Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 August 14

< August 13	August 15 >

August 14

Category:Images of fruit

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. --Xdamr^talk 15:30, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: See my reasons below. Only listed images from Commons Zoo Fari 23:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are probably fruit images on Wikipedia that don't qualify for Commons, such as ones in corporate logos, etc. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per ip contrib --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Info Just so you know, logos and fair-use images can't be used in categories. Obviously and also mentioned in the template. Zoo Fari 15:11, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This is a category for files, that has no bearing on whether you actually embed an image into the category or not. Or are you saying you are not allowed to categorize files? Since this is definitely not the case. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 04:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Never mind, this is something that should be discussed somewhere else. I don't know why Wikipedia has image categories if we already have Commons, which can barely handle categorization itself. But this isn't a small issue so withdraw (or whatever you do to cancel the process). Zoo Fari 05:21, 16 August 2009 (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:Images of food

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The result of the discussion was: Withdrawn by nominator. --Xdamr^talk 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Again, a redundant category that listed images only from Commons (5 imgs at the time). Those files are now under CSD F8 and we do not need Commons-image categories on Wikipedia. Zoo Fari 22:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are almost certainly food images that don't qualify for commons, like screenshots from cooking shows. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per ip contrib --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 14:38, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per ip contrib and also for food products images included in English WP under U.S. "Fair Use" doctrine, which doesn't apply to Commons images. The category just needs to be populated. (Yet another project...) Geoff ^T ^C 16:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, fair use images aren't supposed to be categorized (and no need as people won't find them useful) but again, maybe this belongs somewhere else. Withdraw. Zoo Fari' 17:02, 17 August 2009 (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:Eye images

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: Withdrawn by nominator. --Xdamr^talk 17:05, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one image left, which is now moved to Commons and soon will be deleted. Commons has its own categories for images so we don't need one for WP. Zoo Fari 22:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Eyes are used as logos, etc, so this just needs populating. 76.66.192.144 (talk) 07:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have we other categories for XXX images? It does seem that Commons fills that role. - Hordaland (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Zoo Fari 17:24, 17 August 2009 (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:Lincoln University

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 Category:Lincoln University to Category:Lincoln University of Missouri. --Xdamr^talk 20:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lincoln University to Category:Lincoln University of Missouri

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the title of the parent article Lincoln University of Missouri. Lincoln University is a disambiguation page. Alansohn (talk) 21:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support move. There are definitely other universities called "Lincoln University" elsewhere. Grutness...wha? 00:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support move per above comments. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 00:05, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There is eg the new but pretentious University of Lincoln (Hebrew: אוניברסיטת לינקולן ; Latin: Universitas Lindum Colonia). Occuli (talk) 14:57, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2009 (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:Law in fiction by works

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 Category:Law in fiction by works to Category:Law in fiction. --Xdamr^talk 20:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Law in fiction by works to Category:Law in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent category. The subcategory, created back in 2006 by indef blocked User:Yyyyyyyyyyy, has but one entry. The parent is sparsely categorized and there is no need for this subcat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:36, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2009 (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:Arab world media

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 Category:Arab world media to Category:Arab media. --Xdamr^talk 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arab world media to Category:Arab media

Nominator's rationale: Rename Looking at other related categories, this is the only one to use "world" in the title, and I don't see that it serves any purpose other than to confuse the reader that this category might be limited to "global" media only. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The intention is probably Arab World media. 'Media of the Arab League' might be better (see Category:Arab and Category:Arab League). Occuli (talk) 19:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We should determine what this is intended to be. If it is just about Arab nedia, then I agree with the nominator to rename to Category:Arab media. If Arab World is meant, then it should be renamed to Category:Media of the Arab League as per Occuli, based on previous discussion here. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Arab media as this reflects the contents of the category. Hmains (talk) 03:35, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to the by country parents and delete this category. If kept, it should only contain the by country categories and no articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:46, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Arab media per Hmains. The category contains both Arab-language media from eg London, and English-language media from eg Saudi, which seems a valid combination to me (most articles are of course about arabic media in arab countries). Johnbod (talk) 19:41, 21 August 2009 (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:Bicycle books

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 Category:Bicycle books to Category:Cycling books. --Xdamr^talk 20:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Bicycle books to Category:Cycling books

Nominator's rationale: Rename per parent category Category:Cycling media and sister cats for Cycling magazines and films. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom & for better style. Johnbod (talk) 19:34, 21 August 2009 (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:Books about extraterrestrial life

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. --Xdamr^talk 20:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Books about extraterrestrial life to Category:Non-fiction books about extraterrestrial life

Nominator's rationale: Rename to give users an easy way to know, right off the bat, that this category is for non-fiction books only. Not science fiction, which is what the bulk of books about extra terrestrials are. Right now, they need to read the description to find out -- and not everyone does, especially when using HotCat. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - "books" means non-fiction books in WP categories. Fiction books are categorized as "novels". Otto4711 (talk) 18:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, but I should like to point out the guideline WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS, which as I understand it (I've only glanced at it), means that I'm right, and you'll retract and apologize. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no, I don't believe you're right and I shan't retract nor apologize. We have one set of categories for books and one set for novels. "Books" already means "non-fiction books". Otto4711 (talk) 18:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now you have to assure me that you realize, I was kidding: you're right, of course. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rename to match corresponding non-fiction categories in the parent Category:Non-fiction books. Alansohn (talk) 19:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- How many non-fiction books about extraterrestrial life are there? How do we know this is not an over-small category? If this is a good category, then creating a Category:Novels about extraterrestrial life would help the issue. Otherwise just rename to novels.^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The category is already decently populated. I wouldn't think that OC SMALL applies. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:45, 15 August 2009 (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:21st-century American people

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. Some persuasive points made against, but this raises wider questions than the simple disposal of one category. Per the cited example of Category:20th-century male ice hockey defencemen, it is clear that this scheme of categorisation has deep roots. I'd suggest wider discussion on this topic rather than sporadic, piecemeal nomination. --Xdamr^talk 13:48, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not really sure the point of this very specific category. Is it for any American who has lived since January 1, 2001? There is already a topic for American people and categories for people by professional and other specific ones that make this superfluous. I suggest all of the categories in Category:21st-century people by nationality be deleted too. TJ Spyke 14:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – It would be arbitrary to consider Category:XXth-century people by nationality defining for some centuries but not defining for the 21st century. Furthermore, all articles should be placed in at least two categories, hence I have placed people in Category:21st-century American people for lack of any better category. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Most (if not all, I haven't checked every single one) already ARE in at least 2 categories (the most common are "Category:19XX births" and one specifying their nationality like "Category:American professional wrestlers"). There is no need to categorize people by century, that is just an excuse to make another category since it is not needed. TJ Spyke 15:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So is Category:20th-century people by nationality also not defining? How long do we wait until [Category:XXth-century people by nationality] does become defining? Why does it becomes defining then? Should all these categories be recreated then? ^{Carlaude:Talk} 22:40, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Listed should be those who have been WP:notable during the 21st-century when citizens of the U.S (and not just merely alive in this century). (I ve just now put a note on the page stating this.) It fits into a larger scheme for both Category:American people by century and Category:21st-century people by nationality, which in turn is part of Category:People by nationality and century. It is less defining for recent centuries, true, because so many of our bios are of people from the last two centuries, but I am in favour of having these if we are going to have ones for the 19th century and prior, so as to have complete schema Mayumashu (talk) 04:29, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- categories are primarily a navigation tool. They are most useful when the category contains a relatively limited number of subjects. If we allow 21st century people, we will have to have 20th century people, but that will be too heavily populated to be useful. We might have both as parent categories, but they would need to be split into manageably small groups; but how? We cannot do it by decade, becasue those notable in the 1960s are likely also to be notable in 1970s. We might do it by occupation (and often do). My preference would be to allow it as a parent category, but to forbid direct contents. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:42, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I gather your point is that "by nationality" is a good way to break-up each century of people. Yes. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We do have people of all centuries since 31st BC: see Category:People by century. One of the most specific is Category:20th-century male ice hockey defencemen (which is pleading for Category:Male ice hockey defencemen by century); one cannot help feeling that this is several intersections too far. Occuli (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then go ahead and bring that up as a CfD (elsewhere) if you wish. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 05:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I went specific with it and others forseeing amazingly long lists - there were in the 20th-century at least 1400 male ice hockey defencemen who can meet WP:Notability (for which there already are articles) and were, it is safe to say, hundreds more (ones for players in Europe). Then again, as has been pointed out, there is the length of Category:Living people which of course makes any here pale in comparison, and leaving it at full length seems to fine by most Mayumashu (talk) 05:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep Category:American people by time period contains Category:20th-century American people and Category:19th-century American people and should have them. 21st century American people are not to be denigrated, even if the century is only starting (well, 9 plus years ago starting, at least). Categories are used for navigation and these categories serve that purpose. Hmains (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2009 (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:Deaths among active Major League Baseball players

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 Erik9 (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - appears to be a trivial intersection between "active MLB player" and "dead". This category has been cited as similar to Category:Professional wrestling deaths but that category is specifically for people who died in the course of an actual match. I did not check every article currently in this category, but a more-or-less random sampling of about 20% indicates that this category is not so restricted. If there are ball players who died in the course of playing actual games then I have no objection to a rename to something like Category:Professional baseball deaths with suitable restriction; if not then the category should be deleted. Otto4711 (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – rename to Category:Professional baseball deaths or similar and prune, Danish or otherwise. If the cause of death is unrelated to the sport then there is no case for categorisation. Occuli (talk) 10:33, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or rename to something. Of course there is no intersection between "active MLB player" and "dead"; dead players are inactive. The current name implies it contains articles about the deaths, rather than articles about the players. ^{Carlaude:Talk} 15:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe the only players who have actually died due to injuries suffered during a game are Doc Powers and Ray Chapman. Assuming List of sports people who have died during their career#Major League Baseball is accurate, beyond those two there's also a minor league base coach killed by a line drive and an umpire who suffered an on-field heart attack. Otherwise I believe all the other players listed died outside of baseball activities. (No !vote from me, I'm fairly ambivalent about whether this is a trivial intersection or not.) BryanG (talk) 15:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection between death and place of emplyment. We could make a Category:Professional baseball deaths for the cases where the intersection is meaningfull. Debresser (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category is definitely not limited to those who died during a game or as a result of injuries sustained in a game. I think dying while employed and type of employment is a trivial intersection, per my nomination below for WWE employees who died while being employed. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 17 August 2009 (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:Maccabiah medals

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 Category:Maccabiah medals to Category:Maccabiah Games. --Xdamr^talk 17:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Maccabiah medals to Category:Maccabiah Games

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Remove extra level of navigation. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge per nom. Thanks, Vegas! Johnbod (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. This follows other CFD discussions on related topics yesterday. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:48, 15 August 2009 (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:Deaths among active World Wrestling Entertainment employees

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. --Xdamr^talk 20:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. We have Category:Professional wrestling deaths, which is for "people who died during or as a result of a professional wrestling match". This name was selected for the category in a CfD, which was originally named Premature wrestling deaths. The nominated category is very similar to this, though the "premature" is changed to "active WWE employees". Both of these categories seem to be trying to categorize the same thing—pro wrestlers who died "young" in usually controversial circumstances. Categories very similar to the nominated one have been discussed and deleted a number of times in the past, though often the categories were straight up "wrestlers who are dead"-type categories; this one is a little different: Dead wrestling superstars, Dead Pro Wrestlers, Deceased Professional Wrestlers, Wrestlers who had died, Dead professional wrestlers, Deceased professional wrestlers. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I noticed a similar category for Baseball players -- "Deaths among active Major League Baseball Players". Many of the deaths among current WWF/WWE employees (e.g. Owen Hart, Chris Benoit) created a firestorm of controversy for the company and garnered them mainstream media attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heymanamen (talk • contribs)
Delete - redundant to the pro wrestling deaths category, and community consensus is clearly against additional categorization of dead wrestlers. Otto4711 (talk) 09:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – this actually has objective criteria, unlike 'premature'. And there is indeed Category:Deaths among active Major League Baseball players. I also recall that death of a Colombian footballer who was shot on his return to Colombia having scored an own-goal in the World Cup against the US: difficult to argue that this was not a defining moment in his career. But then we have Category:Murdered footballers. Occuli (talk) 09:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated the MLB deaths category above. Otto4711 (talk) 09:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is clearly equivalent. I don't think we have in general categories for 'celebrities who died taking up the media spotlight for weeks on end'. (There was a fish, Benson, previously active, in England which died last week, and a koala bear in Australia, both events commanding national media attention. Indeed here she is: Benson (fish). Surely Category:Nut-related ichthyological deaths is imminent. Perhaps the community should take a stance on the subcats of 'Deceased aquatic resources'.) Occuli (talk) 10:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fish who choked on nuts is clearly in the offing. Otto4711 (talk) 10:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Foreseen by Nostradamus, I believe. Occuli (talk) 10:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This page certainly has me intrigued. (Intrigued enough that I added Owen Hart to it. I was shocked that he wasn't first person on the list, as he's the only person to actually die on the WWE clock.) I can see some good reasons why this list should exist, and some good reasons why it shouldn't. The most notable reason I can think of that it shouldn't is that I can't come up with a "point" of the page. If it is to point out people working for the WWE who died "at young age" (however that is defined) or people whose life in the business "contributed to their death" (very subjective...the only two that you could say for sure are Owen Hart and Joey Marella), you run into problems of subjectivity and hearsay. Either way, Gorilla Monsoon almost certainly does not belong on this list. He was an older gentlemen who lived a normal-length life who died of long-term medical complications unrelated to wrestling who happened to still be employed by the WWE when he died. So, while he was a WWE employee at the time of his death, it's in no way notable. So, let's say this is changed to "WWE Active Wrestlers Who Died", you leave out Joey Marella, who is one of only two people off the top of my head where it is definite that the cause of his death is related to the wrestling business. If you change it to "Active WWE Employees Who Died Of Something Other Than Natural Causes", you immediately go down a slippery slope of what are natural causes and what are not. In short, I really don't think there's a way to make this page actually meaningful without it being very subjective. --PoughkeepsieNative (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment I'll agree that Gorilla Monsoon is a bit borderline -- he was of (somewhat) advanced aged when he died, although he was one of the people who had "guaranteed lifetime employment" under Vincent K. McMahon. I'll remove it, as I realized that "Classy" Freddie Blassie would probably also fall under this category for the same reason as Monsoon. The "active employees" certainly cuts down on a large number of premature deaths by restricting them to only those under the employ of the company at the time -- therefore people such as Davey Boy Smith, Chris Candito, Rodney Anoa'i, Michael Lockwood and so on would not be included in this category. However, this category, as I mentioned earlier, outlines a number of deaths that generally had a profound impact on the company and its subsequent programming, along with garnering it (mostly very negative) manistream media attention (e.g. Eddie Guerrero, Owen Hart, Chris Benoit...) Heymanamen (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection between death and place of emplyment. We already have Category:Professional wrestling deaths for the case where the intersection is meaningfull. Debresser (talk) 22:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection.Their career and being dead are both worth categorising, but no need to make a small intersection category. YobMod 12:03, 18 August 2009 (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:Electrical engineering books

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: Withdrawn by nominator. --Xdamr^talk 20:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Suggest merging~~ ~~Category:Electrical engineering books to Category:Electronics books~~

Nominator's rationale: Merge Another example of two sparsely populated categories that appear -- to me, a layman -- to be addressing the same topic. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:38, 14 August 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN by nom[reply]

Keep - Category:Electrical engineering and Category:Electronics are different (and there is Electronics engineering). Occuli (talk) 18:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep not at all the same, as shown by the WP articles involved. Electricity is about power we get from the wall when we plug something in to a outlet, coming from a power generator somewhere; electronics is about what vacuum tubes and semi-conductors do inside radios, TVs, computers, etc. Hmains (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but if population of the cats is an issue upmerge to a Category:Electrical books as a cat that encompases both the cats concerned. Population of the cats may be slow so there is a reason to keep them. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- These are all slightly differnt subjects. However they should all belong to a common parent category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Different topics needing different categories, even if they are somewhat related. Twiceuponatime (talk) 12:57, 15 August 2009 (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:Study books by subject

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. --Xdamr^talk 13:11, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Study books by subject to Category:Theology books by religion? Or maybe just Category:Theology books, per Category:Theology journals?

Nominator's rationale: Rename The term "Study book" is unknown to me and there is no main article Study book. This category appears intended for books devoted to study of specific religions (as opposed to faith in general). They do need their own category, as the broader Category:Religious studies books includes things like Category:Books about atheism and even Category:Supernatural books. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure and then upmerge -- most of the contents should be subcategories of Category:Religious studies books. This will leave the category with also political science and cultural studies, but these are disparate subject and do not form a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What Peterkingiron says removing trhe political science ones. Johnbod (talk) 21:39, 21 August 2009 (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:Books about intelligence (information gathering)

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 Category:Books about intelligence (information gathering) to Category:Books about intelligence analysis. --Xdamr^talk 20:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Books about intelligence (information gathering) to Category:Books about intelligence analysis

Nominator's rationale: Merge These two underpopulated categories, I should think. Based on the sparse content, they appear to me to be about the same thing. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. They are two separate topics - the first is about collecting information, the second about the processing/anaysis/use of that information. However, the only article in the first is about aanysis which belongs in the second. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:30, 16 August 2009 (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-related television episodes

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: closed. A discussion can be held at Category talk:LGBT-related television episodes if desired, but CFD is not the place for it. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Discuss. It has been suggested at another CfD that no category can exist where inclusion is WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. As discussed before, this particular category is vaguely-defined and non-defining, has inclusion standards that are completely and entirely subjective, is not based on any source using the term for categorization purposes, does not have sources in the articles showing that each episode is "LGBT-related" and the episodes are unrelated and have no cohesive connection whatsoever to each other. The term "LGBT-related television episode" suffers from a fundamental defect - it is not capable of any objective definition. As such the category constitutes a subjective criterion, a clear violation of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE and WP:CAT's admonition that we are not allowed to "create categories based on incidental or subjective features". I have supported the category and previously defended it vigorously at CFD. While the category has been nominated twice and kept with resounding, near-unanimous consensus -- on April 18, 2009 and before then on November 18, 2008 -- I am bringing it back to CFD to see if consensus about it has changed regarding the issue of subjectivity and to see if there is some principle and guideline that differentiates the subjective categories we keep and the ones we delete that can be used as a standard. Discuss... Alansohn (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close - this is Alansohn's pet "go-to" category. When someone suggests that a category is vague or ill-defined, Alansohn references this category. Alansohn clearly has no good-faith belief that this category should be deleted and is obviously using this nomination in an attempt to further his own personal agenda regarding the CFD process in general and the fad categories specifically. Given that this nomination is a clear-cut violation of WP:POINT and serves no purpose other than to disrupt the CFD process, this nomination should be closed and Alansohn should be sanctioned. Otto4711 (talk) 09:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Should you have been sanctioned when you opened the previous CfD on April 18, 2009, using the exact language I paraphrased above, or do rules only apply when you want them to? It's the utter lack of guiding principles as to what makes a category defining that creates the problems at CfD, and you only add more evidence with your response. Alansohn (talk) 19:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You should be sanctioned for your willful intention to disrupt the CFD process to make a point in furtherance of your personal crusade, to which "you only add more evidence with your response". Otto4711 (talk) 19:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close No, there's been no change in sentiment since April. Johnbod (talk) 09:48, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – not only because this meets all of my standards for retention, but for the staggering number of precedents that it sets, all the more so because of the clear consensus it set previously, and the nature of the category and comments used to support its retention.
1) Categories can be almost completely subjective - There is no definition whatsoever of what "LGBT-related" means, nor is there any way to determine if any episodes "substantially cover such issues". As stated in the Keep vote from the earlier CfD by User:Ctjf83, all that is necessary is to "put in inclusion criteria on the template page", regardless of inherent subjectivity or in User:Occuli's argument that this category is an "example par excellence when trying to keep other valuable categories with or without subjective and/or convoluted inclusion criteria" here).
2) I know it when I see it is a valid argument for retention - As User:Johnbod stated at the previous CfD "Keep - as you know one when you see one, & certainly of encyclopedic interest. On the wild frontier of subjective criteria though" (here)
3) Slippery Slope is not an issue - There is no discernible means to determine which episodes are in and which are out (pun originally was unintended). Thus the dreaded slippery slope argument, "but what will prevent someone from adding a possible borderline case" has no validity. There is no standard here whatsoever -- amount of LGBT-related content, number of words spoken by LGBT-related characters, use of LGBT-related keywords, etc. -- objective or subjective, that could possibly tell us which should be included and which should not.
4) Acceptance that WP:CLN encourages coexistence of lists AND categories - Categories should co-exist with lists as a default and one should not be deleted simply because the other exists and deletion of one will result in "no net loss of data". As noted previously by the nominator of the current CfD, "The category can be linked as easily as the list can be, so that's no argument in favor of deletion. No one appears to be suggesting that the category is superior to the list, rather, per WP:CLN they complement each other. There are several hundred episodes on that list, most of which would not be notable enough for individual articles."
5) No need for articles to have any common uniting feature - again, as stated at the original CfD "the first guideline for category usage is that the category groups similar articles together". The oft-repeated argument that there must be some inherent connection between each of the articles in a category is eliminated.
6) Sources are not needed to support a category, but existence of sources confirms retention of a category - existence of general media coverage is all that is necessary to show that a category should be retained.
7) Three-part test for category retention - As discussed at the previous CfD should be used in all cases, keeping all categories that meet the three criteria A) is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the topic of the category? B) is it obvious why any given article would be in the category? C) does the category fit into the overall categorization system?
Rather than arbitrary personal preferences, we can finally implement a set of guidelines that will end most of the drama here at CfD. I again suggest that these guidelines should be recorded at WP:CAT so that we can short circuit so many of the pushes for deletion of categories that almost always ignore or directly contradict these guidelines. Alansohn (talk) 22:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than pointedly using a CFD nomination for a category for which you have no good-faith belief in deletion to try to establish the above as guidelines, why not withdraw this disruptive bad-faith nomination and open a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion where it belongs? Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Otto, I have not nominated the category for deletion. Using your previous nomination of the same category as a model, I have started a discussion about the issue of WP:OC#SUBJECTIVITY, using this category as a model of one that fails the supposed hard-and-fast "rule" but has been retained overwhelmingly before. If this is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, and we are discussing a category using the same model you used to discuss the issue previously, your bleating nonsense about making a "disruptive bad-faith nomination" amounts to nothing. Please reread your nomination of the previous CfD for this category before making further attacks. Do your own rules apply to you or do they only apply when you like? Alansohn (talk) 20:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AFD is not the forum for starting a discussion about grand conceptions of the category system by listing something you're not nominating for deletion. Take it to the category's talk page. Bearcat (talk) 02:51, 15 August 2009 (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.

Marlborough, New Zealand

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. Whatever the semantic distinctions between 'Marlborough' and 'Marlborough Region', consensus seems to be clear that limiting the potential for confusion should be the paramount factor. --Xdamr^talk 12:23, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming two categories relating to the Marlborough Region

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand and per recent similar changes to categories relating to the Northland Region. Other categories already use the proposed form. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "New Zealand" is still needed - see Marlborough, and Marlborough (disambiguation) for why. Maybe none of these have an official "region", but who's to know that? It seems perverse to be adding "New Zealand" to Gisborne (yesterday), & removing it here. Otherwise, ok, let the project decide. The main article has just been moved to Marlborough Region by the nom (without updating the disam page btw). I'm actually less bothered by that, as there is a big NZ map at the top etc, but the category needs to keep the NZ, & if consistency requires adding one to the article, so be it. Johnbod (talk) 02:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no other Marlborough Region in the world, and the page was moved after discussion at WP:WPNZ about standardising the names of New Zealand's regions, all of which are similarly unique. As such, further disambiguation is unnecessary. Changing Gisborne to Gisborne, New Zealand is because it's for a city, not a region. Gisborne Region already exists at a name standardised for New Zealand regions. As to "who's to know that?", all but two of the listed Marlboroughs are towns or townships, and the other one of those is a defunct micronation - as such calling them "regions" seems highly unlikely. The same naming scheme already exists for several other New Zealand regions which would optherwise need disambiguation (e.g., the aforementioned Gisborne Region). It's also worth noting that you had no complaints about the similar recent renaming of categories relating to Northland, New Zealand to Northland Region, despite the fact that it also had a plain name linked to disambiguation pages. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - PS - as far as not updating the dab page, some of us have limited time on Wikipedia, and it made more sense to concentrate my energies first on changing the links to templates which affect large numbers of pages than articles which would still be effectively linked by redirects. It is changed now, though. Grutness...wha? 00:24, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article Marlborough Region. The corresponding category for the place in the UK is Category:People from Marlborough, with no indication that it is in Wiltshire or England. Alansohn (talk) 02:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is because Marlborough has the plain name! What about the 5 American ones etc etc? Johnbod (talk) 09:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The are all known to their locals simply as Marlborough, as is the one in New Zealand. If anything, the English one needs renaming. Marlborough may refer to the place in England, but, as you yourself put it "who's to know that?" Grutness...wha? 00:18, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This appears to be the one article named Marlborough Region. Why not follow the rather simple practice of matching the title of the parent article? Alansohn (talk) 17:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- By dropping NZ, the uninitated will add categories for villages around Marlborough in Wiltshire. People form neighbouring villages may think they come from the Marlborough region (as they do), though they do not come from Marlborough Region. This distinction is too fine and will cause confusion. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – it is entirely clear with NZ in the name and less clear without NZ. Why not just add 'Region'? Category:Marlborough, New Zealand is not successfully tagged BTW. Occuli (talk) 12:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That would be a reasonable compromise, though all articles and other categories relating to the area simply use Marlborough Region] (e.g., Category:Schools in the Marlborough Region) - they've been doing so for some time without any apparent confusion from editors or readers, I hasten to add - so it will mean more work. Grutness...wha? 23:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have been processing one category that has settlement names. Boy, what an education. You could not figure out what the country was from the article text in some cases. It makes you appreciate having the country name in the page name. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:13, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The New Zealand is needed to dismbiguate (and the UK one should be renamed to match)YobMod 12:10, 18 August 2009 (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.

Blenheim

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:

--Xdamr^talk 12:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming two categories relating to the town of Blenheim, New Zealand from "Foo of/in/from Blenheim" to "Foo of/in/from Blenheim, New Zealand"

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article and category. Grutness...wha? 00:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 02:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support renames. Otherwise there will be confusion with the Duke of Marlborough's Blenheim Palace and the Battle of Blenheim. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support renames, per nom. Occuli (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2009 (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:Wikipedians who have not edited for a significant amount of time

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. --Xdamr^talk 20:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: useless category WuhWuzDat 00:26, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not useful for collaboration, no objective inclusion criterion (what constitutes a "significant" time?). Otto4711 (talk) 10:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Not" based category, not useful for collaboration, redundant to Category:New Wikipedians which I don't feel is all that useful either. VegaDark (talk) 04:16, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While I would not necessarily add a conclusion on the question whether to keep or delete this category, I do tend to think this is a category "usefull for collaboration", so to say. It may be used to send a message like "Hey. We noticed you haven't edited on Wikipedia for a while. Are you still around?", and informs other editors of the fact that such an editor might not be available for comment in discussions, etc. Debresser (talk) 22:28, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm, I was interpreting this category to mean Wikipedians who have not been editors for a significant amount of time. If your interpretation of the category is correct, then it could probably be speedy deleted as recreation, see here. VegaDark (talk) 14:39, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I thought the oppsosite to Vegadark, that this title means established users who have gone AWOL, not new users. Delete as unclear either way, and not useful.Yob Mod 12:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obviously. either meaning, and I assumed as Debresser and Yobmod. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:51, 19 August 2009 (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.