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 (category was empty at the time of close).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one article (which I have PRODed for lack of notability). Unnecessary cat
Adabow (
talk) 23:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Even if the article survives, it will not be enough to justify the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:29, 29 March 2014 (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:MTF cross-dressers
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. Expand abbreviation which may not be obvious. Note that the category is tagged as subjective. If renamed, I'd also propose that the subjective tag be removed since if we are keeping this, it is by definition not subjective.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
If that is correct, then OK. But I'm not an expert in those aspects of naming.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure use of the hyphens would be right. I would say use the hyphens, but keep a redirect from the non-hyphenated forms.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:26, 4 April 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale: I can't tell the difference between these two. The vast majority of womens' rights organizations will also be NGOs, and I don't think it's necessary to split these accordingly. Merge up for simplicity.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 21:48, 26 March 2014 (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:Fish caches
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. If
fish cache is ever created, perhaps the issue could be re-examined. But for now, there's not much we can do with it due to the lack of clarity.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single entry category with no main article and probably limited expansion possibilities.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm still trying to figure out what a fish cache is. Do you know that this is a processing facility as opposed to a storage facility?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. While this would indeed ordinarly fall under
WP:SMALLCAT, the simple fact is that this is something unique in which there is no obvious upmerge target. (Also
Fish cache is an article that should probably be written). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Bushranger (
talk •
contribs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lowercase proper names or pseudonyms
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:listify. To be on the safe side, I'm going with "listify", but whether that list will survive an AFD is hard to know.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Whether someone spells their name in lowercase is not DEFINING of the person themselves, it is really just a stylistic matter of the rendering of their name. Additionally, for at least some of the contents, there is dispute on the "correct" spelling (e.g.
E.E. Cummings). I don't think we need this category, it's really a rather trivial thing to categorize a person on.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 19:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
This should be a list not a category for several reasons, including as noted by the nom. but the information should be retained, hence, a list. - jc37 18:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete This is categorization by something that has no relevance to notability. I do not think there is even a good reason to create a list.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This may make a useful administrative (hidden) category, to enable someone to watch out for officious (but inappropriate) capitalisation. Otherwise, I would agree that this is non-defining.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:35, 6 April 2014 (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:Anime and manga writers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. If there is any problem with use of "critics", it applies equally to the parent
Category:Comics critics.Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: It seems most the contents here are critics of anime/manga, or have written compilations. To distinguish from those who create it, I think having critic in the title is a bit more clear.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Agree - I second this notion, the title is too suggestive that these are people who write manga (or anime scripts I guess) rather than those who write on anime or manga --
Drowninginlimbo (
talk) 00:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Do we mean "critic" as a synonym of reviewer. I think in this case there is likely too much confusion about what anyone means.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:31, 29 March 2014 (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:Critics of H-1B program
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: Generally, I think of a critic as an academic or writer where a significant portion of their work is directed at critiquing a certain ideology or social issue (or, in the case of the arts, reviewing and critiquing artistic expression). This category however is about people who have been critical of a particular government visa program - not immigration, not immigration reform, but *just* the H-1B visa. Most of the contents are politicians or pundits, the only two that might fit are
Programmers Guild and
Norman Matloff - the programmers guild however is focused on much broader issues of advocating for the rights of American computer programmers - their opposition to H-1B is but one of their planks. as for Matloff, he's really the only one for whom this could potentially be defining, but I don't think one person is enough for a category.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is non-defining of the people involved --
Lou Dobbs,
Dennis Kucinich,
Tom Tancredo -- for example. A clear instance of someone thinking that categories are a type of tag or keyword, rather than a narrowly applicable set of organizational trees. --
Lquilter (
talk) 23:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Categorizing politicians for having been critics, even vocal critics, of a specific program is unwise. This is all the more true because some politicians change their position. Categories are not meant to capture every detail mentioned in an article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:33, 29 March 2014 (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.
Foo(ian) school 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 result of the discussion was:rename using option 2.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I propose renaming according to one of the following options:
Rationalle: These categories should ll be named consistantly - either all Fooian or all Foo.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename toFoo school stubs. We should avoid adjectival forms, as they can easily be ambiguous. (such as is a "Norwegian school" a school that teaches Norwegian language or a school in Norway or an ethnic Norwegian school? --
70.50.151.11 (
talk) 05:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Maybe for some of group 2 (as well as Japan, in group 1) - but I doubt tht anyone would think we have stub categories for schools teaching Brazilian, Philippine or Middle Eastern.
77.126.216.69 (
talk) 12:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
It also applies for schools that use the teaching methods endemic for the nation/region, or cultural immersion. --
70.50.151.11 (
talk) 05:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Option 1 i.e. Foo school stubs. The adjectival form might also imply pupils from one country schooled in another. –
FayenaticLondon 23:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Option 2 -- With the exception of countries for which there is no satisfactory demonym, the country name is grammatically an adjective, so that the demonym (an adjective) should be used.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:38, 6 April 2014 (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:Surnames derived from toponyms
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.
Italian painters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename; if a user wants to propose a new format for an entire tree, the user needs to do so with a formal nomination. In most cases, it is awkward to make such a proposal through opposing changes that so clearly comply with the
speedy rename criteria. In theory, the approach could work in raising the issue to broader awareness, but in practice, it usually just slows down what should be a routine change. It would be much better for the user to announce the proposal via a formal nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The categories should confirm to the convention of "XXth-century Italian people by occupation" and "XXth-century painters" categories (concrete categories above).
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose While I typically adhere to Time, Place and Manner order, these lists were derived by dividing Italian painters by century, not the other was around. I think it makes more sense to divide Italian painters into time periods, than time periods into nationality.
Rococo1700 (
talk) 04:14, 26 March 2014 (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 result of the discussion was:delete (category was empty at the time of close).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:38, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Only one article (which I have PRODed for lack of notability). Unnecessary cat
Adabow (
talk) 23:52, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Even if the article survives, it will not be enough to justify the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:29, 29 March 2014 (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:MTF cross-dressers
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. Expand abbreviation which may not be obvious. Note that the category is tagged as subjective. If renamed, I'd also propose that the subjective tag be removed since if we are keeping this, it is by definition not subjective.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
If that is correct, then OK. But I'm not an expert in those aspects of naming.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:55, 2 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm pretty sure use of the hyphens would be right. I would say use the hyphens, but keep a redirect from the non-hyphenated forms.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:26, 4 April 2014 (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.
Nominator's rationale: I can't tell the difference between these two. The vast majority of womens' rights organizations will also be NGOs, and I don't think it's necessary to split these accordingly. Merge up for simplicity.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 21:48, 26 March 2014 (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:Fish caches
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. If
fish cache is ever created, perhaps the issue could be re-examined. But for now, there's not much we can do with it due to the lack of clarity.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Single entry category with no main article and probably limited expansion possibilities.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 20:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
I'm still trying to figure out what a fish cache is. Do you know that this is a processing facility as opposed to a storage facility?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:05, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Keep. While this would indeed ordinarly fall under
WP:SMALLCAT, the simple fact is that this is something unique in which there is no obvious upmerge target. (Also
Fish cache is an article that should probably be written). — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
The Bushranger (
talk •
contribs)
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Lowercase proper names or pseudonyms
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:listify. To be on the safe side, I'm going with "listify", but whether that list will survive an AFD is hard to know.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:48, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Whether someone spells their name in lowercase is not DEFINING of the person themselves, it is really just a stylistic matter of the rendering of their name. Additionally, for at least some of the contents, there is dispute on the "correct" spelling (e.g.
E.E. Cummings). I don't think we need this category, it's really a rather trivial thing to categorize a person on.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 19:34, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
This should be a list not a category for several reasons, including as noted by the nom. but the information should be retained, hence, a list. - jc37 18:16, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete This is categorization by something that has no relevance to notability. I do not think there is even a good reason to create a list.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This may make a useful administrative (hidden) category, to enable someone to watch out for officious (but inappropriate) capitalisation. Otherwise, I would agree that this is non-defining.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:35, 6 April 2014 (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:Anime and manga writers
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename. If there is any problem with use of "critics", it applies equally to the parent
Category:Comics critics.Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: It seems most the contents here are critics of anime/manga, or have written compilations. To distinguish from those who create it, I think having critic in the title is a bit more clear.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:54, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Agree - I second this notion, the title is too suggestive that these are people who write manga (or anime scripts I guess) rather than those who write on anime or manga --
Drowninginlimbo (
talk) 00:52, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose Do we mean "critic" as a synonym of reviewer. I think in this case there is likely too much confusion about what anyone means.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:31, 29 March 2014 (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:Critics of H-1B program
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: Generally, I think of a critic as an academic or writer where a significant portion of their work is directed at critiquing a certain ideology or social issue (or, in the case of the arts, reviewing and critiquing artistic expression). This category however is about people who have been critical of a particular government visa program - not immigration, not immigration reform, but *just* the H-1B visa. Most of the contents are politicians or pundits, the only two that might fit are
Programmers Guild and
Norman Matloff - the programmers guild however is focused on much broader issues of advocating for the rights of American computer programmers - their opposition to H-1B is but one of their planks. as for Matloff, he's really the only one for whom this could potentially be defining, but I don't think one person is enough for a category.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:49, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete - This is non-defining of the people involved --
Lou Dobbs,
Dennis Kucinich,
Tom Tancredo -- for example. A clear instance of someone thinking that categories are a type of tag or keyword, rather than a narrowly applicable set of organizational trees. --
Lquilter (
talk) 23:33, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete Categorizing politicians for having been critics, even vocal critics, of a specific program is unwise. This is all the more true because some politicians change their position. Categories are not meant to capture every detail mentioned in an article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 20:33, 29 March 2014 (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.
Foo(ian) school 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 result of the discussion was:rename using option 2.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:53, 23 April 2014 (UTC)reply
I propose renaming according to one of the following options:
Rationalle: These categories should ll be named consistantly - either all Fooian or all Foo.
עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Rename toFoo school stubs. We should avoid adjectival forms, as they can easily be ambiguous. (such as is a "Norwegian school" a school that teaches Norwegian language or a school in Norway or an ethnic Norwegian school? --
70.50.151.11 (
talk) 05:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Maybe for some of group 2 (as well as Japan, in group 1) - but I doubt tht anyone would think we have stub categories for schools teaching Brazilian, Philippine or Middle Eastern.
77.126.216.69 (
talk) 12:15, 27 March 2014 (UTC)reply
It also applies for schools that use the teaching methods endemic for the nation/region, or cultural immersion. --
70.50.151.11 (
talk) 05:00, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Option 1 i.e. Foo school stubs. The adjectival form might also imply pupils from one country schooled in another. –
FayenaticLondon 23:14, 28 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Option 2 -- With the exception of countries for which there is no satisfactory demonym, the country name is grammatically an adjective, so that the demonym (an adjective) should be used.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 15:38, 6 April 2014 (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:Surnames derived from toponyms
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.
Italian painters
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:rename; if a user wants to propose a new format for an entire tree, the user needs to do so with a formal nomination. In most cases, it is awkward to make such a proposal through opposing changes that so clearly comply with the
speedy rename criteria. In theory, the approach could work in raising the issue to broader awareness, but in practice, it usually just slows down what should be a routine change. It would be much better for the user to announce the proposal via a formal nomination.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:42, 2 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The categories should confirm to the convention of "XXth-century Italian people by occupation" and "XXth-century painters" categories (concrete categories above).
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 06:36, 26 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose While I typically adhere to Time, Place and Manner order, these lists were derived by dividing Italian painters by century, not the other was around. I think it makes more sense to divide Italian painters into time periods, than time periods into nationality.
Rococo1700 (
talk) 04:14, 26 March 2014 (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.