Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 August 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 11 August 13 >

August 12[edit]

Category:Naresh Krishna Raja[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 deleted at user's request. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Users don't get their own categories Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (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:Songs written by Trackmasters[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) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Trackmasters are specifically a production team, not a songwriting team. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. Making categories of songwriters by band member/trading name affiliation is a huge headache and not at all helpful to navigation. This is supported by WP:SONGS which states, Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic (excluding songwriter credits which should be split to the individuals), the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members. Previous discussions include The Bee Gees and The Miracles and Lady Antebellum where the category has been devolved into individual members. Richhoncho (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note this category was created to merge the two categories for the individual members of Trackmasters, yet those categories have to remain because not all songs were written jointly by Olivier and Barnes.--Richhoncho (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The preceding CFD, which I just closed to create this category, was Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 10#Category:Songs written by Samuel Barnes (songwriter). Note that Richhoncho declined to explain part of his rationale to the mere mortals participating in the discussion, and as a consequence did not persuade them; this resulted in a majority view that Trackmasters is a writing partnership and should be categorised accordingly. – Fayenatic London 23:14, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and delete other songwriter categories. Nominator misses the point that we don't categorise by songwriter when that songwriter is not notable in their own right. SFB 07:56, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • SFB. Actually you are wrong. As for any other category, a defining characteristic is of the subject, not, as in this case, of the songwriter. There is absolutely NO compunction anywhere to have an article, as in this case, for the songwriter. The only relevant guideline is that the category must match the article name if an article exists. It should be noted that most production partnerships are split up for songwriter credits (but NOT production credits) and there are numerous categories where there is no article for the songwriter.
As proof, here are a couple of examples of previous discussions, where, you will note, I made the nomination, but withdrew after a few days, Josh Schwartz, Lou Singer and Nathaniel Calhoun and others. There are other examples if you wish to confirm these decisions as ongoing.
The underlying problem is when you join songwriters together artificially under a trading name you will have 1000s of anomalies when each "partner" writes with somebody different. Songwriting, in law, is not a partnership item, hence the natural separation by individual. It should also be noted that many (not all, unfortunately) songwriting by trading name have been separated to each individual and the creation of this particular category flies in the face of what has been happening at WP.
Any change to the guideline (which is what you are proposing) should be discussed more fully in the right places, not on a one by one basis. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I'm surprised this discussion is still open, but...the rationale that the nominator has given to delete this category is the same rationale he gave in the preceding CFD (as SFB pointed out), and it was clarified in that discussion why the category should stay as is (maybe making such categories is a huge headache to him, but...). In this case, if certain songs weren't created by both members of Trackmasters, don't add those to the category; simple as that. In addition, the fact that this cat was nominated for deletion almost immediately after the preceding CFD ended suggests a case of WP:STICK. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 07:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And your !vote above and the original nomination has nothing to do with this ANI you raised against me but couldn't make stick? It also ignores that this is the *ONLY* trading name songwriter category... and you are creating "Song recordings produced by" categories for individuals when the credit is for the whole band, yet objected to me doing the same for songwriting? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert Here is an example. The article says the song, Stone Love (song) was produced by the band (Kool & the Gang), yet you have created Category:Song recordings produced by Ronald Bell (musician), a member of that band. There are other examples you have created. Exactly why is it OK for you to do this, but not me? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because Ronald Bell has a separate article; Samuel Barnes doesn't. And this is the only trading same songwriter category? I'm sorry, did you not read all the examples shown to you in the previous CFD? (BTW, that Mint Condition discussion isn't an ANI.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Mint Condition? I don't know/remember what you are talking about. All I know is that you raised an ANI against me because I was following guidelines and you didn't like those guidelines (much the same as here)
2. If there is a requirement to have an article to match a category then show me the guideline, policy, whatever. At present your objection (and SFB's) objection is based only on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
3. Your defense of the Ronald Bell category doesn't work because, I repeat, there is no requirement to have an article to match a category.
4. Yes I did read the names in the previous CFD, and I repeat, there are as far as I know no other songwriter trading names. However, there are a few where the songwriting partners are named, i.e. Lennon/McCartney.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(added No 4 above) --Richhoncho (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mint Condition is the band who made "Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes)". Are you telling me that you were disputing in a discussion about a subject you don't even know about? But more importantly, it's interesting that you're throwing around WP:IDONTLIKEIT considering the only person against keeping things as is (in this and the previous discussion) is you. If Samuel Barnes had an article already, it should be fine for him to then have a category for all the songs he has written either with other people or by himself; no one here is opposing that. True, there is no guideline that necessarily requires this, but that is what was decided in the previous CFD; why are you so gung-ho on still swaying it the other way minutes after that discussion was closed? I'm also wondering why you consider "songwriter trading name" and "songwriting partners" to be two different things. Finally, I'm not sure why you don't understand this, but every discussion on Wikipedia isn't considered an ANI. ANI is used when another user causes enough trouble to disrupt the encyclopedia; what I did was simple dispute resolution. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Pretty Brown Eyes and the dispute, didn't remember the name of the band. Why there was a dispute is still beyond my comprehension, I trust you know why were wrong then. Now to the case in hand, the previous discussion did not delete either Category:Songs written by Samuel Barnes (songwriter) or Category:Songs written by Jean-Claude Olivier but moved *some* of the entries when they were co-written by both to this category. That means those two categories you objected to because there was no article still exist. I hope this is informative for you.
Now let's look at an existing guideline, namely Wp:Songs#Categories which reads, Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic (excluding songwriter credits which should be split to the individuals), the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members.[1] So, for example, if Y is a member of a song's production team X, categorization may not be as 'songs produced by Y'; 'songs produced by X' might however, be included as a related category of 'songs produced by Y', or the song might be categorized directly as 'Y' (perhaps in addition to 'songs produced by X'). (my bold to make it easier for you to read - we don't want you misreading it again). So we have a guidelines that specifically opposes songwriting credits by "team of people"
As both the Olivier and Barnes songwriting categories continue to exist, why do we actually need the Trackmasters songwriting category as well? We can move everything back to where they belong.
The Ronald Bell category (and its not the only example), irrespective of how you dress it up, proves your opposition here is deliberately one rule for the Erpect, another for others...--Richhoncho (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As already discussed and confirmed by the previous closure for Olivier & Barnes an article is NOT necessary to have a category. I do not understand why you keep insisting otherwise. All that has happened with the creation of this category is a duplicate of the Barnes & Olivier categories - It is surplus to requirements. It would not be unreasonable to add the Trackmaster songs back into the Olivier and Barnes categories, after all, Olivier and Barnes DID write the songs! Are you saying otherwise?
I note that it is alright for you to hurl insults around, but get upset if you are given a dose of your own medicine, as your talkpage confirms.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2014 (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:Disney's Snow White characters[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge to both parent categories (NAC). DexDor (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two pages in category, and it's not going to expand JDDJS (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The category can never be populated. Even if all the characters are listed, there would only be around 15 pages.Reawaken (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2014 (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:Greek and Roman fictional slaves[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. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fictional goes at the beginning of the title JDDJS (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --172.251.77.75 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2014 (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:Fictional female magicians[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. – Fayenatic London 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Fictional magicians (fantasy)
--172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nominator has a point, renaming clears confusion.Reawaken (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2014 (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:Ukrainian film stubs[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary category. I tried to populate it, but the parent category Category:Ukrainian films only has 47 articles, so even if all of them were stubs, this category would never meet the threshold for stub categories. It should be deleted, and the contents upmerged to Category:European film stubs and Category:Ukrainian media stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2014 (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:Branch of Meteorology[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:Branches of meteorology. – Fayenatic London 16:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, somehow. Not actually a proposal for deletion, but there needs to be some discussion about appropriate renaming. "Branch of Meteorology" violates conventional categorization naming rules in two ways -- "branch" should be "branches", and "meteorology" should not be capitalized. But I'm not convinced that Category:Branches of meteorology is the best renaming option. And, I'm assuming that it's appropriate for a "subfield" or "branches of" category to exist, but in looking through the contents, some of the subcategories seem to be subtopics or related topics. Category:Environmental chemistry, for instance, seems to be a related topic. So a scope note might be appropriate. Lquilter (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm the one that created this category because the categories in Meteorology were a mess with no logical order. I understand that the name might not be best but my idea is to create a category that incorporates the different fields of application in Meteorology. I have choosen to put in "Branch of Meteorology" such subcategories. It might not be perfect but this was the best I could think at that moment. I have no problem if you want to change the name to something such as Meteorological fields or anything that has the meaning I have just explained. By the way, in English there is much confusion between Meteorology and Weather which make it more difficult to classify. Pierre cb (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But lowercase "m" on meteorology, right? --Lquilter (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2014 (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:NorthernAreas-geo-stub[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 {{GilgitBaltistan-geo-stub}}. – Fayenatic London 16:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Northern Areas is the former name of what is now known as Gilgit–Baltistan. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 14:46, 12 August 2014 (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 Roman Catholics[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: a big mess. See comments at bottom. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This whole category listing is based mostly on speculation; nearly everyone in this listing did not identify personally as LGBT in their lifetime, and so there are a lot of liberties being taken in retroactively ascribing sexual identities to them that may not have even existed in the same context as they do in the modern era. Many of the people listed under this category are merely speculated to have been LGBT due to unpublished letters found centuries after their deaths. This whole page seems to follow that vein of listing people based on mere speculations or rumours, and as such I ask for its review Solntsa90 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I took a random sample of (only) three articles, in all three articles the persons were described as openly LGBT. This sample result seems to be enough to conclude that this discussion has to take place on an article-by-article basis, instead of for the category as a whole. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole category is extremely problematic. Pope Benedict IX is not an "LGBT" Catholic, neither is Ludwig II of Bavaria; However, I do see the usage of it's inclusion. Therefore, I ask that other editors may review it for quality control, as there seems to be more than a few people under the listings who shouldn't be listed under the category due to mere speculation without any concrete confirmation. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deletion, I ask that other editors look at this category for the possibility of review. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we rather agree that you first have a review yourself? If you have any questions on how to, don't hesitate to discuss further on my talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want more than just your opinion. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disappoint you but that's probably not going to work. As you apparently withdraw your nomination to delete, it's unlikely that people here will check this out any further. If you feel the category is polluted (which may well be the case) then it is your own responsibility to undertake action against wrongly-classified articles. I've been in the same situation myself too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another highly misued category that attracts revisionist works that do not bear in mind the culture of the people involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:30, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I support this category and I'm happy to review. There is no lack of homosexual Roman Catholics throughout history. Not necessarily based on just rumour (always a tactic to edit out LGBT history). I've no idea what a previous editor means by "culture" so can't respond on that point. The term is a modern term - "gay" - but homosexuality is not a modern phenomenon and this is what I think the category is after. Contaldo80 (talk) 08:56, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Identifying as a separate group based on sexuality is a modern phenomenon, and it is arbitrary and ahistorical to try and class people in the past in this way. To add to this, much of the attempted past history is not only based on rumor but 100% lies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge the catregory of any article where the person doers not self-identify as LGBT, if alive, or where this is not explicitly mentioned in the article. It is far too easy to accuse a religious person of being gay when they are in fact celebate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Solntsa90, John Pack Lambert, and Peterkingiron for reasons stated. (I suppose Roman Catholic status would be self-identified? nominal?, convenient?, lapsed?, devout?) This is too much like trying to diagnose King Saul, Alexander or Bonaparte, for possible medical or psychological conditions hundreds of years after the fact. While it's entertaining, its seems quite speculative. Also, sources often cannot be verified or checked for political or other bias. (Henry IV of Portugal started the rumor of his impotence himself in order to justify an annulment. No one will ever know for sure whether he was or he wasn't). Mannanan51 (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at about three dozen entries in this category and it is not entirely clear to me what warrants someone's inclusion therein: Josephine Baker was given a Roman Catholic funeral- which may have been someone else's decision; one the other hand, Alexandru Bogdan-Pitești "was no longer a practicing Catholic by the time of his death". There seem to be a number of other entries where the articles themselves mention that information may be unclear or dubious, but the Category talk page is no doubt a better place for that. The only thing I can find that most of these people have in common is that religion didn't seem to play a particularly significant part. Mannanan51 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Catholics make a unique group of Christians (there is a LGBT Christian category) and there is a rising number of visibility within the Catholic faith of openly LGBT people. The category should remain for those who at least, in the modern world, openly identify as both LGBT & Catholic (and yes, there are many notable people who do). I would also argue that LGBT history is often written out, so this article is important in a historical context in categorizing historical figures who had an influence on LGBT history. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the above comment "as both LGBT & Catholic" (rather than "as LGBT Catholics") indicates that this being used as the intersection of two (in some cases at least) unrelated characteristics. If a historical figure had an (important) influence on LGBT history then that should be discussed in the article(s), but does not necessarily require a category. DexDor (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I made a mistake in closing this, and after a deletion review it has been restored and relisted. Here is a link to the diffs showing the 139 former category members. All have been restored except for Henri Nouwen, in whose case all the LGBT categories were removed by another editor as uncited. – Fayenatic London 15:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support purging per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:45, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as two unmaintainable WP:CATEGRS categories intersected with each other. If the intersection is notable, make a list where sources for both attributes can be shown and evaluated by the reader. WP:CATEGRS categories are generally improper (as the page says in a nutshell "Categorizing by ethnicity, gender, religion, sexuality, or disability should be done only as appropriate.") Moreover, they lack the ability to show sources, where lists can. And they also may mix views of today with views of the past (yes, there were LGBT's in the past and Roman Catholics, too, but we have various concepts of that identification today that would be ahistoric in context (e.g., the average ancient Greek who was married with a family probably had different thoughts about pederasty than we would assume someone in modern-day times to hold, were both to engage in it. Similarly, the views of Roman Catholics today on saying mass in English would be quite a shock to Roman Catholics in England in 1400, and might have gotten you killed by the "pious" then.) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a natural extension of various category trees and has a number of verifiable members. If there are problems with individual members, those should be discussed on the articles' talk pages using our usual standards of sourcing (generally a statement from a living person, or the judgment of reliable sources for a deceased one). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete irreconcilably ambiguous parameters, hopelessly high levels of abuse. Juno (talk) 12:47, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 1. a modern term being applied to people before 'LGBT' was coined. 2. unclear inclusion criteria which leads to 3. misused. So delete.--Loomspicker (talk) 16:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting that Catholicism is a dead religion? I assure you, Catholicism and the use of LGBT well coincide. As well, it is common practice both among historians and Wikipedia editors to use terms coined more recently than the events or people they describe (such as, er, "Catholic"). –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:36, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. I neither think that neither Catholicism nor LGBT are irrelevent. What I don't understand is why there is an importance in the conjunction of the two to create this category. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with Juno and Loomspicker for reasons stated; particularly vague criteria, and how inclusion is to be determined. Self-identified individuals is no particular problem, but then with Richhoncho, is it important enough for a category? How many self-identified people does this encompass? Mannanan51 (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Should all priests accused of sexual relations with boys be included? Just ones who were "credibly accused"? Only those convicted? Even if we have indisputable evidence that a given individual had sexual relations with a member of the same sex, is that alone enough to make them LGBT? Is not LGBT an indentification that people choose to take on themselves, and one that we should not apply to a person who does not so identify? The fact that people get put in this category because of rumors against them should cause pause.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Upmerge. A person (e.g. Stefan Kaufmann) should be categorized by why they are notable (e.g. being a German politician) and by some biographical characteristics (eg year of birth, EGRS, alma mater, death ...). Categorizing by intersections of biographical characteristics could lead to a large number of categories. If a person is categorized by 10 biographical characteristics then categorizing by every combination of 2 of those characteristics (e.g. "LGBT alumni of ...") would put the person in 90 categories which would be unmaintainable. Category intersection (e.g. WP:CATSCAN) can be used to find articles about people with any combination of notability/biographical characteristics and hopefully this (or maybe a WikiData based system) will become more usable in future. For info: there are currently 347 pages at the intersection of LGBT and RC categories and only 138 pages in this category. DexDor (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment The deletionists make good arguments (e.g. JPL's comments about rumours), but the "keepers", "opposers", and "reviewers" put together are also making solid arguments (e.g. the nomination comments), and the numbers are roughly the same. Moreover, if the nominator's idea had gained consensus, the result would still have been "keep"; we just would have purged the category from many of its articles. With this in mind, I can't quite see how any action on this category can reflect a decision made here (it's a perfect "no consensus" situation), so I'm basically going to have to declare a mistrial due to a hung jury, to invite the participants to restart the discussion if they wish, and to remind Solntsa90 that, as far as I can see, the desired purging can be performed at the present time if desired. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2014 (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:Neurotypical Wikipedians[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is supposed to be a list of neurotypical editors, "meaning they do not belong to any neurological minority such as autism, bipolar, Down syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, psychosis, schizophrenia etc.". That's simply not a useful, or even valid, way of marking editors. I also have grave doubts about the corresponding Category:Neurodivergent Wikipedians, but that one at least conceivably has some value. Looie496 (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Indeed, not useful or even valid. In fact, it could seem like a borderline attack on editors who do happen to have any of those medical conditions. It's rather offensive. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not useful to building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here, n'est pas? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Can we please at least wait with this til February 11, when the cats creator Muffinator is back from his break and can share his thoughts!? -- CN1 (talk) 23:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that he is not merely on break, but has also been topic banned from commenting on this topic, so there is nothing to wait for, regardless of whether he agrees with the topic ban. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Delete per Peterkingiron -- CN1 (talk) 10:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The category must apply to 90 or 95% of WPans. It is therefore not useful to have it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:13, 17 August 2014 (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:Big 33 Football Classic alumni[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING. Playing in a high school all-star game is not the defining aspect for these players. They have been deemed notable because of other activities, including playing professionally. TM 12:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is nondefining. We also don't categorize athlete articles because they once were an all-star or an all-pro etc. Of course, the MLB All-Star game is on a much more higher level than a high school game....William 14:29, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete -- This appears to relate to a competition between the best high-school players in two (random) states. This is not professional sport or even college sport, which for some reason seems to qualify to have articles in America (though not elsewhere). If kept it should become Category:Big 33 Football Classic players (or sportsmen). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 17 August 2014 (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:Dukes of Clarence and St Andrews[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) 03:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for a single item. DrKiernan (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One person category with no navigational benefit. SFB 17:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- However distinguished, one member categories are useless. In any event, the best navigation aid for peers is the peerage article Duke of Clarence. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2014 (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:Dukes of Clarence and Avondale[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is only one holder of this title. Categories containing one item are not useful. DrKiernan (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One person category with no navigational benefit. SFB 17:01, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- However distinguished, one member categories are useless. In any event, the best navigation aid for peers is the peerage article Duke of Clarence. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: utterly pointless category with only one article, which should be in Category: Dukes of Clarence. Opera hat (talk) 23:59, 12 August 2014 (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:Ice hockey people from Detroit[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge all to both the respective city's sportspeople category (as listed in the nomination) and to the state/province ice hockey category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also propose merging
Category:Ice hockey people from Cranston, Rhode Island to Category:Sportspeople from Cranston, Rhode Island
Category:Ice hockey people from Anchorage, Alaska to Category:Sportspeople from Anchorage, Alaska
Category:Ice hockey people from Cranston, Rhode Island to Category:Sportspeople from Cranston, Rhode Island
Category:Ice hockey people from Buffalo, New York to Category:Sportspeople from Buffalo, New York
Category:Ice hockey people from Rochester, New York to Category:Sportspeople from Rochester, New York
Category:Ice hockey people from Sterling Heights, Michigan to Category:Sportspeople from Sterling Heights, Michigan
Category:Ice hockey people from Livonia, Michigan to Category:Sportspeople from Livonia, Michigan
Category:Ice hockey people from Weymouth, Massachusetts to Category:Sportspeople from Weymouth, Massachusetts
Category:Ice hockey people from Kelowna to Category:Sportspeople from Kelowna
Category:Ice hockey people from Milton, Ontario to Category:Sportspeople from Milton, Ontario
Category:Ice hockey people from Duluth, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Duluth, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from White Bear Lake, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from White Bear Lake, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Grand Rapids, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Grand Rapids, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Yorkton to Category:Sportspeople from Yorkton
Category:Ice hockey people from Eveleth, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Eveleth, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Saint Paul, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Saint Paul, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Bloomington, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Bloomington, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Hibbing, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Hibbing, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Edina, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Edina, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Thunder Bay to Category:Sportspeople from Thunder Bay
Category:Ice hockey people from Kitchener, Ontario to Category:Sportspeople from Kitchener, Ontario
Category:Ice hockey people from Greater Sudbury to Category:Sportspeople from Greater Sudbury
Category:Ice hockey people from Kingston, Ontario to Category:Sportspeople from Kingston, Ontario
Category:Ice hockey people from Hamilton, Ontario to Category:Sportspeople from Hamilton, Ontario
Category:Ice hockey people from Windsor, Ontario to Category:Sportspeople from Windsor, Ontario
Nominator's rationale: As per previous CFDs[1] and this one[2], we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. ...William 00:08, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all – agree entirely. Oculi (talk) 06:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom; I agree that this is a step too far into WP:OC#LOCATION territory for an overly granular distinction that isn't helpful or valuable as a comprehensive categorization scheme. A couple of cautions, however: firstly, I don't know about the situation for the American categories, but at least in Canada every single provincial subcategory of Category:Ice hockey people by Canadian province or territory has a significant number of by-city subcats that have not been listed here, but will need to be treated equivalently. See, frex, Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario, which has 45 more subcats besides the seven that have been nominated here. Secondly, the upmerge process will need to ensure that each person is uploaded back to "Ice hockey people from Province/State" in addition to "Sportspeople from City". Bearcat (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but a wider upmerge is needed to ensure that each article continues to have an appropiate ice hockey category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per Oculi and Bearcat. I will agree that all Ice hockey people categories to Upmerge into Sportspeople by city categories. Steam5 (talk) 06:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All per the above. Whomever created them should have talked with the hockey project. I am more than positive we would be against such a move. However, I would like to make sure they are also actually upmerged back to "Category:Ice hockey people from <Province/State>" where most of the articles were prior to this subcatting. -DJSasso (talk) 12:12, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All per above. This is consistent with past decisions regarding basketball players from Portland, Chicago, San Francisco, etc. I would underscore the need expressed to also be sure to add the appropriate state ice hockey category. Rikster2 (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2014 (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/2014_August_12&oldid=1090453503"