The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
That's incorrect; see
foo fighter,
fastwalkers, etc. It's a false distinction anyway that you're trying to make, because it's alleged for many of the included articles that "alien spacecraft" is the best explanation, but obviously that's not inconsistent with them being unidentified flying objects. postdlf (talk)
18:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
As that article makes clear, it's considered a UFO subtopic, and sometimes they are claimed to be flying as well. At any rate,
Category:UFOs is obviously used as a parent for the whole subject matter, not just to group specific types of UFO phenomenon. And as I noted above, nor are UFOs limited to the
extraterrestrial hypothesis, however central that is to the subject. postdlf (talk)
16:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paternal Jews
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm nominating this in tandem with "Maternal Jews." These terms for categorizations are not commonplace nor widely used. It would appear these categories were created as another remnant of the long pervasive obsessive overcategorization of people trend, particularly Jewish people who would not normally be listed as Jewish because they do not fit the standard religious or ethnic definition. A simple google test will show that "Paternal Jews" and "Maternal Jews" is not a categorizable or for that matter important and article-worthy division. For example:
[1]Bulldog12321:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oi veh, this could be the start of bringing the whole
Who is a Jew? argument into the category system. That whole subject is so complicated that we could have a massive category tree dealing with all the different ways of defining Jewishness, all of which would provide scope for big disagreements between the different viewpoints. So these two category should go, but best I think to upmerge them both to Category:Jews a new
Category:People of Jewish descent. מזל טוב! --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge Yes, I'm pretty sure this is a way to introduce a Who is a jew? argument to the category, and I don't think this is the way to do it, creating vast poorly named (imo) category trees.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The other editors below make some good points. Upmerging Paternal Jews would mean that we in Wikipedia are deciding who is a jew, which is obviously not in the cards. So Maternal Jews only could be upmerged, imo. As for the Paternal category, I lean towards deleting but would be open to retaining in some form, as Peter opens the door to, below, if there are enough articles where the paternal "jewishness" is defining.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Jeez, I'm running out of strike out, here. BrownHairedGirl is right: let's just have a People of Jewish descent category for anyone who's not strictly speaking fully Jewish. People of Foo descent is a commonly used category structure, let's adopt it here, too. Also, please note that the "People of Jewish decent" cited below contains a decent/descent typo.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I think it was very decent of me to point that out. And I'm Jewish. So I was one step away from being in that category, dammit. Shoulda kept my mouth shut.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- According to the Orthodox, Jewishness is conferred by the mother. Thus the children of a Jewish man, who marries out, are not Jewish unless the mother is converted, and only if it is by an Orthodox rabbi. There has recently been a racial discrimination case in London relating to a Jewish school that refused entry to a religious (not non-orthodox) Jewish boy on the grounds that he was NOT a Jew. This leaves the Jewish children of a liberal or reformed Jewish father and convert mother in a "stateless" condition. This could be the subject of a category (albeit a rather narrow one) or "paternal Jews". With this reservation, merge.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Umm, Debresser, the assertion that "paternal Jews" are not Jews is one of the core points of the
Who is a Jew dispute, isn't it? I really don't like any such a sweeping decision being made at CFD, because it is effectively a policy decision against reform judaism. It would be much better to merge both categories into a new
Category:People of Jewish descent, and leave editors to consider how individual articles should be recategorised. (There is already a
Category:People of Jewish descent by religion, in which some of these articles will probably find a place). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support BrownHairedGirl's suggestion, upmerge to
Category:People of Jewish descent. I have been trying for years to maintain this suggested category page and its potential subcats (by nationality), as Jewishness is both a religious and ethnic phenomenon (can't spell this word), yet one that is clearly defined as being passed on maternally). There are bios for people who are known to be of Jewish descent but whose religious or spiritual viewpoint is not publically known or even defined and this category is perfectly suitable for such people
Mayumashu (
talk)
17:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per BrownHairedGirl. CfD cannot, and should not take a side on the issue about what lineage is required to be considered a Jew. Foo of X descent sidesteps that issue wonderfully.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
10:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete both. Alas BrownHairedGirl's proposal won't do, as it opens up the questions of people's gparents, ggparents, etc. and all sorts of timewasting arguments, unless you can limit 'descent' to parents. If you don't make a limit then a vast number of people will be included irrelevantly in this category (e.g.
David Cameron,
Boris Johnson.......)(Declaration of interest: I qualify under both categories :-}).--
Smerus (
talk)
16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Virginia Sports Hall of Fame inductees
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:Number-one albums in Finland
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:Listify. I can find no other category of individual albums which reached number one in a particular country, and a quick look at this category shows why: it includes
Hard Candy (Madonna album), which debuted at #1 in 37 countries, despite being the lowest lowest selling studio album of her career. If this album was categorised by every country in which it reached #1, it would drown in category clutter, and the same applies to many other albums by internationally-successful artists.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Listify There's ~195 countries, each of which could (presumably) have their own record charts. Not a sustainable system. Honestly, I think there's a good deal of clutter involved in
Category:Number-one singles that could be listified as well, but I'm a self-professed idiot when it comes to music after around 1900!
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
11:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Middle Ages
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 term used here, "Medieval era" (with a capital no less) is really an unnecessary variant of the far more conventional term "
Middle Ages", which also stands at the head of all categories relating to the Middle Ages. Besides, one could argue that except in colloquial usage, "
era" is a little less neutral, whereas "Middle Ages" is now too firmly entrenched in scholarly usage to overflow with qualitative notions about historical periodisation. As for the adjectival use in the last category listed here, why not just "medieval"? Note that the original proposal, made on
21 February, was for Speedy renaming and applied only to the first category. On the advice of
User:Good Olfactory, I've (re)listed the full proposal for a full CfR here.
Cavila (
talk)
17:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Permission to open a can of worms? Did Macedonia exist as a republic in the Middle Ages? I've not looked beyond our own articles, but I can't find anything that indicates Macedonia had such a system of governance in that time frame. Support the rename for the rest, and am generally happy to be ignored.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
11:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Models by century
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete all. The Wikipedia article
model (person) says almost nothing on the history of the business, but so far as I can tell from a hour's googling, fashion shows only really began in the early 20th-century (see the Slate-mag article
How the Runway Took Off: A brief history of the fashion show), and didn't become a big, internationalised business until after WWII. Even if we take the earlier date, we are looking at at most 110 years of fashion modelling, and it makes no sense to split those 110 years into two 100-year blocks. I see no need to upmerge these 4 categories, because they contain only five articles in total, all of which are already adequately categorised both
by type of modeling and
by nationality, with the usual range of intersections. Note: I am aware that before fashion modelling, people (esp women) used to model for painters and others in the fine arts. It was unusual for such people to be notable in their own right, but as with other occupations, it may be appropriate to create 19th-century and earlier categories for such people. I did try using catscan to
search for models born in the 19th-century, but it seems to be broken. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The last sportspeople by century
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 all, or alternatively delete all. After a long series of CFD discussions over the last few weeks, these are the last remaining categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, apart from the
Category:20th-century football (soccer) players listed
below and the
Category:21st-century gamblers listed at
CfD March 3. All the same reasons for deletion apply, so I won't rehearse them here: there is a clear consensus that by-century categorisies of sportspeople are not appropriate beyond the 19th-century. Note that I have listed all the categories for merger, which require some clean up afterwards. All but
one of the articles which I have checked so far are already categorised in a suitable category of the merge target, so editors may prefer to delete the categories to avoid a cleanup afterwards. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I really don't know what you are trying to achieve here, or why you want that. After about two dozen CFDs closed as delete (with no keeps), it's crystal-clear that there that there is no consenus for keeping any by-sport sub-categories of those two. What earthly use is a category of a random splattering of a few 20th-century sportspeople from assorted sports? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
03:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It completes the schema for 20th and
Category:21st-century people by occupation. What good is a schema that is only partially filled in? I'm only saying, again, upmerge until the parent supracategory pages are decided upon. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mayumashu (
talk •
contribs) 14:09, 8 March 2010
Completeness is not an end in itself. The purpose of categories is to facilitate navigation, but these categories do not help navigation, and you haven't even tried to make a case that they do. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't think these facilitate navigation. i agree that there only possible justification would be completeness, but we've already deleted a number of these now.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Reply. Of course there have been sportspeople for many centuries .. but what exactly is the purpose of a catch-all category of all sportspeople from the 20th century, when its possible sub-categories have all been deleted by consensus? If populated, it would be humungous, consisting of a huge mishmash of everything from an Irish hurler in 1905 to Mongolian basketball-player born 90 years later? What's the navigational purpose of grouping these things together? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
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:20th-century football (soccer) players
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 category. While the question of merging into
Category:Football (soccer) players wasn't brought up, I see no reason not to do this; it's consistent with recent CfD consensus; this category was part of that category tree; and that category isn't up for deletion.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom and much recnet precedent. Men and women do not play football together professionally. Upmerging to sportspeople is improper, since it removes the link to their sport.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Cowra, New South Wales
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:Mayors and Lord Mayors of Strathfield, Australia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Strathfield municipality is one of hundreds of municipalities in Australia, most of its mayors will never ever reach WP:POLITICIAN. secondly, Lord Mayor does not apply to Strathfield only Parramatta and
City of Sydney in Sydney.
LibStar (
talk)
11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It should be noted Strathfield is simply a small municipality well within metropolitan Sydney, which has about 40 of the things. A quick look around shows no other place except
City of Sydney has such a category (and that entity can well justify it). LibStar: there's also Wollongong and Newcastle, I believe, although both are outside Sydney.
Orderinchaos17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TV stations in Birmingham
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.
(With regret) Support: Birmingham, Alabama is also a large city, so that confusion is inevitable. However the decision here should conform to that in the other current CFD.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment That CfD is inevitably going to close against my proposal (it probably should be closed per
WP:SNOW), so I will submit the few Birmingham categories without England as well to impose some conformity. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
22:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree, but we're in
the minority. In the meantime, all of these categories may as well have the same type of name (i.e. either "X in Birmingham" or "X in Birmingham, England".) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator. "Birmingham" is an ambiguous term, referring amongst other things to two large cities, so some disambiguator is required (I have no preference between "England" and "West Midlands"). This is particularly important for categories, which appear on articles without any explanation, and are added by editors who may never have seen the category page. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom / Occuli. It is one of my more reluctant ones, but as I said in another place, my own city has the same problem in similar circumstances.
Orderinchaos17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename England doesn't have many TV stations, while the US has lots. This would more logically be about the US city, not the one in England.
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
05:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TV shows filmed 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.
This seems to be a one-of-a-kind category, in that I don't see any other categories for television shows filmed in other states or any kind of broad structure of television shows by filming location. The setting of a TV show is one thing, but where it was filmed might have little bearing on the content. For example,
Dawson's Creek was filmed in NC but set in MA. So perhaps deletion might be the best result? We do have a well-developed structure for
Category:Films by shooting location, but I don't know that the same thing would be useful for television shows. postdlf (talk)
16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
TV commercial actors
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, My concern is that this characteristic is not defining for most of these individuals. Given that, this category will be a maintenance nightmare. If kept, rename.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename if kept, but leaning towards delete. There are few enough actors in these two categories, so we definitely don't need to split them by nationality. Even if the main category is kept, the Taiwanese one should be merged into it. In the meantime, I have added
Category:TV commercial actors to
Category:Advertising people As to whether this is a defining attribute, I dunno. Several of these articles don't belong in the categories, and it seems to me to be defining for only a very few:
Jan Miner,
Isaiah Mustafa, possibly
Paul Blackthorne,
Ardon Bess,
Amey Pandya. That's two-and-three-halves out of 11, although I would add
Maureen Lipman for her role as
Beattie. So that's three articles for which this is the defining characteristic ... and that makes me lean towards deletion. I think the substantive case for deletion is that most commercial actors are anonymous: they don't get on-screen credits or star billing as in a movie, because in most cases the idea is that the product is dominant. So we have a lot of notable characters in
Category:Advertising characters, but in most cases the actors remain obscure: even cult characters such as
Papa & Nicole are played by non-notable actors. The most common exception to that is the celebrity endorsement, but in that case a) they are not acting, and b) the ad is definitely not a defining characteristic (the celeb is are there only because they are notable for something else). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol
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 to
Category:Television programmes shot in Bristol (i.e. without the films), and create a separate category for the two films. I nominated this category for deletion at
CfD 2009 December 28, where there was no support for deletion, but the idea of renaming to exclude films was suggested by Bradjamesbrown. I think that's a good idea, so I suggest taking this opportunity to do it, because the current hybrid category has led to two films being included in the television category tree. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Wow. Either I'm getting old, or too many discussions have come and gone, because I didn't even remember that CfD. However, I've got to say, I still agree with myself ;) I'm indifferent to the system of TV shows by production city, but the films still need to be split out.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
16:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TV series with episodes in the public domain
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:TV archaeologists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as arbitrary; appears to be a dumping ground for any archaeologist who appeared on television, whether as a producer of their own shows or just as a talking head on the news. That its parent category is
Category:Television doesn't give me much hope that there is a valid category lurking in there somewhere. postdlf (talk)
05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as arbitrary. I was expecting to find, say,
Daniel Jackson in this category, and was somewhat surprised to find real people. Seems to be a TV version of performer by performance, in a broad sense.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
16:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TV channels with British versions
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 nominator if kept ... but I wonder if it is really a good idea to start categorising TV channels in this way? The channels in this category appear to be those aired in multiple countries, but I'm not sure whether it includes any non-UK-based channels shown in the UK, or only those modified for UK audiences. If it's the former, then it's a recipe for massive category-clutter; but even if it is restricted to channels modified for the UK, I can still see this leading to a lot of clutter on articles. Does anyone know enough about this to say whether any of these channels have multiple national variants? (e.g. one for the UK, one for Germany, one for France). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per the discussion above. Not clear that this is needed and the discussion above seems to be supporting deletion over a rename.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
TSN
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:TED Prize winners
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.
Neutral leaning towards keep We do of course have many categories for winners of major national and international awards. I'm not yet convinced the TED conference prizes don't meet that stature.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:SHG
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.
SI
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose Long form is non-intuitive - SI is the common name. (Shouldn't the main article be at "Système International" anyway?)
Orderinchaos17:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I'd say this is a clear example where, in an English encyclopedia, we have to use the acronym. Since the acronym defines a term that isn't in English, the English equivalent does not define the acronym. "SI unit" is the term these are known as.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
03:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
SAIC
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:SONICFLOOd albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:HGTV shows
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 the phraseology "Home & Garden Television" is nowhere to be found on either www.scrippsnetworks.com or hgtv.com , it seems that the article is due for renaming, not the category.-
choster (
talk)
17:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually "Home & Garden Television" is on the HGTV site, but it took me a while to find it. Maybe a question is how do we deal with brands? Clearly HGTV is a brand but "Home & Garden Television" is not? Are brands allowed to have a category under the brand name even if it does not match the lead article and if it is the primary use? If brands are OK, then clearly this would not need renaming.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:RAND Corporation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose "Rand" is a surname, some people capitialize every letter in surnames. The current name is a common way to refer to RAND, and has the advantage of not being highly ambiguous.
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
08:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Looking at the logo embedded in the parent article:
File:Rand-logo.PNG it is referring to itself as RAND Corporation. So too in the title line on their own website "RAND Corporation provides..."; so if anything needs changed it is reversing the parent article and its redirect?
AllyD (
talk)
09:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. It calls itself the "RAND Corporation", it's commonly named the "RAND Corporation", and "RAND" is ambiguous. I'll open a
WP:RM discussion on the head article, but even if it stays at "RAND", that's too ambiguous a name for the category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:PASD MEPs serving 2009-2014
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: Overcategorization with an arbitrary title (possibly
WP:CRYSTAL, if it is implying that the members will serve until 2014). There is only one article in this and it is not a part of some larger scheme as far as I can tell. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
03:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sailboat names
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:Sailboat names to
Category:Individual sailing vessels. This has been a confusing discussion to navigate, which I think indicates a degree of confusion in categorisation of this area. I would suggest that interested editors might consider taking this issue in hand and developing a more practical, workable, and intuitive scheme. --Xdamrtalk19:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be about sailboats, not their names. There was an unresolved discussion in 2005 (during which
Category:Sailboats was created) and apparently there may be some disagreement about what kinds of vessels should go into this category, but nobody seems to agree that the "names" is necessary, any more than we put articles about people into
Category:People names or articles about songs into
Category:Song names. If there's still any dispute about the type of vessel, I hope we can all at least agree that "Sailboats" is a better title than "Sailboat names."
Propaniac (
talk)
15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
A very good point! There are indeed overlaps in some of these categories. I will take some time out and see what we have re categories and make some suggestions for consideration.
Boatman (
talk)
21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename or delete Please understand that "sailboat" is a US-only term that to UK and I imagine other English-speaking ears rather implies something 15 feet long. This category aims to include all articles on individual sail-powered vessels including commercial freighters and warships. Rename to
Category:Sailing ships or vessels or something similar, if the category is in fact useful - which it may be.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete and then nominate
Category:Yachts by name for deletion. All ships are listed by name so why to we need a category by name? Is this intended to be a super category that includes all sailboats or all yachts? This seems like it may well be OCAT.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Reply The category is badly named and has a daft bit of introductory text, but it is clearly intended to categorise individual sailing boats rather than general articles about sailing boats or about types of sailing boats. If this category is deleted, then the articles in it will no longer categorised under
Category:Sailboats. If it is upmerged, then we retain no distinction between articles on individual sailboats such as Gipsy Moth IV and types of boat such as
J-class yacht,
Fish class sloop. The naming and structure of these categories is currently a big mess, but the solution lies in sorting the articles into more appropriate categories, rather than just pressing the delete button. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
PROPOSAL I confess to starting some of this confusion a while back due to lack of a category to index names of sailing vessels.
Category:Sailing was intended to capture all categories and topics related to vessels which float and are propelled by the wind. There are numerous categories types of sailing vessels according to purpose. At a high level there are sailing vessels for use in commerce/trade, defense/navy, pleasure/cruising/racing etc. Because there was no category to capture names the
Category:Sailboat names was borne. It was a generic name to capture the names of all vessels irrespective of type - it could equally well have been given the name "Sailing vessel names" or similar. Because of the rapid growth of articles relating to specific vessels we now have mix of 17th century navy battleships, state of the art 21st century racing boats, clipper ships etc etc in the
Category:Sailboat names. My PROPOSAL is within
Category:Sailing there are new categories which replace
Category:Sailboat names. The new categories are
Category:Names of yachts,
Category: Names of naval sailing vessels and
Category: Names of commercial sailing vessels. There are other 'name' categories which will be required but these will become obvious as we progress. If we RenameCategory:Sailboat names to
Category:Names of yachts I will put effort into re-categorizing the articles as appropriate and I am sure others would assist. Appreciate comments from all re this proposal.
Boatman (
talk)
10:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The problem here is that the "names" part of the category name is redundant; as User:Propaniac noted above, we don't categorize people as "Names of people", but as
Category:People, we don't categorize cities as "Names of cities" but as
Category:Cities. We do indeed have a category for the Names of people (
Category:Human names), and this category holds articles about the origins and meanings of people's names. A category named "Names of sailing vessels" should contain articles about the names of sailing vessels, not the vessels themselves; but I don't think we have any articles like that (at least not for specifically sailing vessels. We do, of course have many many general articles on ship names under
Category:Ship names). --
Rlandmann (
talk)
11:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Answer -- fair point. However, that would actually be the reverse of the ship category, where individual ships are placed in the various subcategories of
Category:Ships and articles on types of ships are placed in
Category:Ship types. I also note that
Category:Boats doesn't distinguish, and has individual boats grouped together with types of boats (of course, relatively few individual boats are notable, unlike individual ships and individual sailing vessels). --
Rlandmann (
talk)
12:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Since this has been going on a long time, I will repeat that "sailboat" is an American term, which suggests a dinghy or small yacht to UK English ears, and should be avoided as misleading. "Sailing vessels" is neutral.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sports competitions
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.
Provisional oppose. I haven't yet checked fully what the categories actually contain, but the plain-English usage of the words offers a clear distinction: International competitions are those between national teams, and are a subset of Transnational competitions. Transnational events include competitors from different countries, and those may not be selected on a national basis. One example which comes to mind is the
Fastnet race, where yachts qualify on an individual basis, and do not represent their country. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I presume you mean that international competitions are just ones between nations or national teams – Not just specifically two i.e. "Nation A" vs "Nation B"? The Olympics being a key example of the former? the Formula One season is perhaps an obvious example of a transnational competition i.e individuals competing for company teams.
Sillyfolkboy (
talk) (
edits)Join WikiProject Athletics!12:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
DISAGREE. In the Olympics, only some events involve competition between national teams. The vast majority of events involve competition between individuals. That makes them no less international.
Nipsonanomhmata (
talk)
22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment: DISAGREE. Transnational competitions can be between teams too. And International competitions can be between individuals as well as between teams. For example, the Davis Cup is between teams, Wimbledon is between individuals as well as teams, the Olympics is between both individuals as well as teams.
Nipsonanomhmata (
talk)
22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
That's incorrect; see
foo fighter,
fastwalkers, etc. It's a false distinction anyway that you're trying to make, because it's alleged for many of the included articles that "alien spacecraft" is the best explanation, but obviously that's not inconsistent with them being unidentified flying objects. postdlf (talk)
18:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
As that article makes clear, it's considered a UFO subtopic, and sometimes they are claimed to be flying as well. At any rate,
Category:UFOs is obviously used as a parent for the whole subject matter, not just to group specific types of UFO phenomenon. And as I noted above, nor are UFOs limited to the
extraterrestrial hypothesis, however central that is to the subject. postdlf (talk)
16:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Paternal Jews
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm nominating this in tandem with "Maternal Jews." These terms for categorizations are not commonplace nor widely used. It would appear these categories were created as another remnant of the long pervasive obsessive overcategorization of people trend, particularly Jewish people who would not normally be listed as Jewish because they do not fit the standard religious or ethnic definition. A simple google test will show that "Paternal Jews" and "Maternal Jews" is not a categorizable or for that matter important and article-worthy division. For example:
[1]Bulldog12321:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oi veh, this could be the start of bringing the whole
Who is a Jew? argument into the category system. That whole subject is so complicated that we could have a massive category tree dealing with all the different ways of defining Jewishness, all of which would provide scope for big disagreements between the different viewpoints. So these two category should go, but best I think to upmerge them both to Category:Jews a new
Category:People of Jewish descent. מזל טוב! --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:46, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Upmerge Yes, I'm pretty sure this is a way to introduce a Who is a jew? argument to the category, and I don't think this is the way to do it, creating vast poorly named (imo) category trees.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
05:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The other editors below make some good points. Upmerging Paternal Jews would mean that we in Wikipedia are deciding who is a jew, which is obviously not in the cards. So Maternal Jews only could be upmerged, imo. As for the Paternal category, I lean towards deleting but would be open to retaining in some form, as Peter opens the door to, below, if there are enough articles where the paternal "jewishness" is defining.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
17:54, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Jeez, I'm running out of strike out, here. BrownHairedGirl is right: let's just have a People of Jewish descent category for anyone who's not strictly speaking fully Jewish. People of Foo descent is a commonly used category structure, let's adopt it here, too. Also, please note that the "People of Jewish decent" cited below contains a decent/descent typo.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
19:10, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I think it was very decent of me to point that out. And I'm Jewish. So I was one step away from being in that category, dammit. Shoulda kept my mouth shut.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
20:12, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- According to the Orthodox, Jewishness is conferred by the mother. Thus the children of a Jewish man, who marries out, are not Jewish unless the mother is converted, and only if it is by an Orthodox rabbi. There has recently been a racial discrimination case in London relating to a Jewish school that refused entry to a religious (not non-orthodox) Jewish boy on the grounds that he was NOT a Jew. This leaves the Jewish children of a liberal or reformed Jewish father and convert mother in a "stateless" condition. This could be the subject of a category (albeit a rather narrow one) or "paternal Jews". With this reservation, merge.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Umm, Debresser, the assertion that "paternal Jews" are not Jews is one of the core points of the
Who is a Jew dispute, isn't it? I really don't like any such a sweeping decision being made at CFD, because it is effectively a policy decision against reform judaism. It would be much better to merge both categories into a new
Category:People of Jewish descent, and leave editors to consider how individual articles should be recategorised. (There is already a
Category:People of Jewish descent by religion, in which some of these articles will probably find a place). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:41, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support BrownHairedGirl's suggestion, upmerge to
Category:People of Jewish descent. I have been trying for years to maintain this suggested category page and its potential subcats (by nationality), as Jewishness is both a religious and ethnic phenomenon (can't spell this word), yet one that is clearly defined as being passed on maternally). There are bios for people who are known to be of Jewish descent but whose religious or spiritual viewpoint is not publically known or even defined and this category is perfectly suitable for such people
Mayumashu (
talk)
17:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per BrownHairedGirl. CfD cannot, and should not take a side on the issue about what lineage is required to be considered a Jew. Foo of X descent sidesteps that issue wonderfully.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
10:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete both. Alas BrownHairedGirl's proposal won't do, as it opens up the questions of people's gparents, ggparents, etc. and all sorts of timewasting arguments, unless you can limit 'descent' to parents. If you don't make a limit then a vast number of people will be included irrelevantly in this category (e.g.
David Cameron,
Boris Johnson.......)(Declaration of interest: I qualify under both categories :-}).--
Smerus (
talk)
16:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Virginia Sports Hall of Fame inductees
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:Number-one albums in Finland
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:Listify. I can find no other category of individual albums which reached number one in a particular country, and a quick look at this category shows why: it includes
Hard Candy (Madonna album), which debuted at #1 in 37 countries, despite being the lowest lowest selling studio album of her career. If this album was categorised by every country in which it reached #1, it would drown in category clutter, and the same applies to many other albums by internationally-successful artists.
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Listify There's ~195 countries, each of which could (presumably) have their own record charts. Not a sustainable system. Honestly, I think there's a good deal of clutter involved in
Category:Number-one singles that could be listified as well, but I'm a self-professed idiot when it comes to music after around 1900!
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
11:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Middle Ages
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 term used here, "Medieval era" (with a capital no less) is really an unnecessary variant of the far more conventional term "
Middle Ages", which also stands at the head of all categories relating to the Middle Ages. Besides, one could argue that except in colloquial usage, "
era" is a little less neutral, whereas "Middle Ages" is now too firmly entrenched in scholarly usage to overflow with qualitative notions about historical periodisation. As for the adjectival use in the last category listed here, why not just "medieval"? Note that the original proposal, made on
21 February, was for Speedy renaming and applied only to the first category. On the advice of
User:Good Olfactory, I've (re)listed the full proposal for a full CfR here.
Cavila (
talk)
17:51, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Permission to open a can of worms? Did Macedonia exist as a republic in the Middle Ages? I've not looked beyond our own articles, but I can't find anything that indicates Macedonia had such a system of governance in that time frame. Support the rename for the rest, and am generally happy to be ignored.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
11:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Models by century
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete all. The Wikipedia article
model (person) says almost nothing on the history of the business, but so far as I can tell from a hour's googling, fashion shows only really began in the early 20th-century (see the Slate-mag article
How the Runway Took Off: A brief history of the fashion show), and didn't become a big, internationalised business until after WWII. Even if we take the earlier date, we are looking at at most 110 years of fashion modelling, and it makes no sense to split those 110 years into two 100-year blocks. I see no need to upmerge these 4 categories, because they contain only five articles in total, all of which are already adequately categorised both
by type of modeling and
by nationality, with the usual range of intersections. Note: I am aware that before fashion modelling, people (esp women) used to model for painters and others in the fine arts. It was unusual for such people to be notable in their own right, but as with other occupations, it may be appropriate to create 19th-century and earlier categories for such people. I did try using catscan to
search for models born in the 19th-century, but it seems to be broken. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:55, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The last sportspeople by century
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 all, or alternatively delete all. After a long series of CFD discussions over the last few weeks, these are the last remaining categories of 20th and 21st-century sportspeople, apart from the
Category:20th-century football (soccer) players listed
below and the
Category:21st-century gamblers listed at
CfD March 3. All the same reasons for deletion apply, so I won't rehearse them here: there is a clear consensus that by-century categorisies of sportspeople are not appropriate beyond the 19th-century. Note that I have listed all the categories for merger, which require some clean up afterwards. All but
one of the articles which I have checked so far are already categorised in a suitable category of the merge target, so editors may prefer to delete the categories to avoid a cleanup afterwards. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
16:09, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I really don't know what you are trying to achieve here, or why you want that. After about two dozen CFDs closed as delete (with no keeps), it's crystal-clear that there that there is no consenus for keeping any by-sport sub-categories of those two. What earthly use is a category of a random splattering of a few 20th-century sportspeople from assorted sports? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
03:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
It completes the schema for 20th and
Category:21st-century people by occupation. What good is a schema that is only partially filled in? I'm only saying, again, upmerge until the parent supracategory pages are decided upon. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Mayumashu (
talk •
contribs) 14:09, 8 March 2010
Completeness is not an end in itself. The purpose of categories is to facilitate navigation, but these categories do not help navigation, and you haven't even tried to make a case that they do. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. I don't think these facilitate navigation. i agree that there only possible justification would be completeness, but we've already deleted a number of these now.
Good Ol’factory(talk)00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Reply. Of course there have been sportspeople for many centuries .. but what exactly is the purpose of a catch-all category of all sportspeople from the 20th century, when its possible sub-categories have all been deleted by consensus? If populated, it would be humungous, consisting of a huge mishmash of everything from an Irish hurler in 1905 to Mongolian basketball-player born 90 years later? What's the navigational purpose of grouping these things together? --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
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:20th-century football (soccer) players
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 category. While the question of merging into
Category:Football (soccer) players wasn't brought up, I see no reason not to do this; it's consistent with recent CfD consensus; this category was part of that category tree; and that category isn't up for deletion.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu18:00, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom and much recnet precedent. Men and women do not play football together professionally. Upmerging to sportspeople is improper, since it removes the link to their sport.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Cowra, New South Wales
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:Mayors and Lord Mayors of Strathfield, Australia
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Strathfield municipality is one of hundreds of municipalities in Australia, most of its mayors will never ever reach WP:POLITICIAN. secondly, Lord Mayor does not apply to Strathfield only Parramatta and
City of Sydney in Sydney.
LibStar (
talk)
11:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. It should be noted Strathfield is simply a small municipality well within metropolitan Sydney, which has about 40 of the things. A quick look around shows no other place except
City of Sydney has such a category (and that entity can well justify it). LibStar: there's also Wollongong and Newcastle, I believe, although both are outside Sydney.
Orderinchaos17:55, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TV stations in Birmingham
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.
(With regret) Support: Birmingham, Alabama is also a large city, so that confusion is inevitable. However the decision here should conform to that in the other current CFD.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
10:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment That CfD is inevitably going to close against my proposal (it probably should be closed per
WP:SNOW), so I will submit the few Birmingham categories without England as well to impose some conformity. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
22:47, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment I agree, but we're in
the minority. In the meantime, all of these categories may as well have the same type of name (i.e. either "X in Birmingham" or "X in Birmingham, England".) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
19:49, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator. "Birmingham" is an ambiguous term, referring amongst other things to two large cities, so some disambiguator is required (I have no preference between "England" and "West Midlands"). This is particularly important for categories, which appear on articles without any explanation, and are added by editors who may never have seen the category page. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
02:09, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Support per nom / Occuli. It is one of my more reluctant ones, but as I said in another place, my own city has the same problem in similar circumstances.
Orderinchaos17:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename England doesn't have many TV stations, while the US has lots. This would more logically be about the US city, not the one in England.
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
05:41, 11 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TV shows filmed 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.
This seems to be a one-of-a-kind category, in that I don't see any other categories for television shows filmed in other states or any kind of broad structure of television shows by filming location. The setting of a TV show is one thing, but where it was filmed might have little bearing on the content. For example,
Dawson's Creek was filmed in NC but set in MA. So perhaps deletion might be the best result? We do have a well-developed structure for
Category:Films by shooting location, but I don't know that the same thing would be useful for television shows. postdlf (talk)
16:25, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
TV commercial actors
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete, My concern is that this characteristic is not defining for most of these individuals. Given that, this category will be a maintenance nightmare. If kept, rename.
Vegaswikian1 (
talk)
17:54, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename if kept, but leaning towards delete. There are few enough actors in these two categories, so we definitely don't need to split them by nationality. Even if the main category is kept, the Taiwanese one should be merged into it. In the meantime, I have added
Category:TV commercial actors to
Category:Advertising people As to whether this is a defining attribute, I dunno. Several of these articles don't belong in the categories, and it seems to me to be defining for only a very few:
Jan Miner,
Isaiah Mustafa, possibly
Paul Blackthorne,
Ardon Bess,
Amey Pandya. That's two-and-three-halves out of 11, although I would add
Maureen Lipman for her role as
Beattie. So that's three articles for which this is the defining characteristic ... and that makes me lean towards deletion. I think the substantive case for deletion is that most commercial actors are anonymous: they don't get on-screen credits or star billing as in a movie, because in most cases the idea is that the product is dominant. So we have a lot of notable characters in
Category:Advertising characters, but in most cases the actors remain obscure: even cult characters such as
Papa & Nicole are played by non-notable actors. The most common exception to that is the celebrity endorsement, but in that case a) they are not acting, and b) the ad is definitely not a defining characteristic (the celeb is are there only because they are notable for something else). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
22:35, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol
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 to
Category:Television programmes shot in Bristol (i.e. without the films), and create a separate category for the two films. I nominated this category for deletion at
CfD 2009 December 28, where there was no support for deletion, but the idea of renaming to exclude films was suggested by Bradjamesbrown. I think that's a good idea, so I suggest taking this opportunity to do it, because the current hybrid category has led to two films being included in the television category tree. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
15:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Wow. Either I'm getting old, or too many discussions have come and gone, because I didn't even remember that CfD. However, I've got to say, I still agree with myself ;) I'm indifferent to the system of TV shows by production city, but the films still need to be split out.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
16:22, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TV series with episodes in the public domain
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:TV archaeologists
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Delete as arbitrary; appears to be a dumping ground for any archaeologist who appeared on television, whether as a producer of their own shows or just as a talking head on the news. That its parent category is
Category:Television doesn't give me much hope that there is a valid category lurking in there somewhere. postdlf (talk)
05:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as arbitrary. I was expecting to find, say,
Daniel Jackson in this category, and was somewhat surprised to find real people. Seems to be a TV version of performer by performance, in a broad sense.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk)
16:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:TV channels with British versions
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 nominator if kept ... but I wonder if it is really a good idea to start categorising TV channels in this way? The channels in this category appear to be those aired in multiple countries, but I'm not sure whether it includes any non-UK-based channels shown in the UK, or only those modified for UK audiences. If it's the former, then it's a recipe for massive category-clutter; but even if it is restricted to channels modified for the UK, I can still see this leading to a lot of clutter on articles. Does anyone know enough about this to say whether any of these channels have multiple national variants? (e.g. one for the UK, one for Germany, one for France). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per the discussion above. Not clear that this is needed and the discussion above seems to be supporting deletion over a rename.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
19:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
TSN
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:TED Prize winners
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.
Neutral leaning towards keep We do of course have many categories for winners of major national and international awards. I'm not yet convinced the TED conference prizes don't meet that stature.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
18:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:SHG
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.
SI
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose Long form is non-intuitive - SI is the common name. (Shouldn't the main article be at "Système International" anyway?)
Orderinchaos17:58, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I'd say this is a clear example where, in an English encyclopedia, we have to use the acronym. Since the acronym defines a term that isn't in English, the English equivalent does not define the acronym. "SI unit" is the term these are known as.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
03:01, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
SAIC
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:SONICFLOOd albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:HGTV shows
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 the phraseology "Home & Garden Television" is nowhere to be found on either www.scrippsnetworks.com or hgtv.com , it seems that the article is due for renaming, not the category.-
choster (
talk)
17:31, 23 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Actually "Home & Garden Television" is on the HGTV site, but it took me a while to find it. Maybe a question is how do we deal with brands? Clearly HGTV is a brand but "Home & Garden Television" is not? Are brands allowed to have a category under the brand name even if it does not match the lead article and if it is the primary use? If brands are OK, then clearly this would not need renaming.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:19, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:RAND Corporation
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Oppose "Rand" is a surname, some people capitialize every letter in surnames. The current name is a common way to refer to RAND, and has the advantage of not being highly ambiguous.
70.29.210.242 (
talk)
08:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose Looking at the logo embedded in the parent article:
File:Rand-logo.PNG it is referring to itself as RAND Corporation. So too in the title line on their own website "RAND Corporation provides..."; so if anything needs changed it is reversing the parent article and its redirect?
AllyD (
talk)
09:17, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose. It calls itself the "RAND Corporation", it's commonly named the "RAND Corporation", and "RAND" is ambiguous. I'll open a
WP:RM discussion on the head article, but even if it stays at "RAND", that's too ambiguous a name for the category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
10:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:PASD MEPs serving 2009-2014
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: Overcategorization with an arbitrary title (possibly
WP:CRYSTAL, if it is implying that the members will serve until 2014). There is only one article in this and it is not a part of some larger scheme as far as I can tell. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯
03:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sailboat names
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:Sailboat names to
Category:Individual sailing vessels. This has been a confusing discussion to navigate, which I think indicates a degree of confusion in categorisation of this area. I would suggest that interested editors might consider taking this issue in hand and developing a more practical, workable, and intuitive scheme. --Xdamrtalk19:28, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: This category seems to be about sailboats, not their names. There was an unresolved discussion in 2005 (during which
Category:Sailboats was created) and apparently there may be some disagreement about what kinds of vessels should go into this category, but nobody seems to agree that the "names" is necessary, any more than we put articles about people into
Category:People names or articles about songs into
Category:Song names. If there's still any dispute about the type of vessel, I hope we can all at least agree that "Sailboats" is a better title than "Sailboat names."
Propaniac (
talk)
15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
A very good point! There are indeed overlaps in some of these categories. I will take some time out and see what we have re categories and make some suggestions for consideration.
Boatman (
talk)
21:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename or delete Please understand that "sailboat" is a US-only term that to UK and I imagine other English-speaking ears rather implies something 15 feet long. This category aims to include all articles on individual sail-powered vessels including commercial freighters and warships. Rename to
Category:Sailing ships or vessels or something similar, if the category is in fact useful - which it may be.
Johnbod (
talk)
16:15, 15 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete and then nominate
Category:Yachts by name for deletion. All ships are listed by name so why to we need a category by name? Is this intended to be a super category that includes all sailboats or all yachts? This seems like it may well be OCAT.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)reply
Reply The category is badly named and has a daft bit of introductory text, but it is clearly intended to categorise individual sailing boats rather than general articles about sailing boats or about types of sailing boats. If this category is deleted, then the articles in it will no longer categorised under
Category:Sailboats. If it is upmerged, then we retain no distinction between articles on individual sailboats such as Gipsy Moth IV and types of boat such as
J-class yacht,
Fish class sloop. The naming and structure of these categories is currently a big mess, but the solution lies in sorting the articles into more appropriate categories, rather than just pressing the delete button. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
11:50, 26 February 2010 (UTC)reply
PROPOSAL I confess to starting some of this confusion a while back due to lack of a category to index names of sailing vessels.
Category:Sailing was intended to capture all categories and topics related to vessels which float and are propelled by the wind. There are numerous categories types of sailing vessels according to purpose. At a high level there are sailing vessels for use in commerce/trade, defense/navy, pleasure/cruising/racing etc. Because there was no category to capture names the
Category:Sailboat names was borne. It was a generic name to capture the names of all vessels irrespective of type - it could equally well have been given the name "Sailing vessel names" or similar. Because of the rapid growth of articles relating to specific vessels we now have mix of 17th century navy battleships, state of the art 21st century racing boats, clipper ships etc etc in the
Category:Sailboat names. My PROPOSAL is within
Category:Sailing there are new categories which replace
Category:Sailboat names. The new categories are
Category:Names of yachts,
Category: Names of naval sailing vessels and
Category: Names of commercial sailing vessels. There are other 'name' categories which will be required but these will become obvious as we progress. If we RenameCategory:Sailboat names to
Category:Names of yachts I will put effort into re-categorizing the articles as appropriate and I am sure others would assist. Appreciate comments from all re this proposal.
Boatman (
talk)
10:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The problem here is that the "names" part of the category name is redundant; as User:Propaniac noted above, we don't categorize people as "Names of people", but as
Category:People, we don't categorize cities as "Names of cities" but as
Category:Cities. We do indeed have a category for the Names of people (
Category:Human names), and this category holds articles about the origins and meanings of people's names. A category named "Names of sailing vessels" should contain articles about the names of sailing vessels, not the vessels themselves; but I don't think we have any articles like that (at least not for specifically sailing vessels. We do, of course have many many general articles on ship names under
Category:Ship names). --
Rlandmann (
talk)
11:58, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Answer -- fair point. However, that would actually be the reverse of the ship category, where individual ships are placed in the various subcategories of
Category:Ships and articles on types of ships are placed in
Category:Ship types. I also note that
Category:Boats doesn't distinguish, and has individual boats grouped together with types of boats (of course, relatively few individual boats are notable, unlike individual ships and individual sailing vessels). --
Rlandmann (
talk)
12:53, 7 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Since this has been going on a long time, I will repeat that "sailboat" is an American term, which suggests a dinghy or small yacht to UK English ears, and should be avoided as misleading. "Sailing vessels" is neutral.
Johnbod (
talk)
14:46, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Sports competitions
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.
Provisional oppose. I haven't yet checked fully what the categories actually contain, but the plain-English usage of the words offers a clear distinction: International competitions are those between national teams, and are a subset of Transnational competitions. Transnational events include competitors from different countries, and those may not be selected on a national basis. One example which comes to mind is the
Fastnet race, where yachts qualify on an individual basis, and do not represent their country. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)reply
I presume you mean that international competitions are just ones between nations or national teams – Not just specifically two i.e. "Nation A" vs "Nation B"? The Olympics being a key example of the former? the Formula One season is perhaps an obvious example of a transnational competition i.e individuals competing for company teams.
Sillyfolkboy (
talk) (
edits)Join WikiProject Athletics!12:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)reply
DISAGREE. In the Olympics, only some events involve competition between national teams. The vast majority of events involve competition between individuals. That makes them no less international.
Nipsonanomhmata (
talk)
22:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment: DISAGREE. Transnational competitions can be between teams too. And International competitions can be between individuals as well as between teams. For example, the Davis Cup is between teams, Wimbledon is between individuals as well as teams, the Olympics is between both individuals as well as teams.
Nipsonanomhmata (
talk)
22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.