Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 5 July 7 >

July 6

Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right

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 Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right to Category:Wikipedians who like The Price Is Right per The Price Is Right. While the commenters below are correct about venue, this is a simple capitalisation fix, and meets speedy criteria. - jc37 07:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right to Category:Wikipedians who like The Price Is Right
Nominator's rationale: "Is" should be capitalized. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:14, 6 July 2008 (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.

(Ethnic group) Democrats (United States)

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. Kbdank71 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, since having both "American" and "(United States)" in the category name is redundant and not consistent with other Democrat/Republican subcats (i.e., the ones broken down by U.S. state). Tom ( talk - email) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. These are overcategorizations. They are essentially quadruple intersections (Americans X Politicians X (Political Party) X (Ethnicity). I doubt that there is a single member of any of these categories that can be shown to have the category as a defining characteristic. These should all be upmerged. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If they are useful, they can be made into lists. We have guidelines about overcategorization because creating multiple intersections creates tremendous amounts of clutter. Imagine that an article is in 8 primary categories, and then calculate how many more there will be if we include each level of intersection. If we add double intersections the 8 categories grows to 36. I'll leave it to you to calculate the permutations including triple and quadruple intersections. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:07, 9 July 2008 (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:Elsie J. Oxenham

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 Category:Elsie J. Oxenham - and not rename because the extra material doesn't belong in Category:Novels by Elsie J. Oxenham. There's lots of precedent which is not binding but does count for something. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Elsie J. Oxenham to Category:Novels by Elsie J. Oxenham
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Delete - Contains nothing but articles about novels. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Originally this category also contained the article about Elsie J. Oxenham as well as those about her books - not sure why/when that was removed from the category? - but that was my original rationale for creating the category, i.e. in order to bring the articles about the books and their author together. I have not re-added the category to the author page because of the request on the category page not to make changes/additions to the pages within it, but not sure what the best move is now - would welcome advice Abbeybufo ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (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:Molière

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. Should ultimately be as well-populated as Category:William Shakespeare, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Molière ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization, not needed for the single subcat which is housed in an appropriate alternate parent. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep now 2 subcats & 2 make that 6 articles, plus the original subcat should have many more entries. No Moliere template, and the bio is long, so the category is well worth keeping. Johnbod ( talk) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
None of the 5 adaptations (very incomplete I'm sure) are mentioned in the article, as I know, having had to root around to add most of them. This is exactly what categories are for. The "appropriate alternate parent" for the adaptations cat is a silly maintenance cat. Johnbod ( talk) 22:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Er, what? The adaptations are a sub-cat, as they should be, and always are in such cats. Johnbod ( talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (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:Dana Stabenow

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:Dana Stabenow to Category:Novels by Dana Stabenow. Near enough is good enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Dana Stabenow to Category:Something
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should be renamed to something but I'm not sure what. Contains two articles about series of novels by the author so clearly it's not useful as an eponymous category. Category:Novels by Dana Stabenow? Category:Dana Stabenow novel series (but we don't have a Novel series by author structure at this time, and I'm loathe to start yet another novels categorization scheme)? Just merge it to Category:Novel series? Otto4711 ( talk) 21:23, 6 July 2008 (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:People appearing in lesbian pornography

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 - jc37 09:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Broadly vague. Most female participants in pornography will typically appear in lesbian scenes; in time I would expect this category and Category:Female porn stars to be near mirror images of each other. Tabercil ( talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Right on.-- Old Bella ( talk) 11:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment – You know, it actually is possible to comment on the actual issue at hand without getting on your high-horse and editorializing about the ostensible superiority of your tastes in porn. Just sayin'. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Er, I'm not sure if this is directed toward me or Bella, but I can assure you that my tastes in pornography run about as diametrically opposite to lesbian or girl-on-girl as it is possible to get. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with the nominator, as it stands this is way too broad. I would go along with "rename" if, as suggested by the previous comment, this were limited to only actresses who appeared in porn that was directly aimed at the lesbian audience. Although, this could potentially widen the opening of a can of worms. Should we then create cats for mainstream films such as Category:People appearing in kids films, Category:People appearing in action films, Category:People appearing in comedy films, etc? In coming up with those cats, I was only thinking of one actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The films being Kindergarden Cop, Last Action Hero, and that one he did with Danny DeVito. If so, we're likely to end up with the Cindy Crawford problem where we had models with over 70 different categories. One based on each clothing company, perfume company, cosmetics company, etc. that they had ever modeled for. Dismas| (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Not a parallel at all, as with very few exceptions porn actors are not notable for appearing on film outside of pornography. If they are then they are categorized simply as "film actors." Otto4711 ( talk) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You missed my point. I'm not saying that the same people will be in those other categories that I named but that if we start breaking films down too much, like this category does, then it sets a precedent for other films, porn or mainstream. Dismas| (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Actually AIDS denialism is a movement that has spanned decades and continents. Denying someone is a lesbian needs to be shown as notable, that's why that article is at AfD. Banje boi 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per Otto4711. Lesbian porn is certainly notable but at least subcategories for those who are appearing in actual lesbian porn verses girl-on-girl scenes for a straight audience would be helpful. Banje boi 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Over-categorisation, and is always going to have WP:POV issues due to the "real" lesbianism performed for Women, rather than performed for men. Mayalld ( talk) 06:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think Otto is correct. The category description should make it clear that this it is just about appearing in pornography for lesbians, and not the broader set of pornography with lesbian scenes, The latter might fit our criteria for overcategorization, but the former seems to be a much smaller subset of Category:Female porn stars, and thereby a reasonable subcategorization. I wouldn't think it is difficult or POV to determine the difference between lesbian porn and straight porn with lesbian scenes. But then I am just guessing, because I watch neither. -- ☑ SamuelWantman
  • Delete per nomination. Kelly hi! 01:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm leaning toward deletion unless there's some way of 1) re-titling this so its clearly about performers who have appeared in the by-lesbians for-lesbians porn genre, and 2) that there's actually enough performers in such porn that have articles here on Wikipedia. Nina Hartley and Sharon Mitchell come to mind - but who else? In fact, by the criteria mentioned here, I don't think any of the performers on the present list actually belong on it. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 02:35, 13 July 2008 (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.

General elections

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 all but United States to "General elections in Foo"; No consensus on United States. Kbdank71 13:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Brazilian general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:General elections in Italy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Northern Ireland general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ontario general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Turkish general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:United Kingdom general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Federal elections of the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Pick something and stick with it. We have some four different naming formats among eight subcats. The choices seem to be: Foo general elections; Fooian general elections; General elections in Foo; and General elections of Foo. The parents appear consistent as Elections in Foo so rename all to Category:General elections in Foo is my preference. We also want to decide if we want to rename the US category from "Federal" to "general." Otto4711 ( talk) 19:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment. I don't know about other countries, but in the United States, elections are run at the state (county election commissioners) level, not by the central (Federal) government. Federal (national) elections are elections for the US President, US senators and US House of Representatives members. Generally, there is a 'primary' election that precedes the 'general' election by some number of months. The 'general' election has voters choosing among nominees, one from each participating political party. The 'primary' election (when a state political party uses this method of selecting its nominee) has voters of their party choosing the nominee from their party for the general election. At the state and local office level (and for state and local referendum of assorted kinds), there are also primary elections and general elections (with the same meaning as at the Federal level), the dates of which often, but not always (state by state rules), coincide with the federal election dates. Other federal, multi-party democracies may have similar intricacies. Category names should actually reflect the election reality of the country involved, but should not conflate the primary/general classification with the federal/state and local classification. Hmains ( talk) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Addition: In the US, there are also 'special elections' which may be used to fill seats vacated for any reason. So the US classifications are at least primary/general/special and federal/state and local. Hmains ( talk) 23:04, 6 July 2008 (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:Federal elections in Missouri

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. Kbdank71 13:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Federal elections in Missouri to Category:United States elections in Missouri
Category:United States elections in Massachusetts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "United States elections…" is better and possibly more consistent with other states' elections. — Markles 18:24, 6 July 2008 (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:Lists of insects in the British Isles

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 - jc37 09:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Lists of insects in the British Isles to Category:Lists of insects in Great Britain
Nominator's rationale: More accurate name - all articles refer to Britain. Bardcom ( talk) 17:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Probably even more accurate to use "United Kingdom" rather than "Great Britain", as I suspect some of the articles include Northern Ireland, which is not part of Great Britain— GRM ( talk) 18:08, 6 July 2008 (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:List of beetles in the British Isles

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 - jc37 09:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Lists of beetles in the British Isles to Category:Lists of beetles in Great Britain
Nominator's rationale: More accurate category name - all articles refer to Britain. Bardcom ( talk) 17:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Probably even more accurate to use "United Kingdom" rather than "Great Britain", as I suspect some of the articles include Northern Ireland, which is not part of Great Britain— GRM ( talk) 18:09, 6 July 2008 (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:Lists of Disney 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: upmerge. Kbdank71 14:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Lists of Disney people to Category:Multiple targets
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single-entry category. Upmerge to Category:Disney people and Category:Disney-related lists. Otto4711 ( talk) 14:25, 6 July 2008 (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.

Sub category pages of Category:People by first- (and second-) level administrative country subdivision

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 all to "People by Foo in Country" (except for the British one, I have no idea what it should be). Kbdank71 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: 1. to have naming uniform for categories of this sort - the 10 items not listed already follow this pattern 2. better to reflect that not everyone listed as being from a city, state, or other jurisdiction within a country is a citizen of the country that jurisdiction belongs to (ie. not everyone listed under a subcategory of Category:People by French region or Category:People from Paris is a citizen of France, etc, etc). Mayumashu ( talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • As one who has previously quibbled about Marshallese and Equatoguinean (which I have now mastered, just in time for Simon Mann's equatoguinean incarceration) I am delighted to support the People by xxxx in Country suggestion of Goodolf's. As a further quibble ... oblast is obscure, to me at least. I have no objection to finding 'oblast' in an article but can we not use an alternative in traditional English for titles of articles and catgories? -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Oblast is pretty generally used in English in discussing these countries, here & outside. Anyway, what would you call them? Not states & they are often too small to be provinces. Johnbod ( talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Not used here in Derbyshire, as far as I know. Is English wikipedia not supposed to be accessible to someone in say Nigeria whose 2nd or 3rd language is English? I'd use Province and define oblast at the top of the article/category – I approve entirely of Provinces of Bulgaria. The article is actually Administrative divisions of Ukraine. ( Voivodeship sejmik is worse.) -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (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.

Missing film lists

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 all. Kbdank71 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose merging:
and propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: - Categorization for these WikiProject Films red link lists is currently all over the place; duplicate categories exist, category naming is haphazard, and use of "WikiProject Missing Film" implies that there is a WikiProject by that name. Having a seperate category for the Australia lists smacks of overcategorization. Proposed scheme reorganises these into a single parent cat and two appropriately named subcats based on their contents. PC78 ( talk) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (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.

Podlachian Voivodeship

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. Kbdank71 13:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename - "Podlachian" is a term invented by EN.WP. The correct name in English, according to the Polish government and the EU, is Podlaskie (see Talk:Podlaskie Voivodeship for references.
Ajh1492 ( talk) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment. Merged these very similar nominations -- Eliyak  T· C 03:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Remark It has slipped in.
voivodeship. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voivodeship
Ajh1492 ( talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (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:Dutch baseball managers

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, without prejudice to recreation if other articles are written/found. Kbdank71 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Dutch baseball managers to Category:Baseball managers
Nominator's rationale: Merge - single-item category with unlikely growth potential. Not part of a wider Baseball managers by nationality structure. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:46, 6 July 2008 (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:Philip Reeve

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. Kbdank71 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Philip Reeve ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - no need for the category to hold the author's article. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • For categories named after writers, my outlook is the same as for other sorts of eponymous categories, that they should only be created if the material about the writer him- or herself is so complex that the main article can't serve as an appropriate navigational hub. Since we have structures for Works by artist including both Books by author and Novels by author and since an author's article is in all likelihood going to include links to all of his or her literary output, subcats for the authors' works don't mandate an eponymous category. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Well, no, we keep categories if there is material to put in them, not because there might someday be such material. Articles related to the film adaptation of his works wouldn't go directly in an eponymous category anyway but in an adaptations category, so the existence of the upcoming film is irrelevant. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand this new doctrine you are trying to push (see Moliere above). Adaptations would be a sub-cat here, and the existence of subcats is a factor in the usefulness of valid parents. If there were such a category, it would certainly be relevant. Johnbod ( talk) 12:47, 7 July 2008 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_6&oldid=1140185778"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 5 July 7 >

July 6

Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right

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 Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right to Category:Wikipedians who like The Price Is Right per The Price Is Right. While the commenters below are correct about venue, this is a simple capitalisation fix, and meets speedy criteria. - jc37 07:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Wikipedians who like The Price is Right to Category:Wikipedians who like The Price Is Right
Nominator's rationale: "Is" should be capitalized. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ( Broken clamshells• Otter chirps) 23:14, 6 July 2008 (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.

(Ethnic group) Democrats (United States)

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. Kbdank71 20:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, since having both "American" and "(United States)" in the category name is redundant and not consistent with other Democrat/Republican subcats (i.e., the ones broken down by U.S. state). Tom ( talk - email) 22:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete all. These are overcategorizations. They are essentially quadruple intersections (Americans X Politicians X (Political Party) X (Ethnicity). I doubt that there is a single member of any of these categories that can be shown to have the category as a defining characteristic. These should all be upmerged. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 07:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • If they are useful, they can be made into lists. We have guidelines about overcategorization because creating multiple intersections creates tremendous amounts of clutter. Imagine that an article is in 8 primary categories, and then calculate how many more there will be if we include each level of intersection. If we add double intersections the 8 categories grows to 36. I'll leave it to you to calculate the permutations including triple and quadruple intersections. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 08:07, 9 July 2008 (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:Elsie J. Oxenham

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 Category:Elsie J. Oxenham - and not rename because the extra material doesn't belong in Category:Novels by Elsie J. Oxenham. There's lots of precedent which is not binding but does count for something. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Elsie J. Oxenham to Category:Novels by Elsie J. Oxenham
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Delete - Contains nothing but articles about novels. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Originally this category also contained the article about Elsie J. Oxenham as well as those about her books - not sure why/when that was removed from the category? - but that was my original rationale for creating the category, i.e. in order to bring the articles about the books and their author together. I have not re-added the category to the author page because of the request on the category page not to make changes/additions to the pages within it, but not sure what the best move is now - would welcome advice Abbeybufo ( talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 July 2008 (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:Molière

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. Should ultimately be as well-populated as Category:William Shakespeare, no? Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Molière ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - eponymous overcategorization, not needed for the single subcat which is housed in an appropriate alternate parent. Otto4711 ( talk) 21:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep now 2 subcats & 2 make that 6 articles, plus the original subcat should have many more entries. No Moliere template, and the bio is long, so the category is well worth keeping. Johnbod ( talk) 22:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
None of the 5 adaptations (very incomplete I'm sure) are mentioned in the article, as I know, having had to root around to add most of them. This is exactly what categories are for. The "appropriate alternate parent" for the adaptations cat is a silly maintenance cat. Johnbod ( talk) 22:16, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Er, what? The adaptations are a sub-cat, as they should be, and always are in such cats. Johnbod ( talk) 22:26, 6 July 2008 (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:Dana Stabenow

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:Dana Stabenow to Category:Novels by Dana Stabenow. Near enough is good enough. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:15, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Dana Stabenow to Category:Something
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Should be renamed to something but I'm not sure what. Contains two articles about series of novels by the author so clearly it's not useful as an eponymous category. Category:Novels by Dana Stabenow? Category:Dana Stabenow novel series (but we don't have a Novel series by author structure at this time, and I'm loathe to start yet another novels categorization scheme)? Just merge it to Category:Novel series? Otto4711 ( talk) 21:23, 6 July 2008 (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:People appearing in lesbian pornography

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 - jc37 09:23, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:People appearing in lesbian pornography ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Broadly vague. Most female participants in pornography will typically appear in lesbian scenes; in time I would expect this category and Category:Female porn stars to be near mirror images of each other. Tabercil ( talk) 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Right on.-- Old Bella ( talk) 11:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment – You know, it actually is possible to comment on the actual issue at hand without getting on your high-horse and editorializing about the ostensible superiority of your tastes in porn. Just sayin'. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 02:27, 13 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Er, I'm not sure if this is directed toward me or Bella, but I can assure you that my tastes in pornography run about as diametrically opposite to lesbian or girl-on-girl as it is possible to get. Otto4711 ( talk) 22:56, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete I agree with the nominator, as it stands this is way too broad. I would go along with "rename" if, as suggested by the previous comment, this were limited to only actresses who appeared in porn that was directly aimed at the lesbian audience. Although, this could potentially widen the opening of a can of worms. Should we then create cats for mainstream films such as Category:People appearing in kids films, Category:People appearing in action films, Category:People appearing in comedy films, etc? In coming up with those cats, I was only thinking of one actor, Arnold Schwarzenegger. The films being Kindergarden Cop, Last Action Hero, and that one he did with Danny DeVito. If so, we're likely to end up with the Cindy Crawford problem where we had models with over 70 different categories. One based on each clothing company, perfume company, cosmetics company, etc. that they had ever modeled for. Dismas| (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Not a parallel at all, as with very few exceptions porn actors are not notable for appearing on film outside of pornography. If they are then they are categorized simply as "film actors." Otto4711 ( talk) 12:20, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • You missed my point. I'm not saying that the same people will be in those other categories that I named but that if we start breaking films down too much, like this category does, then it sets a precedent for other films, porn or mainstream. Dismas| (talk) 19:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Actually AIDS denialism is a movement that has spanned decades and continents. Denying someone is a lesbian needs to be shown as notable, that's why that article is at AfD. Banje boi 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. Per Otto4711. Lesbian porn is certainly notable but at least subcategories for those who are appearing in actual lesbian porn verses girl-on-girl scenes for a straight audience would be helpful. Banje boi 23:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Over-categorisation, and is always going to have WP:POV issues due to the "real" lesbianism performed for Women, rather than performed for men. Mayalld ( talk) 06:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. I think Otto is correct. The category description should make it clear that this it is just about appearing in pornography for lesbians, and not the broader set of pornography with lesbian scenes, The latter might fit our criteria for overcategorization, but the former seems to be a much smaller subset of Category:Female porn stars, and thereby a reasonable subcategorization. I wouldn't think it is difficult or POV to determine the difference between lesbian porn and straight porn with lesbian scenes. But then I am just guessing, because I watch neither. -- ☑ SamuelWantman
  • Delete per nomination. Kelly hi! 01:01, 12 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: I'm leaning toward deletion unless there's some way of 1) re-titling this so its clearly about performers who have appeared in the by-lesbians for-lesbians porn genre, and 2) that there's actually enough performers in such porn that have articles here on Wikipedia. Nina Hartley and Sharon Mitchell come to mind - but who else? In fact, by the criteria mentioned here, I don't think any of the performers on the present list actually belong on it. Iamcuriousblue ( talk) 02:35, 13 July 2008 (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.

General elections

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 all but United States to "General elections in Foo"; No consensus on United States. Kbdank71 13:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Brazilian general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:General elections in Italy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Northern Ireland general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Ontario general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Scottish general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Turkish general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:United Kingdom general elections ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Federal elections of the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Pick something and stick with it. We have some four different naming formats among eight subcats. The choices seem to be: Foo general elections; Fooian general elections; General elections in Foo; and General elections of Foo. The parents appear consistent as Elections in Foo so rename all to Category:General elections in Foo is my preference. We also want to decide if we want to rename the US category from "Federal" to "general." Otto4711 ( talk) 19:31, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • comment. I don't know about other countries, but in the United States, elections are run at the state (county election commissioners) level, not by the central (Federal) government. Federal (national) elections are elections for the US President, US senators and US House of Representatives members. Generally, there is a 'primary' election that precedes the 'general' election by some number of months. The 'general' election has voters choosing among nominees, one from each participating political party. The 'primary' election (when a state political party uses this method of selecting its nominee) has voters of their party choosing the nominee from their party for the general election. At the state and local office level (and for state and local referendum of assorted kinds), there are also primary elections and general elections (with the same meaning as at the Federal level), the dates of which often, but not always (state by state rules), coincide with the federal election dates. Other federal, multi-party democracies may have similar intricacies. Category names should actually reflect the election reality of the country involved, but should not conflate the primary/general classification with the federal/state and local classification. Hmains ( talk) 21:02, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Addition: In the US, there are also 'special elections' which may be used to fill seats vacated for any reason. So the US classifications are at least primary/general/special and federal/state and local. Hmains ( talk) 23:04, 6 July 2008 (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:Federal elections in Missouri

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. Kbdank71 13:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Federal elections in Missouri to Category:United States elections in Missouri
Category:United States elections in Massachusetts ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "United States elections…" is better and possibly more consistent with other states' elections. — Markles 18:24, 6 July 2008 (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:Lists of insects in the British Isles

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 - jc37 09:26, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Lists of insects in the British Isles to Category:Lists of insects in Great Britain
Nominator's rationale: More accurate name - all articles refer to Britain. Bardcom ( talk) 17:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Probably even more accurate to use "United Kingdom" rather than "Great Britain", as I suspect some of the articles include Northern Ireland, which is not part of Great Britain— GRM ( talk) 18:08, 6 July 2008 (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:List of beetles in the British Isles

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 - jc37 09:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Lists of beetles in the British Isles to Category:Lists of beetles in Great Britain
Nominator's rationale: More accurate category name - all articles refer to Britain. Bardcom ( talk) 17:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Probably even more accurate to use "United Kingdom" rather than "Great Britain", as I suspect some of the articles include Northern Ireland, which is not part of Great Britain— GRM ( talk) 18:09, 6 July 2008 (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:Lists of Disney 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: upmerge. Kbdank71 14:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Lists of Disney people to Category:Multiple targets
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Single-entry category. Upmerge to Category:Disney people and Category:Disney-related lists. Otto4711 ( talk) 14:25, 6 July 2008 (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.

Sub category pages of Category:People by first- (and second-) level administrative country subdivision

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 all to "People by Foo in Country" (except for the British one, I have no idea what it should be). Kbdank71 13:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: 1. to have naming uniform for categories of this sort - the 10 items not listed already follow this pattern 2. better to reflect that not everyone listed as being from a city, state, or other jurisdiction within a country is a citizen of the country that jurisdiction belongs to (ie. not everyone listed under a subcategory of Category:People by French region or Category:People from Paris is a citizen of France, etc, etc). Mayumashu ( talk) 13:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • As one who has previously quibbled about Marshallese and Equatoguinean (which I have now mastered, just in time for Simon Mann's equatoguinean incarceration) I am delighted to support the People by xxxx in Country suggestion of Goodolf's. As a further quibble ... oblast is obscure, to me at least. I have no objection to finding 'oblast' in an article but can we not use an alternative in traditional English for titles of articles and catgories? -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 16:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Oblast is pretty generally used in English in discussing these countries, here & outside. Anyway, what would you call them? Not states & they are often too small to be provinces. Johnbod ( talk) 17:08, 8 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Not used here in Derbyshire, as far as I know. Is English wikipedia not supposed to be accessible to someone in say Nigeria whose 2nd or 3rd language is English? I'd use Province and define oblast at the top of the article/category – I approve entirely of Provinces of Bulgaria. The article is actually Administrative divisions of Ukraine. ( Voivodeship sejmik is worse.) -- roundhouse0 ( talk) 17:24, 8 July 2008 (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.

Missing film lists

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 all. Kbdank71 16:40, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Propose merging:
and propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: - Categorization for these WikiProject Films red link lists is currently all over the place; duplicate categories exist, category naming is haphazard, and use of "WikiProject Missing Film" implies that there is a WikiProject by that name. Having a seperate category for the Australia lists smacks of overcategorization. Proposed scheme reorganises these into a single parent cat and two appropriately named subcats based on their contents. PC78 ( talk) 03:25, 6 July 2008 (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.

Podlachian Voivodeship

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. Kbdank71 13:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename - "Podlachian" is a term invented by EN.WP. The correct name in English, according to the Polish government and the EU, is Podlaskie (see Talk:Podlaskie Voivodeship for references.
Ajh1492 ( talk) 13:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Comment. Merged these very similar nominations -- Eliyak  T· C 03:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Remark It has slipped in.
voivodeship. (2008). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary. Retrieved July 6, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/voivodeship
Ajh1492 ( talk) 03:04, 7 July 2008 (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:Dutch baseball managers

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, without prejudice to recreation if other articles are written/found. Kbdank71 16:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Dutch baseball managers to Category:Baseball managers
Nominator's rationale: Merge - single-item category with unlikely growth potential. Not part of a wider Baseball managers by nationality structure. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:46, 6 July 2008 (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:Philip Reeve

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. Kbdank71 16:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC) reply
Category:Philip Reeve ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - no need for the category to hold the author's article. Otto4711 ( talk) 02:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • For categories named after writers, my outlook is the same as for other sorts of eponymous categories, that they should only be created if the material about the writer him- or herself is so complex that the main article can't serve as an appropriate navigational hub. Since we have structures for Works by artist including both Books by author and Novels by author and since an author's article is in all likelihood going to include links to all of his or her literary output, subcats for the authors' works don't mandate an eponymous category. Otto4711 ( talk) 19:10, 6 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • Well, no, we keep categories if there is material to put in them, not because there might someday be such material. Articles related to the film adaptation of his works wouldn't go directly in an eponymous category anyway but in an adaptations category, so the existence of the upcoming film is irrelevant. Otto4711 ( talk) 12:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC) reply
  • I don't understand this new doctrine you are trying to push (see Moliere above). Adaptations would be a sub-cat here, and the existence of subcats is a factor in the usefulness of valid parents. If there were such a category, it would certainly be relevant. Johnbod ( talk) 12:47, 7 July 2008 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_6&oldid=1140185778"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE