Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 28 April 30 >

April 29[edit]

Category:Places in South Africa with White plurality populations[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) 15:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Other than being probably unhelpful and a case of overcategorisation, these categories, which claim to group populated places where a given race is a majority, are virtually impossible to maintain: the borders of South African towns are not demarcated in any official or meaningful sense. An example: Krugersdorp, which is claimed to be a white-majority town, has actually a black majority population. The discrepancy is caused by the way the census borders were drawn to purposefully avoid the black-majority areas, as can be seen here. There are, as yet, no reliable population figures for South African towns that include both black- and white-majority areas, so the very addition of any of these categories to an article is likely a case of original research. eh bien mon prince (talk) 22:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete with the list being time sensative. Lists can reflect the fact that this characteristic changes over time, categories are not good at reflecting things that when no longer existent have no clear meaning to the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but do not listify. WP:OR is no basis for a list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The boundaries used by the census for towns are, as User:Underlying lk points out, completely arbitrary, and in many cases specifically drawn in such a way that black-majority areas are excluded from the town "proper". Part of the justification for these categories seems to be that they are ethnic enclaves. But, firstly, South African "population groups" are not ethnic groups. Secondly, even if they were, many (most) of the articles in these categories aren't ethnic enclaves; for example a town in the Western or Northern Cape with a coloured majority population is by no means an ethnic enclave, since coloured people are the majority in those provinces. Even a white-majority or Indian-majority town isn't necessarily an ethnic enclave as the term is usually understood. - htonl (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This information should be included in a "demographics of South Africa" section or article. There doesn't seem to be any good reason for defining places based on some (presumably current) ethnic mix. And strictly as a category, the concept poses numerous problems in terms of definitions and maintenance: quantity, place, race/ethnicity. --Lquilter (talk) 14:55, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I suspect that any list would be tainted by the shadows of apartheid. The proper way to deal with the issue is through an article on South African racial demography. I doubt that listifying the categories would provide a good starting point for such an article. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2013 (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:UEFA football clubs 2012–13 season[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: there doesn't seem to be any strong objection to doing this, so long as a user who knows what he is doing does it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. The names of the split categories show a more accurate discription of what the category is showing. Kingjeff (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It completely overlaps. If a club qualified for one of them and they have a club season article in English Wikipedia, then it's likely in that category. Kingjeff (talk) 23:14, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The previous CfD was closed by Mike Selinker as "no consensus to delete, leaning to split". The closer stated that "The split has merit to the commenters, so if someone is inclined to do so, go ahead. It's possible that one half (likely Champions League) might survive and the other might not." I wanted to split this category into Category:UEFA Champions League clubs 2012–13 season and Category:UEFA Europa League clubs 2012–13 season, and asked Mike Selinker on his talk page on how to perform this split [1] without getting a reply, so I never actually did it. I'd support a split, but I think the proposed names is a little misleading. Mentoz86 (talk) 08:08, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am not a football fan and do not follow these things closely, but my understanding is that clubs eliminated from the Champions competition then join the other one, so that the boundary is a difficult one. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the split is agreed, the procedure would be for an editor to create two new subcategories, and manually amend the categories on each article so that it was in one of both of the targets (as appropriate). We can then consider whether the existing category should be retained or merged top a parent. It is not fair to expect a closing admin to do this. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem doing this myself. Kingjeff (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2013 (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:Television personalities[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: No split. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposed splitting Category:Television personalities into Category:Male television personalities and Category:Female television personalities
  • Nominator's rationale In general, in a medium like television where the person is both heard and seen, the gender of the person involved is clearly factored into and has some role in how they are presented to the audience. It is less clear here then in acting, where in general the people take on pre-cast roles that in some cases change who fills them but almsot always are filled by people of the same gender, but there is clearly a connection between how the people are cast and their gender. What this connection is varies over time, place and other factors, but it is generally there. I am trying to avboid getting attacked as either sexist or trying to turn wikipedia into a vehicle to attack perceived injustices, so I really am not sure what more to say, since I have seen both the creation of categories like this and not creating categories like this labeled "sexist".John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The nomination does not explain how the subcategories of this category (which currently only contains 2 articles directly) would be re-arranged. DexDor (talk) 21:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We could duplicate the division with the by nationality sub-cats. I am not sure how to deal with any of the other current sub-cats, and they would have to be treated on a case by case basis.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose gender-based overcategorization AND delete the original category that's so vague it's not needed in the first place. Who defines a television personality? Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 11:07, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The split will not work without a lot of unnecessary (and perhaps undesirable) splitting of a lot of subcategories. Furthermore, we discourage splitting occupational categories by gender, except where gender is highly relevant to the performance of the occupation. I supported a split on actors, because actresses generally do not play male roles. Conversely, we have merged female lawyers into lawyers, because gender is largely irrelevant to their ability to do the work. The category has a number of categories (such as TV presenters), where I would have expected gender to be irrelevant. This category ought largely to be a container category, with any bio-articles in sub-cats. I am also dubious about the value of the category, but it should be renamed, rather than deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:12, 1 May 2013 (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:Spaghetti Westerns[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line with all the other subcategories of Category:Western films by country. and List of Spaghetti Western films. Fortdj33 (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The article on the subject makes it clear that these are films. I do have to wonder if there are books, TV programming, plays and poems that are "Speghetti Westerns", but it appears that the term is only used for films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's just films. But I suppose the categories for the music from the films, scripts, etc., etc., could also be involved, so the "films" designation is somewhat helpful. --Lquilter (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2013 (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:Fede Alvarez[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: procedural close: there is no such category.
I think that the nominator may have intended to nominate Template:Fede Alvarez, which should be listed at WP:TFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Lack of content. The template only links to the director's article and the Evil Dead one. "Ataque de Pánico!" is a redirect to a section in the director's article. uKER (talk) 15:22, 29 April 2013 (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.

All Star Gaelic footballers[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) 15:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose either merging all the categories listed below, or deleting them all
1972–2012 categories
Nominator's rationale. Per WP:OC#AWARD, award categories should be created only in exceptional cases, because they cause category clutter and are rarely defining. Winning an all-star award is one of the highest honours in Gaelic games, though winning an all-Ireland medal is arguably a higher honour. So there is a case for deleting all these categories.
However, even if we continue to categorise All-Star Award winners, we don't need to break them up by year. The WP:DEFINING characteristic here is that a player won an All-Star award, not that they won it in 1977 rather than 1979 ... so if we continue to categorise these Award-winners, we should upmerge the by-year categories.
Note that a list alreday exists at List of All Stars Awards winners (football), and that we already have a full set of navigational boxes for each year (see Category:Gaelic football All Stars navigational boxes). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS Note that a similar nomination in March 2007 closed as "no consensus". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:55, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Gaelic games has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:13, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but I am not 100% certain that the target is ideally named. I am unfamiliar with the sport in question. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:17, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:09, 1 May 2013 (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:Inventions by country[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: administrative close: nominator wishes to discuss criteria for inclusion, not deletion vs. retention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (and child categories)

These nationalistic invention categories are a POV nightmare and beyond WP's ability to maintain in a neutral and accurate manner.

I doubt these categories will be deleted. It's probably not even an improvement, despite the problems, to remove them. However we need to establish clear guidance for what the inclusion conditions are.

Past discussion is at:

More recently at:

To quote some specific question (from the Belgian context):

  • Is a "Flemish" invention a Belgian invention? Belgium didn't exist then. The location in question was part of the Dutch state at the time.
  • Is an invention by an expatriate Belgian a "Belgian invention"?
  • Does one invention of a further instance count as "invention", or is it strictly the first invention? See land yacht, where Simon Stevin may well have built a working land yacht, but he did it centuries after the Chinese did. Many of these claims appear to be based on using WP bio articles as RS and taking their isolated claims (which may indeed be real) as the only example of such an invention, even though there were other precedents.
  • Plants and animals. Is discovery or husbandry an "invention"?
  • Are new models of the same basic machine "inventions"? The Browning Hi-Power has novelty, the FN FNC does not.

I note that List of German inventions and discoveries (another cat where this has arisen lately) has taken the specific step of including "discoveries", which seems like a reasonable move.

Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and close "a POV nightmare" and "beyond WP's ability to maintain in a neutral and accurate manner" are not valid reasons for deletion. Also, none of the child catergories have actually been tagged. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is "categories for discussion", not "deletion", so how about discussing it? We need some agreement as to what goes into this category. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
See the first sentence of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion: Categories for discussion (Cfd) is where deletion, merging, and renaming of categories (pages in the Category namespace) is discussed.
Unless you want to discuss deletion, merging, or renaming, the discussion doesn't belong here. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:30, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you claim that "Categories for discussion" is for anything except discussion? I'll treat that sophist excuse with the contempt that it thoroughly deserves. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, Andy it's only for discussion ... but it's for a particular type of discussion, as set out above. I am rather amused that someone who has a problem with comprehending that simple distinction chooses to pour contempt on others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So where is the right place for this discussion, Wikipedia talk:Categorization? — HHHIPPO 18:38, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's one possibility. Another is Category talk:Inventions by country, tho categ talk pages are little watched, so a discussion there would need to be advertised elsewhere. The parent Category:Inventions is tagged with the banner of WikiProject Technology, so it might be a good idea to alert them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:12, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'm happy with a procedural close for now, without prejudice for a possible future nomination for deletion. Btw: the child categories are actually tagged, just not quite in the right way. — HHHIPPO 22:27, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and close. There may be a case for deleting the by-country categories, but if so they should be listed and tagged. Since that has not been done, all this nomination can achieve is deleting the container category which groups them. That's pointlessly disruptive (maybe not disruptive in intent, but certainly in effect). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:25, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and stop worrying. Cats aren't definitive. They're navigation. We put stuff in Category:Belgian inventions‎ if we believe that a rational reader who is interested in Belgian inventions would be interested in reading that article. Yes, this does mean that sometimes we put Flemish inventions in the Belgian cat, and inventions by Belgian expats, as well as things that were demonstrably not Belgian but are commonly and mistakenly believed to be so. The actual content details (e.g., "This was invented by Bob Smith, who was a native Belgian but fled to the Moon during a wave of anti-Pastafarian persecution in 1235 CE" or "This is commonly believed to be a Belgian invention, but it's actually Swiss"), complete with sources, go into the article, not the navigation space. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that cats aren't defining, they're navigational. I have a lax attitude to WP:OVERCAT, for starters. The trouble with this lenient view is that it encourages a mess like telephone (edit warring today over five countries) and ballpoint pen, where Hungarians who emigrated to Argentina, as an opportunity to develop the pen they had already invented get classed as Argentinian. We have to maintain some respect for accuracy. For this reason I'm certainly against known misnomers, because WP then becomes seen as a RS for "proving" such elsewhere. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:43, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- The present Belgium has only been so named since the 1830s, but a polity of approximately the same extent has existed as the Spanish and then Austrian Netherlands since Dutch independence, de facto in 1570 and de jure in 1648, except c.1793-c.1830, when amalgamated with France and then in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands. I am sure there are WP:OR issues, but that is common. On Andy Dingley's example, I would suggest that categories should depend on the place of invention (here "inventions in Argentina"), not the nationality of the inventor, which may involve renaming sub-cats. And we should not rule out an invention having been made by several people independently in multiple countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:29, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Assisning nationality to inventions ignored the fact that many are trans-national collaborations and others are essentially made by different people all at the same time. If a Scottish person invents something in a lab in the US where his main assistants are German what do we do with that?John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If in doubt, tag with multiple country categories (so, Flemish invention AND Belgian invention). The point is this makes it easy to see what was invented by people from country X. My only concern is that it may also list constructions. Is AK-47 a Russian/Soviet invention? Is Fort T an American invention? Are all Fords American inventions? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:59, 15 May 2013 (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.

All-Star hurlers by 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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:17, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose either merging all the categories listed below, or deleting them all:
1972–2012 categories
Nominator's rationale. Per WP:OC#AWARD, award categories should be created only in exceptional cases, because they cause category clutter and are rarely defining. Winning an all-star award is one of the highest honours in Gaelic games, though winning an all-Ireland medal is arguably a higher honour. So there is a case for deleting all these categories.
However, even if we continue to categorise All-Star Award winners, we don't need to break them up by year. The WP:DEFINING characteristic here is that a player won an All-Star award, not that they won it in 1977 rather than 1979 ... so if we continue to categorise these Award-winners, we should upmerge the by-year categories.
Note that a list already exists at List of All Stars Awards winners (hurling), and that we already have a full set of navigational boxes for each year (see Category:Hurling All Stars navigational boxes). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:22, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS Note that a similar nomination in March 2007 closed as "no consensus". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:24, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Gaelic games has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but it should be noted in each individual's article how many awards (and when awarded) were made. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:08, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but I am not convinced the target is quite right: I do not know the sport. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:31, 1 May 2013 (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:Imperial Roman senators[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Senators of the Roman Empire; other categories can be created as needed. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:18, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant subcategory of the target. ❤ Yutsi Talk/ Contributions ( 偉特 ) 12:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree that we also need two new cats Category:Senators of the Kingdom of Rome, Category:Senators of the Roman Republic. But it's a big task and not one that I would relish. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2013 (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:SIMPOL signatories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think that having signed onto the SIMPOL programme is defining for most of the individuals who have done so. Perhaps it will become defining if the movement ever accomplishes what it sets out to do, but until then, it's kind of a peripheral thing. It's certainly not as significant as the other subcategories of Category:Signatories by document. I think a better first step for this would be creating a list within International Simultaneous Policy Organization. Good Ol’factory (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Signing on to a petition or proclamation or something is rarely going to be a defining attribute for someone unless it is a founding document or something else of lasting and historical significance. --Lquilter (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify in International Simultaneous Policy Organization then delete. Not defining of most of the signatories. It has the feel of a club for those who seek to resolve disputes in a certain way. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not a defining trait of the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete per above. - jc37 21:37, 15 June 2013 (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:Scooter Braun[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. This is not the place to challenge WP:EPONYMOUS. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: The category is tied in to RBMG, Schoolboy Records, and related items would help tie in with many renowned artists Scooter Braun manages like Justin Bieber, Asher Roth, Carly Rae Jepsen, The Wanted and Usher (entertainer) werldwayd (talk) 06:17, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:EPONYMOUS. .... As for the proposed content: Do we really want to start categorizing artists by their agents? Sports figures by their agents? That would be a bad idea, and practically a quintessential example of overcategorization. Artists are not generally defined by their agents (even if their fame is attributable to the agent, it's not defined by the agent. If you want to list artists managed by an agent, that should be done in a list in the agent's article or, maybe for some agents, in a separate list. ... So if you don't include all the artists this person has managed or represented, then what other content would be included? The organizations/record labels they've worked for? A similar overcategorization problem would apply here, too. Although we do in fact often categorize people by their employers (see all the various University faculty categories), we never categorize employers by their employers: Can you imagine if University of California was categorized by Category:University of California people? It would be tens of thousands of categories. --Lquilter (talk) 14:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is the reverse of how we want to categorize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep and delete WP:EPONYMOUS as thoroughly unhelpful. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And then how should we apply eponymous categories? to all members of the family, and to everyone they have worked with, and perhaps also those who claim to be influenced by them? and their critics as well? and if those folks *also* have their own eponymous categories, then we can categorize everybody by everybody else's category! --Lquilter (talk) 14:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then we can put George W. Bush in Category:Jeb Bush. That will only be the tip of the iceberg. We do not want to go that way, that way is madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:25, 22 May 2013 (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:Čiurlionis[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Čiurlionis to article List of things named after Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis
Nominator's rationale: Convert. The category is being used to group things that have been named after Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis. In line with WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, I suggest converting this to a list. If kept for some reason, the article should be renamed Category:Mikalojus Konstantinas Čiurlionis. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2013 (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:Avenues[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: no consensus.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. Avenue is an ambiguous term. This category either needs to be renamed to Category:Avenues (landscape), to match the article Avenue (landscape) ... OR it could be deleted as categorization by a type of shared naming characteristic. (See the speedy discussion below for different viewpoints on this.) One of the underlying problems is that different places use the name "avenue" in such different ways, so much so that often the difference between a "street" and an "avenue" and a "boulevard" becomes indistinguishable. (Note that this is not necessarily true for the subcategories, which is why I haven't nominated them for deletion. I interpret User:Mais oui!'s arguments as suggesting that the subcategories would be treated identically to the parent category, but I see only the parent category as problematic.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Take to full CFD - the proposed target is a poor one. In reality, all the members of the cat and subcats seem to be boulevards rather than avenues, but of course they tend to get named "Avenue of the ..." and suchlike. Category:Boulevards is probably the best rename. As the creator, I only called it cat:Avenues as that is what all the pre-existing subcats were called.--Mais oui! (talk) 06:11, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Then isn't this just categorization by shared name? Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:29, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To compound the confusion, in some countries boulevards are called avenues. Grutness...wha? 00:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Or is it that in some countries avenues are called boulevards? Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that we shouldn't be categorizing by street name at all. Given how loosely the terms and used in a variety of countries, do we really want to separately categorize avenues, streets, lanes, drives, crescents, courts, boulevards, parkways, places, etc.? Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:28, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Designing and constructing a Boulevard is a major political/urban planning act, often involving the destruction of vast areas of pre-existing urban areas (eg. Paris). The great boulevard construction phases of Paris, Vienna, Berlin, Munich etc easily rank as significant building and structure projects, comparable with the money and fuss allocated to modern high speed railway lines, Olympic parks or major sport arena schemes. In fact, one could argue that the big boulevards are some of the most significant building and structure events of all-time: Paris and Vienna were transformed beyond all recognition, and will remain so for centuries, perhaps forever. What football stadium can one say that about? cf. another major urban planning feature which we categorize: Category:Town squares. I suspect that this topic has been thus-far neglected because it is not a major aspect of urban development in English-speaking countries. But Wikipedia is a global project and we must actively counter the more tabloid tendencies, like the grave skewing of content to big-up English speakers' obsessions, and often completely ignore or sideline major non-English-language topics. --Mais oui! (talk) 03:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that not every country uses "boulevard" or "avenue" in the same way. My position is not ignoring a non-English-language topic, it's recognising that there are differences across all countries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:47, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So what? Wikipedia's role is to document the real world, not to try to pigeon-hole anything and everything into a neat set of made up in-house rules. The real world is a complex (and thus fascinating) place, and we must strive to accurately represent it. I despair sometimes at Wikipedia's tedious tendency to ... (3 year old son insists that daddy shuts the computer now, but you get the drift of my tirade...) --Mais oui! (talk) 05:57, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Wikipedia's role is to document the real world, not to try to pigeon-hole anything and everything into a neat set of made up in-house rules." Exactly. That's why having a category called Category:Avenues would be inappropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Kingjeff (talk) 02:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Boulevards, per parent article Boulevard. Major urban planning projects like the Ringstraße or the boulevard construction projects of Berlin, Munich, Paris etc are tremendously important building and construction events which totally transformed those cities, probably forever. If we can have a cat tree Category:Town squares, then we simply must categorise an equally important urban landscape feature. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that users might still tend to categorize any old street named "XXX Boulevard" into such a category, but the risk is probably somewhat less than it is with Category:Avenues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Boulevards. I started adding to this last week, but undid some of my own work when realised that the subjects were major urban thoroughfares which did not appear to be lined with trees on both sides (per avenue (landscape)). – Fayenatic London 12:10, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category: Avenues (landscape). "Boulevards" and "Avenues" share the same problem, in that people will categorize any street with that appellation into the category, whether they are or not. Further, boulevards are large divided central median streets, instead of tree-lined streets. So, Category: Boulevards (landscape) should be created as a separate unrelated category for those kinds of projects. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 21:29, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. In reading boulevard it contains this and roadways along each side designed as slow travel and parking lanes. I'm not sure that most of the roads listed in the article in the US meet that requirement. So categorization here may be the least of our problems. Any road geeks, want to chime in an give the rest of us a clue? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The definition at boulevard is way over-specific OR. It may mean that in modern US planning talk, but the vast majority of the original Parisian boulevards are just not-big-enough city streets with 2 lanes each way & near permanent traffic jams. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename to Category:Avenues (landscape) which addresses the issue of ambiguity of Category:Avenues and better corresponds to the title of the parent article. To use a few New York City examples, the existing title of Category:Avenues could be perceived to include articles such as Fifth Avenue, while the proposed title of Category:Boulevards could be misused to include Queens Boulevard. The nominator's proposed alternative of Category:Avenues (landscape) is far more likely to accurately include intended articles with far fewer false positives than either the current title or the Boulevards alternative. Alansohn (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am unconvinced that there is any clear, definable way to use this term. We have Category:Woodward Avenue which is not here, although as a at times 5-lane each way avenue, that is relatively staight, and has lots of trees down the middle and on the sides, it is unclear why Woodward is anything other than an avenue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Avenues (landscape) is so named to distinguish it from Avenues (streets). I see no objection to both being in the same category, as they are ultimately the result of the same concept. I suspect that it is going to pick up in subcats a lot of articles that are essentially about streets. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:40, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep though it is not so far a very useful category. Possibly rename Category:Avenues and boulevards. None of the proposed solutions are very attractive - boulevard is really just as unclear. What exactly would be wrong with Category:Avenues of Manhatten as a sub-cat here? A note restricting the scope to major streets in major cities would be needed, though a search shows we have several articles on "Park Avenue"s that no-one has bothered to add here. Avenue (landscape) covers, correctly in my view, both park avenues and streets, and probably should be renamed to plain Avenue. Johnbod (talk) 17:52, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Avenues and boulevards are two separate things, and not the same, consider the two different articles avenue (landscape) and boulevard. Such a merged category would not need to exist, since they are both types of street layouts, so would be Category:Streets since the distinguishing point between the two types is lost in the combined category. -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. I think the discussion here has raised some valid concerns about this category and how it is used. At this point, it seems reasonable for someone to go in and reorganize as needed. Then after that cleanup if someone needs to bring this back here, then fine. I'm not convinced that anyone has expressed sound reason to keep Category:Avenues or Category:Avenues (landscape) or to create Category:Boulevards. In the end Category:Avenues (landscape) may be too narrow and require frequent cleaning and Category:Avenues would basically be for like named articles which we generally don't support. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:53, 6 May 2013 (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:Omniscience[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. I forcast a very heavy snow. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete basically an empty cat with no obvious purpose. The current hatnote resembles a confusing rant and the category was added by the creator to a few talkpages to support his equally confusing defense of his personal view of science and his own work. I think Talk:Omniscience#Fundamentals of the natural scientific comprehensive omniscience is a fairly representative sample. Pichpich (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The category only needs itself, as anyone who is truly omniscient would know. Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - I can imagine a number of articles that could be written regarding "omniscience in X religion", "omniscience in Y religion", "philosophical refutations of the possibility of omniscience", etc. But it doesn't appear that we have that level of detailed articles in WP on the topic, and until we do, this category is not needed. --Lquilter (talk) 17:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I knew you were going to say that. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:16, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
heh. maybe we should convert it to a wikipedia editor category. WP editors may be the only true omniscient beings .... --Lquilter (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2013 (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/2013_April_29&oldid=1075704351"