Unincorporated communities in Wisconsin by county[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.
Nominator's rationale:Restore. These appear to have been emptied out of process following this discussion. Without subcategories, Category:Unincorporated communities in Wisconsin will contain over 1,400 articles which is not optimal for navigation. I found this following the close of the discussion mentioned so this is a followup to the close. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
restore to the situation before the recent outbreak of county category deletions/emptying. County categories are as legitimate as state categories. Hmains (talk) 04:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment When I signed up as an editor, the categories were simple. However, in the last 3-4 years, there was too many categories be created and not too much discussion. I read Wikipedia:Overcategorization and agree with the comment about "category clutter." However, I will not opposed the creation of categories involving Wisconsin unincorporated communities according to counties for I know this will happen despite myself and maybe others opposing this. I don't like edit wars. Thank you-RFD (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support Restore These categories belong in Wikipedia as aids in navigation. There is a real problem with overcategorization and category clutter, but it's not here. There is a real problem of editors who have become obsessed with categorizing (and repeatedly recategorizing) articles over and over again, in a fetish that seems more aimed at running up edit totals rather than improving navigation, but that is a separate issue. Alansohn (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as the number of articles goes up, there is a trend toward narrower categories; this is fine. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:19, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Restore In this case, many categories by county are needed for unincorporated communities since there are so many tiny unincorporated communities in Wisconsin. I'm sure that I have photographed over 100 myself! It's a useful and necessary subcategorization scheme. Royalbroil 13:58, 14 September 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Brought to my attention here, this was originally at Category:Equine parasites before a recent move; while a parent is Category:Horse health this category contains parasites of all types of equines, not just horses, and should be named accordingly. The BushrangerOne ping only 22:02, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support per request by a member (me) of WikiProject Equine. Should be non-controversial; many "equine" categories are diffused into both "horse" and other equine subcats. Montanabw(talk) 22:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Because "Foo parasites" is very easily confised with "Foo that are parasites", when the intent of the tree is "Parasites of foo". For instance, "plant parasites" - plants that are parasites or parasites of plants? In this case, the decision was made that regardless of the other stuff, the added clarity of the 'X of Y' format was desirable. - The BushrangerOne ping only 15:49, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
@IgnorantArmies, that would be my argument as well, but the name change was proposed for many animal species all at once and was approved for all of them, so (if I may pun) that horse has apparently already left the barn. So, given that I don't want to reopen the issue and have neither the time, interest nor energy to engage in the likely dramafest that would ensue (AND Bushranger does have a good point to make in terms of grammar for this one case, the other examples don't have the same risk of confusion), so all I seek is restoration of "equine." Montanabw(talk) 19:26, 13 August 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:Phenolic compounds found in castoreum[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:05, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Primarily Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Castoreum is a single page and is unlikely to expand much beyond this, so a whole category for its components is unnecessary. A list on the page would do fine. Project Osprey (talk) 21:52, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to parent, also delete the grandparent Category:Castoreum. Castoreum can be the main article for Category:Chemical compounds found in castoreum, which is the only category that could possibly be useful. However, I wonder if we should not be felling the whole tree in the nature of a performace (occuring in castoreum) by performer (compound) category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is an unknown (and probably quite high) number of additional phenolic compounds in castoreum. --Leyo 13:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per comments above. An almost unending collection of compounds and ions found in critters and plants. --Smokefoot (talk) 22:16, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The contents can be listed on the article page, we do not need to so categorize.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:40, 17 August 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.
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:01, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Uh... There is no such thing as a non-fictional troll, unless you count the internet kind, which does not appear to have a category, making the disambiguation in this category title more or less pointless. Category:Trolls is already a soft redirect to this category, a tacit acknowledgement of the reality that trolls are (sorry kids) not real. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeCategory:Trolls should be left for those people who become notable for going around being disruptive to online discussions. Well, OK, maybe it is unlikely we will need such a category, but maybe. Better to be sure to make it clear these things are fictional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
support, but... These categories are a hash needing some substantial sorting-out. I can see some point in making a distinction between these characters in works of fiction and in legend, but really only giants and dwarves need a distinction between fiction and reality. Seyasirt (talk) 01:23, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a distinction between fictional, legendary, mythical and religious. As well as people called trolls. -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:07, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - As the guy who made this so many years ago, I believe I was patterning this with the other mythological creatures to create a distinction between trolls that appear in traditional myths, folklore and religion from trolls appearing in works of fiction. Dread Lord CyberSkull✎☠ 07:21, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Fictional trolls and mythological trolls are not necessarily the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But we don't have a category for mythological trolls. This is the only troll category, as far as I have been able to tell. Seyasirt (talk) 17:10, 14 August 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:Joint Electronics Type Designation System[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. Note that cleanup will be required since some of the entries are also in other subcategories. Some are also in the parent category, and grouping to follow the existing examples should be considered if the category becomes too large after cleanup. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- The target is already large enough - or are the contents in parent AND child, which is not supposed to happen? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Many articles are currently in both categories (which itself implies there are problems with the categorization in this area) so merging in this category with the parent would result in a category of about 250-300 articles (which is much smaller than many other categories) - and, anyway, surely getting the categorization scheme right should take precedence over avoiding the category (temporarily) containing more than 200 articles. We probably should create a category for US electronics of the Cold War (under Category:Cold War military equipment of the United States) and move many of the articles down from Category:Military electronics of the United States to that category, but it would be cleanest to do that after the merge proposed here. DexDor (talk) 21:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support - a list of items designated under the JETDS would be a good idea, but having a category for them is nothing more and noting less than a variation on categorisation by shared name - "categorisation by shared designation system" - which we do not do. - The BushrangerOne ping only 21:45, 15 August 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:Current Brigades of the British Army[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 useful is not defining. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The British army has been so much decreased in size since WWII that a lot of brigades must have eben disbanded. I wonder whether the target should not (with purging) become Category:Disbanded brigades of the British Army, before the subject is renamed to the present title of the target. An analogy might be provided by constituencies of the UK Parliament, where there are categories for constituencies abolished under successive boundary changes. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Inclined to agree that “Current” as a category is undesirable, eg here or for “Current” heads of government etc (as has been proposed in the past), though Sports does have Category:Current sports seasons. Agree that a category for “Disbanded battalions” and also “Disbanded regiments” etc is preferable as likely to be permanent! There is a category called Category:Defunct Irish regiments of the British Army, although the term “Disbanded” sounds more military. Hugo999 (talk) 13:37, 15 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - this is not something that should be defined as "current", which is something we strongly discourage categorising by. - The BushrangerOne ping only 17:34, 19 August 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.
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 think this is categorizing places whose name contains "Bottom" which is contrary to WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. DexDor (talk) 04:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per BHG and JPL. I was wary of merging an American category into a worldwide one, but the target does not seem to be over-populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment with the merge the target will have 61 articles. We might want to split by continent, but we should not do so for just one continent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 14 August 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.
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: "American male radio actors" is unnecessary, American radio actors sums it up just fine. Don't think it is a good idea to brand everything male something or female something; Actors and actresses sounds reasonable enough. Radiohist (talk) 11:08, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Gender is just as much a WP:DEFINING characteristic of radio actors as it is of film actors, television actors, etc ... all of which are divided by gender. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per remarks of the BrownHairedGirl. Cgingold (talk) 12:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Our categories are becoming elementary. We are using them to cover the most rudimentary aspects of the subject that one start to wonder would this not be harmful to the reader's understanding of Wikipedia. It is not perfect, but isn't it logical for us to assume that since the reader knows that the subject is male or female, we aren't required to use categories like male actors or female actors. This whole thing seems very gender biased to me, and even close to bigotry.Radiohist (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Goodness gracious, Radiohist -- "gender biased" / "close to bigotry"?? What on earth are you talking about? That accusation comes across as pure projection on your part, based on completely unfounded assumptions. And speaking of assumptions: No, it is NOT logical to assume that the gender of every individual is always obvious from their name. But even if that were the case, it wouldn't render this category invalid. Btw, as the nominator, you're really not supposed to weigh in with a whole new "vote" -- all the more so when it is at odds with what you proposed as nominator. (Merge vs. Delete) Cgingold (talk) 12:54, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merge This is a defining characteristic and an appropriate aid to navigation. That readers know whether an individual is male or female is not relevant here. It is the ability of readers to navigate across similar articles united by this defining characteristic that is the purpose of retaining this category. Alansohn (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Are we to delete Category:American radio actors and if so, why must we? Radiohist (talk) 17:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it was decided at cfd and possibly rfc a few months ago to divide such categories by gender. Oculi (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is much better to clearly designate the people involved as male actors, district from Category:American radio actresses than to leave the issue unclear. If people really do not think we should separate by gender, than they really need to nominate Category:American radio actresses as well. However, the fact is that especially at the height of radio acting (in the 1930s and 1940s) the gender of the person involved very much influenced the roles they were given. True, you can fudge it more in some ways than in TV acting, but they still had women playing the roles of women and men playing the roles of men. Gender is a controlling characteristic in acting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The last comment made by John Pack Lambert is very elementary and not quite true. Women were hired to do the voices of little boys and men were hired to do the voices of elderly women. Radiohist (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However, men were in general not highered to do voices for little boys, so the people are still being highered based on their gender. Anyway, we can find cases such as The Mouse That Roared (film) where in live-action film a man was playing a female role, and at the time of Shakespeare there were plays done with all-male casts, with males playing female roles, but this does not change the fact that acting is a profession divided by gender, acting awards are given by gender, and so on and so forth.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Gender is highly singificant in acting. Men do not play women's parts or vice versa, except where there is cross-dressing. Women playing boys may be another exception. However, I have a probelm with classifying radio actors as distinct from those in other genres. In my experience most actors will take whatever work is going (or suits them), which may mean they do radio on one occasion, film on another, and TV on a third, and theatre ona 4th. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Most of our articles on radio actors are for people who did such before about 1955. Many of these such as Lucille Ball would later play very similar roles in TV shows. So it almost functions more as a time period than any thing else. There are more recent radio actors, but not nearly as many and not as often notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:25, 14 August 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.
