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) 01:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Models can and do model many different articles of clothing and are not defined by the articles themselves. Buck Winston (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge there is no parent category of "Models by clothing type", nor equivalent category of lingerie models at Category:Lingerie. List of male underwear models is enough. (NB some of the models are already in national subcategories of "male models" so there may need to be a bit of post-merger checking for duplicate categories.) BencherliteTalk 23:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge we have not even accepted a scheme where we seperate out people who model clothing from people who model for artists/photographers, so the models by specific clothing type is even less justified.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:54, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious merge per nom -- There are many models where the adverisers are only interested in one part of the body (e.g. their hand or leg). We do not need to split them accordin g to what they model. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:23, 9 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.
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) 01:54, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Another fragmentary category, splitting up a small set of articles into smaller and smaller sub-categories. There is no evidence that homosexual males were or are treated differently at the episode level than how homosexual women or bisexuals of either sex is treated at the episode level. This fails WP:CATGRS which states that gender must be relevant to the subject. It is not relevant here. Buck Winston (talk) 23:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not prepared to explain your reasoning to keep a category that you created, the closing admin is likely to look upon it as WP:JUSTAVOTE. BencherliteTalk 08:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom (single upmerge only). The splitting of LGBT-television episodes into one (or in some cases, more than one) subcategory of LGBT-ness is overcategorization. So for that reason I would oppose an upmerge to the other parent, Category:Gay (male) television, also created by MaybeMaybeMaybe and seemingly intended purely as a container category for other categories that he is diffusing into the subcomponents of LBGT-ness. BencherliteTalk 08:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see a reason to categorize specific episodes in this manner.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 7 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The current name sounds like it refers to districts which are central (either in location or in importance); we should disambiguate it. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Central Districts" may be ambiguous, but "Central Districts cricketers" is definitely not ambiguous. "Stags" is only used as the team's moniker for certain competitions—I think an article or category move (back) to Central Districts Stags would be inappropriate. IgnorantArmies – 13:27, Friday November 16, 2012 (UTC)
Further: I think the category having a link to Central Districts Stags is a relic from when the article was at that title, not at "Central Districts cricket team". I've edited the category to better reflect its purpose (not trying to impose any one particular name, just reflecting the article). IgnorantArmies – 13:34, Friday November 16, 2012 (UTC)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: because the subcategories are photojournalists grouped by nationality, not by country/countries in which they work, and because the appropriate parent is Category:Categories by nationality (which is for people) not Category:Categories by country (which is not for people) BencherliteTalk 09:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, people and culture are categorised by nationality rather than by country. – FayenaticLondon 12:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename by nationality is the accepted form in such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 7 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I see no reason why being notable in more than one sport is itself any more than the sum of its parts (that is, each sport separately); even if it is, this should be a list and not a category. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I've never seen the point of this category either. The indivudal sports would be on the relevant bio page, and this doesn't serve any real purpose. Plus the wording is clumsy. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a notable level of categorization. It becomes overcat because we could have people in here for both swimming and water polo, which are not all that different. There are probably some cases where it could become disputed because it would not be clear whether the person was noted for more than one sport, or if their two sports were really the same sport.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. First, this yet another nomination which proposes deletion without apparently looking the consequences. There are three different types of content in this category:
Individual players, lot of them. Lumping them all together is silly; a football player who was also a competitive sailboat racer has little in common with a tennis player who also competed in badminton, or a swimmer who also did the long jump.
Sub-categories for specific intersections. So long as we have those categories, they should be in a common parent. None of them are included in this nomination, so deletion will deprive them of a common parent. I am no expert of sport, I do know that those who switched from Gaelic Football to Australian Rules football (see Category:Gaelic footballers who switched code) are a notable topic in Ireland. There may be similar significance for some of the other pairs, such as players who switched between Rugby union and Rugby League.
I have a lot of sympathy with the basic proposition behind the nomination, but it needs a lot more consideration. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete multiple categories do not work well. A person of French and Portuguese descent is not categorised as "French-Portuguese" but as of French descent and Portuguese descent. We should apply the same rule to those engages in multiple sports. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the arguments above. I looked at several of the items that were suggested as problems if deleted. It appears that all of these would remain in suitable parent categories. While a few issues might be created, those can be cleaned up over time. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:43, 13 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.
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) 01:28, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A more ENGVAR-neutral name, and matches most of the child categories. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - most of the countries in the subcats do not use Jurist in this way. --Qetuth (talk) 09:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
REanme per nom. To my mind as an Englishman, a jurist is someone concerned with the theory of law. I suspect that there is a slightly different view in US, so that the target is more NPOV. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:36, 9 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:American musicians of Swedish descent[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:44, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale according to Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality we are told "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. If a substantial and encyclopedic head article (not just a list) cannot be written for such a category, then the category should not be created." This category covers a trivial instersection with no scholarly study of it as such, so it should be deleted per guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteUpmerge per nominator and per WP:CATGRS, unless someone has evidence in reliable sources that "American musicians of Swedish descent" are a distinct and unique cultural topic about which we could have an encyclopedic article (not just a list). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:39, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BHG, you have really confused me. You have shut down and done nothing on similar discussion that went delete because we were not favoring deleting Americans by descent and the specific Americans by occupation. So are you saying we should not categorize people in Category:American people of Swedish descent and Category:American musicians, or is it possible that people say "delete" when they mean upmerge, and that your refusal to interpret previous actions in that manner was a needless push for precision in language that is not reflected in how people actually use it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
JPL, you are quite right. I wrote "delete" when I meant upmerge, and have corrected my !vote in this edit. Two two are different actions, and the distinction is critical. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge but note that this opens a big can of worms because of Category:American musicians of European descent. The problem is that the descent categories are bordering on trivia. Beck is "of Swedish descent" because his mother is one quarter Swedish. Jerry Garcia's parents were named Jose Ramon Garcia and Ruth Marie Clifford so something tells me that his Swedish heritage wasn't a big part of his identity. Harry Nilsson is of Swedish heritage because of his father but his father abandoned him when he was three. Darby Crash never met his Swedish father and only learned of his existence in his teens. And so on. This category would only make sense if there was a noticeable Swedish slant to the music of Americans of Swedish descent but our notion of "Swedish descent" is so broad that this is clearly impossible. Actually, I'm sure a few people would cite Jerry Garcia among examples of quintessentially American musicians. Pichpich (talk) 22:03, 7 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:Transgender-related television episodes[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) 01:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Small category with little or no growth potential. Very few individual television episodes that deal with transgenderism are independently notable. This category fragments an already small set of articles into ever smaller and smaller categories. Buck Winston (talk) 01:38, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or double upmerge to both parents.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 00:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not prepared to explain your reasoning to keep a category that you created, the closing admin is likely to look upon it as WP:JUSTAVOTE. BencherliteTalk 09:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:LGBT-related television episodes (single upmerge only). The splitting of LGBT-television episodes into one (or in some cases, more than one) subcategory of, or issue related to, LGBT-ness is overcategorization. I am uncertain about the utility of the other parent category, Category:Transgender in television, created by MaybeMaybeMaybe as well. Other people may have better views that help clarify my own. NB All of the subcategories of Category:LGBT-related television episodes, all created by MaybeMaybeMaybe have been nominated for deletion or merger, and it is a pity that he is failing to heed repeated calls to take more care when considering the appropriateness of a new category. BencherliteTalk 09:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unconvinced that we should categorize television episodes by subject at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 7 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:Same-sex marriage television episodes[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) 01:53, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Small category unlikely to expand, also overcategorization based on what is ultimately a trivial thing. Not every aspect of every television series needs to be categorized and all of these new categories invite category clutter and fragmentation of a small set of articles. Buck Winston (talk) 01:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Double upmerge to both the parent categories so to same sex marriage in television cat as well.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not prepared to explain your reasoning to keep a category that you created, the closing admin is likely to look upon it as WP:JUSTAVOTE. BencherliteTalk 08:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:LGBT-related television episodes (single upmerge only). The splitting of LGBT-television episodes into one (or in some cases, more than one) subcategory of, or issue related to, LGBT-ness is overcategorization. I am uncertain about the utility of the other parent category, Category:Same-sex marriage in television, created by MaybeMaybeMaybe as well - that too strikes me as overcategorization of TV episodes by issue. If a same-sex marriage category is needed at all, I wonder whether Category:Same-sex marriage in fiction would be better. Other people may have better views that help clarify my own. BencherliteTalk 08:18, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the overlap of television espisode and marriage type is not an established way of categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Finally, one not "related", but alas not notable intersection, either" Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:08, 13 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.
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) 01:47, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization. Not every aspect of every episode of television needs a category. The existing list article Lesbian kiss episode serves nicely for anyone seeking information on the subject and includes links to each of the episodes. Buck Winston (talk) 01:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment since the rest of the category structure does not exist, should we assume this is really a delete vote?John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:05, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. BrownHairedGirl made a very good point. This categorization is getting silly and tedious. This is trivial and non-defining at best. Nymfhideliho! 06:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BHG and because there is a list already. Categorizing episodes in this way is unnecessary. BencherliteTalk 08:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The list is more than enough coverage. I agree with the previous comments. Donner60 (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is an overcategorization of television episode by portrayal of specific interaction. We do not have any schema that supports categorization in this way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for so kindly pointing out my very sloppy omissions. I'm sorry that my neglect may have misled editors. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 05:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like Mercurywoodrose at first thought this was a TV show name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 12 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.
