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.
Merge per Hiding and Robofish as no-one has ever said, "That series of three books about the ring that Tolkien wrote." Well, at least ot in an encyclopedia. Ironically, I see such trilogy in that category, but not the Trilogy category.... hmm...
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
05:24, 2 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:Low-emissions locomotives
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: The category scope is unclear and subjective. There is not even an attempt at defining low-emission, and such a term would ultimately need to be defined arbitrarily. I have looked at several articles, and none of them make any claim of being "low emission" or contain emission details, so I fail to see even a subjective reason to include the articles. Arsenikk(talk)17:13, 29 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.
U.S. law firms by state
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:Prisoners sentenced to death by the Republic of Hawaii
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.
Keep As BrownHairedGirl points out, this does seem to fall into the exception to
WP:OC#SMALL. Anyways, no one is liekly to ever gain entrance into this category, but there might be articles written about people that are already part of it.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
05:27, 2 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.
Israeli Sea Corps categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Whatever floats your boat Er... Rename per nom. Quite resonable, and a much more logical wording in English. (Though I'm unqualified to speak of Hebrew.)
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
05:30, 2 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:Indian captives
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: These people are not Indian (=from India), nor Indian (=Native American) - if the category is to continue to exist it needs to be renamed. Similarly, the disambiguating term for the members of the category - at present "(Indian captive)" - need to be changed. I'm not America so am not tuned in to the political sensitivities of language use in this area, though had a quick look at
Native American name controversy, so not sure whether "Native American" is the right term to use, but on a global level "Indian" means from India.
PamD (
talk)
16:23, 20 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.
Venezuelan Navy categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per nom (although this might also be a case for renaming the main article, if 'Venezuelan Navy' is the
WP:COMMONNAME. Either way, the article and the categories should be consistent.)
Robofish (
talk)
01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I think the point is what we are calling their navy. (After all, they call it "Armada Bolivariana de Venezuela" since they speak Spanish and all.) Personally, I'm agnostic on what the name of the navy is—call it
Hugo Chavez's collection of ships for all I care. I'm just hoping for consistency —
Bellhalla (
talk)
18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Week keep the status quo. Maybe I'm dead wrong- heck, it's likely I am- but the categories use a common convention, while the article uses the formal name. There's no unified standard on this- All articles about the
Italian Navy are filed under
Marina Militare a term unlikely to be familiar to non-Italian speakers. On the other hand, everything uses the
French Navy not
Marine nationale. These categories are under the common, logical name, and I'd leave them as is.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
07:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment: Italian Navy can also refer to the pre-1946 Regia Marina which is why the distinction there. — 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
rename per nom. I would be inclined to match to the main article in these cases. If we want the way these are named to change, maybe we should try changing the article name first.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:44, 7 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:Aquaria in North Carolina
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: the 3 (and only) aquaria in North Carolina were long ago merged into a single article, this category is no longer necessary.
RadioFan (
talk)
12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm confused, your !vote is labeled keep but you list a keep argument (structure in a larger categorization) and an delete argument (over categorization).--
RadioFan (
talk)
15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the
WP:OC#SMALL notation regarding categories that "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" ... which is exactly why this cat was created. This is also why the parent category,
Category:Aquaria in the United States, is marked with the {{parentcat}} header that states "due to the scope of this category, it should only contain subcategories" (with all of the child categories being "Aquaria in <state>"). —
Kralizec! (
talk)
14:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Eh... Maybe because if we go down this road, we're going to need to delete
Category:Aquaria in South Carolina,
Category:Aquaria in Maryland,
Category:Aquaria in Alaska,
Category:Aquaria in Colorado, as well as several others as well. It seems to me this is an established part of the category system. This issue needs to be not does Aquaria in North Carolina need to go (Because there will be very few states left if we get rid of all the single member categories), but does the whole system of seperating Zoos and Aquaria in the category system need to go? For that, I say no. A zoologist might use the terms "zoos and aquaria", but to the average people they are really quite different places. No one looking for an article on an aquaria will start down the category tree with "zoos". Now, an interesting idea might be to abolish the state-by-state category and just have Aquaria in the United States. Hmm.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
13:39, 6 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:Philosopher redirects
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: This category has only five members - clearly, it does not include all philosopher redirects. Its name is non-standard. I can't see any reason why it is helping the project. — This, that, and the other (talk)06:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete unless some one can provide a satisfactory reason for its retention: we have had a number of nominations for reduirect categories recently. Have we been retaining them?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:59, 29 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:Cook Baronets
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. Small category with no potential for growth, per
WP:OC#SMALL. There have only been five
Cook Baronets, all of which are listed in the main article and can easily be interlinked through the succession boxes, as is usually done for
baronets. There have been thousands of baronetcies, and I am aware of only one other category for an single baronetcy:
McConnell Baronets, which I have nominated for deletion below. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Neutral Already six articles, and the highly notable, and sadly dispersed, Cook art collection certainly deserves its own article (rather more so than any of its owners in fact) and may well get it one day. At least two of their houses have articles too. I don't see any harm in breaking up the enmormous baronet category with sub-categories for these confusing people, when there are (say) four or more articles. All 7 Gladstone baronets have articles for example. If a sub-category is set up a disam-type "Foo Baronets" article should be set up to include in the main category.
Johnbod (
talk)
13:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply. Johnbod, even if we set the threshold at four or more articles, have you any idea of how many categories that would create? My guess is hundreds, and subdiving into hundreds of tiny categories would be a navigational nightmare. If we go down that route, what about the many baronetcies which share the suranme with another baronetcy? Do we create a sub-category for each of the different baronetcies? Are what about the many baronetcies which changed name, as the 1st Baronet Snodgrass was succeeded by the 2nd Baronet Snograss-Cholmondely? Far from helping navigation (which is the primary purpose of categories), I fear that going down the category-for-each baronetcy path would create a navigational forest and a maintenance nightmare. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge as nom. The standard treatment of British peerages and baronetcies is that there is an article on the title. This can also contain a description of how they are notable - MPs, owners of notable mansions, political or diplomatic office. If seraching for a hyothetical Sir John Cook, Baronet, one looks for the article
Cook Baronets and then selects the one needed. A category adds nothing to this.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:52, 29 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:McConnell Baronets
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.
Merge as nom. The standard treatment of British peerages and baronetcies is that there is an article on the title. This can also contain a description of how they are notable - MPs, owners of notable mansions, political or diplomatic office. If seraching for a hyothetical Sir John McConnell, Baronet, one looks for the article
McConnell Baronets and then selects the one needed. A category adds nothing to this.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:52, 29 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:People associated with Madonna
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: Classic case of over-categorization. This is not a precedent we want to encourage. Every time someone, be it Madonna, Cher or the man in the moon, dates someone for some period of time, we'd be plastering categories everywhere. This is content for the main article only.
Wildhartlivie (
talk)
05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. I agree that this sort of thing sets a horrible precedent, but it seems to me that in an age of celebrity-obsession, close association with a mega-star such as Madonna may well be a defining characteristic of the notability of those in the category. I'd really like to say "extra-strong-delete", but I'm not sure that's justified. Can somebody please persuade me that I'm wrong to have reservations about getting rid of this? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Anyone who isn't "associated" enough with Madonna, so as to be defined by that association and categorized directly by
Category:Madonna (entertainer), shouldn't be categorized by that association. These should be people famous only (or primarily) because of that association. Maintaining a separate category for such people only invites a looser standard for categorization, so delete/upmerge as necessary. postdlf (talk)
16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nominator is correct, we don't want this kind of thing. Anybody who's ever had any sort of professional, friendship, sexual or family relationship with her would belong in this category — and that's far too broad and poorly defined to be useful at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete We have rightly set a high standard for the potentially numberless "people by person" categories. It is generally sufficient to categorize by other means and tie these individuals through wikilinks and nav templates, and each individual listed in this category is indeed notable for reasons beyond his association with Ms. Ciccone.-
choster01:04, 1 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:Backyard Wrestling video 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:Electronic Arts' NHL series
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:Hardball! video 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:Japanese baseball video 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.
Nominator's rationale: This is ambiguous: are these video games about baseball that is played in Japan or are these video games about baseball in general that were created in Japan? I'm pretty sure it's the former, but it's not clear from the title. Any suggestions? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
02:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment from the contents, it's pretty clear it is not Japanese baseball, since several entries are about generic, cartoon, or North American baseball. I suppose they could be removed from the renamed category.
76.66.194.154 (
talk)
07:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Are there any major differences between baseball in the U.S. and in Japan? (Example, we don't consider the National and American leagues different games because of the Designated Hitter.) Are they different games, or somewhat different ways of playing the same game (I believe they are the latter.)
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
07:09, 7 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:World Stadium series
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.
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.
Merge per Hiding and Robofish as no-one has ever said, "That series of three books about the ring that Tolkien wrote." Well, at least ot in an encyclopedia. Ironically, I see such trilogy in that category, but not the Trilogy category.... hmm...
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
05:24, 2 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:Low-emissions locomotives
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: The category scope is unclear and subjective. There is not even an attempt at defining low-emission, and such a term would ultimately need to be defined arbitrarily. I have looked at several articles, and none of them make any claim of being "low emission" or contain emission details, so I fail to see even a subjective reason to include the articles. Arsenikk(talk)17:13, 29 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.
U.S. law firms by state
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:Prisoners sentenced to death by the Republic of Hawaii
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.
Keep As BrownHairedGirl points out, this does seem to fall into the exception to
WP:OC#SMALL. Anyways, no one is liekly to ever gain entrance into this category, but there might be articles written about people that are already part of it.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
05:27, 2 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.
Israeli Sea Corps categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Whatever floats your boat Er... Rename per nom. Quite resonable, and a much more logical wording in English. (Though I'm unqualified to speak of Hebrew.)
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
05:30, 2 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:Indian captives
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: These people are not Indian (=from India), nor Indian (=Native American) - if the category is to continue to exist it needs to be renamed. Similarly, the disambiguating term for the members of the category - at present "(Indian captive)" - need to be changed. I'm not America so am not tuned in to the political sensitivities of language use in this area, though had a quick look at
Native American name controversy, so not sure whether "Native American" is the right term to use, but on a global level "Indian" means from India.
PamD (
talk)
16:23, 20 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.
Venezuelan Navy categories
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename per nom (although this might also be a case for renaming the main article, if 'Venezuelan Navy' is the
WP:COMMONNAME. Either way, the article and the categories should be consistent.)
Robofish (
talk)
01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)reply
I think the point is what we are calling their navy. (After all, they call it "Armada Bolivariana de Venezuela" since they speak Spanish and all.) Personally, I'm agnostic on what the name of the navy is—call it
Hugo Chavez's collection of ships for all I care. I'm just hoping for consistency —
Bellhalla (
talk)
18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Week keep the status quo. Maybe I'm dead wrong- heck, it's likely I am- but the categories use a common convention, while the article uses the formal name. There's no unified standard on this- All articles about the
Italian Navy are filed under
Marina Militare a term unlikely to be familiar to non-Italian speakers. On the other hand, everything uses the
French Navy not
Marine nationale. These categories are under the common, logical name, and I'd leave them as is.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
07:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment: Italian Navy can also refer to the pre-1946 Regia Marina which is why the distinction there. — 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
rename per nom. I would be inclined to match to the main article in these cases. If we want the way these are named to change, maybe we should try changing the article name first.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:44, 7 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:Aquaria in North Carolina
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: the 3 (and only) aquaria in North Carolina were long ago merged into a single article, this category is no longer necessary.
RadioFan (
talk)
12:55, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm confused, your !vote is labeled keep but you list a keep argument (structure in a larger categorization) and an delete argument (over categorization).--
RadioFan (
talk)
15:07, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep as per the
WP:OC#SMALL notation regarding categories that "are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" ... which is exactly why this cat was created. This is also why the parent category,
Category:Aquaria in the United States, is marked with the {{parentcat}} header that states "due to the scope of this category, it should only contain subcategories" (with all of the child categories being "Aquaria in <state>"). —
Kralizec! (
talk)
14:22, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Eh... Maybe because if we go down this road, we're going to need to delete
Category:Aquaria in South Carolina,
Category:Aquaria in Maryland,
Category:Aquaria in Alaska,
Category:Aquaria in Colorado, as well as several others as well. It seems to me this is an established part of the category system. This issue needs to be not does Aquaria in North Carolina need to go (Because there will be very few states left if we get rid of all the single member categories), but does the whole system of seperating Zoos and Aquaria in the category system need to go? For that, I say no. A zoologist might use the terms "zoos and aquaria", but to the average people they are really quite different places. No one looking for an article on an aquaria will start down the category tree with "zoos". Now, an interesting idea might be to abolish the state-by-state category and just have Aquaria in the United States. Hmm.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
13:39, 6 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:Philosopher redirects
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: This category has only five members - clearly, it does not include all philosopher redirects. Its name is non-standard. I can't see any reason why it is helping the project. — This, that, and the other (talk)06:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete unless some one can provide a satisfactory reason for its retention: we have had a number of nominations for reduirect categories recently. Have we been retaining them?
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:59, 29 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:Cook Baronets
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. Small category with no potential for growth, per
WP:OC#SMALL. There have only been five
Cook Baronets, all of which are listed in the main article and can easily be interlinked through the succession boxes, as is usually done for
baronets. There have been thousands of baronetcies, and I am aware of only one other category for an single baronetcy:
McConnell Baronets, which I have nominated for deletion below. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:31, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep Neutral Already six articles, and the highly notable, and sadly dispersed, Cook art collection certainly deserves its own article (rather more so than any of its owners in fact) and may well get it one day. At least two of their houses have articles too. I don't see any harm in breaking up the enmormous baronet category with sub-categories for these confusing people, when there are (say) four or more articles. All 7 Gladstone baronets have articles for example. If a sub-category is set up a disam-type "Foo Baronets" article should be set up to include in the main category.
Johnbod (
talk)
13:51, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Reply. Johnbod, even if we set the threshold at four or more articles, have you any idea of how many categories that would create? My guess is hundreds, and subdiving into hundreds of tiny categories would be a navigational nightmare. If we go down that route, what about the many baronetcies which share the suranme with another baronetcy? Do we create a sub-category for each of the different baronetcies? Are what about the many baronetcies which changed name, as the 1st Baronet Snodgrass was succeeded by the 2nd Baronet Snograss-Cholmondely? Far from helping navigation (which is the primary purpose of categories), I fear that going down the category-for-each baronetcy path would create a navigational forest and a maintenance nightmare. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
00:24, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge as nom. The standard treatment of British peerages and baronetcies is that there is an article on the title. This can also contain a description of how they are notable - MPs, owners of notable mansions, political or diplomatic office. If seraching for a hyothetical Sir John Cook, Baronet, one looks for the article
Cook Baronets and then selects the one needed. A category adds nothing to this.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:52, 29 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:McConnell Baronets
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.
Merge as nom. The standard treatment of British peerages and baronetcies is that there is an article on the title. This can also contain a description of how they are notable - MPs, owners of notable mansions, political or diplomatic office. If seraching for a hyothetical Sir John McConnell, Baronet, one looks for the article
McConnell Baronets and then selects the one needed. A category adds nothing to this.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:52, 29 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:People associated with Madonna
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: Classic case of over-categorization. This is not a precedent we want to encourage. Every time someone, be it Madonna, Cher or the man in the moon, dates someone for some period of time, we'd be plastering categories everywhere. This is content for the main article only.
Wildhartlivie (
talk)
05:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. I agree that this sort of thing sets a horrible precedent, but it seems to me that in an age of celebrity-obsession, close association with a mega-star such as Madonna may well be a defining characteristic of the notability of those in the category. I'd really like to say "extra-strong-delete", but I'm not sure that's justified. Can somebody please persuade me that I'm wrong to have reservations about getting rid of this? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
06:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Anyone who isn't "associated" enough with Madonna, so as to be defined by that association and categorized directly by
Category:Madonna (entertainer), shouldn't be categorized by that association. These should be people famous only (or primarily) because of that association. Maintaining a separate category for such people only invites a looser standard for categorization, so delete/upmerge as necessary. postdlf (talk)
16:33, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. Nominator is correct, we don't want this kind of thing. Anybody who's ever had any sort of professional, friendship, sexual or family relationship with her would belong in this category — and that's far too broad and poorly defined to be useful at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
08:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete We have rightly set a high standard for the potentially numberless "people by person" categories. It is generally sufficient to categorize by other means and tie these individuals through wikilinks and nav templates, and each individual listed in this category is indeed notable for reasons beyond his association with Ms. Ciccone.-
choster01:04, 1 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:Backyard Wrestling video 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:Electronic Arts' NHL series
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:Hardball! video 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:Japanese baseball video 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.
Nominator's rationale: This is ambiguous: are these video games about baseball that is played in Japan or are these video games about baseball in general that were created in Japan? I'm pretty sure it's the former, but it's not clear from the title. Any suggestions? —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
02:37, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment from the contents, it's pretty clear it is not Japanese baseball, since several entries are about generic, cartoon, or North American baseball. I suppose they could be removed from the renamed category.
76.66.194.154 (
talk)
07:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Are there any major differences between baseball in the U.S. and in Japan? (Example, we don't consider the National and American leagues different games because of the Designated Hitter.) Are they different games, or somewhat different ways of playing the same game (I believe they are the latter.)
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
07:09, 7 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:World Stadium series
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.