United States presidential nominating conventions by year
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 per
WP:OC#SMALL: small categories with little or no scope for expansion. Most of these categories will never contain more than two article: one each on the Democratic and Republican conventions. I have separated the categories into labelled groups according to size, so that editors participating in the discussion can more easily refer to a group of categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge all per nom. The convention categories are otherwise well organized, and the election categories are far from overpopulated. Which leaves this as unnecessary and a navigational hindrance. postdlf (talk)
18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American fashion photographers
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:Upmerge, as overly-specific subcategory, currently the only nationality-specific subcategory of
Category:Fashion photographers, and the only specialization-specific subcategory of
Category:American photographers (except for the arguably different erotic photographers category). As
Richard Avedon, the one article currently in this category illustrates, many (if not most) notable photographers do not work in only one genre or industry. Linking nationality with specialization then wrongly implies that people like Avedon are only photographers in fashion, or other such discrete fields, because there is no way to properly categorize every subject matter or field in which they worked. And it hinders navigation by removing a vertical structure; photographers presently can be found through either a selection of global genre/industry subcategories, or through nationality subcategories. postdlf (talk)
21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nominator. As well as sharing Postdlf's concerns, I would also add that the fashion business is international, and it is very common for those involved in it to work in different countries from wherever they are based, and also to move from country to country as their careers progress. Intersections do not always make good categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep and populate. A useful way of reducing the clutter in the two parent categories. By and large notable fashion photographers are not notable for anything else (Avedon being an exception).
Johnbod (
talk)
04:16, 5 January 2010 (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:Zeebo games
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:American sports columnists
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:Physics redirect
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: At the very least, this ought to be plural; also it seems like almost all categories containing redirects start with "Redirects...", so there might be a better title than that.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
14:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Also, this category might not ought to exist at all, which is why I listed it here and not as a speedy. I can't see many times we've categorized redirects by subject matter.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
14:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename - Renaming makes sense. I am all for renaming this category. Also, there a number of redirects, which are physics topics and physics related that I can add this to this category, not just new redirects. Thanks for your interest.
Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (
talk)
22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
There we go! I was looking under the "Redirects from..." tree, which is why I couldn't find any good places to put this. However, that category is put on talk pages, and this one was put on articles, so maybe just deleting this one would be better?
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
11:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. I see no benefit to readers of categorising redirects in this way. Why would a reader want to find a redirect? Category:Redirect-Class physics articles allows the Physics wikiproject to track redirects for maintenance purposes, which is fine ... but as Bradjamesbrown notes, it is applied to talk pages, so mergeing the two will have undesirable results. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete This was supposed to be a way of categorizing physics redirects in a quick fashion. There was no intent for a reader to look up a redirect page. However, I also use the redirect template on the talk page for
Category:Redirect-Class physics articles. So what I have attempted to do is apparently duplication. This category, as it stands, and any similar category reallly does not work and does not fit with Wikiproject physics. So I, as the author of this category, also reccomend delete.
Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (
talk)
14:03, 1 January 2010 (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:Former Rajya Sabha members
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.
No-one has quoted any policy to this effect. To remove a useful distinction by merging two categories is unhelpful to users and only theoretically helpful to editors. --
Sussexonian (
talk)
17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Thank you to Olfactory for the link to a long list of previous former/current discussions. Although mostly they are somewhat different to the parliamentarian case, I can see that most of the time the decision has been to merge. An unhelpful practice but seemingly a regular one in these parts.
Sussexonian (
talk)
00:08, 6 January 2010 (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:Former Members of Parliament from Tamil Nadu
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 merging per some unquoted precedent, and instead create "Current members" as a subcat of "Members". "Once a politician always a politician" (or actor, businessman etc) is a good rule of thumb, but in this case the list of members is precisely known, so there should be no difficulty in defining the category of current members, which is what users are likely to want and expect from the present title. --
Sussexonian (
talk)
17:35, 3 January 2010 (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:Former Members of Parliament from Maharashtra
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 merging per some unquoted precedent, and instead create "Current members" as a subcat of "Members". "Once a politician always a politician" (or actor, businessman etc) is a good rule of thumb, but in this case the list of members is precisely known, so there should be no difficulty in defining the category of current members, which is what users are likely to want and expect from the present title. --
Sussexonian (
talk)
17:35, 3 January 2010 (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:Sabaothic Cherubim albums
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.
That was generous. After that AFD, all the songs and album articles should be A9 speedied, since the artist's page no longer exists, and there's no significance to the albums. A9 the articles, and then let's C1 this category.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
14:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American political columnists
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:Upmerge, many columnists are political columnists, but most political writers do not only write columns. As is clear from how this category
has been applied, this unnecessary merger of the two ignores (or is unaware) that the individuals included are (
regrettably) political writers in other ways. It's not always a good idea to make categories more and more specific. postdlf (talk)
06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
merge per nom. I tried to explain this to
User:Levineps a little while back, that just because B is a subcategory of A doesn't necessarily mean that C is overcategorized if it is in both B and A. This is one of those instances where combining A and B into D just doesn't work if we remove C from A and B and put it in D.
Good Ol’factory(talk)11:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
See, you can be a political columnist and still be a political writer of non-column material (books, blogs, etc.). Thus, it's not necessarily correct to remove a person from the political writers category and place them in a political columnists subcategory, as was done
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)13:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
And you can write a political column in one place and a non-political column elsewhere (I can think of several examples in the UK), or you can write a more wide-ranging column which is sometimes political and sometimes literary/cultural (see e.g.
Fintan O'Toole). Not all people can be fitted neatly into a single square box. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Maureen Dowd is also a good example of that; while she primarily writes about politics and politicians, her columns also often focus on broader social/cultural commentary and pop culture figures. She's also published several books (e.g., Bushworld), so she is not just a political writer in columns. Incidentally, I don't see a good reason why she was removed from
Category:American journalists by the category creator
in a separate edit, unless he also thought her political columns were the sum total of her journalism, which her article makes clear is not the case as early as its intro paragraph. If you don't know anything about the article's subject matter, then you shouldn't be changing its categorization. postdlf (talk)
21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New York City lawyers
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:Upmerge, OCAT by overly-specific location. American lawyers are licensed at the state level. Currently only one article in this sole lawyers-by-city category. postdlf (talk)
06:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. It makes sense to categorise lawyers by the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice law, but sub-dividing by location within a state splits the categories by a characteristic not relevant to the practice of law. An I agree with Good Olfactory: the list of
category edits by Levineps seems to me to consist overwhelmingly of categories which would be deleted at CFD. This is almost like
Pastorwaynery. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
It will also be unclear with a category such as this whether it is for lawyers who live in NYC, or lawyers who practice law there. No doubt there are many lawyers whose practices are not in the same county as their residence. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Treen
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:Wars Named After How Long They Lasted
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 nom as categorisation by name. It might be acceptable as a list, though even a list would cause concerns about trivia (see e.g. the essay
Overlistification). However, if you can find suitable scholarly sources discussing the naming of wars by duration, and could thereby demonstrate that it was not just trivia, I reckon it would survive an AFD. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't know what standards there are for a disambiguation page, but since someone already created it, it seems the issue can be brought up on some other type of deletion page. Carlaude:Talk05:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete the category, support the disam page, which is I expect very useful for the numerically amnestiac. It would be better if it added the main participants.
Johnbod (
talk)
04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Guys who used to have long hair
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:Delete. (I want these to be a joke.) This is categorization by trivial and transitory feature of physical appearance; not to mention that the length of hair to qualify as "long" would be either subjectively determined or arbitrarily set. Can I add
Samson? He's missing and hell, he should be the main article.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete I clicked on the second one intending to send it here myself. BrownHairedGirl lays out three reasons to delete this- all valid. If this is a joke, it's the kind only the teller thinks is funny.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
14:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Nuclear power operators in the 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 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:Ronin Warriors 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.
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:Categories by manufacturer
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:Rename. Not sure what best to call this category, any suggestions? Further, is this a helpful addition to the category tree, or just redundant?
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Electricity finance experts
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 -- The presetn content is two Indian academics, apparently engaged in research into financing the electricity industry. This is too narrow a field to warrant a category. Already appropriately categorised.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
00:24, 4 January 2010 (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.
Fictional characters by creator
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:Delete as
overcategorisation. There are many ways of categorising fictional characters under
Category:Fictional characters, and I see no need for another. If desired, a list could readily be created in the article on each of the creators, but I think that there is a conceptual flaw in the category. Whilst characters in novels will usually have a single creator, these characters all seem to be from comic books, where there is commonly more than one artist involved, and others may develop on a start by someone else. An example of this is
Rocket Raccoon, which is included in
Category:Characters created by Al Milgrom even though
Rocket_Raccoon#Publication_history says that Milgrom did not draw the character until the third issue. Similar problems occur with characters in television or film, where the writing is often a collaborative process. When I found these categories, they were unparented, so I placed them in
Category:Fictional characters. If kept, a more appropriate category structure will be needed, possibly separating out characters by creator in different mediums. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
keep as part of a established category structure (pattern). Grouping fictional characters by their creator seems reasonable and of encyclopedic interest.
Hmains (
talk)
04:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - As both Hmains and Marcus point out, this is part of a wider categorization scheme. And it is one that is in line with normal comics attribution - characters creation is ascribed to the the writer and penciller, at the least, of the story where the character is introduced. That others have used the character, even if those stories "stick", is irrelevant. As for the the Rocket Raccoon example... that seems more a case of miscategorization. -
J Greb (
talk)
07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I have flagged a number of "comics characters created by.." problems with Marcus Brute before
[1] and would recommend these not be created until there are at least a dozen articles that could fit in there as in this specific area we have had uncategorised categories, nearly empty categories and a lot of redlinked categories getting created, which is unwise. Clearly Jack Kirby, Stan Lee's characters are legion and worthy of categorisation but there does seem to be rapidly diminishing returns to spread this idea too far as it leads to weak and only vaguely relevant categories. (
Emperor (
talk)
03:31, 4 January 2010 (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:Capestang
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:Delete per
WP:OC#SMALL. Two-article category with for a commune in rural France, with no sign of any possibilities for expansion. Both articles are already adequately categorised, so no need for merger. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. There's no need for categorization since these two articles are the only ones that come up when you write "Capestang" in the search field. -
Duribald (
talk)
19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply. It seems to me that the issue is not the number of inhabitants, but the number of articles on notable things therein which need to be categorised. If
Capestang had a few notable buildings, an article on a historic battle, a notable sport team or two, and a few notable citizens, then a category would well-justified even if it only had had only 300 inhabitants. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
True, but this appears to be a fairly unremarkable small town. The places that small that would have more than one of the things on your list are very rare indeed.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
You're right, Brad. Sorry for being a snippy pedant. --22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
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.
United States presidential nominating conventions by year
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 per
WP:OC#SMALL: small categories with little or no scope for expansion. Most of these categories will never contain more than two article: one each on the Democratic and Republican conventions. I have separated the categories into labelled groups according to size, so that editors participating in the discussion can more easily refer to a group of categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge all per nom. The convention categories are otherwise well organized, and the election categories are far from overpopulated. Which leaves this as unnecessary and a navigational hindrance. postdlf (talk)
18:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American fashion photographers
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:Upmerge, as overly-specific subcategory, currently the only nationality-specific subcategory of
Category:Fashion photographers, and the only specialization-specific subcategory of
Category:American photographers (except for the arguably different erotic photographers category). As
Richard Avedon, the one article currently in this category illustrates, many (if not most) notable photographers do not work in only one genre or industry. Linking nationality with specialization then wrongly implies that people like Avedon are only photographers in fashion, or other such discrete fields, because there is no way to properly categorize every subject matter or field in which they worked. And it hinders navigation by removing a vertical structure; photographers presently can be found through either a selection of global genre/industry subcategories, or through nationality subcategories. postdlf (talk)
21:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Upmerge per nominator. As well as sharing Postdlf's concerns, I would also add that the fashion business is international, and it is very common for those involved in it to work in different countries from wherever they are based, and also to move from country to country as their careers progress. Intersections do not always make good categories. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
23:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep and populate. A useful way of reducing the clutter in the two parent categories. By and large notable fashion photographers are not notable for anything else (Avedon being an exception).
Johnbod (
talk)
04:16, 5 January 2010 (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:Zeebo games
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:American sports columnists
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:Physics redirect
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: At the very least, this ought to be plural; also it seems like almost all categories containing redirects start with "Redirects...", so there might be a better title than that.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
14:24, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Also, this category might not ought to exist at all, which is why I listed it here and not as a speedy. I can't see many times we've categorized redirects by subject matter.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
14:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename - Renaming makes sense. I am all for renaming this category. Also, there a number of redirects, which are physics topics and physics related that I can add this to this category, not just new redirects. Thanks for your interest.
Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (
talk)
22:06, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
There we go! I was looking under the "Redirects from..." tree, which is why I couldn't find any good places to put this. However, that category is put on talk pages, and this one was put on articles, so maybe just deleting this one would be better?
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
11:28, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Strong delete. I see no benefit to readers of categorising redirects in this way. Why would a reader want to find a redirect? Category:Redirect-Class physics articles allows the Physics wikiproject to track redirects for maintenance purposes, which is fine ... but as Bradjamesbrown notes, it is applied to talk pages, so mergeing the two will have undesirable results. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete This was supposed to be a way of categorizing physics redirects in a quick fashion. There was no intent for a reader to look up a redirect page. However, I also use the redirect template on the talk page for
Category:Redirect-Class physics articles. So what I have attempted to do is apparently duplication. This category, as it stands, and any similar category reallly does not work and does not fit with Wikiproject physics. So I, as the author of this category, also reccomend delete.
Steve Quinn (formerly Ti-30X) (
talk)
14:03, 1 January 2010 (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:Former Rajya Sabha members
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.
No-one has quoted any policy to this effect. To remove a useful distinction by merging two categories is unhelpful to users and only theoretically helpful to editors. --
Sussexonian (
talk)
17:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)reply
Thank you to Olfactory for the link to a long list of previous former/current discussions. Although mostly they are somewhat different to the parliamentarian case, I can see that most of the time the decision has been to merge. An unhelpful practice but seemingly a regular one in these parts.
Sussexonian (
talk)
00:08, 6 January 2010 (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:Former Members of Parliament from Tamil Nadu
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 merging per some unquoted precedent, and instead create "Current members" as a subcat of "Members". "Once a politician always a politician" (or actor, businessman etc) is a good rule of thumb, but in this case the list of members is precisely known, so there should be no difficulty in defining the category of current members, which is what users are likely to want and expect from the present title. --
Sussexonian (
talk)
17:35, 3 January 2010 (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:Former Members of Parliament from Maharashtra
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 merging per some unquoted precedent, and instead create "Current members" as a subcat of "Members". "Once a politician always a politician" (or actor, businessman etc) is a good rule of thumb, but in this case the list of members is precisely known, so there should be no difficulty in defining the category of current members, which is what users are likely to want and expect from the present title. --
Sussexonian (
talk)
17:35, 3 January 2010 (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:Sabaothic Cherubim albums
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.
That was generous. After that AFD, all the songs and album articles should be A9 speedied, since the artist's page no longer exists, and there's no significance to the albums. A9 the articles, and then let's C1 this category.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
14:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:American political columnists
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:Upmerge, many columnists are political columnists, but most political writers do not only write columns. As is clear from how this category
has been applied, this unnecessary merger of the two ignores (or is unaware) that the individuals included are (
regrettably) political writers in other ways. It's not always a good idea to make categories more and more specific. postdlf (talk)
06:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
merge per nom. I tried to explain this to
User:Levineps a little while back, that just because B is a subcategory of A doesn't necessarily mean that C is overcategorized if it is in both B and A. This is one of those instances where combining A and B into D just doesn't work if we remove C from A and B and put it in D.
Good Ol’factory(talk)11:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
See, you can be a political columnist and still be a political writer of non-column material (books, blogs, etc.). Thus, it's not necessarily correct to remove a person from the political writers category and place them in a political columnists subcategory, as was done
here.
Good Ol’factory(talk)13:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
And you can write a political column in one place and a non-political column elsewhere (I can think of several examples in the UK), or you can write a more wide-ranging column which is sometimes political and sometimes literary/cultural (see e.g.
Fintan O'Toole). Not all people can be fitted neatly into a single square box. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Maureen Dowd is also a good example of that; while she primarily writes about politics and politicians, her columns also often focus on broader social/cultural commentary and pop culture figures. She's also published several books (e.g., Bushworld), so she is not just a political writer in columns. Incidentally, I don't see a good reason why she was removed from
Category:American journalists by the category creator
in a separate edit, unless he also thought her political columns were the sum total of her journalism, which her article makes clear is not the case as early as its intro paragraph. If you don't know anything about the article's subject matter, then you shouldn't be changing its categorization. postdlf (talk)
21:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:New York City lawyers
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:Upmerge, OCAT by overly-specific location. American lawyers are licensed at the state level. Currently only one article in this sole lawyers-by-city category. postdlf (talk)
06:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. It makes sense to categorise lawyers by the jurisdiction in which they are licensed to practice law, but sub-dividing by location within a state splits the categories by a characteristic not relevant to the practice of law. An I agree with Good Olfactory: the list of
category edits by Levineps seems to me to consist overwhelmingly of categories which would be deleted at CFD. This is almost like
Pastorwaynery. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
It will also be unclear with a category such as this whether it is for lawyers who live in NYC, or lawyers who practice law there. No doubt there are many lawyers whose practices are not in the same county as their residence. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Treen
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:Wars Named After How Long They Lasted
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 nom as categorisation by name. It might be acceptable as a list, though even a list would cause concerns about trivia (see e.g. the essay
Overlistification). However, if you can find suitable scholarly sources discussing the naming of wars by duration, and could thereby demonstrate that it was not just trivia, I reckon it would survive an AFD. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
12:47, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I don't know what standards there are for a disambiguation page, but since someone already created it, it seems the issue can be brought up on some other type of deletion page. Carlaude:Talk05:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete the category, support the disam page, which is I expect very useful for the numerically amnestiac. It would be better if it added the main participants.
Johnbod (
talk)
04:00, 31 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Guys who used to have long hair
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:Delete. (I want these to be a joke.) This is categorization by trivial and transitory feature of physical appearance; not to mention that the length of hair to qualify as "long" would be either subjectively determined or arbitrarily set. Can I add
Samson? He's missing and hell, he should be the main article.
Good Ol’factory(talk)05:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete I clicked on the second one intending to send it here myself. BrownHairedGirl lays out three reasons to delete this- all valid. If this is a joke, it's the kind only the teller thinks is funny.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
14:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Nuclear power operators in the 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 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:Ronin Warriors 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.
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:Categories by manufacturer
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:Rename. Not sure what best to call this category, any suggestions? Further, is this a helpful addition to the category tree, or just redundant?
MatthewVanitas (
talk)
03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Electricity finance experts
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 -- The presetn content is two Indian academics, apparently engaged in research into financing the electricity industry. This is too narrow a field to warrant a category. Already appropriately categorised.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
00:24, 4 January 2010 (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.
Fictional characters by creator
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:Delete as
overcategorisation. There are many ways of categorising fictional characters under
Category:Fictional characters, and I see no need for another. If desired, a list could readily be created in the article on each of the creators, but I think that there is a conceptual flaw in the category. Whilst characters in novels will usually have a single creator, these characters all seem to be from comic books, where there is commonly more than one artist involved, and others may develop on a start by someone else. An example of this is
Rocket Raccoon, which is included in
Category:Characters created by Al Milgrom even though
Rocket_Raccoon#Publication_history says that Milgrom did not draw the character until the third issue. Similar problems occur with characters in television or film, where the writing is often a collaborative process. When I found these categories, they were unparented, so I placed them in
Category:Fictional characters. If kept, a more appropriate category structure will be needed, possibly separating out characters by creator in different mediums. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
keep as part of a established category structure (pattern). Grouping fictional characters by their creator seems reasonable and of encyclopedic interest.
Hmains (
talk)
04:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - As both Hmains and Marcus point out, this is part of a wider categorization scheme. And it is one that is in line with normal comics attribution - characters creation is ascribed to the the writer and penciller, at the least, of the story where the character is introduced. That others have used the character, even if those stories "stick", is irrelevant. As for the the Rocket Raccoon example... that seems more a case of miscategorization. -
J Greb (
talk)
07:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I have flagged a number of "comics characters created by.." problems with Marcus Brute before
[1] and would recommend these not be created until there are at least a dozen articles that could fit in there as in this specific area we have had uncategorised categories, nearly empty categories and a lot of redlinked categories getting created, which is unwise. Clearly Jack Kirby, Stan Lee's characters are legion and worthy of categorisation but there does seem to be rapidly diminishing returns to spread this idea too far as it leads to weak and only vaguely relevant categories. (
Emperor (
talk)
03:31, 4 January 2010 (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:Capestang
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:Delete per
WP:OC#SMALL. Two-article category with for a commune in rural France, with no sign of any possibilities for expansion. Both articles are already adequately categorised, so no need for merger. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nomination. There's no need for categorization since these two articles are the only ones that come up when you write "Capestang" in the search field. -
Duribald (
talk)
19:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply. It seems to me that the issue is not the number of inhabitants, but the number of articles on notable things therein which need to be categorised. If
Capestang had a few notable buildings, an article on a historic battle, a notable sport team or two, and a few notable citizens, then a category would well-justified even if it only had had only 300 inhabitants. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
True, but this appears to be a fairly unremarkable small town. The places that small that would have more than one of the things on your list are very rare indeed.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
20:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)reply
You're right, Brad. Sorry for being a snippy pedant. --22:32, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
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.