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: Only one person in this category for people descended from people who lived on this small island. The subject did not explicitly claim this heritage. Article should be upmerged to a category where a navigational purpose is served.
SFB23:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge or Delete American Subcat/Neutral on Parent Category Not sure how to handle the devolution of the Dutch Antilles, but I can't sanction 2 categories to house 1 article when 1 is plenty.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:21, 26 October 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.
Tamil films by year
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.
Support merge of content into the Tamil-language film by decade categories and the films by year categories. The year categories do have significant content after the 1950s though so categorisation by year is not entirely unreasonable for those.
SFB21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The rationale is that there have been other discussions about categorization by year, which have resulted in those categories being deleted. See
this discussion and
this one. The current nomination was prompted by
this discussion, and some of these might fall into
WP:SMALLCAT, but once they are upmerged that will no longer be an issue.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
14:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The discussions that you are referring to are lacking a reasonable sense of trade-off as to when it is and when it is not appropriate to intersect. In this case, with one of intersect categories containing 76 articles (I just clicked one randomly now), it is actually most reasonable to have intersect categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:59, 28 October 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:People of Madeiran descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of "descent" categories is gather people of a shared ethnic or national descent. None of the above proposed categories has an ethnic or country basis. In effect, they are no different to something like
Category:People of Lancastrian descent. I think expanding the "by descent" tree to include non-ethnic and sub-national identities is not a positive move - an ethnic and national basis reflect the way real-world communities generally organise themselves and develop over time (e.g. people claim Scottish heritage, not Glaswegian heritage; Chinese people gather in Chinatowns, not Liaoningtowns). See also
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_27#Category:Dominican_Republic_people_of_Lazian_descent.
SFB18:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)reply
These are island communities, which are likely to have developed a distinct heritage from the mother country, but they are small polities, so that we should not allow even a dual category. The dual categories may additionally need to be upmerged to the appropriate national category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete unmanageable "descent" categories. Even if some island had some distinct heritage from the mother country (like Long Island or Manhattan or Nantucket in the United States, perhaps), just because one of someone's far distant ancestors came from that island doesn't define that person.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
04:24, 21 November 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:People killed by the United States Armed Forces
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A recent creation which was empty and now has one article. No doubt there could be thousands, however, "people killed by whom" is a bad means of categorization because the articles would have little in common. Targeted killings, executions, deaths in battle, accidental killings, all by the same 200-year old organization(s) really have nothing in common but for some synthesis or subjectivity. Consider various folks who would be categorized here to see how disparate they'd be
Mary Surratt (executed for Lincoln's assassination in 1865 by the US Army),
Eddie Slovik, (executed for desertion in 1945),
Roland Freisler (Nazi show trial judge killed in air raid),
Lawrence O'Bryan Branch (Confederate general killed in action),
Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese admiral targeted killing in action), etc..
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. People should be categorized by what they are notable for (e.g. being a Japanese admiral), but not for this (and other) how-they-died characteristic.
DexDor (
talk)
20:44, 21 October 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:Modified Volkswagen vehicles
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, but maybe rename: One of these rationales is just
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST; there was never any category of anything that was similar to any other category of anything until we created them, and we would never create categories except in big groups if this rationale were actually applicable. OVERLAPCAT is not even remotely similar to this case ("Category:Volkswagen vehicles with four wheels" would be such an example). I tried to get behind NON-DEFINING (I started drafting this as a "weak support"), but on closer inspection, I can't. Being both a case of vehicle modification in general, and a Volkswagen mod in particular, are in fact both defining characteristics of the items in the category (or at least the ones I'm familiar with - it's possible one or another is miscategorized). It's not categorization by manufacturer of the original vehicle, it's categorization by the common name of the vehicle group to which the mods apply; the sort of name led to by those criteria just coincidentally is the same. This case is a good example of a subcat, because there are so many mods that fit this category; it's an unusually popular kind of mod, and has been for over 40 years. Other subcats of
Category:Vehicle modification (vans, motorcycles) are more general, but a) one for cars would be OVERLAPCAT, and b) if there were lots of articles about Ford mods in particular for some reason, that would be a valid subcat, and even if there were quite a number of articles in the motorcycles category, and a notable number of them were about Harley-Davidson mods in particular, it would be reasonable to create a subsubcat for that. There is no "do not name categories after companies or product lines" principle at CfD. The sheer number of VW entries will simply inspire someone to subcategorize them again later, if the cat. were deleted. If it were, the articles should be categorized in
Category:Vehicle modification as well as
Category:Volkswagen Beetle, if applicable (some may be non-Beetles). If none are non-Beetles and the cat. is kept, it could be renamed
Category:Volkwagen Beetle modification to match the parent better, or
Category:Volkswagen modification otherwise. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:44, 21 October 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: Only one person in this category for people descended from people who lived on this small island. The subject did not explicitly claim this heritage. Article should be upmerged to a category where a navigational purpose is served.
SFB23:35, 21 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Upmerge or Delete American Subcat/Neutral on Parent Category Not sure how to handle the devolution of the Dutch Antilles, but I can't sanction 2 categories to house 1 article when 1 is plenty.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:21, 26 October 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.
Tamil films by year
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.
Support merge of content into the Tamil-language film by decade categories and the films by year categories. The year categories do have significant content after the 1950s though so categorisation by year is not entirely unreasonable for those.
SFB21:07, 22 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The rationale is that there have been other discussions about categorization by year, which have resulted in those categories being deleted. See
this discussion and
this one. The current nomination was prompted by
this discussion, and some of these might fall into
WP:SMALLCAT, but once they are upmerged that will no longer be an issue.
Fortdj33 (
talk)
14:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)reply
The discussions that you are referring to are lacking a reasonable sense of trade-off as to when it is and when it is not appropriate to intersect. In this case, with one of intersect categories containing 76 articles (I just clicked one randomly now), it is actually most reasonable to have intersect categories.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:59, 28 October 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:People of Madeiran descent
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The purpose of "descent" categories is gather people of a shared ethnic or national descent. None of the above proposed categories has an ethnic or country basis. In effect, they are no different to something like
Category:People of Lancastrian descent. I think expanding the "by descent" tree to include non-ethnic and sub-national identities is not a positive move - an ethnic and national basis reflect the way real-world communities generally organise themselves and develop over time (e.g. people claim Scottish heritage, not Glaswegian heritage; Chinese people gather in Chinatowns, not Liaoningtowns). See also
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_September_27#Category:Dominican_Republic_people_of_Lazian_descent.
SFB18:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)reply
These are island communities, which are likely to have developed a distinct heritage from the mother country, but they are small polities, so that we should not allow even a dual category. The dual categories may additionally need to be upmerged to the appropriate national category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
17:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete unmanageable "descent" categories. Even if some island had some distinct heritage from the mother country (like Long Island or Manhattan or Nantucket in the United States, perhaps), just because one of someone's far distant ancestors came from that island doesn't define that person.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
04:24, 21 November 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:People killed by the United States Armed Forces
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. A recent creation which was empty and now has one article. No doubt there could be thousands, however, "people killed by whom" is a bad means of categorization because the articles would have little in common. Targeted killings, executions, deaths in battle, accidental killings, all by the same 200-year old organization(s) really have nothing in common but for some synthesis or subjectivity. Consider various folks who would be categorized here to see how disparate they'd be
Mary Surratt (executed for Lincoln's assassination in 1865 by the US Army),
Eddie Slovik, (executed for desertion in 1945),
Roland Freisler (Nazi show trial judge killed in air raid),
Lawrence O'Bryan Branch (Confederate general killed in action),
Isoroku Yamamoto (Japanese admiral targeted killing in action), etc..
Carlossuarez46 (
talk)
17:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. People should be categorized by what they are notable for (e.g. being a Japanese admiral), but not for this (and other) how-they-died characteristic.
DexDor (
talk)
20:44, 21 October 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:Modified Volkswagen vehicles
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, but maybe rename: One of these rationales is just
WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST; there was never any category of anything that was similar to any other category of anything until we created them, and we would never create categories except in big groups if this rationale were actually applicable. OVERLAPCAT is not even remotely similar to this case ("Category:Volkswagen vehicles with four wheels" would be such an example). I tried to get behind NON-DEFINING (I started drafting this as a "weak support"), but on closer inspection, I can't. Being both a case of vehicle modification in general, and a Volkswagen mod in particular, are in fact both defining characteristics of the items in the category (or at least the ones I'm familiar with - it's possible one or another is miscategorized). It's not categorization by manufacturer of the original vehicle, it's categorization by the common name of the vehicle group to which the mods apply; the sort of name led to by those criteria just coincidentally is the same. This case is a good example of a subcat, because there are so many mods that fit this category; it's an unusually popular kind of mod, and has been for over 40 years. Other subcats of
Category:Vehicle modification (vans, motorcycles) are more general, but a) one for cars would be OVERLAPCAT, and b) if there were lots of articles about Ford mods in particular for some reason, that would be a valid subcat, and even if there were quite a number of articles in the motorcycles category, and a notable number of them were about Harley-Davidson mods in particular, it would be reasonable to create a subsubcat for that. There is no "do not name categories after companies or product lines" principle at CfD. The sheer number of VW entries will simply inspire someone to subcategorize them again later, if the cat. were deleted. If it were, the articles should be categorized in
Category:Vehicle modification as well as
Category:Volkswagen Beetle, if applicable (some may be non-Beetles). If none are non-Beetles and the cat. is kept, it could be renamed
Category:Volkwagen Beetle modification to match the parent better, or
Category:Volkswagen modification otherwise. —
SMcCandlish ☺☏¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 09:44, 21 October 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.