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:2008 Summer Olympics sports templates
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:Organisations established in 1901
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:LGBT sportspeople by nationality
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:keep. This is a split discussion, and it is the kind of triple intersection that CfD normally doesn't approve of. But here, the keep side is strongly supported by the similar subcategorization of quite a few other LGBT categories by occupation and nationality.
Category:LGBT musicians by nationality shows why: with 421 American LGBT musicians alone, the category could easily get swamped without subcategorization. So I'm validating the approach here, which leaves the problem that several of the subcategories were emptied in advance, and now have to be reconstituted. I will ask
User:SatyrTN to do that.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The main reason for this nomination is that this cat and it's subcats fail
WP:OCAT#Intersection by location. Specifically, "avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." It may be interesting that an LGBT person plays a sport (see
Homosexuality in sports) and/or that an LGBT person is from a specific country (see
Category:LGBT rights by region and associated categories and pages), but the intersection is too much.
Keep. Nationality is an accepted way of diffusing what could otherwise be an overly large category. Query - did you depopulate these before nominating them? Some are empty. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I was in the process of moving people to the separate categories "Gay sportspeople" (etc) and "LGBT people from nationality" (etc), but had an objection, so brought it here. The largest category has not been depopulated at all - 69 entries in
Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States. Given that's the largest, I don't think overpopulation is going to be an issue. -- SatyrTN (
talk /
contribs)21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Do you think you could restore the articles to the categories pending discussion? It's rather improper to empty categories before arguing to delete them on the grounds that they are redundant. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm worried about the effect on the discussion, not about whether it will be too much work if the categories are kept - if you look in these categories and see that they're empty or have very few members it's easy to say "we don't need nationality subcategories to diffuse a large category," but if the categories have been depopulated beforehand you're not getting an accurate view of the situation upon which to base your comment. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oh, I know. I'm just trying to make sure that people joining the discussion have all necessary information, such as how many articles are in the categories in question. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
01:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep I think the argument at
WP:OCAT#Intersection by location allows for this particular division. While some of the sportspeople from Foo may not play for a Foo team or league, probably most of them do, so division by nationality is a pretty fair way of dividing this group. i would draw the line here, and disallow "lgbt sportspeople by subnational region" as definitely being an overcategorization not relevant to the nature of the subject. I do, however, acknowledge that this is not a completely cut and dried decision, as i have indicated.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
03:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete -- All sports (with one or two exceptions, such as certain equestrian sports) are competed for by men and women separately. Their sexuality is irrelevant to their sport. I therefore regard this as a trivial intersection. I would not object to them being upmerged to Fooian sportspeople (but preferably sorted by gender) and Fooian LGBT people.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, I'm of two minds about these — but wanted to offer some food for thought nonetheless (particularly since I'm the person who raised the initial objection to SatyrTN preemptively decatting the affected articles.) The LGBT wikiproject has traditionally encouraged LGBT-occupation-by-country crosscategorization for occupations where that intersection is an encyclopedically relevant contextual grouping in its own right (e.g. politicians, writers), and has tried to avoid it in cases where it just constitutes "people who happen to be both X and Y" (e.g. actors). However, at least some of these sportspeople intersections were created almost three years ago, with no objections being raised until now. More recently, several other occupations (journalists, radio personalities, television personalities, comedians, etc.) were similarly subdivided after being duly requested at the category creation project, and weren't objected to then either — and there's simply no credible case to be made that
Category:LGBT comedians by nationality and
Category:LGBT journalists by nationality should exist but
Category:LGBT sportspeople by nationality shouldn't, because their cases for "encyclopedically relevant contextual grouping" aren't any stronger, and may even be significantly weaker, than this one's is. I can't deny that there's been a clear evolution in what sort of categorization is expected in this tree — what I don't yet know is whether that represents a genuine need which should rightly force a revision of the project's traditional approach, or whether this is just a case of overeager categorizing for the sake of categorizing. And given the fact that most of the categories were prematurely evacuated I can't properly determine whether the number of relevant articles warrants invoking the "location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories" clause or not. And finally, it probably warrants mention that this isn't the first time I've seen SatyrTN arbitrarily emptying LGBT-occupation-by-country crosscats that didn't meet his sense of which ones should and shouldn't exist, without seeking an actual consensus for their deletion first (though it is the first time he's responded to my consequent objections by actually taking the category to CFD, instead of by just calling me a prissy bitchface and ignoring the actual process issue at stake.) No !vote yet, though I reserve the right to make a decision one way or the other as the discussion evolves.Bearcat (
talk)
06:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Update: I've decided to go with the keep side, per location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. A category that's large enough to warrant diffusion may be subcatted in this way regardless of whether the intersection of location and occupation is relevant classification scheme in its own right or just as a size management sort of thing.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I think that
Category:LGBT sportspeople and all related subcats should be nommed for deletion per comments above, and past discussions on intersection by occupation. but until such time as that, weak keep the split by location, as it's one of the ways we split large categories. - jc3704:17, 4 February 2012 (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:Places names in Nebraska
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. I'm the creator of this category. It is the beginning of a series of articles I am going to write specific to the toponymy of Nebraska. It would be inappropriate to put these in
Category:Populated places in Nebraska, and if they are placed there this category will likely be recreated in the future to accordingly place the related articles. • Freechildtalk18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - My comment is probably beyond the scope of this particular nomination, but it occurs to me that categorizing settlements by the origin of their names is
overcategorization on the basis of a characteristic "of the name rather than the subject itself" and, therefore, non-defining. This seems to be something that would be better suited to lists rather than categories. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Thank you for that link. I don't envy you having to close that discussion, by the way... In light of that discussion, then, I agree that this category should be deleted. I would prefer that we continue to use the current system – of subcategorizing Place names of Foo origin in {U.S. state} within Geography of {U.S. state} and Place names of Foo origin in the United States – rather than start further fragmenting these categories by state. If there is no consensus to delete the category, it should at least be renamed to something like
Category:Names of places in Nebraska, following
Category:Names of places in the United States. -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Listify the subcategories then delete all -- A native American list already exists, but no French one. Most of the articles that I checked have no explanation of the origin of the name; so that categorisation is a variety
WP:OR. If we are to keep this, is should be something like
Category:Places in Nebraska by placename origin. (note "places", not "populated places" as there may be mountaisn or rivers to be included. I regard that as potentially a valid category, but it needs to be supported by an article. The native American article often lists the origin, meaning that the list provides more than a category can. I think I even saw one place that was allegedly both French and Native American, which surely cannot be right.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete If the creator wants to write articles on the toponyms of Nebraska, that is what should be done. There is no reason for Nebraska place names to be grouped in any way.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per the thoughtful reasons above. If the admin wants to they can listify but that should not be required. The other option would be the leave the information in the creators space so that his research does not have to be done if he wants to create the list.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:42, 4 February 2012 (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:Magazines (artillery)
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 per
WP:SNOW. A
Magazine (artillery) is "the name for an item or place within which ammunition is stored." To rename as nominated to "bring this category name in line with the others used at
Category:Magazines by interest" would mean that this is a category for publications about artillery storehouses, which it is not. I suspect the nominator has not does his before work and actually looked at the contents of the nominated category.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Nom withdrawn I did look at the cat and saw some entries that looked like possible titles of magazines (but didn't look too closely nor looked at any of the articles). I guess I'm just not very military minded, it never occurred to me that "magazine" could mean anything else then a publication... Sorry about the hassle. --
Guillaume2303 (
talk)
20:20, 13 January 2012 (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:Albums produced by Jack Frost
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:People associated with Direct Sales
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:Ekumen
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This should be the name, as thats whats its known as in the SF world. Ekumen is a federation in one phase of the works. sub categories should also be renamed: Ekumen books to Hainish Cycle books, Ekumen planets to Hainish Cycle planets.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
07:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-article Trinidad and Tobago pages
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:Non-article Scientology pages
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:Non-article Peru pages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a single-member category that contains a page which already appears directly in
Category:Peru – the main content category supported by this WikiProject. In sprite of what the intended function may have been, this category currently does little more than indicate that Peru-related images are non-article pages that fall within the scope of WikiProject Peru – a fact that is self-evident even without this category. If the goal is assessment and tracking, then that should be accomplished through use of {{WikiProject Peru}} on the talk pages of the relevant files. -- Black Falcon(
talk)07:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-article Georgia (U.S. state) pages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category constitutes unnecessary duplication of categorization already carried out through
Category:Education in Georgia (U.S. state) task force. Any internal pages belonging to a task force of a WikiProject are, by definition, non-article pages within the scope of that WikiProject, and so nothing is gained by this dual categorization. If the goal is assessment rather than organization, then that should be (and is, in fact) performed on the two pages' talk pages. -- Black Falcon(
talk)06:57, 13 January 2012 (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:Books by Ursula K. Le Guin
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, but without prejudice to recreating if the suggestion of making 'Books...' an intermediate layer between 'Works...' and 'Novels...', 'Non-fiction books...' and so on, is implemented. -- Black Falcon(
talk)22:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: unnecessary subcategory, and the title is misleading. this would be considered "nonfiction books by ursula leguin" but we dont seem to have such a format for dividing works by author into fiction and nonfiction
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
As the person who created the category, I've been invited to comment. What I would like to point out is that when I created it, it included all books by Ursula K. Le Guin (e.g. Novels by... was a subcategory of this). A random sampling of "Books by author" categories shows that there exist other categories using that definition, as well as others using the unintuitive "books means non-fiction" definition. Is there an actual formal definition of what "Books by author" means somewhere, or have people just been making it up as they go along? —
Paul A (
talk)
08:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I just realized what i did was not kosher (reading a discussion above). The combination of bold editing, THEN bringing to discussion, is not right. my apologies. i do like the nonfiction division idea, per occculi, thats why i mentioned it above. actually, maybe "books by leguin" should be between "works by leguin" and "novels by leguin"/"short story collections by leguin", with books divided into novels, nonfiction, collections, childrens books. odd i didnt think of that, maybe i was focused on the definition within the cat, which was so odd to me.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
03:29, 14 January 2012 (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:Science fiction short story collections by Ursula K. Le Guin
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: her collections cannot be delineated into "short story collections" and "science fiction short story collections". i recategorized all that were here into the broader cat, and placed that cat in "sf stories by author" as its true enough.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
again, sorry for the incorrect procedure. i wont do that again. My understanding is that her collections often combine both, and she tends to straddle sf and fantasy in many of her works, instead of, say, producing hard sf vs. high fantasy (larry niven is 90% pure hard sf, with a small number of clearly fantasy works, no middle ground). if someone can reliably categorize her short stories into sf and fantasy collections (i cant, and i dont think its possible, but i could be wrong), then we can have both.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-article Genetics pages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category unnecessarily violates the separation that normally is maintained between content pages and WikiProject pages. Its existence does not make the two subcategories or their contents more accessible to the WikiProject's members since both subcategories already appear in
Category:Genetics, which is the main content category supported by this WikiProject. In addition, every image and template contained within the two subcategories has the WikiProject's assessment banner on its talk page, so any desired assessment or tracking activities are already performed through
Category:File-Class Genetics articles and
Category:Template-Class Genetics articles. -- Black Falcon(
talk)06:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-article Jewish Christianity pages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant to
Category:WikiProject Jewish Christianity as any internal page of a WikiProject is, by definition, a "non-article" page. This category's contents can and should (and, in fact, do) appear directly in the WikiProject's main category and there's no need for this supplemental categorization. -- Black Falcon(
talk)06:16, 13 January 2012 (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:2008 Summer Olympics sports templates
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:Organisations established in 1901
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:LGBT sportspeople by nationality
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:keep. This is a split discussion, and it is the kind of triple intersection that CfD normally doesn't approve of. But here, the keep side is strongly supported by the similar subcategorization of quite a few other LGBT categories by occupation and nationality.
Category:LGBT musicians by nationality shows why: with 421 American LGBT musicians alone, the category could easily get swamped without subcategorization. So I'm validating the approach here, which leaves the problem that several of the subcategories were emptied in advance, and now have to be reconstituted. I will ask
User:SatyrTN to do that.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
02:00, 10 February 2012 (UTC)reply
The main reason for this nomination is that this cat and it's subcats fail
WP:OCAT#Intersection by location. Specifically, "avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics." It may be interesting that an LGBT person plays a sport (see
Homosexuality in sports) and/or that an LGBT person is from a specific country (see
Category:LGBT rights by region and associated categories and pages), but the intersection is too much.
Keep. Nationality is an accepted way of diffusing what could otherwise be an overly large category. Query - did you depopulate these before nominating them? Some are empty. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
19:09, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I was in the process of moving people to the separate categories "Gay sportspeople" (etc) and "LGBT people from nationality" (etc), but had an objection, so brought it here. The largest category has not been depopulated at all - 69 entries in
Category:LGBT sportspeople from the United States. Given that's the largest, I don't think overpopulation is going to be an issue. -- SatyrTN (
talk /
contribs)21:16, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Do you think you could restore the articles to the categories pending discussion? It's rather improper to empty categories before arguing to delete them on the grounds that they are redundant. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I'm worried about the effect on the discussion, not about whether it will be too much work if the categories are kept - if you look in these categories and see that they're empty or have very few members it's easy to say "we don't need nationality subcategories to diffuse a large category," but if the categories have been depopulated beforehand you're not getting an accurate view of the situation upon which to base your comment. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
00:39, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Oh, I know. I'm just trying to make sure that people joining the discussion have all necessary information, such as how many articles are in the categories in question. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs)
01:53, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep I think the argument at
WP:OCAT#Intersection by location allows for this particular division. While some of the sportspeople from Foo may not play for a Foo team or league, probably most of them do, so division by nationality is a pretty fair way of dividing this group. i would draw the line here, and disallow "lgbt sportspeople by subnational region" as definitely being an overcategorization not relevant to the nature of the subject. I do, however, acknowledge that this is not a completely cut and dried decision, as i have indicated.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
03:19, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete -- All sports (with one or two exceptions, such as certain equestrian sports) are competed for by men and women separately. Their sexuality is irrelevant to their sport. I therefore regard this as a trivial intersection. I would not object to them being upmerged to Fooian sportspeople (but preferably sorted by gender) and Fooian LGBT people.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
20:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
For what it's worth, I'm of two minds about these — but wanted to offer some food for thought nonetheless (particularly since I'm the person who raised the initial objection to SatyrTN preemptively decatting the affected articles.) The LGBT wikiproject has traditionally encouraged LGBT-occupation-by-country crosscategorization for occupations where that intersection is an encyclopedically relevant contextual grouping in its own right (e.g. politicians, writers), and has tried to avoid it in cases where it just constitutes "people who happen to be both X and Y" (e.g. actors). However, at least some of these sportspeople intersections were created almost three years ago, with no objections being raised until now. More recently, several other occupations (journalists, radio personalities, television personalities, comedians, etc.) were similarly subdivided after being duly requested at the category creation project, and weren't objected to then either — and there's simply no credible case to be made that
Category:LGBT comedians by nationality and
Category:LGBT journalists by nationality should exist but
Category:LGBT sportspeople by nationality shouldn't, because their cases for "encyclopedically relevant contextual grouping" aren't any stronger, and may even be significantly weaker, than this one's is. I can't deny that there's been a clear evolution in what sort of categorization is expected in this tree — what I don't yet know is whether that represents a genuine need which should rightly force a revision of the project's traditional approach, or whether this is just a case of overeager categorizing for the sake of categorizing. And given the fact that most of the categories were prematurely evacuated I can't properly determine whether the number of relevant articles warrants invoking the "location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories" clause or not. And finally, it probably warrants mention that this isn't the first time I've seen SatyrTN arbitrarily emptying LGBT-occupation-by-country crosscats that didn't meet his sense of which ones should and shouldn't exist, without seeking an actual consensus for their deletion first (though it is the first time he's responded to my consequent objections by actually taking the category to CFD, instead of by just calling me a prissy bitchface and ignoring the actual process issue at stake.) No !vote yet, though I reserve the right to make a decision one way or the other as the discussion evolves.Bearcat (
talk)
06:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Update: I've decided to go with the keep side, per location may be used as a way to split a large category into subcategories. A category that's large enough to warrant diffusion may be subcatted in this way regardless of whether the intersection of location and occupation is relevant classification scheme in its own right or just as a size management sort of thing.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment I think that
Category:LGBT sportspeople and all related subcats should be nommed for deletion per comments above, and past discussions on intersection by occupation. but until such time as that, weak keep the split by location, as it's one of the ways we split large categories. - jc3704:17, 4 February 2012 (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:Places names in Nebraska
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. I'm the creator of this category. It is the beginning of a series of articles I am going to write specific to the toponymy of Nebraska. It would be inappropriate to put these in
Category:Populated places in Nebraska, and if they are placed there this category will likely be recreated in the future to accordingly place the related articles. • Freechildtalk18:14, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment - My comment is probably beyond the scope of this particular nomination, but it occurs to me that categorizing settlements by the origin of their names is
overcategorization on the basis of a characteristic "of the name rather than the subject itself" and, therefore, non-defining. This seems to be something that would be better suited to lists rather than categories. -- Black Falcon(
talk)20:42, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Thank you for that link. I don't envy you having to close that discussion, by the way... In light of that discussion, then, I agree that this category should be deleted. I would prefer that we continue to use the current system – of subcategorizing Place names of Foo origin in {U.S. state} within Geography of {U.S. state} and Place names of Foo origin in the United States – rather than start further fragmenting these categories by state. If there is no consensus to delete the category, it should at least be renamed to something like
Category:Names of places in Nebraska, following
Category:Names of places in the United States. -- Black Falcon(
talk)21:26, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Listify the subcategories then delete all -- A native American list already exists, but no French one. Most of the articles that I checked have no explanation of the origin of the name; so that categorisation is a variety
WP:OR. If we are to keep this, is should be something like
Category:Places in Nebraska by placename origin. (note "places", not "populated places" as there may be mountaisn or rivers to be included. I regard that as potentially a valid category, but it needs to be supported by an article. The native American article often lists the origin, meaning that the list provides more than a category can. I think I even saw one place that was allegedly both French and Native American, which surely cannot be right.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
21:00, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete If the creator wants to write articles on the toponyms of Nebraska, that is what should be done. There is no reason for Nebraska place names to be grouped in any way.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
05:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per the thoughtful reasons above. If the admin wants to they can listify but that should not be required. The other option would be the leave the information in the creators space so that his research does not have to be done if he wants to create the list.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
03:42, 4 February 2012 (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:Magazines (artillery)
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 per
WP:SNOW. A
Magazine (artillery) is "the name for an item or place within which ammunition is stored." To rename as nominated to "bring this category name in line with the others used at
Category:Magazines by interest" would mean that this is a category for publications about artillery storehouses, which it is not. I suspect the nominator has not does his before work and actually looked at the contents of the nominated category.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk)
20:08, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Nom withdrawn I did look at the cat and saw some entries that looked like possible titles of magazines (but didn't look too closely nor looked at any of the articles). I guess I'm just not very military minded, it never occurred to me that "magazine" could mean anything else then a publication... Sorry about the hassle. --
Guillaume2303 (
talk)
20:20, 13 January 2012 (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:Albums produced by Jack Frost
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:People associated with Direct Sales
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:Ekumen
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This should be the name, as thats whats its known as in the SF world. Ekumen is a federation in one phase of the works. sub categories should also be renamed: Ekumen books to Hainish Cycle books, Ekumen planets to Hainish Cycle planets.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
07:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-article Trinidad and Tobago pages
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:Non-article Scientology pages
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:Non-article Peru pages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a single-member category that contains a page which already appears directly in
Category:Peru – the main content category supported by this WikiProject. In sprite of what the intended function may have been, this category currently does little more than indicate that Peru-related images are non-article pages that fall within the scope of WikiProject Peru – a fact that is self-evident even without this category. If the goal is assessment and tracking, then that should be accomplished through use of {{WikiProject Peru}} on the talk pages of the relevant files. -- Black Falcon(
talk)07:22, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-article Georgia (U.S. state) pages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category constitutes unnecessary duplication of categorization already carried out through
Category:Education in Georgia (U.S. state) task force. Any internal pages belonging to a task force of a WikiProject are, by definition, non-article pages within the scope of that WikiProject, and so nothing is gained by this dual categorization. If the goal is assessment rather than organization, then that should be (and is, in fact) performed on the two pages' talk pages. -- Black Falcon(
talk)06:57, 13 January 2012 (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:Books by Ursula K. Le Guin
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, but without prejudice to recreating if the suggestion of making 'Books...' an intermediate layer between 'Works...' and 'Novels...', 'Non-fiction books...' and so on, is implemented. -- Black Falcon(
talk)22:14, 31 January 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: unnecessary subcategory, and the title is misleading. this would be considered "nonfiction books by ursula leguin" but we dont seem to have such a format for dividing works by author into fiction and nonfiction
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:35, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
As the person who created the category, I've been invited to comment. What I would like to point out is that when I created it, it included all books by Ursula K. Le Guin (e.g. Novels by... was a subcategory of this). A random sampling of "Books by author" categories shows that there exist other categories using that definition, as well as others using the unintuitive "books means non-fiction" definition. Is there an actual formal definition of what "Books by author" means somewhere, or have people just been making it up as they go along? —
Paul A (
talk)
08:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
I just realized what i did was not kosher (reading a discussion above). The combination of bold editing, THEN bringing to discussion, is not right. my apologies. i do like the nonfiction division idea, per occculi, thats why i mentioned it above. actually, maybe "books by leguin" should be between "works by leguin" and "novels by leguin"/"short story collections by leguin", with books divided into novels, nonfiction, collections, childrens books. odd i didnt think of that, maybe i was focused on the definition within the cat, which was so odd to me.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
03:29, 14 January 2012 (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:Science fiction short story collections by Ursula K. Le Guin
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: her collections cannot be delineated into "short story collections" and "science fiction short story collections". i recategorized all that were here into the broader cat, and placed that cat in "sf stories by author" as its true enough.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:29, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
again, sorry for the incorrect procedure. i wont do that again. My understanding is that her collections often combine both, and she tends to straddle sf and fantasy in many of her works, instead of, say, producing hard sf vs. high fantasy (larry niven is 90% pure hard sf, with a small number of clearly fantasy works, no middle ground). if someone can reliably categorize her short stories into sf and fantasy collections (i cant, and i dont think its possible, but i could be wrong), then we can have both.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
03:35, 14 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-article Genetics pages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category unnecessarily violates the separation that normally is maintained between content pages and WikiProject pages. Its existence does not make the two subcategories or their contents more accessible to the WikiProject's members since both subcategories already appear in
Category:Genetics, which is the main content category supported by this WikiProject. In addition, every image and template contained within the two subcategories has the WikiProject's assessment banner on its talk page, so any desired assessment or tracking activities are already performed through
Category:File-Class Genetics articles and
Category:Template-Class Genetics articles. -- Black Falcon(
talk)06:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Non-article Jewish Christianity pages
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This category is redundant to
Category:WikiProject Jewish Christianity as any internal page of a WikiProject is, by definition, a "non-article" page. This category's contents can and should (and, in fact, do) appear directly in the WikiProject's main category and there's no need for this supplemental categorization. -- Black Falcon(
talk)06:16, 13 January 2012 (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.