Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 11 November 13 >

November 12

Category:World War II patrol craft of 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 result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:World War II patrol craft of the United States to Category:World War II patrol vessels of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two categories cover essentially the same types of vessels, but the proposed target has a more standard name, per one of its parent categories, Category:World War II patrol vessels. — Bellhalla ( talk) 23:25, 12 November 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:Hundreds

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Hundreds to Category:Hundreds (county subdivision). -- Xdamr talk 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Hundreds to Category:Hundreds (country subdivision)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the lead article and remove the ambiguity from the name. When I saw this I wondered if we have a category to discuss hundred dollar bills. Then I wondered if we have a category that was grouping by like names. Well it turned out to be something else entirely. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
But see the main article. We are not just talking about England here, although I think in fact the same is true of Scandinavia, Australia etc. Johnbod ( talk) 14:43, 15 November 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.

Trinidad and Tobago

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge:
Rename
-- Xdamr talk 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted for further comment from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24#Trinidad and Tobago -- Xdamr talk 21:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian people to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people
Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian sportspeople to Category:Trinidad and Tobago sportspeople
Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian musicians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago musicians
Propose renaming Category:Trinidadian albums to Category:Trinidad and Tobago albums
Propose renaming Category:Trinidadian styles of music to Category:Trinidad and Tobago styles of music
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming for the country of Trinidad and Tobago, per the parent categories Category:Trinidad and Tobago people and Category:Trinidad and Tobago music. Tassedethe ( talk) 18:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Support the renamings, oppose the mergings (but see suggested alternative). I see no reason why people from Tobago shouldn't have their own category as a subcategory of the T&T ones - it's no more bizarre than, say, having ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:People from Hawaii, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:People from Tasmania or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:People from Corsica. Their size, and the analogous category names do, however, suggest that some renaming and upmerging may be in order:

Rename Category:Tobagonian people to Category:People from Tobago
Upmerge Category:Tobagonian sportspeople to Category:Trinidad and Tobago sportspeople and Category:People from Tobago
Upmerge Category:Tobagonian musicians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago musicians and Category:People from Tobago

Grutness... wha? 23:49, 24 October 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:Chuvashs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Chuvashs to Category:Chuvash people
Nominator's rationale: Both of these categories list people of Chuvash ethnic background. Ali Savatar 21:35, 12 November 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:Chuvashian poets

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Chuvashian poets to Category:Chuvash poets
Nominator's rationale: Right now the category sounds as if it refers to geographical location ( Chuvashia) rather than language or ethnicity ( Chuvash). Ali Savatar 20:40, 12 November 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:Climate crisis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Climate crisis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No description, and, as far as I can tell, only used by the 99. anon, so there's no one to ask about a potential characterization. Perhaps merge into Category:Climate change, if not already in Category:Global warming or Category:Effects of global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
delete not useful William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
delete Weasel-worded, poorly-defined, and included articles are generally included in other relevant categories. Awickert ( talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. Category:Climate change and the other ones brought up by nominator are the correct places for this. This one is redundant. Anti-Nationalist ( talk) 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete Sensationalist and redundant. -- PLUMBAGO 08:15, 13 November 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:United States Air Force ships

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:United States Air Force ships to Category:Ships of the United States Air Force
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the naming style of other ships by "navy" (This category was itself not properly categorized, so I missed it when making a recent, related nomination.) — Bellhalla ( talk) 13:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Support rename for consistency. Mjroots ( talk) 13:34, 12 November 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:One Night Stand

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:WWE Extreme Rules. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:One Night Stand to Category:Extreme Rules
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the current title of parent article WWE Extreme Rules which was recently moved from WWE One Night Stand.    Θaks ter   12:43, 12 November 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:Public benefit corporations in Pennsylvania

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Public benefit corporations in Pennsylvania ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty category. These organizations don't exist. In Pennsylvania, Public benefit corporations are called Municipal authority (Pennsylvania). There's already a category for that: Category:Municipal authorities in Pennsylvania. Blargh29 ( talk) 06:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete empty category that appears to serve no purpose in aiding navigation across articles. Alansohn ( talk) 20:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It appears that you just emptied it, for instance with this edit. I have no opinion on the renaming, but this wasn't the appropriate way to do it. -- NE2 11:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I emptied it, because SEPTA is not a public benefit corporation. That category was wrong. Like I said in my nomination: there are no public benefit corporations in Pennsylvania. Only municipal authorities. I explained that when I removed that category ("SEPTA is a municipal authority, not public benefit corporaton"). Also, I added a cite for that fact. So, yeah, it was totally appropriate. Are we supposed to leave factually incorrect categories floating around while we wait for CFD?-- Blargh29 ( talk) 23:30, 15 November 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:Ballhawk

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Ballhawk ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Ballhawks or delete. I'm not really sure what to propose to do with this. There is no article Ballhawk, so it seems having a category could be premature. On the other hand, this seems to be the main claim to notability of John Witt. At the same time, it's probably unlikely that there are any other articles to add to the category at this time. If kept, it needs to be renamed to pluralize it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the category has no corresponding article and does not seem to be expanding in the immediate future based on my search of sources. As there is only one article, this is also not much of an aid to navigation. This category should be recreated once the necessary criteria are met without the usual and customary prejudice. Alansohn ( talk) 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Don't know what this is, but a search on Wikipedia did not reveal anything that could justify a category. Debresser ( talk) 20:11, 14 November 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:Bosnian heavy metal musical groups

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Bosnian heavy metal musical groups to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina heavy metal musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose using standard adjective for categories relating to B-H. If renamed it will match parent ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina musical groups. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 12 November 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:AIADMK politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:AIADMK politicians to Category:All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match main article All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 12 November 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:Suicide sites

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. The keep arguments seem to say that we need reliable sources for inclusion. Well, we can't do that with categories. You can do that in a list which already exists. So this is basically a listify close to the existing list. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Suicide sites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It's probably trite to say that suicide can happen anywhere. This category is probably intended to groups places where suicides are "common". The problem is, how common does suicide need to be at the site to be included? What sort of criterion could avoid being arbitrary? I think this is much better suited to this list, where we don't have to worry about setting an arbitrary cut-off. Note that some of the articles now included don't even mention the fact that suicides have taken place there, so it's probably not defining in these cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
extended discussion
    • So if we can find a reliable source that states that one suicide—a particular suicide—has taken place somewhere, would it be included? If not, how about two? Where do we draw the line? If we draw the line at one vs. zero, that hardly captures a defining characteristic of the place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
      • There is no numeric cutoff. The standard is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, as I have supplied above for several of the category's entries from a rather cursory search in one source. Do you have any meaningful challenge to these sources, all of which address the suicide problem at these sites as the primary subject of the articles? How tall does a building have to be to merit inclusion in Category:Skyscrapers in Paris? Just how much LGBT content is necessary to be included in Category:LGBT-related television episodes. As with all of Wikipedia, reliable and verifiable sources are the standard, not any arbitrary cutoff. Alansohn ( talk) 21:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
        • If one is enough as long as it is in reliable sources, I would say this is then capturing a non-defining feature of the places. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
          • All of the articles describe all of these sites as the location of major clusters of suicides, not just one. All of the articles that I've cited above define these places as suicide sites and describe efforts to help prevent further recurrences. I do appreciate the efforts at crafting a straw man, but there is no numeric cutoff, not 1 or 10 or 100 suicides. The standard is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources and all of these sources define these places as suicide sites. Perhaps you ought to look at the sources rather than try to insist that one suicide qualifies an article for inclusion. How tall does a building have to be to merit inclusion in Category:Skyscrapers in Paris? Just how much LGBT content is necessary to be included in Category:LGBT-related television episodes. As with all of Wikipedia, reliable and verifiable sources are the standard, not any arbitrary numeric cutoff. Alansohn ( talk) 22:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
            • I'm not referring to your sources. I'm referring to a hypothetical situation, which I believe is in fact in play for some of the current contents of the category. Sometimes you have to go beyond thinking about the blazingly obvious. You seem to have misunderstood me: I'm not insisting that one suicide qualifies—I was asking you if you thought it did. I don't think it does. And that leads to the problem of where to place the cut-off; therefore WP:OC#ARBITRARY is relevant. But if someone says one is enough (which is reasonable under your criteria, because it's simple to point to reliable sources that say a specific suicide happened in a specific place), that raises the question as whether this would then be defining for the place. It's a two-pronged argument; possibly difficult to understand because it depends on what pre-conceptions you adopt. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
                • How tall does a building have to be to be in Category:Skyscrapers in Paris? Is 300 feet in, but 299 out? If a one-storey building is excluded doesn't that gut this whole category? If you pick any cutoff, your argument is that the category is arbitrary and therefor must be deleted. How many shots must you take at a hoop to be eligible for Category:American basketball players? What percentage of African ancestry must one have to be in Category:African Americans? Do Barack Obama or Halle Berry belong in the category based on their ancestry? Is there a one-drop rule or is there a defined percentage of African-ness, say 50%? I have no difficulty understanding your argument, I'm just not sure that you realize that you are pursuing an approach that would have thosuands upon thousands of categories deleted, with no particular relevance to this one. Wikipedia depends on reliable and verifiable sources and I hope that you're not arguing that the Golden Gate Bridge, Sunshine Skyway Bridge, and Tappan Zee Bridge don't belong in this category based on the sources provided. If you have a question about a site where there was a single suicide belonging in this category, the place to discuss that is on the specific article's talk page. WP:OC#ARBITRARY is not relevant for this category or any of the categories I've discussed here. My only preconception is that the standard is reliable and verifiable sources defining the location as a suicide site and I am utterly unconcerned about your ludicrous hypothetical case as a rationalization to delete the entire category. It's a rather simple argument that can't possibly be too difficult to understand. Alansohn ( talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • In the collapsed discussion above, Alansohn says "All of the articles describe all of these sites as the location of major clusters of suicides, not just one." I assume that Alansohn wasn't referring to the articles in the category, but to the newspaper articles he was using as sources. I say this because the articles in the category do not all describe the sites as the location of major clusters of suicides. Vienna U-Bahn has no mention at all of suicide, apart from the category, and on checking the history back to April 2009, has never had any mention of suicide in the article (a suicide-related category was added in this edit by an anon in April 2009). White cliffs of Dover mentions the fictional Earl of Gloucester in "King Lear" intending to commit suicide at Dover, but he does not. Suicide is otherwise not mentioned in the article, and hasn't since at least April 2009 when a suicide-related category was added by the same anon in this edit. Bencherlite Talk 09:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • My mention of "All of the articles describe all of these sites as the location of major clusters of suicides" is to the sources I had initially identified. As with all categories, some articles have been improperly categorized, an issue that can be readily addressed by removing the category from articles where there are no sources to support the claim. Alansohn ( talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I have cleaned up the category and removed it from those articles where the site is not described as a location of a suicide cluster, which included the Hollywood Sign and the Vienna U-Bahn. I have also removed the category from the White Cliffs of Dover, an article where suicide is only tangentially mentioned, and which may well have been included because of Beachy Head, one of the UK's most notorious suicide sites. The remaining articles provide descriptions to document their status as a suicide site, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn ( talk) 00:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete How many places are notable for this? Because suicides happen at millions of locations. Debresser ( talk) 20:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Dozens. Of all the millions of places where people have ever committed suicide, these are all described in the articles themselves and backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources as the site of multiple suicides over an ongoing period of years. Some of these sites have been the location of several hundred suicides over a period of decades, numbering to as many as several dozen per year. There are millions of people who have ever played basketball, but very few of them are included in Category:Basketball players. Just as we include in that category only those people defined for playing basketball, this category includes those places that are defined by being sites of suicides. Alansohn ( talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Suicide clusters are very rare, restricted to a few bridges or tall buildings. So long as reliable sources name them ofr clusters, I don't see a problem. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a topic which is not a suitable basis for categorization, for one of two reasons:
    • If we attempt to impose an objective and verifiable inclusion standard (i.e., a minimum threshold), then that standard will inevitably be arbitrary. Should we consider the number of actual suicides, the number of suicides per year (or over a period of X years), the number of suicides per 100,000 population, the number of suicides per 100,000 population per year, the number of suicides per m2 ... a combination of these, all of these, none of these? While any of these choices can form the basis of a verifiable category, the actual choice of any one of them ultimately would be completely arbitrary.
    • If we defer to reliable sources, then we avoid the issue of arbitrariness but encounter problems of subjectivity and comparability. A reporter in a town of 1,000 people could describe a site that is the location of 5 suicides over a period of 5 years as a "suicide site" just as a reporter in a city of 1,000,000 people could describe a site that is the location of 10 suicides over a period of 5 years as a "suicide site". However, the incidence of suicide at the two sites is hardly comparable (1 suicide per 1,000 people per year versus 1 suicide per 500,000 people per year). If a single source is enough to place an article into this category, then it loses its defining-ness. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 09:17, 22 November 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_12&oldid=1144514420"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 11 November 13 >

November 12

Category:World War II patrol craft of 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 result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:World War II patrol craft of the United States to Category:World War II patrol vessels of the United States
Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two categories cover essentially the same types of vessels, but the proposed target has a more standard name, per one of its parent categories, Category:World War II patrol vessels. — Bellhalla ( talk) 23:25, 12 November 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:Hundreds

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Hundreds to Category:Hundreds (county subdivision). -- Xdamr talk 20:46, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Hundreds to Category:Hundreds (country subdivision)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to match the lead article and remove the ambiguity from the name. When I saw this I wondered if we have a category to discuss hundred dollar bills. Then I wondered if we have a category that was grouping by like names. Well it turned out to be something else entirely. Vegaswikian ( talk) 23:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
But see the main article. We are not just talking about England here, although I think in fact the same is true of Scandinavia, Australia etc. Johnbod ( talk) 14:43, 15 November 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.

Trinidad and Tobago

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge:
Rename
-- Xdamr talk 19:05, 24 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Relisted for further comment from Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 24#Trinidad and Tobago -- Xdamr talk 21:41, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply

Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian people to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people
Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian sportspeople to Category:Trinidad and Tobago sportspeople
Suggest merging Category:Tobagonian musicians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago musicians
Propose renaming Category:Trinidadian albums to Category:Trinidad and Tobago albums
Propose renaming Category:Trinidadian styles of music to Category:Trinidad and Tobago styles of music
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming for the country of Trinidad and Tobago, per the parent categories Category:Trinidad and Tobago people and Category:Trinidad and Tobago music. Tassedethe ( talk) 18:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Support the renamings, oppose the mergings (but see suggested alternative). I see no reason why people from Tobago shouldn't have their own category as a subcategory of the T&T ones - it's no more bizarre than, say, having ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:People from Hawaii, ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:People from Tasmania or ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.›  Category:People from Corsica. Their size, and the analogous category names do, however, suggest that some renaming and upmerging may be in order:

Rename Category:Tobagonian people to Category:People from Tobago
Upmerge Category:Tobagonian sportspeople to Category:Trinidad and Tobago sportspeople and Category:People from Tobago
Upmerge Category:Tobagonian musicians to Category:Trinidad and Tobago musicians and Category:People from Tobago

Grutness... wha? 23:49, 24 October 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:Chuvashs

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Chuvashs to Category:Chuvash people
Nominator's rationale: Both of these categories list people of Chuvash ethnic background. Ali Savatar 21:35, 12 November 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:Chuvashian poets

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Chuvashian poets to Category:Chuvash poets
Nominator's rationale: Right now the category sounds as if it refers to geographical location ( Chuvashia) rather than language or ethnicity ( Chuvash). Ali Savatar 20:40, 12 November 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:Climate crisis

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Climate crisis ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No description, and, as far as I can tell, only used by the 99. anon, so there's no one to ask about a potential characterization. Perhaps merge into Category:Climate change, if not already in Category:Global warming or Category:Effects of global warming. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
delete not useful William M. Connolley ( talk) 18:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
delete Weasel-worded, poorly-defined, and included articles are generally included in other relevant categories. Awickert ( talk) 19:04, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete. Category:Climate change and the other ones brought up by nominator are the correct places for this. This one is redundant. Anti-Nationalist ( talk) 19:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Delete Sensationalist and redundant. -- PLUMBAGO 08:15, 13 November 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:United States Air Force ships

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:United States Air Force ships to Category:Ships of the United States Air Force
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the naming style of other ships by "navy" (This category was itself not properly categorized, so I missed it when making a recent, related nomination.) — Bellhalla ( talk) 13:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Support rename for consistency. Mjroots ( talk) 13:34, 12 November 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:One Night Stand

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:WWE Extreme Rules. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:One Night Stand to Category:Extreme Rules
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the current title of parent article WWE Extreme Rules which was recently moved from WWE One Night Stand.    Θaks ter   12:43, 12 November 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:Public benefit corporations in Pennsylvania

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Public benefit corporations in Pennsylvania ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Empty category. These organizations don't exist. In Pennsylvania, Public benefit corporations are called Municipal authority (Pennsylvania). There's already a category for that: Category:Municipal authorities in Pennsylvania. Blargh29 ( talk) 06:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete empty category that appears to serve no purpose in aiding navigation across articles. Alansohn ( talk) 20:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • It appears that you just emptied it, for instance with this edit. I have no opinion on the renaming, but this wasn't the appropriate way to do it. -- NE2 11:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I emptied it, because SEPTA is not a public benefit corporation. That category was wrong. Like I said in my nomination: there are no public benefit corporations in Pennsylvania. Only municipal authorities. I explained that when I removed that category ("SEPTA is a municipal authority, not public benefit corporaton"). Also, I added a cite for that fact. So, yeah, it was totally appropriate. Are we supposed to leave factually incorrect categories floating around while we wait for CFD?-- Blargh29 ( talk) 23:30, 15 November 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:Ballhawk

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Ballhawk ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Rename to Category:Ballhawks or delete. I'm not really sure what to propose to do with this. There is no article Ballhawk, so it seems having a category could be premature. On the other hand, this seems to be the main claim to notability of John Witt. At the same time, it's probably unlikely that there are any other articles to add to the category at this time. If kept, it needs to be renamed to pluralize it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete the category has no corresponding article and does not seem to be expanding in the immediate future based on my search of sources. As there is only one article, this is also not much of an aid to navigation. This category should be recreated once the necessary criteria are met without the usual and customary prejudice. Alansohn ( talk) 20:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Don't know what this is, but a search on Wikipedia did not reveal anything that could justify a category. Debresser ( talk) 20:11, 14 November 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:Bosnian heavy metal musical groups

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Bosnian heavy metal musical groups to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina heavy metal musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose using standard adjective for categories relating to B-H. If renamed it will match parent ‹The template Cat is being considered for merging.›  Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina musical groups. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 12 November 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:AIADMK politicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ xplicit 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:AIADMK politicians to Category:All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam politicians
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation to match main article All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:48, 12 November 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:Suicide sites

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. The keep arguments seem to say that we need reliable sources for inclusion. Well, we can't do that with categories. You can do that in a list which already exists. So this is basically a listify close to the existing list. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:32, 22 November 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Suicide sites ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. It's probably trite to say that suicide can happen anywhere. This category is probably intended to groups places where suicides are "common". The problem is, how common does suicide need to be at the site to be included? What sort of criterion could avoid being arbitrary? I think this is much better suited to this list, where we don't have to worry about setting an arbitrary cut-off. Note that some of the articles now included don't even mention the fact that suicides have taken place there, so it's probably not defining in these cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:40, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
extended discussion
    • So if we can find a reliable source that states that one suicide—a particular suicide—has taken place somewhere, would it be included? If not, how about two? Where do we draw the line? If we draw the line at one vs. zero, that hardly captures a defining characteristic of the place. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:31, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
      • There is no numeric cutoff. The standard is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources, as I have supplied above for several of the category's entries from a rather cursory search in one source. Do you have any meaningful challenge to these sources, all of which address the suicide problem at these sites as the primary subject of the articles? How tall does a building have to be to merit inclusion in Category:Skyscrapers in Paris? Just how much LGBT content is necessary to be included in Category:LGBT-related television episodes. As with all of Wikipedia, reliable and verifiable sources are the standard, not any arbitrary cutoff. Alansohn ( talk) 21:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
        • If one is enough as long as it is in reliable sources, I would say this is then capturing a non-defining feature of the places. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
          • All of the articles describe all of these sites as the location of major clusters of suicides, not just one. All of the articles that I've cited above define these places as suicide sites and describe efforts to help prevent further recurrences. I do appreciate the efforts at crafting a straw man, but there is no numeric cutoff, not 1 or 10 or 100 suicides. The standard is descriptions in reliable and verifiable sources and all of these sources define these places as suicide sites. Perhaps you ought to look at the sources rather than try to insist that one suicide qualifies an article for inclusion. How tall does a building have to be to merit inclusion in Category:Skyscrapers in Paris? Just how much LGBT content is necessary to be included in Category:LGBT-related television episodes. As with all of Wikipedia, reliable and verifiable sources are the standard, not any arbitrary numeric cutoff. Alansohn ( talk) 22:23, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
            • I'm not referring to your sources. I'm referring to a hypothetical situation, which I believe is in fact in play for some of the current contents of the category. Sometimes you have to go beyond thinking about the blazingly obvious. You seem to have misunderstood me: I'm not insisting that one suicide qualifies—I was asking you if you thought it did. I don't think it does. And that leads to the problem of where to place the cut-off; therefore WP:OC#ARBITRARY is relevant. But if someone says one is enough (which is reasonable under your criteria, because it's simple to point to reliable sources that say a specific suicide happened in a specific place), that raises the question as whether this would then be defining for the place. It's a two-pronged argument; possibly difficult to understand because it depends on what pre-conceptions you adopt. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
                • How tall does a building have to be to be in Category:Skyscrapers in Paris? Is 300 feet in, but 299 out? If a one-storey building is excluded doesn't that gut this whole category? If you pick any cutoff, your argument is that the category is arbitrary and therefor must be deleted. How many shots must you take at a hoop to be eligible for Category:American basketball players? What percentage of African ancestry must one have to be in Category:African Americans? Do Barack Obama or Halle Berry belong in the category based on their ancestry? Is there a one-drop rule or is there a defined percentage of African-ness, say 50%? I have no difficulty understanding your argument, I'm just not sure that you realize that you are pursuing an approach that would have thosuands upon thousands of categories deleted, with no particular relevance to this one. Wikipedia depends on reliable and verifiable sources and I hope that you're not arguing that the Golden Gate Bridge, Sunshine Skyway Bridge, and Tappan Zee Bridge don't belong in this category based on the sources provided. If you have a question about a site where there was a single suicide belonging in this category, the place to discuss that is on the specific article's talk page. WP:OC#ARBITRARY is not relevant for this category or any of the categories I've discussed here. My only preconception is that the standard is reliable and verifiable sources defining the location as a suicide site and I am utterly unconcerned about your ludicrous hypothetical case as a rationalization to delete the entire category. It's a rather simple argument that can't possibly be too difficult to understand. Alansohn ( talk) 22:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • In the collapsed discussion above, Alansohn says "All of the articles describe all of these sites as the location of major clusters of suicides, not just one." I assume that Alansohn wasn't referring to the articles in the category, but to the newspaper articles he was using as sources. I say this because the articles in the category do not all describe the sites as the location of major clusters of suicides. Vienna U-Bahn has no mention at all of suicide, apart from the category, and on checking the history back to April 2009, has never had any mention of suicide in the article (a suicide-related category was added in this edit by an anon in April 2009). White cliffs of Dover mentions the fictional Earl of Gloucester in "King Lear" intending to commit suicide at Dover, but he does not. Suicide is otherwise not mentioned in the article, and hasn't since at least April 2009 when a suicide-related category was added by the same anon in this edit. Bencherlite Talk 09:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • My mention of "All of the articles describe all of these sites as the location of major clusters of suicides" is to the sources I had initially identified. As with all categories, some articles have been improperly categorized, an issue that can be readily addressed by removing the category from articles where there are no sources to support the claim. Alansohn ( talk) 00:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I have cleaned up the category and removed it from those articles where the site is not described as a location of a suicide cluster, which included the Hollywood Sign and the Vienna U-Bahn. I have also removed the category from the White Cliffs of Dover, an article where suicide is only tangentially mentioned, and which may well have been included because of Beachy Head, one of the UK's most notorious suicide sites. The remaining articles provide descriptions to document their status as a suicide site, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn ( talk) 00:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete How many places are notable for this? Because suicides happen at millions of locations. Debresser ( talk) 20:08, 14 November 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Dozens. Of all the millions of places where people have ever committed suicide, these are all described in the articles themselves and backed by multiple reliable and verifiable sources as the site of multiple suicides over an ongoing period of years. Some of these sites have been the location of several hundred suicides over a period of decades, numbering to as many as several dozen per year. There are millions of people who have ever played basketball, but very few of them are included in Category:Basketball players. Just as we include in that category only those people defined for playing basketball, this category includes those places that are defined by being sites of suicides. Alansohn ( talk) 00:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Suicide clusters are very rare, restricted to a few bridges or tall buildings. So long as reliable sources name them ofr clusters, I don't see a problem. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as a topic which is not a suitable basis for categorization, for one of two reasons:
    • If we attempt to impose an objective and verifiable inclusion standard (i.e., a minimum threshold), then that standard will inevitably be arbitrary. Should we consider the number of actual suicides, the number of suicides per year (or over a period of X years), the number of suicides per 100,000 population, the number of suicides per 100,000 population per year, the number of suicides per m2 ... a combination of these, all of these, none of these? While any of these choices can form the basis of a verifiable category, the actual choice of any one of them ultimately would be completely arbitrary.
    • If we defer to reliable sources, then we avoid the issue of arbitrariness but encounter problems of subjectivity and comparability. A reporter in a town of 1,000 people could describe a site that is the location of 5 suicides over a period of 5 years as a "suicide site" just as a reporter in a city of 1,000,000 people could describe a site that is the location of 10 suicides over a period of 5 years as a "suicide site". However, the incidence of suicide at the two sites is hardly comparable (1 suicide per 1,000 people per year versus 1 suicide per 500,000 people per year). If a single source is enough to place an article into this category, then it loses its defining-ness. – BLACK FALCON ( TALK) 09:17, 22 November 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_12&oldid=1144514420"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE