Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 November 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 18 November 20 >

November 19[edit]

Category:Films directed by Jordan Alan[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. (Category was not tagged for discussion with Template:Cfd. When nominating categories for deletion, please remember to do so per the instructions in WP:CFD.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Films directed by Jordan Alan
  • Nominator's rationale This is an extremely minor director prone to using Wikipedia for self-promotion, and who has had two non-notable movie articles recently deleted. He has released a total of three obscure, critically panned independent movies since 1992, and the article Jordan Alan has been tagged for WP:COI issues. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If you consider these three films as non notable, you should want to delete the films, not a category that merely categorize them as films directed by the same person. Which is the rationale for deleting this category? How the (questionable) point that the films are "obscure" and "critically panned" is related to the existence of this category? In what this "categorization per director", a conventional standard in Wikipedia, is different from other similar categories such as Category:Films directed by Massimo Dallamano or Category:Films directed by Frederick Wiseman? Cavarrone (talk) 00:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories are just made for organizational purposes, they don't imply a critical judgment about the quality of the products they list or about the quality of the related articles. The current nom sounds like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT and fails to give a valid rationale for deletion. Cavarrone (talk) 00:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No, it sounds like WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It's also the case of an obscure, barely notable director with a history of attempting to use Wikipedia for his own self-promotional purposes, either through himself or others. I have no way of knowing if you've a connection with him or not, so I'm not making that claim. But the WP:COI concerns at Jordan Alan and at the two deleted films are there and concrete.--Tenebrae (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
About the COI, just for the record, if you check my edit history you will see I am the one who warned the SPA account about COI, that I voted delete in both the AfD of the deleted articles and that the creation of the current category is just one of the dozens I regularly create (see, just in the last week, Category:Films directed by Thom Eberhardt, Category:Films directed by Alberto Sordi, Category:Films directed by Silvio Soldini, Category:Films directed by Carlo Mazzacurati). Cavarrone (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Should we delete them all as indiscriminate?" is a standard and transparent debate tactic of demanding extremes and not using case-by-case judgment. We're not talking about other categories — we're just talking about this one.
I'm not sure why you're being defensive about the COI issue: I said straight out, "I have no way of knowing if you've a connection with him or not, so I'm not making that claim." I'm glad, however, you've noted the SPA/COI issue on the Jordan Alan pages, so we do have common ground. You might not believe, but I always try and look for that.
Yes, I believe WP:INDISCRIMINATE and common sense apply. How necessary is it to have a category for all of 3 films? What's your lower limit? Is 2 films enough for a category? Is 1 film? --Tenebrae (talk) 01:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Jordan Alan pages had COI problems does not mean that neutral editors shouldn't work on improving them, isn't it? About the WP:INDISCRIMINATE issue mine is not a tactic: I don't see, aside from COI problems, why these films should not be categorized per director as any other film. About my lower limit my starting limit is only two... as categories are not "necessary", but are cheap, usually expandable, could be useful for navigation and do no harm (usually). Cavarrone (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as the 3 films and their director all have articles, the category is fine. The director is a defining characteristic of a film. Oculi (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The nominator's rationale is invalid. We have articles on these films, so we categorise them by director, because as Oculi rightly points that is a defining characteristic. That's why Category:Films by director has over 2,000 sub-categories.
    If the nominator thinks we should have no articles about this director's films, then take them to WP:AFD. If they are all deleted, the category can be speedy deleted per WP:CSD#C1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WIth all respect, since clearly she is making a serious analysis, I would suggest BrownHairedGirl is conflating two issues. The notability of the three films is not in question; in fact, I argued for their inclusion in deletion discussions. The question is, what is the threshold for creating a category? Just 3 films? Would you do it with 2? Would you create a category with just 1 film in it? Secondarily, notability has nothing to do with WP:INDISCRIMINATE. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That said, I really don't care enormously about this issue if it's not a matter of Jordan self-promoting. Three editors behaving legitimately is convincing enough for me, even if I still believe 3 films is too low a threshold and that we don't need a category for every obscure, barely notable director. Regardless, I'm fine about withdrawing. --Tenebrae (talk) 06:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I did not conflate the two issues. Quite the opposite: I was responding to the nominator's conflation of two issues in the nomination, when zie raised the deletion of articles on films by the same director, and the poor critical reception of those remaining. Neither issue is relevant to categorisation, and the nominator's reference to WP:INDISCRIMINATE is also irrelevant, because it relates to articles rather than categories.
As to the threshold, please read WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I withdrew my deletion request, so what you're doing is what we call in America "a late hit." Bot for the record, WP:SMALLCAT says, "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members." Jordan has had three obscure films in 20 years and two more he's been trying to release for almost a decade. This category will never have more than few members. And for the last time to you and the editor below, I never argued "notability" and argued in favor of his and these films' notability. I said he was obscure. That's a word with a completely different meaning. Find a dictionary if you don't believe me, for goodness' sakes. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't read your comment above as a withdrawal of this nomination. If you do want withdraw it, strike out the nomination and leave a note beside it to say it's withdrawn.
As to WP:SMALLCAT, well done reading the start of the sentence, which you quoted above. Now proceed to read the full sentence "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist ...". I have added the emphasis to the bit you overlooked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, then, feel free to add a category for the musical group The Penguins, which had one song of note, "Earth Angel." If we're parsing categories to such a ridiculous degree, as I've said for the third time now, go for it. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The director of a film is a defining characteristic. The argument about the notability of the director and/or films, needs to be done elsewhere. This is a standard category structure for films by director (compare with albums by artists). Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:41, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as long as we have at least two films that have articles that have the same director, it makes sense to have the director category. I am not sure if we had just one film, but we have three and so it works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 22 November 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:Burials by cemetery[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. Nyttend (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Burials by cemetery and all its constiuent parts.
  • Delete Category:Burials in France by cemetery
  • Delete Category:Burials in the United States by cemetery
  • Delete Category:Burials in the United Kingdom by cemetery
  • Nominator's rationale Where people are buried is a non-natable quality about them. We categories people by nationality, where they lived, occupation, place of education, religion, ethnicity, things they did. Where they are buried has little if anything to do with what they did during their lives. This is especially true because some people are moved reburied (Cornplanter is the example of this that comes to mind fastest) so it makes little sense to categorize people by place of burial. I think we should get rid of the whole tree, including the burials by country that often do not specify cemetery, but I am not sure it is worth the effort to nominate all those. I am reminded of another mass nomination I began and everyone shot it down, so I am going to wait and see if this has much support. If someone else feels like doing a mass nomination, they are free. I mught add a few more, but am not going to add anywhere near the whole tree.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm neutral at this point. But if deleted, these should at some level be converted to lists. At the level of this nomination, lists are not needed. But when we get to individual cemeteries, then if the list does not exist, it should be created. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. These are container categories, and they remain needed unless and until off their subcats are deleted. The nominator may not feel inclined to nominate the subcats, which is his privilege, but it silly to rip out the lower parts of the tree first. That just leaves orphaned categories behind.
Note that there was a previous discussion of many individual subcats at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 21#Category:Burials. If a subsequent nomination lists the subcats, I'm leaning towards a "keep" (as per the 2007 outcome), for several reasons.
  1. Interment in some burial grounds is a great honour: e,g. Westminster Abbey (see categ) and those in Iona Abbey (see categ)
  2. In some cases, burial grounds are closely associated with some of the people there. For example, Karl Marx and Highgate Cemetery, Jim Morrison and Père Lachaise Cemetery.
  3. Place of burial is not often a part of the lead section of a biography, but it does tend to be included in any biog which stretches to more than a few paragraphs. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify all individual cemeteries categories, and delete any who cannot individually make a claim that burial there is specifically notable (as may apply to some military or historic cemeteries), rather than arbitrary based on religion or region of life/death. Where a person is buried may be notable enough to include in their article, and a cemetery may be notable to have its own article, but I remain unconvinced that the intersection of these is either defining, or a useful navigational aid, in the vast majority of cases. --Qetuth (talk) 23:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Agree with BHG that all subcats should all be tagged if this discussion is to get the attention it deserves - I imagine most editors are less likely to watch container categories than their children. --Qetuth (talk) 23:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Do I also have to write out all the subcats, or can I just tag them without writting them out here. That would take an amazingly large amount of time, there are hundreds of categories involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    A few minutes with a text editor (e.g. Notepad++ on Windoze, or Kate under KDE Linux) and some simple regex will have them all listed; then and you can ask at WP:BOTREQ for someone to tag them. But unless the categories are tagged and listed, they cannot be counted as having been validly nominated.
    Populating those categories has taken many hours of editors work. That is not grounds for keeping them, but its is grounds for ensuring that any editors who monitor them are notified a discussion in which their deletion is proposed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all - it seems to me that previous discussions have supported (or have not agreed to delete) the 'Burials in Foo Cemetery' categories. (There are various criteria by which we have agreed to categorise people which are arguably not defining - eg year of birth, year of death, school, university, nationality - and this is another. Important factoids which would appear in any 3 or 4 paragraph bio.) Oculi (talk) 00:18, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the entire tree - Where a person is buried is not a defining characteristic of the person. The person is not even aware of where they are buried, because they are dead. Place of burial can change since dead people can be and are dug up and re-planted elsewhere. If the cemetery is notable enough to have an article then a sourced list of notable internees would be a welcome addition to the cemetery article (or a separate list if the number is large enough). The idea that the year someone began existing or stopped existing is not defining of the person is bizarre. That other irrelevant categories exist like where someone went to high school is not an excuse for keeping this lot. Buck Winston (talk) 04:46, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • To use that example, Père Lachaise Cemetery is unquestionably deserving of its own article, and the history of Jim Morrison's grave site is notable enough to have a paragraph in his article (incl link to cemetery) - note that this is part of a >1page section on his death which was surrounded in controversy, and his grave has been upgraded and/or vandalised many times in a relatively short period. I agree completely, but this is clearly an exception, not the norm. How do you jump from it being of interest where Jim Morrison was buried, to location of burial being defining for everyone? What is the value of a category to link Jim Morrison to say Samuel Cahen? --Qetuth (talk) 09:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The cemetery gains some notability because he's buried there, not the other way around. If he were dug up today and buried in an unmarked grave in a potter's field in Kalamazoo Jim Morrison would become no less notable for it. Buck Winston (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a rather pointless counterfactual. If Jim Morrison had been brought up in a whale's skeleton in Murmansk, rather than in an Alligator swamp, his hometown would still be a core biographical fact. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are plenty of "core biographical facts" that don't have categories. Buck Winston (talk) 17:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Once a biography gets beyond a stub then editors should be noting down the date and place of death and burial in the main article, as per :WP:BIOG guidelines. However, if that burial was at a notable site where there are a good number of other notable burials then that fact would be categorised. So to answer your hypothetical case of Jim Morrison being translated to a minor cemetery in Podunk, Louisiana, this would be noted on the page but it would not appear in a category or list as his burial would be the only notable burial in Podunk. Ephebi (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good answers and thankyou. I will ponder further. --Qetuth (talk)
This is an excellent argument against categorizing by place of burial. Jim Morrison's current resting place gets a category but if he's dug up and planted somewhere else not only does his new resting place not get a category but presumably his old one keeps its category? How is that anything but an arbitrary standard? And what's the magic number at which a cemetery becomes categorizable based on the number of famous people buried there? It's obviously per the Morrison example more than one. Is it more than five? More than ten? Someone down the page suggested a dozen. Based on what objective standard? Cemeteries may become notable based on who's buried in them. An article for a person whose claim to notability is entirely based on where they are buried would be deleted in a heartbeat, and notability is a much lower threshold than the definingness expected for categories. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buck Winston (talk • contribs) 20:55, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all This is a repeat of a CfD proposed some years ago which was rejected then. I'm in total agreement with BHG's argument:
    1. Firstly, this isn't all about biographies. Some (but not all) cemeteries and Abbeys are notable for the people buried within. The European Commission estimates about 5m people visit cemeteries each year in Europe, and they're not coming to see the trees.
    2. Secondly, being buried in a particular cemetery can be an important component of any notable biography. It can be aspirational, and intentional. The guidance to authors in the Oxford Dictionary of English Biography asks to identify the last resting place of any entry. WP should too. Think of Charles Dickens in Westminster Abbey, or the dozens of architects in the first ever Gothic cemetery at West Norwood, or the social reformers in the dissenters' cemetery at Abney Park.
    3. Thirdly, as this link clearly works in both directions, it is far more practical and manageable to maintain categories than to build up lists for each cemetery. (Or is the proposer offering to build equivalent lists for the 1000+ entries needed for Category:Burials in London alone?) Ephebi (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
PS - before going down the CfD route, has the proposer looked at changing the Biography guidelines for notability By Place? It clearly states that place of burial can be categorised in some circumstances. Ephebi (talk) 16:05, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one is suggesting removing the information on where a person is buried from every biography, so that argument is irrelevant. Whether the Oxford people collect or don't collect the information is irrelevant. The "inspirational" or "aspirational" value of a particular burial is irrelevant, as is the number of people who visit cemeteries in a given year. You have made a very good argument for including place of burial in a person's article but have made no argument whatsoever that where someone is buried is so defining of them that we should keep all of these categories. Buck Winston (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I am notifying WP:death and WP:Biography. While the proposer baulked at the effort in notifying the affected WikiProjects and the editors of the 1000s of articles that would be affected, not having the good grace to notify editors continues to be a major source of ill-will with the CfD process. He should also consider notifying the affected title pages of the cemeteries associated with many of these entries. Ephebi (talk) 15:29, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: Like other editors here, the first example that leaped to mind was Jim Morrison and Père Lachaise Cemetery. A person's burial place is indeed note-worthy to many people, and to summarily declare that it is not, as the nominator has done, is an egregiously shortsighted opinion (POV) that lacks a grasp of human behaviors, interactions, and perceptions of deceased members of our societies. It seems that the nominator wants us to overturn whole sections of Wikipedia to suit his worldview. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person's place of burial is indeed noteworthy, which is why it should be included in a person's article. That doesn't justify categories. Buck Winston (talk) 17:01, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all We've been through this CfD debate not very long ago, and I can't think of any reason why the consensus should be any different this time. And lists would be a worse solution. Edwardx (talk) 17:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment considering the above average level of participation in this discussion, the claims that I should have tagged more categories amount to a demand that people do more work to start CfD nominations. There is sufficient participation here, and I see no reason I should do more work if the whole thing gets torpedoed anyway.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:57, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, Ephebi convinced me. Cavarrone (talk) 20:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- There are some notable or widely-used burial places. I would suggest that any cemetery that cannot be populated with a (say) dozen articles should not be allowed to survive: we do only allow articles on most local churches if there is reason for declaring them notable. We similarly cannot allow a category for every chruchyard or civil cemetery, most of which will have few notable people interred in them. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as legitimate as the "from" categories, here's where they end up - whether or not it was their choice or by happenstance. Although for people exhumed, are these "current" categories? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • A person's identity is shaped by the environment in which they are raised. The same cannot be said for the place where they are buried. The two sets of categories are not equivalent and arguments based on their comparison are not valid. Buck Winston (talk) 20:57, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Oculi, Boneyard90 and others. --Mais oui! (talk) 09:07, 29 November 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:Amoral albums[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 C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:35, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is nothing amoral about these albums - it's just that they are by a band, the article about which is Amoral (band). עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:41, 19 November 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:Amen albums[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 C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:36, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is related to Amen (band), not the subject of the Amen article. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:39, 19 November 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:LGBT people by nationality[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: do not rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:42, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. All specific subcategories are named "LGBT people from XYcountry". This is clearly a by country category. Match the one in commons. ChemTerm (talk) 16:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The parent is Category:People by nationality, and there is no reason to break the convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Nationality is something different then a country. How many people have a certain nationality, but live abroad? The Banner talk 19:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – but I would support renaming all its subcats to follow the conventions used everywhere else (see eg Category:British people where Category:LGBT people from the United Kingdom is inexplicably named ... it is possible to be 'from the United Kingdom' without being British but I doubt whether any such distinction is intended). Oculi (talk) 20:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not the distinction is intended, it is an important one. The label "British" is rejected by a large minority of people in Northern Ireland, and their right to reject that identity is explicitly guaranteed by the UK govt in http://www.nio.gov.uk/agreement.pdf section 2.1.(6) of the Belfast Agreement].
    It is a hideous breach of NPOV that Wikipedia continues to use the word "British" to refer to the United Kingdom in so many category titles, when even the UK govt is itself party to an international agreement which rejects the notion that UK=British. So Category:LGBT people from the United Kingdom is correctly named; it is the other categories which are wrong. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:37, 19 November 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:Jewish racing 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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection by religion. Sportspeople by religion is one of the groups mentioned specifically Wikipedia:Overcategorization. --Falcadore (talk) 07:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:CATGRS, which says that "Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African-American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". I see no evidence that "Jewish racing drivers" is recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.
    A search for "Jewish racing drivers" produces only 1 hit on Google Books, but zero hits on Google News, and only 1 hit on Google Scholar. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Manual delete. Changing my !vote per my comments below about the need to remove most of the articles in this category from other Jewish categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete although I would point out that this is a by ethnicity more than a by religion category. There is no evidence that this is a heavily covered intersect, and it does not appear we could write a topic article on it, so we need to delete it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:28, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Considering that the claim isn't even mentioned in any of these articles, much less cited, it's plainly unimportant trivia, and WP:OVERCAT surely applies. Mangoe (talk) 22:34, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I just checked the first 5 articles in the category (Joakim Bonnier, Tim Coronel, Tom Coronel, Mario Haberfeld, & Steve Krisiloff), and none of them mentions "jew" in body text, let alone provides a source. Krisiloff is included in the List of Jews in sports#Motorsport, but the reference there doesn't mention him. All the articles I checked are also in a Jewish-ppl-by-nationality category, from which they should be removed. This should be done before Category:Jewish racing drivers is deleted, so I will change my !vote to "manual delete". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:15, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good luck on that. If you remove people from Jewish categories you get called an anti-semite, I know because it has happened to me.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 20 November 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:Rivers of San Francisco County, California[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per policy/consensus on SF categories not including "county" as superfluous. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. What policy is that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:54, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, i guess its not policy, but no other SF categories use "county" in their name.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:19, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Since San Francisco is a unified city-county, the city name and the county name refer to the same entity, so the rename would introduce no ambiguity. While I'm not aware of any relevant policy, I prefer to omit the word "county" because (in the case of San Francisco) it is an unnecessary extra word. The "California" qualifier could probably be removed as well, since the California city is the primary topic with that name.—Stepheng3 (talk) 19:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename this would put it in line with the other subcats of Category:Landforms of San Francisco, California.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 19 November 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:Student houses[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 proposal withdrawn; no consensus on how to proceed. A fresh nomination might be useful in focusing the discussion on a particular proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:38, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This are commonly more like multi unit residential buildings (apartments) then they are traditional houses. The category name should reflect that. I agree that many of these are in fact called houses, but that does not mean we should use a category name that incorrectly identifies these buildings. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see the the proposed target exists. So this becomes a rename, probably leaving behind a redirect. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - The desciptions given in these two categories headers clearly distinguish them as different things. If anything, I would argue that Category:Student houses should not be a subcategory of Category:Student housing as it is not neccesary for the two to be directly connected, although likely it is in the notable examples. --Qetuth (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • An option could be to drop it from both house categories as incorrect. The points you make show that both of the names in the nomination may be fact be ambiguous for these and an alternative should be chosen. In the US, the term has a different meaning then it does in the UK among the general pubic. Maybe a rename to some form of Category:House systems to match what appears to be the main article? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category: Residential colleges which may or may not belong as a subcategory of Category:Student housing. We have two main articles here: residential college and house system, which probably ought to be merged. But as these are all college-related articles and categories, for now they need to be categorized under the former rather than the latter. The articles mostly are about the organizations, not the buildings. Mangoe (talk) 18:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger. This whole category is incorrectly placed within the building tree. Right now we do have as an article Program in America and California Explorations which is part of a high school in Sacremento, so would not qualify as part of Residential colleges. We also have Category:Residential colleges of Australian universities which is incorrectly placed within the building hierarchy. There is also Category:Colleges of Yale University which are essentially what is called "residential colleges". What is clear is that this should not be part of the building category system at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:36, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the fact that some places do not call them colleges, but houses might mean we should call the category Category:Student houses and residential colleges or Category:Residential colleges and student houses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge or rename to the various residential college suggestions. For my own alma mater there were three types of student accommodations. There were "halls of residence" (mainly used by first-year students), "student houses" (purpose-built housing units for 4 or 5 students), and "student housing" (privately owned and tennanted houses mostly within suburbs neighbouring the university). Additionally, if the "residential college" route was followed, then we would need to add the various Oxbridge colleges into this, and I'm not sure that they need to sit in this tree.

    I wonder if it would be better to remove the "university" part of the category definition and leave the "Student Houses" category to just be for high schools that have a boarding house that is independently notable of the school that it belongs to. If P. G. Wodehouse's books set in boys' schools are anything to go by, [see s:Mike (Wodehouse) for an example] the houses tend to be named for the master in charge of the house, but don't have independent notability. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note. I have basically withdrawn the original proposal. The discussion clearly indicates that this is more complex and this topic needs further discussion to determine the best way to address any action on the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:27, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If we limited this to things connected with secondary institutions of learning, then the category would only retain one of its present contents. Most of the present contents are connected with universities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is -- they way students are housed varies from country to country and university to university. "Residential college" will not fit, because the term is applied differently by differnet institutions. I think that bringing boarding schools inot the topic only serves to confuse the question. This should probably be about teriary education. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think this will do. Residential college cites the Harvard houses which are all within this category as examples of the genus, so at the very least they would all need to go under its category instead of that for student house. The Caltech article specifically mentions the Harvard system as a prototype. I think the JFKHS article doesn't belong with these at all (or indeed has anything to do with either of the potential main articles) and Paton College ought to be folded back into Memorial University of Newfoundland. With that pruning I don't see how anything but the rename I propose is a tenable resolution. Mangoe (talk) 18:19, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Categories should group things by what they are, not what they are called. It looks to me that at present this is going more towards grouping things by what they are called. Anyway, the article student house talks heavily about secondary-education, so how can we justify excluding that from the category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:18, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: This category was created, and initially populated and categorised, based on the House system article, which is not directly related to Student housing, but coincides in some cases. There are tens of thousands of institutions with house systems nothing to do with accomodation, but I can't find any we have separate articles for. If there are no independantly notable examples of house systems which do not coincide with accomodation structure, there is no need for such a category. For the remainder, the Residential colleges, is there a clear distinction between residential colleges and other student housing, without basing it on what it is called (which is somewhat arbitrary and inconsistent) or whether it specifically mentions links to the main article? Is anything lost by simply sticking to the by country tree of Category:University and college residential buildings? --Qetuth (talk) 01:00, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am also not convinced that there is enough stuff here for a seperate category. I think in general university things are different enough from institution to institution that grouping articles into university categories is more helpful than trying to create categories for specific things that can be found at different universities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:45, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete student houses is not defined properly to be a distinguishing feature. I guess I should write an article about my apartment and categorize it here. ? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:39, 28 November 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_November_19&oldid=1079914898"