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.
Oppose - restricting the category on the basis of being convicted means that people who committed crimes but were not convicted are excluded. I don't see the implication the nominator claims, that being included implies that the person is a career criminal.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Query: How would you propose, under the BLP policy, to classify persons as "criminals" who had not been convicted of a crime? What sort of source would you consider sufficiently reliable?--
Marvin Diode (
talk)
06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear, would you support a rename of all "criminal" categories to "Persons convicted of crimes" (with some kind of side category to handle nonconvicted presumed criminals such as
John Wilkes Booth who die before trial)?
·:· Will Beback·:·00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, even if all other similar categories were nominated. A subcategory of these are the "murderers" categories, which include murderers who were not convicted of their crimes; e.g., people who killed others and then committed suicide prior to being captured. Are we really going to exclude people like
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from the murderers category, and thus the criminals category, because they were never convicted? Sorry, I can't go for that. Using the "convicted" phrasing is helpful for some specific criminals categories, like
Category:American convicted bigamists, but not for murderers and certainly not for the criminals category in general.
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
What of we keep the "Criminals" category, but make a subcategory for "people convicted of crimes". Unconvicted criminals could stay in the parent or a separate subcategory.
·:· Will Beback·:·06:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
That would be helpful. The problem with categories is that they are typically all-or-nothing, which makes the application of the NPOV and BLP policies very difficult. The more shades of gray, the better. --
Marvin Diode (
talk)
15:05, 22 June 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.
All "Category:Fauna of [country]" categories
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.
Comment. They will all need to be listed here if you expect an admin to actually delete them if that is the way this discussion heads.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. None of the categories are tagged for CFD, not even the three listed above. A category can't be deleted via a CFD unless it's been tagged so those who watch the category can be notified of the CFD. You have to tag each one and then list each one here, or else this nomination is going nowhere.
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep for now and relist individually A cfd of this size will be a trainwreck. There are some legitimate cats like
Category:Fauna of the Philippines due the high biodiversity and endemism. However, there are also fauna cats that should be deleted as the nom said. I will support deletion for those cats if they are relisted individually or in manageable groups.--
Lenticel(
talk)12:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep all. Never heard such a stupid proposal in all my life. No, "animals don't care about borders", with the exception of Homo sapiens, which coincidentally happens to be the only animal that reads encyclopedias. (If we can't keep all, then at least keep
Category:Fauna of Australia, which is a continent as well as a country)
Hesperian13:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Possibly, yes. But wouldn't an article (
Fauna of Andorra) make much more sense either way? If we'd actually fill these categories with all the species that inhabit these countries, we'd end up with lots of articles about animals that would contain up to hundreds of categories. Having an article (or list) that instead links to these articles makes much more sense to me. --
Conti|
✉14:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment I take it Hesperian finds the catgories that the
Field Vole is in to be satisfactory? (I don't myself - I fret that some countries might have been missed out. Have the Slovakians done something to their Field Vole population for instance? Why is it listed as a mammal of Asia but is apparently found neither as fauna nor mammal in any Asian country?) Could the prefix Endemic be added to all these and their contents weeded out? (Those that are then empty will get deleted by bot in due course.)
-- roundhouse0 (
talk)
14:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Always these proposals boil down to the same issue. Most of the above categories are sensible, useful and inherently interesting, but unfortunately having them means that certain articles become horribly overcategorised. There's a tension there, no doubt about it. But I cannot fathom how the resolution of this tension is always to delete the categories! Is it possible that the solution might be to put up with certain articles being overcategorised? Is it possible that the solution might be to deploy clever categories like
Category:Flora widespread in Europe (a subcategory of every individual Fauna-of-European-country category)? Why must such great categories be killed off to satisfy those who don't like the look of the category listing on
Red Fox?
Hesperian14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I'd certainly support clever solutions like that. My goal isn't necessarily to delete all these categories, but to show that there is a problem with them at the moment, and that something needs to be done about it. Deletion is one option. Creating supercategories (or whatever they're called) to minimize articles with countless categories is another. We could also add
Template:Hiddencat to these categories to make them invisible on the article pages. Then again, we could create articles/lists instead, too. I don't know which of those options is the best, but all of them are better than the status quo, IMHO. --
Conti|
✉15:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep some. I agree that most should be deleted, however, categories such as
Category:Fauna of Gibraltar should be kept as Gibraltar is rich in fauna which is not found in adjacent Spain, or even the rest of Europe! Great care must be taken in deciding which categories can be deleted. Gibraltar is not one of them. --
Gibmetal 77talk15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
keep until such time as the deletion proponents have an alternative category structure created and fully populated, one that covers all portions of the earth's land and water. Whether such an anternative is 'continent' or 'eco-region' or whatever must be determined. The trouble is that the discussions on this subject never make such a determination in any fashion that can be considered definitive, widely acceptable to WP editors. So we end up at this same CfD place, time and time again, wasting all our time.
Hmains (
talk)
16:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep The fact that some of these are not well-populated is a consequence of Wikipedians not being so dilligent; these categories will inevitably be filled and it is good and proper to have them in an encyclopedia, so I'm opposed to deleting them. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep. Horrible attempt to list a huge number of categories, many of which need examining individually. No, animals don't care about political borders - unless those political borders are also natural borders like coastlines. The categories for the likes of New Zealand, Fiji, The Philippines, Cuba, and 20-30 others from this list are prime examples where there is justification for keeping the categories. As such, these need individual listing, not a train-wreck like this.
Grutness...wha?23:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep and nominate for merger in groups. Indigenous Fauna of oceanic nations which have been isolated will make a worthwhile category, but many species are widespread over vast regions of the world, so that categorisation by country for continental countries is unsatisfactory. I would suggest that we might go for "Fauna of Europe", "Fauna of North America", perhaps "Fauna of Indian subcontinent" etc, and also "Fauna of the Sahara", "Fauna of the Sahel", "Arctic Fauna", "Antarctic Fauna". Except its primate colony, I doubt that the Fauna of Gibraltar is much differnet from that of southern Spain.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Alright, I suppose a mass-CfD probably wasn't the best way to sort this issue out. Consider this request withdrawn. Nominating (most of) these categories for merging sounds like a sensible idea. Now we just need to agree on where exactly to merge them.. --
Conti|
✉23:36, 22 June 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:Mozart Medalists
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 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:Characters from Madeleine L'Engle 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 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:Characters created by Jackie Collins
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 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:Characters by author
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, duplicate categories, "Fictional characters" is the standard, target is older and better populated. This really should be a speedy criterion.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:25, 21 June 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:Alice characters
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.
In looking more closely at the categories, the Disney subcat exists solely to group the articles as a subcat of
Category:Characters in the Disney animated features canon. They aren't separate articles about the Disney-specific versions. I don't see any reason for it to be a subcat of this category at all regardless of how this ends up being named.
Otto4711 (
talk)
12:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose The current name seem better than any of the proposed alternatives and the nominator himself could not come up with a satisfactory alternative. No evidence has been provided that we actually have a problem which needs fixing. The Alice canon is very famous so her name alone is sufficient.
Colonel Warden (
talk)
12:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - while the above editor is certainly fully entitled to his opinion, I feel obliged to point out that his opinion is colored by his lack of understanding of how CFD actually works, as he has
accused me of being "disruptive" for bringing this nomination. He does not seem to understand that one of the functions of CFD is to bring categories such as this to the attention of the community to build consensus, nor does he understand that it is acceptable and usual practice to bring such categories to the attention of the community even in the absence of one clear-cut suggestion from the nominator (who in this instance offered two possible renames). Any of the current suggested renames is an improvement over the ambiguous current name.
Otto4711 (
talk)
13:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Multi-guity? You mean multiple ambiguity? Anyway, Lewis Carroll characters won't do because they would include non-Alice characters like
Sylvie and Bruno and the cast of
Hunting of the Snark which are not part of the Alice universe. And Dodgson published other stories under his own name so we would have even greater scope for "multiguity".
Perhaps
Category:Lewis Carroll characters is appropriate to capture those non-Wonderland characters, with whatever this ends up being called being a subcat of it. Although, are there any articles that are specifically about the characters Sylvie and Bruno or from The Hunting of the Snark? We wouldn't categorize
Sylvie and Bruno as characters because the article is about the work as a whole.
Otto4711 (
talk)
00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
There are substantial sections on characters in a lot of articles on works of fiction. Categorizing articles about the works in character categories muddies things tremendously.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:31, 24 June 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:HIV/AIDS articles
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.
It seems to be generated by {{Aids}} corrected 08:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC), the talk-page template of the inactive
WP:AIDS. So it probably just needs a rename to make it clear that it's a WikiProject category, and that presumably can be done by tweaking the template. What's the WikiProject category name convention?
BencherliteTalk21:08, 21 June 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:Fictional characters with DID/MPD
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 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:Nations by haplogroups (Y-DNA)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: unsourced, unscientific, unencyclopedic and otherwise highly problematic categories.
dab(𒁳)07:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Agree. Unsourced categories and also unnecessary. The individual haplogroup pages already cover this material, and in plenty of detail with both the carrying populations and haplogroup frequencies highlighted.
Soupforone (
talk)
08:23, 21 June 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:Judge (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany)
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 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:TLC
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 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:Nirvana B-sides
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.
Delete per above & because what is a B side often differs between releases in different countries - there is precedent for this, though don't ask me where.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:39, 21 June 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:Non-nationals connected with Fiji
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 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:India born Fiji Indians
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 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:Indians in Singapore
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: 'Indians in Singapore' could mean either Indian expats in Singapore or Singaporeans of Indian descent or origin, in other words Indian diaspora in Singapore. Moreover, this cat page is listed as a sub-cat page of
Category:Indian diaspora by country and the proposed renaming here is of the same pattern as other sub-cat pages for this cat page
Mayumashu (
talk)
01:07, 21 June 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:Deaths of peritonitis
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 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:Fijian Indian diaspora
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.
On reflection this is not quite clear-cut; the Indian diaspora in Fiji is somewhat unusual because it has since developed a diaspora in its own right - for example Fiji Indians in Canada. But it is not so obvious how this diaspora from a diaspora should be handled, since placing them under the supercategory "Indian diaspora in Fiji" seems misleading. At present I don't think this need cause too much worry as no current subcategories exist where this problem with the suggested renaming would be encountered (for instance "
Category:Fiji Indian Canadians"), but it's possible it will occur later, and Fiji isn't an isolated case - for example, many members of the Indian diaspora in East Africa emigrated to England as a distinct community in its own right. The currently suggested renaming makes a degree of sense since it emphasises that this category is about the population of Fiji with Indian origin rather than communities outside Fiji with Fiji Indian origin. I am contradicting Grutness in saying this but if you look at the category it actually is being used for the Indian diaspora in Fiji with very few exceptions - notably the article
Fiji Indian diaspora which really is about the "diaspora from the diaspora". Perhaps what needs to happen is for the category to be split between a category for Fiji Indians in general (probably using the suggested nominated name) and into which virtually all the contents of this category should be emptied, and reserving the current name of this category for articles about the emigration Fiji Indians to countries other than Fiji - which ought to contain the article
Fiji Indian diaspora and probably not a whole lot else, and to be a subcategory of the main Fiji Indian category and also directly of
Category:Diasporas (which is a real mess by the way, e.g. with
Category:Pakistani diaspora and
Category:Pakistan diaspora?).
TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity01:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment and !vote Both the nominator and other commenters above seem to misunderstand the use of this category. It is not part of the Indian diaspora by country, nor is it for Indians in Fiji. It is for the diaspora of Fiji Indians to other countries. In Fiji, "Fiji Indian" is a specific ethnic group (people of Indian descent make up some 45% of Fiji's population). This category is for articles relating to the spread of Fiji Indians to other countries such as Australia and New Zealand. As such, the suggested names are highly inappropriate and discussion should be either to keep the current name, delete the category as a whole, or choose some other more appropriate name. Given the presence of similar categories nwith similar names (such as ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:African American diaspora and ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Black African diaspora) my !vote would be to keep.
Grutness...wha?01:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
More than that needs to be done, as I mentioned above - virtually everything in the
Category:Fiji Indian diaspora does not belong there! The article
Fiji Indian diaspora is about Fiji Indians who have emigrated so fits in there fine, but almost everything else needs to be cleared out. This is why I was initially happy with the suggested rename, because the tiny proportion of articles for which the current name actually applies to probably don't need a category of their own anyway and would belong equally as well in a category about Indo-Fijians.
TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity01:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
comment OK. Create the proper categories, put articles into their proper categories and then see what is left in the way of categories to CfD
Hmains (
talk)
18:40, 22 June 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.
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.
Oppose - restricting the category on the basis of being convicted means that people who committed crimes but were not convicted are excluded. I don't see the implication the nominator claims, that being included implies that the person is a career criminal.
Otto4711 (
talk)
23:11, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Query: How would you propose, under the BLP policy, to classify persons as "criminals" who had not been convicted of a crime? What sort of source would you consider sufficiently reliable?--
Marvin Diode (
talk)
06:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Just to be clear, would you support a rename of all "criminal" categories to "Persons convicted of crimes" (with some kind of side category to handle nonconvicted presumed criminals such as
John Wilkes Booth who die before trial)?
·:· Will Beback·:·00:40, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose, even if all other similar categories were nominated. A subcategory of these are the "murderers" categories, which include murderers who were not convicted of their crimes; e.g., people who killed others and then committed suicide prior to being captured. Are we really going to exclude people like
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold from the murderers category, and thus the criminals category, because they were never convicted? Sorry, I can't go for that. Using the "convicted" phrasing is helpful for some specific criminals categories, like
Category:American convicted bigamists, but not for murderers and certainly not for the criminals category in general.
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
What of we keep the "Criminals" category, but make a subcategory for "people convicted of crimes". Unconvicted criminals could stay in the parent or a separate subcategory.
·:· Will Beback·:·06:46, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
That would be helpful. The problem with categories is that they are typically all-or-nothing, which makes the application of the NPOV and BLP policies very difficult. The more shades of gray, the better. --
Marvin Diode (
talk)
15:05, 22 June 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.
All "Category:Fauna of [country]" categories
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.
Comment. They will all need to be listed here if you expect an admin to actually delete them if that is the way this discussion heads.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
02:31, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment. None of the categories are tagged for CFD, not even the three listed above. A category can't be deleted via a CFD unless it's been tagged so those who watch the category can be notified of the CFD. You have to tag each one and then list each one here, or else this nomination is going nowhere.
Good Ol’factory(talk)06:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep for now and relist individually A cfd of this size will be a trainwreck. There are some legitimate cats like
Category:Fauna of the Philippines due the high biodiversity and endemism. However, there are also fauna cats that should be deleted as the nom said. I will support deletion for those cats if they are relisted individually or in manageable groups.--
Lenticel(
talk)12:30, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep all. Never heard such a stupid proposal in all my life. No, "animals don't care about borders", with the exception of Homo sapiens, which coincidentally happens to be the only animal that reads encyclopedias. (If we can't keep all, then at least keep
Category:Fauna of Australia, which is a continent as well as a country)
Hesperian13:42, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Possibly, yes. But wouldn't an article (
Fauna of Andorra) make much more sense either way? If we'd actually fill these categories with all the species that inhabit these countries, we'd end up with lots of articles about animals that would contain up to hundreds of categories. Having an article (or list) that instead links to these articles makes much more sense to me. --
Conti|
✉14:49, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment I take it Hesperian finds the catgories that the
Field Vole is in to be satisfactory? (I don't myself - I fret that some countries might have been missed out. Have the Slovakians done something to their Field Vole population for instance? Why is it listed as a mammal of Asia but is apparently found neither as fauna nor mammal in any Asian country?) Could the prefix Endemic be added to all these and their contents weeded out? (Those that are then empty will get deleted by bot in due course.)
-- roundhouse0 (
talk)
14:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Always these proposals boil down to the same issue. Most of the above categories are sensible, useful and inherently interesting, but unfortunately having them means that certain articles become horribly overcategorised. There's a tension there, no doubt about it. But I cannot fathom how the resolution of this tension is always to delete the categories! Is it possible that the solution might be to put up with certain articles being overcategorised? Is it possible that the solution might be to deploy clever categories like
Category:Flora widespread in Europe (a subcategory of every individual Fauna-of-European-country category)? Why must such great categories be killed off to satisfy those who don't like the look of the category listing on
Red Fox?
Hesperian14:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
I'd certainly support clever solutions like that. My goal isn't necessarily to delete all these categories, but to show that there is a problem with them at the moment, and that something needs to be done about it. Deletion is one option. Creating supercategories (or whatever they're called) to minimize articles with countless categories is another. We could also add
Template:Hiddencat to these categories to make them invisible on the article pages. Then again, we could create articles/lists instead, too. I don't know which of those options is the best, but all of them are better than the status quo, IMHO. --
Conti|
✉15:00, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep some. I agree that most should be deleted, however, categories such as
Category:Fauna of Gibraltar should be kept as Gibraltar is rich in fauna which is not found in adjacent Spain, or even the rest of Europe! Great care must be taken in deciding which categories can be deleted. Gibraltar is not one of them. --
Gibmetal 77talk15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
keep until such time as the deletion proponents have an alternative category structure created and fully populated, one that covers all portions of the earth's land and water. Whether such an anternative is 'continent' or 'eco-region' or whatever must be determined. The trouble is that the discussions on this subject never make such a determination in any fashion that can be considered definitive, widely acceptable to WP editors. So we end up at this same CfD place, time and time again, wasting all our time.
Hmains (
talk)
16:59, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Keep The fact that some of these are not well-populated is a consequence of Wikipedians not being so dilligent; these categories will inevitably be filled and it is good and proper to have them in an encyclopedia, so I'm opposed to deleting them. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
21:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep. Horrible attempt to list a huge number of categories, many of which need examining individually. No, animals don't care about political borders - unless those political borders are also natural borders like coastlines. The categories for the likes of New Zealand, Fiji, The Philippines, Cuba, and 20-30 others from this list are prime examples where there is justification for keeping the categories. As such, these need individual listing, not a train-wreck like this.
Grutness...wha?23:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Procedural keep and nominate for merger in groups. Indigenous Fauna of oceanic nations which have been isolated will make a worthwhile category, but many species are widespread over vast regions of the world, so that categorisation by country for continental countries is unsatisfactory. I would suggest that we might go for "Fauna of Europe", "Fauna of North America", perhaps "Fauna of Indian subcontinent" etc, and also "Fauna of the Sahara", "Fauna of the Sahel", "Arctic Fauna", "Antarctic Fauna". Except its primate colony, I doubt that the Fauna of Gibraltar is much differnet from that of southern Spain.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Alright, I suppose a mass-CfD probably wasn't the best way to sort this issue out. Consider this request withdrawn. Nominating (most of) these categories for merging sounds like a sensible idea. Now we just need to agree on where exactly to merge them.. --
Conti|
✉23:36, 22 June 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:Mozart Medalists
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 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:Characters from Madeleine L'Engle 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 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:Characters created by Jackie Collins
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 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:Characters by author
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge, duplicate categories, "Fictional characters" is the standard, target is older and better populated. This really should be a speedy criterion.
Otto4711 (
talk)
16:25, 21 June 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:Alice characters
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.
In looking more closely at the categories, the Disney subcat exists solely to group the articles as a subcat of
Category:Characters in the Disney animated features canon. They aren't separate articles about the Disney-specific versions. I don't see any reason for it to be a subcat of this category at all regardless of how this ends up being named.
Otto4711 (
talk)
12:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Oppose The current name seem better than any of the proposed alternatives and the nominator himself could not come up with a satisfactory alternative. No evidence has been provided that we actually have a problem which needs fixing. The Alice canon is very famous so her name alone is sufficient.
Colonel Warden (
talk)
12:30, 23 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment - while the above editor is certainly fully entitled to his opinion, I feel obliged to point out that his opinion is colored by his lack of understanding of how CFD actually works, as he has
accused me of being "disruptive" for bringing this nomination. He does not seem to understand that one of the functions of CFD is to bring categories such as this to the attention of the community to build consensus, nor does he understand that it is acceptable and usual practice to bring such categories to the attention of the community even in the absence of one clear-cut suggestion from the nominator (who in this instance offered two possible renames). Any of the current suggested renames is an improvement over the ambiguous current name.
Otto4711 (
talk)
13:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Multi-guity? You mean multiple ambiguity? Anyway, Lewis Carroll characters won't do because they would include non-Alice characters like
Sylvie and Bruno and the cast of
Hunting of the Snark which are not part of the Alice universe. And Dodgson published other stories under his own name so we would have even greater scope for "multiguity".
Perhaps
Category:Lewis Carroll characters is appropriate to capture those non-Wonderland characters, with whatever this ends up being called being a subcat of it. Although, are there any articles that are specifically about the characters Sylvie and Bruno or from The Hunting of the Snark? We wouldn't categorize
Sylvie and Bruno as characters because the article is about the work as a whole.
Otto4711 (
talk)
00:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)reply
There are substantial sections on characters in a lot of articles on works of fiction. Categorizing articles about the works in character categories muddies things tremendously.
Otto4711 (
talk)
14:31, 24 June 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:HIV/AIDS articles
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.
It seems to be generated by {{Aids}} corrected 08:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC), the talk-page template of the inactive
WP:AIDS. So it probably just needs a rename to make it clear that it's a WikiProject category, and that presumably can be done by tweaking the template. What's the WikiProject category name convention?
BencherliteTalk21:08, 21 June 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:Fictional characters with DID/MPD
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 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:Nations by haplogroups (Y-DNA)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: unsourced, unscientific, unencyclopedic and otherwise highly problematic categories.
dab(𒁳)07:37, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Agree. Unsourced categories and also unnecessary. The individual haplogroup pages already cover this material, and in plenty of detail with both the carrying populations and haplogroup frequencies highlighted.
Soupforone (
talk)
08:23, 21 June 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:Judge (Federal Constitutional Court of Germany)
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 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:TLC
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 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:Nirvana B-sides
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.
Delete per above & because what is a B side often differs between releases in different countries - there is precedent for this, though don't ask me where.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:39, 21 June 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:Non-nationals connected with Fiji
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 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:India born Fiji Indians
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 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:Indians in Singapore
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: 'Indians in Singapore' could mean either Indian expats in Singapore or Singaporeans of Indian descent or origin, in other words Indian diaspora in Singapore. Moreover, this cat page is listed as a sub-cat page of
Category:Indian diaspora by country and the proposed renaming here is of the same pattern as other sub-cat pages for this cat page
Mayumashu (
talk)
01:07, 21 June 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:Deaths of peritonitis
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 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:Fijian Indian diaspora
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.
On reflection this is not quite clear-cut; the Indian diaspora in Fiji is somewhat unusual because it has since developed a diaspora in its own right - for example Fiji Indians in Canada. But it is not so obvious how this diaspora from a diaspora should be handled, since placing them under the supercategory "Indian diaspora in Fiji" seems misleading. At present I don't think this need cause too much worry as no current subcategories exist where this problem with the suggested renaming would be encountered (for instance "
Category:Fiji Indian Canadians"), but it's possible it will occur later, and Fiji isn't an isolated case - for example, many members of the Indian diaspora in East Africa emigrated to England as a distinct community in its own right. The currently suggested renaming makes a degree of sense since it emphasises that this category is about the population of Fiji with Indian origin rather than communities outside Fiji with Fiji Indian origin. I am contradicting Grutness in saying this but if you look at the category it actually is being used for the Indian diaspora in Fiji with very few exceptions - notably the article
Fiji Indian diaspora which really is about the "diaspora from the diaspora". Perhaps what needs to happen is for the category to be split between a category for Fiji Indians in general (probably using the suggested nominated name) and into which virtually all the contents of this category should be emptied, and reserving the current name of this category for articles about the emigration Fiji Indians to countries other than Fiji - which ought to contain the article
Fiji Indian diaspora and probably not a whole lot else, and to be a subcategory of the main Fiji Indian category and also directly of
Category:Diasporas (which is a real mess by the way, e.g. with
Category:Pakistani diaspora and
Category:Pakistan diaspora?).
TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity01:21, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
Comment and !vote Both the nominator and other commenters above seem to misunderstand the use of this category. It is not part of the Indian diaspora by country, nor is it for Indians in Fiji. It is for the diaspora of Fiji Indians to other countries. In Fiji, "Fiji Indian" is a specific ethnic group (people of Indian descent make up some 45% of Fiji's population). This category is for articles relating to the spread of Fiji Indians to other countries such as Australia and New Zealand. As such, the suggested names are highly inappropriate and discussion should be either to keep the current name, delete the category as a whole, or choose some other more appropriate name. Given the presence of similar categories nwith similar names (such as ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:African American diaspora and ‹The
templateCategory link is being
considered for merging.›Category:Black African diaspora) my !vote would be to keep.
Grutness...wha?01:10, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
More than that needs to be done, as I mentioned above - virtually everything in the
Category:Fiji Indian diaspora does not belong there! The article
Fiji Indian diaspora is about Fiji Indians who have emigrated so fits in there fine, but almost everything else needs to be cleared out. This is why I was initially happy with the suggested rename, because the tiny proportion of articles for which the current name actually applies to probably don't need a category of their own anyway and would belong equally as well in a category about Indo-Fijians.
TwoMightyGodsPersuasionNecessity01:38, 21 June 2008 (UTC)reply
comment OK. Create the proper categories, put articles into their proper categories and then see what is left in the way of categories to CfD
Hmains (
talk)
18:40, 22 June 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.