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.
Do you propose diffusing
Category:Redirects from Unicode characters? If your concern is its overpopulation, I think a better (easier to implement and maintain) solution is to split it into subcategories by e.g. block or
row. The concept of compatibility is ill-defined and as such should not be the criterion for a category.
Gorobay (
talk)
11:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
It is better-defined, but what is the purpose? Does that purpose apply to canonically decomposable characters? Or characters introduced in version 2.1? There are many ways to divide Unicode; why is compatibility decomposition of more value than they?
Gorobay (
talk)
13:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
populate If I understand the argument the category should be for characters like U+2126ΩOHM SIGN which is only included in unicode for compatibility reasons (U+03A9ΩGREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA should be used instead). This is a regular category not a hidden admin character like
Category:Redirects from Unicode characters.--
Salix (
talk):
15:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
I did not say that the aim of the category would be
"to divide" the Unicode. I do not propose to eject pages from
Category:Redirects from Unicode characters. I do not claim that "compatibility decomposable characters" is the best collection of Unicode characters which one can invent. I repeat what I actually said:
The category is currently unused, but potentially useful;
Gorobay's arguments (except his only valid "ill-defined" argument) was invalid. From the beginning and up to this point.
Your argument is that the category is potentially useful. What is this category potentially useful for? A category populated solely with redirects is not useful to readers. That is my argument.
Why did you link to
Divide and rule? It is not what ‘divide’ meant in context. But this is off-topic, so whatever.
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 comedians from England
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:Songs written by Peter Stuart
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 and Comment - I have now created an article for
Peter Stuart, which was long overdue, and should satisfy the original rationale for deletion. A bio article for Stuart should have been created years ago.
Scanlan (
talk)
03:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete because there is no point in having a one-entry songs by x person category. Whether or not Mr. Stuart is notable should be discussed in the context of his articles notability. If people think that article should be deleted they should nominate it for deletion, not discuss the matter here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)reply
CfD is different than AfD because you do not loose content when you delete a category, so there is less reason to make sure logically reasoning is given.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:51, 2 October 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:Films set within one day
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.
In what way is it a
defining characteristic? One look over the films in the category tells me it's not defining, it's just something they happen to all have in common. I own at least a dozen films whose stories all take place within 1 day, but they have nothing else in common with each other at all. So how is it a defining characteristic? --
IllaZilla (
talk)
16:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
What? No it doesn't. What about "films set within one week", "films set within one year", "films starring male leads", "films set during the day". Are these defining characteristics? Of course not. Many of the films in the category just happen to have their stories take place in one day, like The Goonies, it's not a defining characteristic of the film. You seem to be treating mere coincidence as correlation, when really this characteristic has little significance. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
07:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
What a cogent argument. How does it define the film, exactly? For most of the films in the category it seems a trivial, non-defining characteristic. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a trivial device--although potentially meaningful within one given piece of media, it's not necessarily and this is hardly a genre of film or literature. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Convert to list - This is one of those situations that
WP:CLN does not cover, when only 1 thing is appropriate, and the others are not.
In this case, we could/should have a list of items that are notable for this feature, that strictly does not include items which merely happen to have this feature.
With the perfect example of Ulysses which usually has "set in one day" as part of its capsule-synopsis; enough so that it has an internationally known/referenced/partaken-in celebration,
Bloomsday.
I had a similar sentiment when thinking of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. There is a distinction between works that are notable for this feature—like Ulysses, Denisovich, or the
24 series—and those which just happen to have it, like The Goonies, The Breakfast Club, or nearly every
slasher film ever made. As a literary or storytelling device, it may be a topic better suited for an article with a select few of the most notable examples highlighted. But as a category it's much too indiscriminate and trivial of a characteristic. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Listify I don't see how it could be defining for all films/books set in one day. Only some of them would this be defining, others it would be incidental. --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
11:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
REQUEST ASSISTANCE FROM AN ADMIN: I happen to recall that one or both of these categories has/have had previous CFD discussions which could be helpful and should be linked. However, those CFDs are not shown in the histories because both cats were renamed and the prior history was lost.
Cgingold (
talk)
13:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)reply
No, that's not what I was referring to. I'm talking about a CFD discussion that took place several years ago -- before these categories were renamed (as I clearly stated). I know for a fact because I took part in the discussion, and obviously, the categories were retained. It would also be helpful to have the category creator(s) take part in this discussion, so again, WE NEED AN ADMIN TO LOOK AT THE EDIT HISTORY PRIOR TO RENAMING in order to identify those editors.
Cgingold (
talk)
13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: I noticed a comment on the talk page of the book category which I feel speaks to this discussion (it's from 2010, from a user who was only active for a few days): two questions: does this listing contain every work of world literature set within the course of one day, or even every major work, or anything even close to every major work of literature set within the span of one day? And if it doesn't' then what is the actual point of this category? It isn't a discussion of the nature of "books set within one day" or a literary technique, nor is it a complete list. It could also be argued that these works are not really "unique"--i.e. warranting distinct categorization--since there have been thousands upon thousands of works of literature throughout human history set within the course of one day not mentioned here, as this technique is one of the
Aristotelian Unities. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
23:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete both. I started by looking at the categories. They currently seem to be diverse mishmash of works about one day (Ivan Denisovich, Ulysses), works whose action covers part of a day which would just as well over 2 or more (12 Angry Men), works which cover one event or crisis (Airport '77), works which cover a specific period of less than one day (Eleven Hours) ... but omits Groundhog Day because the closing scene is set on the following day. The result is a mishmash of works with next-to-nothing in common, ranging from purely commercial works of no artistic merit up to literary classics, and excluding one of the most notable single-day films because of its rigid and arbitrary criteria. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Previous discussions seem to have focused on whether the inclusion was arbitrary. Here the argument is not that the category is arbitrary, but that it is a plot point and not actually a characteristic that is at all part of the actual nature of the thing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep. I find it helpful when I look at this category. Many films I enjoy take place during one day, and when I first saw
The Breakfast Club, read its article, then read the categories and found this one, I made a note to myself to watch many of the other films on that list. This list is resourceful for people like me who enjoy films set within one day, and most of them on the list do have something in common: a lot of them are teen films, including
Ferris Bueller's Day Off,
Empire Records,
The Goonies,
American Graffiti, etc.
Arilicious (
talk)
04:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Listify or delete: For most of these movies, this is not a defining characteristic, it is trivia. However, for trivia, it may be interesting, possibly even notable (is there any literature around about this as a writing method/plot device?) so keep it as a list. (I sampled several random non-stub movies I had heard of but knew nothing about, none of the articles I tried made mention of this characteristic, despite quite extensive plot summaries. Sampling random books went a little better, but was still a mix of mention, no mention, and a couple seemed to describe more than one day in the plot summary) --
Qetuth (
talk)
05:31, 7 October 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:People from Zumbrota, Minnesota
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.
Comment. I went to every town page for these 20 nominees. 19 of them had 3 or less people mentioned in their notable people sections if the town had such a section at all. Rushford and Zumbrota in fact, are among those 19. Zumbrota has 1 and Rushford has none listed at all.
...William17:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Well done, that's one good place to look. But that technique is insufficient, because it relies upon other editors already having worked to populate those notable people lists. I found more by using whatlinkshere from the town, and by searching from the town name. (I haven't yet searched for Rushford; those I added were from whatlinkshere ). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Your addition of
William Roseland to People from Zumbrota Minnesota is based on a claim in the article that he was born there. Unfortunately I can't find a source for him being born there. His article provides none.
...William19:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Oculi, very strong disagree. If a person is born in a place - they will be citizens of that place, which is notable to the person. Let's stop the train and go through each of these.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
07:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment people are not citizens of towns or cities in the United States. They are not even per se citizens of states. They are citizens of the United States. It should also be noted that outside of the Americas very few countries grant citizenship merely based on birth. In some Persian Gulf countries the majority of people born there are not citizens, and Israel, the Netherlands and Switzerland also have large numbers of people born there who are not citizens. So in fact birth in a place and citizenship are not the same. All or virtually all countries also grant at-birth citizenship to some people born outside the jurisdiciton of the country.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Which is an argument for categorizing them based on where they were born. I only made a statement about origin of citizenship. The general trend seems to be to categorize people by where they were raised. The problem is that this is not as often noted as where they were born. That said, the problem is that if someone was born in Detroit but lived in New York City from age 2 months to 20+, they will see themselves and the world largely through the lense of being a New Yorker, not being a Detroiter. The big question is "what amont of connection with a place as an adult does a person need to be from there". I do not think there is a blanket or simple answer, but I think in general people can sense the answer.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge only Richmond, St Bonifacius, St Charles, Sturgeon Lake, Verndale, Watkins, Sebeka, Ogilvie, New York Mills and Olivia. Keep Zumbrota, Rushford, Pierz, Plainview, Proctor, Shorewood, Spring Grove, Thief River Falls, Wabasha, Wayzata and Sauk Rapids. I or others have populated the ones for keeping, and listified the others in the town articles. –
FayenaticLondon20:34, 10 October 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:Winter pentathlon
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:Woolworth companies
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 While the three (or so) companies have shared names because the others were named after the American original, there's not enough connection there to categorize them together. It's also a magnet for miscategorization, as can be seen by some of the members.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)reply
(voted above) -- I would still like to see a single Woolworth category for the company and its former subsidiaries and associates. I think you will find that all the entities were once subsidiaries (or associates - less than 50% owned) of the F. W. Woolworth Company. CAtegories are a navigation aid; they do not need over-nice definitial distinctions. Since the companies are now separated, this is essentially a historic category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
On what basis would we choose a name not in use for a decade and a half for a company which still exists, as opposed to its current name?-
choster (
talk)
02:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment against merging -- Peterkingiron, please refer to the page
List of Woolworth divisions and namesakes. The American & European companies were all once part of the F. W. Woolworth Company, but that already has a category, which is being discussed below.
Woolworths (South Africa) and the Australian group
Woolworths Limited are entirely unrelated.
Alworths,
Wellchester,
woolworths.co.uk and its owner
Shop Direct Group are successor businesses capitalising on the goodwill of the old one but never related by ownership. By the criterion that you stated before the relisting, we should not merge. The list provides navigation links to the extent that they are justifiable; this head category is not justifiable. –
FayenaticLondon17:02, 10 October 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:Woolworth
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 and cleanup Things are a little confusing because there's the Woolworth Company, later Venator Group and now Foot Locker, Inc., and then there are the retail chains known as Woolworth's and Foot Locker. The
Foot Locker article and
Category:Foot Locker category attempt to cover both the chain and the parent. I see enough content about Woolworth's brands and people to see it as a standalone, but content that is related to the Woolworth Company and not Woolworth the store (e.g.
Claire's,
Kinney Shoes) would more accurately be placed in
Category:Foot Locker now.-
choster (
talk)
19:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename as nom. The criterion should be that the company is or was a subsidiary or associate of
Category:F. W. Woolworth Company. The UK version of Woolworths was a subsidiary of the US company until bought out by the Paternoster syndicate, but the US company retained a 20% stake. The retail shops retained the Woolworth brand, but a series of demergers took place, initially (if I remember correctly) demerging Kingfisher from Woolworth. Later, B&Q and Comet were split off. Ultimately the original Woolworths shops went bust spectacularly a couple of years ago. We need one parent category to cover all the emanations of Woolworths. We may also need a
Category:former Woolworths companies to cover companies that were (but no longer are) connected with the original retain empire, but the initial move should be to merge everything inot one parent that can then be split.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)reply
(voted above) -- I would still like to see a single Woolworth category for the company and its former subsidiaries and associates. I think you will find that all the entities were once subsidiaries (or associates - less than 50% owned) of the F. W. Woolworth Company. CAtegories are a navigation aid; they do not need over-nice definitial distinctions. Since the companies are now separated, this is essentially a historic category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
On what basis would we choose a name not in use for a decade and a half for a company which still exists, as opposed to its current name?-
choster (
talk)
02:21, 25 September 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:Progress spacecraft
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: Although technically correct under its current name (each mission did, in fact, use a different Progress spacecraft), the purpose of this category is to categorise missions flown by Progress spacecraft. The proposed name would be consistent with
Category:Manned Soyuz missions and
Category:Space Shuttle missions as well, which categorise the same thing - articles on individual missions - for their respective spacecraft.
The BushrangerOne ping only06:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose, the articles cover (or at least should cover) both the spacecraft and the mission, so the current title would be more inclusive of both. --W.D.Graham08:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Split The current mixture of flights and vehicle types is confusing. Therefore
Category:Progress missions should be created under the current category to hold the mission articles, with the mission list as the parent article thereof.
Mangoe (
talk)
00:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
This name is OK but I would still insist that a split is necessary given that some of the articles aren't about particular missions.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted from
CfD 2012 August 29 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Greece
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:no consensus. Notification of the relevant WikiProjects might have helped to bring wider participation, but the relisting alone brought no further comments. Editors nominating categories at CfD should remember that neutrally-worded notifications help to bring in more editors with expertise in a topic, which it makes it more likely that a stable consensus will achieved. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:01, 10 October 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:Roque
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.
KeepCategory:Roque, but Merge the rest to
Category:Roque. The game of
Roque appears to have had a period of popularity in the early 20th-century, so there is scope for expansion, which means that
WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. However, the current proliferation of sub-categories is absurd when there are only 2 articles. Thanks to the nom for bringing this to CFD. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:30, 16 September 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:Finno-Ugric world
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I think the best way to deal with this category is to make it a subcategory of
Category:Countries by language per
Finno-Ugric peoples which states "The Finno-Ugric peoples are any of several peoples of Europe who speak languages of the Finno-Ugric language family, such as the Finns, Estonians, Mordvins, and Hungarians".
Tim! (
talk)
07:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Bushranger -- This is a good solution, thgough I wonder whether
Category: Finno-Ugric lands might be even better. I chose "lands" as a suitably vague term that can cover both countries and territories but I expect I will be told that this is copntrary to precedent.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
09:35, 15 September 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:Archaic period in North America
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. The consensus is to retain the by-continent scope. The deficiencies of the scope or structure of the head article are deficiencies of the current state of that particular article rather than of the topic'. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. According to the note at the top of "in the Americas", it embraces just North American sites (for reasons that I don't understand, it appears that the sources speak of this as being "in the Americas" even though it's just North American), and the article is
Archaic period in the Americas, not "Archaic period in North America". Note that "in the Americas" was created long before "in North America".
Nyttend (
talk)
05:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose categorization by continent is useful, instead each region (South America, Central America, "North America", Caribbean, Arctic North America (the tundra zone, Greenland, Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Alaskan North Slope & Bering Strait coast)) should each have a category.. --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
11:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Remember that categories are dependent on articles; we name them based on what the articles are called. This should have gone through a speedy rename (
WP:CFDS C2C), but I didn't think of it until now. If you don't like the current arrangement, please seek to have the article moved.
Nyttend (
talk)
18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Categories have no such dependency. Categories are just a way to organize articles, and do not need head articles. Many categories have no head articles at all, some of those head articles are actually sections in other articles, others are just logical divisions. We don't have an article called
1955 establishments but we still have
Category:1955 establishments; etc. --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
04:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment the problem is the article, which is misnamed or highly biased, since it only covers the Southern United States, and nothing else. We are missing a main article for both categories, since the current "main" article is nothing of the sort. --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
11:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The major need is probably to create
Category:Archaic period in South America and split the contnetns of the target category between continents. We might have a Central American cat as well, provided some one can provide a robust definition of where it ends.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:15, 17
do not rename. The articles are about North American (which by the way includes everything down to Panama) and the category name should be kept as is.
Hmains (
talk)
17:23, 22 September 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:Greensville County, Virginia geography stubs
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:Seven News
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: Presenters (people) should be a separate category to programs. Seven News presenters should probably be a subcategory of Seven News.
Mitch Ames (
talk)
01:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment should the presenters even be categorized in the current category at all? Isn't the new category, and categorization in the current category, "performer by performance", category types and categorization types that have been deleted and listified in the past? --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I don't think this is quite performer by performance, assuming they are part of the news team and not just a guest. I see it a little like the difference between categorising football players by team compared to by match. I have actually found these categories useful in the past - with the (5 or so) news programs sorted under * so at the start of the list, the main list IS the presenters. But the only real reasoning I can give for having them under * and not as text links in the desc of a presenters category is so that it is dynamic, which I realise is a weak excuse. --
Qetuth (
talk)
09:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Split per nominator. The presenters currently overwhelm the category, and sub-categorising them would also probably reduce category clutter on each article. The IP is wrong that this is a "performer by performance" type of category. It's more of a people-by-company type of category, and has a good parallel in
Category:BBC News people and its subcats. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:57, 23 September 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:Ten News
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: Presenters (people) should be a separate category to programs. Ten News presenters should probably be a subcategory of Ten News.
Mitch Ames (
talk)
01:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment should the presenters even be categorized in the current category at all? Isn't the new category, and categorization in the current category, "performer by performance", category types and categorization types that have been deleted and listified in the past? --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Split per nominator. The presenters currently overwhelm the category, and sub-categorising them would also probably reduce category clutter on each article. The IP is wrong that this is a "performer by performance" type of category. It's more of a people-by-company type of category, and has a good parallel in
Category:BBC News people and its subcats. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:58, 23 September 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:Nine News
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: Presenters (people) should be a separate category to programs. Nine News presenters should probably be a subcategory of Nine News.
Mitch Ames (
talk)
01:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment should the presenters even be categorized in the current category at all? Isn't the new category, and categorization in the current category, "performer by performance", category types and categorization types that have been deleted and listified in the past? --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Split per nominator. The presenters currently overwhelm the category, and sub-categorising them would also probably reduce category clutter on each article. The IP is wrong that this is a "performer by performance" type of category. It's more of a people-by-company type of category, and has a good parallel in
Category:BBC News people and its subcats. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:58, 23 September 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:People from Southowram
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Do you propose diffusing
Category:Redirects from Unicode characters? If your concern is its overpopulation, I think a better (easier to implement and maintain) solution is to split it into subcategories by e.g. block or
row. The concept of compatibility is ill-defined and as such should not be the criterion for a category.
Gorobay (
talk)
11:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
It is better-defined, but what is the purpose? Does that purpose apply to canonically decomposable characters? Or characters introduced in version 2.1? There are many ways to divide Unicode; why is compatibility decomposition of more value than they?
Gorobay (
talk)
13:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
populate If I understand the argument the category should be for characters like U+2126ΩOHM SIGN which is only included in unicode for compatibility reasons (U+03A9ΩGREEK CAPITAL LETTER OMEGA should be used instead). This is a regular category not a hidden admin character like
Category:Redirects from Unicode characters.--
Salix (
talk):
15:23, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
I did not say that the aim of the category would be
"to divide" the Unicode. I do not propose to eject pages from
Category:Redirects from Unicode characters. I do not claim that "compatibility decomposable characters" is the best collection of Unicode characters which one can invent. I repeat what I actually said:
The category is currently unused, but potentially useful;
Gorobay's arguments (except his only valid "ill-defined" argument) was invalid. From the beginning and up to this point.
Your argument is that the category is potentially useful. What is this category potentially useful for? A category populated solely with redirects is not useful to readers. That is my argument.
Why did you link to
Divide and rule? It is not what ‘divide’ meant in context. But this is off-topic, so whatever.
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 comedians from England
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:Songs written by Peter Stuart
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 and Comment - I have now created an article for
Peter Stuart, which was long overdue, and should satisfy the original rationale for deletion. A bio article for Stuart should have been created years ago.
Scanlan (
talk)
03:33, 24 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete because there is no point in having a one-entry songs by x person category. Whether or not Mr. Stuart is notable should be discussed in the context of his articles notability. If people think that article should be deleted they should nominate it for deletion, not discuss the matter here.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)reply
CfD is different than AfD because you do not loose content when you delete a category, so there is less reason to make sure logically reasoning is given.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:51, 2 October 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:Films set within one day
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.
In what way is it a
defining characteristic? One look over the films in the category tells me it's not defining, it's just something they happen to all have in common. I own at least a dozen films whose stories all take place within 1 day, but they have nothing else in common with each other at all. So how is it a defining characteristic? --
IllaZilla (
talk)
16:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
What? No it doesn't. What about "films set within one week", "films set within one year", "films starring male leads", "films set during the day". Are these defining characteristics? Of course not. Many of the films in the category just happen to have their stories take place in one day, like The Goonies, it's not a defining characteristic of the film. You seem to be treating mere coincidence as correlation, when really this characteristic has little significance. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
07:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
What a cogent argument. How does it define the film, exactly? For most of the films in the category it seems a trivial, non-defining characteristic. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
19:54, 2 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a trivial device--although potentially meaningful within one given piece of media, it's not necessarily and this is hardly a genre of film or literature. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯18:17, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Convert to list - This is one of those situations that
WP:CLN does not cover, when only 1 thing is appropriate, and the others are not.
In this case, we could/should have a list of items that are notable for this feature, that strictly does not include items which merely happen to have this feature.
With the perfect example of Ulysses which usually has "set in one day" as part of its capsule-synopsis; enough so that it has an internationally known/referenced/partaken-in celebration,
Bloomsday.
I had a similar sentiment when thinking of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich. There is a distinction between works that are notable for this feature—like Ulysses, Denisovich, or the
24 series—and those which just happen to have it, like The Goonies, The Breakfast Club, or nearly every
slasher film ever made. As a literary or storytelling device, it may be a topic better suited for an article with a select few of the most notable examples highlighted. But as a category it's much too indiscriminate and trivial of a characteristic. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
23:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Listify I don't see how it could be defining for all films/books set in one day. Only some of them would this be defining, others it would be incidental. --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
11:51, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
REQUEST ASSISTANCE FROM AN ADMIN: I happen to recall that one or both of these categories has/have had previous CFD discussions which could be helpful and should be linked. However, those CFDs are not shown in the histories because both cats were renamed and the prior history was lost.
Cgingold (
talk)
13:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)reply
No, that's not what I was referring to. I'm talking about a CFD discussion that took place several years ago -- before these categories were renamed (as I clearly stated). I know for a fact because I took part in the discussion, and obviously, the categories were retained. It would also be helpful to have the category creator(s) take part in this discussion, so again, WE NEED AN ADMIN TO LOOK AT THE EDIT HISTORY PRIOR TO RENAMING in order to identify those editors.
Cgingold (
talk)
13:01, 20 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: I noticed a comment on the talk page of the book category which I feel speaks to this discussion (it's from 2010, from a user who was only active for a few days): two questions: does this listing contain every work of world literature set within the course of one day, or even every major work, or anything even close to every major work of literature set within the span of one day? And if it doesn't' then what is the actual point of this category? It isn't a discussion of the nature of "books set within one day" or a literary technique, nor is it a complete list. It could also be argued that these works are not really "unique"--i.e. warranting distinct categorization--since there have been thousands upon thousands of works of literature throughout human history set within the course of one day not mentioned here, as this technique is one of the
Aristotelian Unities. --
IllaZilla (
talk)
23:48, 20 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete both. I started by looking at the categories. They currently seem to be diverse mishmash of works about one day (Ivan Denisovich, Ulysses), works whose action covers part of a day which would just as well over 2 or more (12 Angry Men), works which cover one event or crisis (Airport '77), works which cover a specific period of less than one day (Eleven Hours) ... but omits Groundhog Day because the closing scene is set on the following day. The result is a mishmash of works with next-to-nothing in common, ranging from purely commercial works of no artistic merit up to literary classics, and excluding one of the most notable single-day films because of its rigid and arbitrary criteria. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:06, 23 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment Previous discussions seem to have focused on whether the inclusion was arbitrary. Here the argument is not that the category is arbitrary, but that it is a plot point and not actually a characteristic that is at all part of the actual nature of the thing.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:19, 24 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep. I find it helpful when I look at this category. Many films I enjoy take place during one day, and when I first saw
The Breakfast Club, read its article, then read the categories and found this one, I made a note to myself to watch many of the other films on that list. This list is resourceful for people like me who enjoy films set within one day, and most of them on the list do have something in common: a lot of them are teen films, including
Ferris Bueller's Day Off,
Empire Records,
The Goonies,
American Graffiti, etc.
Arilicious (
talk)
04:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Listify or delete: For most of these movies, this is not a defining characteristic, it is trivia. However, for trivia, it may be interesting, possibly even notable (is there any literature around about this as a writing method/plot device?) so keep it as a list. (I sampled several random non-stub movies I had heard of but knew nothing about, none of the articles I tried made mention of this characteristic, despite quite extensive plot summaries. Sampling random books went a little better, but was still a mix of mention, no mention, and a couple seemed to describe more than one day in the plot summary) --
Qetuth (
talk)
05:31, 7 October 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:People from Zumbrota, Minnesota
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.
Comment. I went to every town page for these 20 nominees. 19 of them had 3 or less people mentioned in their notable people sections if the town had such a section at all. Rushford and Zumbrota in fact, are among those 19. Zumbrota has 1 and Rushford has none listed at all.
...William17:23, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Well done, that's one good place to look. But that technique is insufficient, because it relies upon other editors already having worked to populate those notable people lists. I found more by using whatlinkshere from the town, and by searching from the town name. (I haven't yet searched for Rushford; those I added were from whatlinkshere ). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:54, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Your addition of
William Roseland to People from Zumbrota Minnesota is based on a claim in the article that he was born there. Unfortunately I can't find a source for him being born there. His article provides none.
...William19:02, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose. Oculi, very strong disagree. If a person is born in a place - they will be citizens of that place, which is notable to the person. Let's stop the train and go through each of these.
Benkenobi18 (
talk)
07:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment people are not citizens of towns or cities in the United States. They are not even per se citizens of states. They are citizens of the United States. It should also be noted that outside of the Americas very few countries grant citizenship merely based on birth. In some Persian Gulf countries the majority of people born there are not citizens, and Israel, the Netherlands and Switzerland also have large numbers of people born there who are not citizens. So in fact birth in a place and citizenship are not the same. All or virtually all countries also grant at-birth citizenship to some people born outside the jurisdiciton of the country.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
17:32, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Which is an argument for categorizing them based on where they were born. I only made a statement about origin of citizenship. The general trend seems to be to categorize people by where they were raised. The problem is that this is not as often noted as where they were born. That said, the problem is that if someone was born in Detroit but lived in New York City from age 2 months to 20+, they will see themselves and the world largely through the lense of being a New Yorker, not being a Detroiter. The big question is "what amont of connection with a place as an adult does a person need to be from there". I do not think there is a blanket or simple answer, but I think in general people can sense the answer.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
20:25, 24 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Merge only Richmond, St Bonifacius, St Charles, Sturgeon Lake, Verndale, Watkins, Sebeka, Ogilvie, New York Mills and Olivia. Keep Zumbrota, Rushford, Pierz, Plainview, Proctor, Shorewood, Spring Grove, Thief River Falls, Wabasha, Wayzata and Sauk Rapids. I or others have populated the ones for keeping, and listified the others in the town articles. –
FayenaticLondon20:34, 10 October 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:Winter pentathlon
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:Woolworth companies
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 While the three (or so) companies have shared names because the others were named after the American original, there's not enough connection there to categorize them together. It's also a magnet for miscategorization, as can be seen by some of the members.
Mangoe (
talk)
23:40, 25 August 2012 (UTC)reply
(voted above) -- I would still like to see a single Woolworth category for the company and its former subsidiaries and associates. I think you will find that all the entities were once subsidiaries (or associates - less than 50% owned) of the F. W. Woolworth Company. CAtegories are a navigation aid; they do not need over-nice definitial distinctions. Since the companies are now separated, this is essentially a historic category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
On what basis would we choose a name not in use for a decade and a half for a company which still exists, as opposed to its current name?-
choster (
talk)
02:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment against merging -- Peterkingiron, please refer to the page
List of Woolworth divisions and namesakes. The American & European companies were all once part of the F. W. Woolworth Company, but that already has a category, which is being discussed below.
Woolworths (South Africa) and the Australian group
Woolworths Limited are entirely unrelated.
Alworths,
Wellchester,
woolworths.co.uk and its owner
Shop Direct Group are successor businesses capitalising on the goodwill of the old one but never related by ownership. By the criterion that you stated before the relisting, we should not merge. The list provides navigation links to the extent that they are justifiable; this head category is not justifiable. –
FayenaticLondon17:02, 10 October 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:Woolworth
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 and cleanup Things are a little confusing because there's the Woolworth Company, later Venator Group and now Foot Locker, Inc., and then there are the retail chains known as Woolworth's and Foot Locker. The
Foot Locker article and
Category:Foot Locker category attempt to cover both the chain and the parent. I see enough content about Woolworth's brands and people to see it as a standalone, but content that is related to the Woolworth Company and not Woolworth the store (e.g.
Claire's,
Kinney Shoes) would more accurately be placed in
Category:Foot Locker now.-
choster (
talk)
19:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename as nom. The criterion should be that the company is or was a subsidiary or associate of
Category:F. W. Woolworth Company. The UK version of Woolworths was a subsidiary of the US company until bought out by the Paternoster syndicate, but the US company retained a 20% stake. The retail shops retained the Woolworth brand, but a series of demergers took place, initially (if I remember correctly) demerging Kingfisher from Woolworth. Later, B&Q and Comet were split off. Ultimately the original Woolworths shops went bust spectacularly a couple of years ago. We need one parent category to cover all the emanations of Woolworths. We may also need a
Category:former Woolworths companies to cover companies that were (but no longer are) connected with the original retain empire, but the initial move should be to merge everything inot one parent that can then be split.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
12:15, 27 August 2012 (UTC)reply
(voted above) -- I would still like to see a single Woolworth category for the company and its former subsidiaries and associates. I think you will find that all the entities were once subsidiaries (or associates - less than 50% owned) of the F. W. Woolworth Company. CAtegories are a navigation aid; they do not need over-nice definitial distinctions. Since the companies are now separated, this is essentially a historic category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:09, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
On what basis would we choose a name not in use for a decade and a half for a company which still exists, as opposed to its current name?-
choster (
talk)
02:21, 25 September 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:Progress spacecraft
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: Although technically correct under its current name (each mission did, in fact, use a different Progress spacecraft), the purpose of this category is to categorise missions flown by Progress spacecraft. The proposed name would be consistent with
Category:Manned Soyuz missions and
Category:Space Shuttle missions as well, which categorise the same thing - articles on individual missions - for their respective spacecraft.
The BushrangerOne ping only06:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak oppose, the articles cover (or at least should cover) both the spacecraft and the mission, so the current title would be more inclusive of both. --W.D.Graham08:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)reply
Split The current mixture of flights and vehicle types is confusing. Therefore
Category:Progress missions should be created under the current category to hold the mission articles, with the mission list as the parent article thereof.
Mangoe (
talk)
00:05, 30 August 2012 (UTC)reply
This name is OK but I would still insist that a split is necessary given that some of the articles aren't about particular missions.
Mangoe (
talk)
02:21, 4 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Relisted from
CfD 2012 August 29 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Greece
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:no consensus. Notification of the relevant WikiProjects might have helped to bring wider participation, but the relisting alone brought no further comments. Editors nominating categories at CfD should remember that neutrally-worded notifications help to bring in more editors with expertise in a topic, which it makes it more likely that a stable consensus will achieved. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:01, 10 October 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:Roque
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.
KeepCategory:Roque, but Merge the rest to
Category:Roque. The game of
Roque appears to have had a period of popularity in the early 20th-century, so there is scope for expansion, which means that
WP:SMALLCAT does not apply. However, the current proliferation of sub-categories is absurd when there are only 2 articles. Thanks to the nom for bringing this to CFD. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:30, 16 September 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:Finno-Ugric world
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I think the best way to deal with this category is to make it a subcategory of
Category:Countries by language per
Finno-Ugric peoples which states "The Finno-Ugric peoples are any of several peoples of Europe who speak languages of the Finno-Ugric language family, such as the Finns, Estonians, Mordvins, and Hungarians".
Tim! (
talk)
07:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Support Bushranger -- This is a good solution, thgough I wonder whether
Category: Finno-Ugric lands might be even better. I chose "lands" as a suitably vague term that can cover both countries and territories but I expect I will be told that this is copntrary to precedent.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
09:35, 15 September 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:Archaic period in North America
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. The consensus is to retain the by-continent scope. The deficiencies of the scope or structure of the head article are deficiencies of the current state of that particular article rather than of the topic'. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
13:35, 10 October 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. According to the note at the top of "in the Americas", it embraces just North American sites (for reasons that I don't understand, it appears that the sources speak of this as being "in the Americas" even though it's just North American), and the article is
Archaic period in the Americas, not "Archaic period in North America". Note that "in the Americas" was created long before "in North America".
Nyttend (
talk)
05:52, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose categorization by continent is useful, instead each region (South America, Central America, "North America", Caribbean, Arctic North America (the tundra zone, Greenland, Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Alaskan North Slope & Bering Strait coast)) should each have a category.. --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
11:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Remember that categories are dependent on articles; we name them based on what the articles are called. This should have gone through a speedy rename (
WP:CFDS C2C), but I didn't think of it until now. If you don't like the current arrangement, please seek to have the article moved.
Nyttend (
talk)
18:08, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Categories have no such dependency. Categories are just a way to organize articles, and do not need head articles. Many categories have no head articles at all, some of those head articles are actually sections in other articles, others are just logical divisions. We don't have an article called
1955 establishments but we still have
Category:1955 establishments; etc. --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
04:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment the problem is the article, which is misnamed or highly biased, since it only covers the Southern United States, and nothing else. We are missing a main article for both categories, since the current "main" article is nothing of the sort. --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
11:57, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The major need is probably to create
Category:Archaic period in South America and split the contnetns of the target category between continents. We might have a Central American cat as well, provided some one can provide a robust definition of where it ends.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:15, 17
do not rename. The articles are about North American (which by the way includes everything down to Panama) and the category name should be kept as is.
Hmains (
talk)
17:23, 22 September 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:Greensville County, Virginia geography stubs
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:Seven News
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: Presenters (people) should be a separate category to programs. Seven News presenters should probably be a subcategory of Seven News.
Mitch Ames (
talk)
01:46, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment should the presenters even be categorized in the current category at all? Isn't the new category, and categorization in the current category, "performer by performance", category types and categorization types that have been deleted and listified in the past? --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Weak keep I don't think this is quite performer by performance, assuming they are part of the news team and not just a guest. I see it a little like the difference between categorising football players by team compared to by match. I have actually found these categories useful in the past - with the (5 or so) news programs sorted under * so at the start of the list, the main list IS the presenters. But the only real reasoning I can give for having them under * and not as text links in the desc of a presenters category is so that it is dynamic, which I realise is a weak excuse. --
Qetuth (
talk)
09:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Split per nominator. The presenters currently overwhelm the category, and sub-categorising them would also probably reduce category clutter on each article. The IP is wrong that this is a "performer by performance" type of category. It's more of a people-by-company type of category, and has a good parallel in
Category:BBC News people and its subcats. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:57, 23 September 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:Ten News
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: Presenters (people) should be a separate category to programs. Ten News presenters should probably be a subcategory of Ten News.
Mitch Ames (
talk)
01:44, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment should the presenters even be categorized in the current category at all? Isn't the new category, and categorization in the current category, "performer by performance", category types and categorization types that have been deleted and listified in the past? --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Split per nominator. The presenters currently overwhelm the category, and sub-categorising them would also probably reduce category clutter on each article. The IP is wrong that this is a "performer by performance" type of category. It's more of a people-by-company type of category, and has a good parallel in
Category:BBC News people and its subcats. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:58, 23 September 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:Nine News
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: Presenters (people) should be a separate category to programs. Nine News presenters should probably be a subcategory of Nine News.
Mitch Ames (
talk)
01:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment should the presenters even be categorized in the current category at all? Isn't the new category, and categorization in the current category, "performer by performance", category types and categorization types that have been deleted and listified in the past? --
76.65.131.248 (
talk)
12:07, 17 September 2012 (UTC)reply
Split per nominator. The presenters currently overwhelm the category, and sub-categorising them would also probably reduce category clutter on each article. The IP is wrong that this is a "performer by performance" type of category. It's more of a people-by-company type of category, and has a good parallel in
Category:BBC News people and its subcats. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:58, 23 September 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:People from Southowram
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.