Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 18

< September 17	September 19 >

September 18

Category:Tabuk, Philippines

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Basically empty since the sole article Tabuk, Kalinga is the one about the city in question. Pichpich (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are a bunch of these one-article categories in Category:Provincial capitals of the Philippines. If they can't be populated yet, perhaps a mass nomination would be in order. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:17, 22 September 2011 (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:Pages with nutshell help

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:33, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The category currently essentially contains a single entry and it's not populated directly but indirectly through a template ({{Nutshell help}}). This is rarely a good idea and in this case the template is unused anyways. Pichpich (talk) 23:00, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't see any value in this category. Robofish (talk) 10:54, 20 September 2011 (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:Muslim Rajput dynasties of Uttar Pradesh

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete As far as I can tell, the term "dynasty" is being used in its most common meaning. But the articles in the category are mostly places. The subcategory "Rajput people" obviously has no business being there either. Pichpich (talk) 22:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category is being misused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : I am not sure if the category is proper or not. But I too feel the category is being created for some POV purpose. As I had nominated some pages for deletion some pages of the creator, who had deliberately created pages with names like Sadabad State, Danpur State, Pahasu State, etc,. most of which have been either deleted or redirected by Admins. and I find these are the pages which are included in this category.Jethwarp (talk) 04:22, 21 September 2011 (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:Ekpe

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a three entry category. The first is the main article which has appropriate parents. The second appears to be a similar organization which goes by a different name. The third appears to be the writing system used by the society and by many in old Nigeria. Unless someone can offer a reason to retain this, I think deletion is the right direction. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:43, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Not that I have any expertise on the subject but taken from the articles, Nsibidi is "primarily used by the Ekpe leopard secret society" and Abakuá "originated from fraternal associations [...] known generally as Ekpe". I think the current content makes sense. Is that enough to form a category? I'd err on the side of yes. Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as too small. This is not saved as being part of a general schema. It is unclear why if all these articles are related they could not be interlinked from their article pages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 20 September 2011 (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:Scroll and Key

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Secret societies have memberships that are difficult to prove and reliably cite. This would be better severed by a list that can address those issues. I could start cleaning out the entries that are not supported by the article text, but then I might wind up emptying the category. Also where this is mentioned in the articles, it seems to be be just like membership in any other club and hence is not defining for the individual. Note this previous discussion on another secret society category of members. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being in a secret society is hard to document and not really defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, same as below: not a defining characteristic. Robofish (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per usual treatment of clubs and societies: lists are preferred over categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (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:Wolf's Head Society

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Secret societies have memberships that are difficult to prove and reliably cite. This would be better severed by a list that can address those issues. I could start cleaning out the entries that are not supported by the article text, but then I might wind up emptying the category. Also where this is mentioned in the articles, it seems to be be just like membership in any other club and hence is not defining for the individual. Note this previous discussion on another secret society category of members. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category. It would work much better as a list. The very fact that removing all that the articles do not support inclusion of michg empty it goes to show being part of this society is not very notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - beyond the verifiability issues, I agree that this is rarely or never going to be a defining characteristic of an individual. Robofish (talk) 10:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per usual treatment of clubs and societies: lists are preferred over categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (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:Drum makers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:32, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category:Percussion instrument manufacturing companies is better populated, more accurate. I dont see evidence of any individuals noted for making drums, which might be a valid reinterpretation of this category. if not, deletion as redundant Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as proposed. Pichpich (talk) 23:16, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. If there are enough people noted for making drums that it is deemed there should be a category for them the category should be named in a way to make it clear that it is for people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 20 September 2011 (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:Tuition-free educational institutions

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:30, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The scope of the category doesn't really make sense. To start with, it's tricky to define "tuition" since fees that an institution charges without calling them tuition are hard to distinguish from actual tuition. Moreover, American military academies don't charge tuition but students agree to serve X years as soldiers. While this technically doesn't count as tuition, it's still absurd to consider that the absence of tuition is a meaningful point in common between the United States Military Academy and the Université populaire de Caen. Similarly, the category includes various forms of online universities and programs which form a meaningful group but their financial structure is typically more subtle than the simple "tuition-free" qualifier. Last but not least, the category aims to include all educational institutions but in many if not most countries, most primary and secondary schools are free of tuition. Pichpich (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category should include every public high school in the United States since none of them charge tuition. It includes none of those institutions. It would become overly large if it did. The category as such is not working well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, essentially per nom: 'tuition free' is vague and not necessarily easy to determine, but if interpreted broadly it would include far too many institutions for this to be useful as a category. Robofish (talk) 10:49, 20 September 2011 (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:Sister cities of Foo

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Being the sister city of city X is not a defining characteristic and this sort of categorization scheme would result in significant clutter. Pichpich (talk) 14:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is best addressed in-text, not as a category; many cities/towns would have an excessive number of categories, none defining, if this were applied uniformly. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; I agree. This is a fairly straightforward example of overcategorization and something that could be mentioned in an article but should not be the subject of categorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What cities a city is sister-city with tells us littel about the city itself.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:18, 20 September 2011 (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:Media by conflict

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 Option 1: Works about wars. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:19, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1 (preferred by nominator): Works about wars

Propose merging Category:Media by conflict to Category:Works about wars

Propose merging Category:Wars by medium to Category:Works about wars

Propose renaming Category:American Civil War media to Category:Works about the American Civil War

Propose renaming Category:Argentine Civil War media to Category:Works about the Argentine Civil War

Propose renaming Category:Argentine War of Independence media to Category:Works about the Argentine War of Independence

Propose renaming Category:Armenian Genocide in the media to Category:Works about the Armenian Genocide

Propose renaming Category:Bosnian War by medium to Category:Works about the Bosnian War

Propose renaming Category:Gulf War media to Category:Works about the Gulf War

Propose renaming Category:Iraq War by medium to Category:Works about the Iraq War

Propose renaming Category:Israeli–Palestinian conflict by medium to Category:Works about the Israeli–Palestinian conflict

Propose renaming Category:Korean War by medium to Category:Works about the Korean War

Propose renaming Category:Rwandan Genocide media to Category:Works about the Rwandan Genocide

Propose renaming Category:Second Boer War media to Category:Works about the Second Boer War

Propose renaming Category:Soviet war in Afghanistan by medium to Category:Works about the Soviet war in Afghanistan

Propose renaming Category:Spanish Civil War media to Category:Works about the Spanish Civil War

Propose renaming Category:Spanish American wars of independence media to Category:Works about the Spanish American wars of independence

Propose renaming Category:The Holocaust by medium to Category:Works about the Holocaust

Propose renaming Category:The Troubles (Northern Ireland) media to Category:Works about The Troubles (Northern Ireland)

Propose renaming Category:Vietnam War by medium to Category:Works about the Vietnam War

Propose renaming Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) by medium to Category:Works about the War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

Propose renaming Category:World War I by medium to Category:Works about World War I

Propose renaming Category:World War II by medium to Category:Works about World War II

Option 2: Wars by medium

Propose merging Category:Media by conflict to Category:Wars by medium

Propose renaming Category:American Civil War media to Category:American Civil War by medium

Propose renaming Category:Argentine Civil War media to Category:Argentine Civil War by medium

Propose renaming Category:Argentine War of Independence media to Category:Argentine War of Independence by medium

Propose renaming Category:Armenian Genocide in the media to Category:Armenian Genocide by medium

Propose renaming Category:Gulf War media to Category:Gulf War by medium

Propose renaming Category:Rwandan Genocide media to Category:Rwandan Genocide by medium

Propose renaming Category:Second Boer War media to Category:Second Boer War by medium

Propose renaming Category:Spanish Civil War media to Category:Spanish Civil War by medium

Propose renaming Category:Spanish American wars of independence media to Category:Spanish American wars of independence by medium

Propose renaming Category:The Troubles (Northern Ireland) media to Category:The Troubles (Northern Ireland) by medium

Nominator's rationale: As with this nomination about the American Revolution subcategory, these are not about media, but rather creative works. I strongly prefer Option 1. Option 2 is User:Stefanomione's Category:Wars by medium tree; Stefanomione also created Category:Media by conflict. I'm inclined to see both of those folded into the Category:Works about wars tree, also created by Stefanomione.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 09:35, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

rename per option 1 This set of names is derived from Creative work, which seems to be more appropriate than Media to categorize these books, films, etc about wars. Hmains (talk) 18:12, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rename per option 1 This has been the precedent -- unanimous, I think -- for all of Stefanomoine's "foo by medium" categories to date. In all cases, they are works about foo, or x about y. The "y by x" mirror categories have been roundly rejected as unnecessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:55, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
rename per option 1 The real precedent is the content-confusion of the word "media" all over the internet. Stefanomione (talk) 12:18, 22 September 2011 (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:Video games by theme or setting

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:20, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video games by theme or setting to Category:Video games by theme

Propose renaming Category:Lists of video games by theme or setting to Category:Lists of video games by theme

Nominator's rationale: We have no other "theme or setting" categories, and we already have Category:Video games by setting. Any by-setting categories can be moved into that, and this one renamed to be theme-only.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 08:55, 18 September 2011 (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 Are Republicans

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete this category, as well as the 2 mentioned by Pichpich - this s at least a borderline G4 (recreation of deleted material) case. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:07, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. For the same reasons Category:Democratic (US) Wikipedians and Category:Republican (US) Wikipedians were deleted before: divisive advocacy category of no encyclopedic purpose. Sophus Bie ^(talk) 06:07, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have an issue with having political membership categories (we have religious membership categories and a variety of identity categories like LGBT, which are both identity and for many advocacy-based - you can be Christian or gay, say, as a matter of identity and advocate for that position, and it's not like religion isn't also divisive for many). I do have a problem with the fact that if we are going to have these, they shouldn't be direct subcategories of Category:Wikipedians but rather in some kind of Wikipedians by political affiliation category. So, iff other participants in the CfD decide that this is fine, place in a dedicated subcategory; otherwise delete. —Tom Morris (talk) 09:32, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found the last discussion for Wikipedian political affiliation categories here. (The result was 'all deleted', in case anyone was wondering.) Sophus Bie ^(talk) 11:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The two arguments in favour of these categories (and the corresponding userboxes) are that a) they reveal bias which is good for transparency and b) they foster collaboration between editors of similar interests. I think a) is completely bogus because that info tends to make all edits suspect. And b) is a recipe for disaster since the last thing we need is editors ganging up with editors holding the same bias, however mild that bias may be. Anyhoo, I'd like to note the existence of Category:Wikipedians who are members of the Democratic Party (United States) and Category:Wikipedians who are members of the Republican Party (United States). They should go too, just as we wouldn't keep categories for members of Greenpeace, Optimist International, Mensa and so on. Pichpich (talk) 14:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Political representation is unrelated to building an encyclopedia.Curb Chain (talk) 22:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete, and delete the two similar categories identified by Pichpich as well. Dividing Wikipedians into factions based on real-world politics isn't just irrelevant to building an encyclopaedia, it's actively detrimental to it. Robofish (talk) 10:52, 20 September 2011 (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:Female volleyball 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: Speedy rename C2C per Category:Women's volleyball. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:18, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Female volleyball players to Category:Women's volleyball players
Nominator's rationale This category exists because women's volleyball is a seperate sport from men's volleyball. A search will revela that there are college women's volleyball teams and professional women's volleyball teams. The teams are referred to as women's volleyball, and so the category name should reflect this fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:25, 18 September 2011 (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:Stanford Cardinal volleyball 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:21, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Stanford Cardinal volleyball players to Category:Stanford Cardinal men's volleyball players
Nominator's rationale Stanford has two volleyball teams, the men's volleyball team and the women's volleyball team. We subcategorize players by the team they played on, so we should seperate the men and women. I have already done the seperating but we need to rename this to reflect the team name. See also Category:Stanford Cardinal men's basketball players for a clear precedent for this type of rename.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2011 (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:Female ice hockey 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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:17, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Female ice hockey players to Category:Women's ice hockey players

Nominator's rationale This is already the form used in virtually all sub-sections. This category is composed of women who played in women's ice hockey. The issue is the leagues they played in, not their gender.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:06, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. "Women" is the convention. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:19, 18 September 2011 (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:Turkey-related WikiProjects

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary. Category:WikiProject Turkey is sufficient. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:25, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - don't see the purpose of this subcategory. Robofish (talk) 10:50, 20 September 2011 (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:Turkey Wikipedia administration

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary. Category:WikiProject Turkey is sufficient -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The name of the category escapes me, as I don't know why we would categorize articles under the Turkish Wikipedia when we are on the English Wikipedia.Curb Chain (talk) 21:59, 18 September 2011 (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.