantist of the Year article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per OC#AWARD. Generally we don't categorize awards by magazines. In looking at the article, I see no reason why this award is the exception to the rule. The list in the article is ample for navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:29, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as there is no need to listify it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per BHG, Vegaswikian and Peterkingiron. Steam5 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 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:University of La Plata 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: Speedy rename C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Hi people. I have just created the Category:National University of La Plata, which corresponds exactly to the name of the corresponding article. And I think it should make sense to rename this category as well. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 03:44, 18 June 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:People who as children were orphaned by Nazism[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) 08:13, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As noted by User:Good Olfactory in the December 2011 discussion that resulted in the deletion of Category:Orphans, "we generally do not categorize people according to familial or parentage issues". This category sets a precedent for similar categories of children orphaned by other causes, such as particular wars, terrorist attacks and natural or anthropogenic disasters, many of which would include large segments of the populations of several countries – e.g., the World Wars, Thirty Years' War, Great Leap Forward, 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami, 2010 Haiti earthquake, Black Death, any one of countless famines that have killed hundreds of thousands or millions (see List of famines), etc. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:18, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Author's rationale and a proposed alternate: Why is this being viewed as a family or parental issue and not as a political or Nazi issue? I first got the idea for this category when learning about Hans Coppi, Jr., who as a baby lost both father (Hans Coppi) and mother (Hilde Coppi) to Nazi execution. Many other children had a parent executed by the Nazis, but not many were orphaned entirely. Even among concentration camp survivors — and primarily because the children were also killed — the number of surviving children (nearly all orphaned) was small. We have all sorts of categories for people who were affected by Nazism. Why deny certain victims just because they were children or babies? Those people can't be put in any other category — they weren't killed; as children, had no career; they couldn't emigrate. And so what if it spawns other categories? This category is about orphans, not even those who lost one parent, rather those who were orphaned because of politics, international crime. How can this not be worthy of a category? What about this alternate category, which is comprehensive and makes the rational more obviously political rather than familial: Category:People who as children were orphaned by Nazism, terrorism, communism or execution. Marrante (talk) 07:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your detailed response and rationale. I will attempt to reply to each of your questions individually:
    Why is this being viewed as a family or parental issue and not as a political or Nazi issue? - The category groups individuals on the basis of a shared childhood event/trauma. It is not a "political or Nazi issue" because the individuals are, for the most part, not known or thought of in relation to Nazism. Coppi seems to be the exception, but categories generally should not be built around exceptions.
    Why deny certain victims just because they were children or babies? - It is not a matter of denying or providing anything to the victims. I am far from unemotional about Nazi crimes but the focus of categorization should be only on providing an effective and uncluttered framework for navigation.
    Those people can't be put in any other category... - Actually, a few of them are in Category:People who emigrated to escape Nazism or its subcategories.
    And so what if it spawns other categories? - A category that groups unconnected people on the basis of a characteristic that is not commonly considering to be a defining and binding thread between them constitutes overcategorization. While one is not so bad, a proliferation of such categories would degrade the ease of navigation and the usefulness of the category system.
    Best, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I wrote too hastily when saying such people could not emigrate, because certainly many of the Kindertransport children and those who were sent to Bunce Court School and elsewhere by their parents in an effort to save their lives, never saw their parents again. Marrante (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. I understand the author's rationale, but look at it from this standpoint. Categories are supposed to be able to be filled. Are we going to have an accurate list of everyone who was in fact orphaned by 'Nazism'? Do we count someone who's mother and father were killed in the eastern front of Russia as ophaned by Nazism, or Stalinism? Does it matter? Is it a notable accomplishment for Hans Coppi Jr that he was orphaned? I think that the answer to all three of these questions raises enough questions to support the nomination to delete the category. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:17, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We certainly can have an accurate group of every person orphaned by Nazism who is notable enough for a WP article on other grounds & where it is significant enough to be included in their biographical article here. . It's not intended for the 99% of them who do not have articles here. This is often one of the defining characteristics of a persons life and subsequent career. The intended interpretation is to non-military Nazi activity specifically , not WWII generally. I wouldn't oppose similarly handling Stalinism. I suspect the two together would account for a few hundred current articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 18:08, 18 June 2012‎ (UTC)[reply]
    What is the justification for limiting this type of categorization to state repression/terror under Hitler and Stalin? Is the loss of two parents to some other cause or in some other instance, such as a war or disaster, somehow less traumatizing for a child?
    With regard to the question of 'defining-ness', upon what do you base your assertion? I can see your point in the case of Hans Coppi, Jr., but Escapa is a former sportswoman, Kohn a theoretical physicist, Nussbaum a mathematician, Reich an entrepreneur and Schlesinger a journalist. All of them started their careers after 1945 and none, except Coppi, appear to be known specifically for any Nazism-related issue. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
At the time I created this category, I had been writing about victims of Nazism and had come to feel that there were people like Coppi, Jr. didn't fit in the categories available, so I created what I thought was lacking. There are those who delight in arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a phrase I use here as metaphor. The fine points of categorization are better taken up by those more fully versed in them. Marrante (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I prefer that we avoid categorization by parental issues such as how they died, etc. Seeing as how Category:Orphans was deleted, I don't see how we can justify keeping one subcategory who were orphaned by Nazism. We can all agree that Nazism was bad, in this context especially when it resulted in orphaned children, and there have been many other bad things in history that have resulted in orphaned children that we need not categorize individuals by. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a relevant, unifying and defining characteristic of the individuals included in the category. Alansohn (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "[D]efining characteristic of the individuals included in the category."[citation needed] :) Also, do you consider being orphaned due to the Nazis to be more defining than being orphaned by some other cause? Thanks, -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:11, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I do consider being orphaned by acts of human hatred to be more defining than being orphaned by natural disaster or accident because these children are orphaned unnecessarily and they grow up knowing this. I understand that those who lose a loved one to wanton crime are also victims of senseless loss, but I saw this category as being about the horrors of Nazism, not about crime. Being orphaned in this way shaped them and connected them as much as anyone who ever lived in a concentration camp, as their many memoirs reveal. At the time I made the category, I was writing about the victims of Nazism, or I'd have created it to include Stalinism, etc., as in the alternate name I proposed (above). Marrante (talk) 06:23, 26 June 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:Akademio de Esperanto[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:00, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At this time, the quantity of content (pages) that we have about the Akademio de Esperanto does not justify an eponymous topic category. Currently, the category contains only the main article (which is also in Category:Esperanto organizations) and a members subcategory (which is also in Category:Esperantists). (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:52, 18 June 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:Esperanto Academy members (deceased)[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:01, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a rule, we do not split biographical categories on the basis of whether its members are living or deceased. We have categories specifically for deaths by cause, year and war, but there is no need to split an organizational membership category in this way. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:28, 18 June 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:American women sheriffs[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:04, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of the articles in this category are categorized within one of the state-level subcategories of Category:American sheriffs, and neither one of the remaining two parents is sufficiently populated at this time to necessitate splitting out this category. If the category is upmerged, the two merge targets will contain about 30 and 10 articles, respectively. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:45, 18 June 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:Women who reached the Poles[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:05, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the parents, Category:Female explorers and Category:Polar explorers. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • It just occurred to me that the current title can be read as "women who reached the Poles". I think it's unlikely, but still it tickled my fancy. :) -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - makes sense, both formally and as a better generalization: not so may of female polar explorers. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:20, 21 June 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:Galleries and art centres in Ireland[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: split.--Mike Selinker (talk) 08:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories overlaps significantly, and the latter reflects the standard of Category:Art museums and galleries. There exists a separate category for arts centres—see Category:Arts centres in Ireland. (Category creator notified using Template:Cfd-notify) -- Black Falcon (talk) 02:08, 18 June 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:Kyoto laureates in Arts and Philosophy[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:12, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete May not be a defining characteristic of the winners. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Kyoto Prize is the most prestigious prize, second only to the Nobel Prize. So deletion not appropriate. See also: Category:Nobel laureates in Literature

--Anthrophilos (talk) 09:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Very prestigious prize and basically the richest one available in those fields. Why shouldn't it be considered defining? Pichpich (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Pichpich. The Kyoto Prize in Arts and Philosophy is a very important prize, and very much a defining characteristic for is winners. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:48, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw nomination. It was the weakest of the three nominations, and there's not enough in our article to confirm its importance. If established editors, not known for over-categorizing, are willing to say it's defining, I'll accept that reasoning. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:04, 18 June 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:Georg Büchner Prize winners[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. The Bushranger One ping only 05:06, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is not a defining charactersitic of the winners. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Rubin, the Georg Büchner Prize is the most important literary award in the German language. So not appropriate for deletion. --Anthrophilos (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The Büchner Prize is very prestigious in German literature. It's a little anecdotal but when Wolfgang Hilbig died a few years ago, the title of the obituary in Die Welt was "Büchner-Preisträger Wolfgang Hilbig gestorben" (Büchner Prize winner Wolfgang Hilbig is dead) Pichpich (talk) 11:31, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per both. Assertion that it is not defining just wrong. Does Arthur Rubin speak German? Johnbod (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Only mathematical German. Our article doesn't indicate the importance, though. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 07:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Having won a major prize is characteristic of a person, about the most so of anything that is possible. If we are to have any categories at all, the most essential are the ones for winners of major prizers and competitions. The nom is a very sensible editor generally, but there seems to be a blind spot here. DGG ( talk ) 17:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while not all prizes should merit categories, one that is described as "the most important literary prize for the German language" (along with one other) is one that probably clears the threshold for retention. Alansohn (talk) 03:04, 19 June 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:Franz Kafka Prize winners[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. There is no need to listify as a full list already exists—see Franz Kafka Prize#Award winners.
Current consensus, as reflected in WP:OC#AWARD, is that "recipients of an award [generally] should be grouped in a list rather than a category". There are exceptions, as the guideline acknowledges and the two discussions directly above demonstrate. In a situation of this type, neither the fact that we sometimes do categorize by award nor the principle that we generally don't categorize by award is, on its own, adequate to justify keeping or deleting the category. What matters is whether this particular prize passes our admittedly nebulous standards—centered around whether receiving the prize is defining—to qualify for an exception.
As a matter of course, I checked the category contents to try to evaluate the foundation of some of the assertions made in this discussion. Of the twelve articles, only one (Václav Havel) does not mention the award; however, of the eleven that do mention it, only one (John Banville) contains more than a passing mention—although, to be fair, sometimes that passing mention is in the lead paragraph. It is worth noting that the biographies of Nobel laureates generally devote significant attention to that fact—see e.g., Elfriede Jelinek#The Nobel Prize and Harold Pinter#Nobel Prize and Nobel Lecture. Unfortunately, while this analysis might offer some hints, it is ultimately just a point of interest since, with the exception of project categories, we categorize by characteristics of article topics rather than of the articles themselves.
Ultimately, what is missing from this discussion is an explanation, beyond just assertions, of why receiving this particular prize is considered to be defining or how it passes whatever threshold we choose. The Franz Kafka Prize is an international prize but claims that it is or is not a "well-established" and "major" award were disputed and, more importantly, not supported by reliable sources. Therefore, in the absence of a well-defined and -supported (by reasoning and/or sources) argument to establish the prize's special significance (or, rather, its definingness for those who receive it), and taking into account the overall leaning of the discussion's participants, the outcome defaults to the general guidance of WP:OC#AWARD. I highly recommend revisiting this discussion and category if anyone is able to advance such an argument. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Is not a defining charactersitic of the winners. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 01:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — Arthur Rubin (talk), not appropriate for deletion, Franz Kafka Prize is a well-established international literary prize --Anthrophilos (talk) 09:27, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Not a reason for keeping the category; WP:CAT suggests it needs to be a defining characteric of the person, in order for the category to be kept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep having won a major prize is a defining characteristic of a person. DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the guidelines on award categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a well-established, unique award, hardly a major one, and issued by a non-representative body. I doubt, Kafka Society and Prague know best who is best humanist of the year. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete unless supporters of keeping the category can demonstrate that this award is sufficiently significant. As it stands, I'm with Staszek Lem. Pichpich (talk) 17:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - this is a border line case; I can see the arguments either way. In that case, though, when there's no clear-cut case either way, we should keep. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:07, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete & Listify Its not a defining characteristic. Brad7777 (talk) 18:17, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No need to listify since the article already has a list. The importance of an award category is established over time. I fail to see how a new award can show that is is so defining that it meets the WP:OC#AWARD exceptions. Maybe in another 30 or 40 years. Having been a precursor for two years for the Nobel Prize 7 years ago is an interesting coincidence at this time. Now if it happens, 80% of the time, we might have something. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why?? You think that having more of the same winners as a different, completely unrelated award would make it something more important than it is? How on earth does that have any relevance when it comes to deciding if this award should or should not have a category? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.108.252 (talk) 22:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vegaswikian. Steam5 (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete as we usually do for award categories. Lists do the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we do not categorize people by awards won. John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course we do - see Category:Nobel laureates. But it has to be defining. You've been around here long enough not to make comments like that. Johnbod (talk) 10:44, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is an "other stuff exists" arguement. The Overcategorization rules specifically state that we do not categorze by awards (except in rare, undefined cases when we do, there is no explanation of these rare undefined cases though) so yes, the basic rule is we do not create award cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 5 July 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_June_18&oldid=1138396605"