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 The fact that an arena is a venue for a given league is very defining compared to the thousands of other arenas that exist. -
DJSasso (
talk)
12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Does this mean that the arenas' used by every league should be categorized? That seems like a recipe for way too many categories given that these are general purpose arenas that host hundreds of events each year.--
TM13:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- The one article concerns a multi-purpose area, owned by the city. If it were owned and mainly used by the Hockey Club, but sometimes let out to third parties, I would have voted otherwise. Move article to a state-wide stadiums category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:39, 27 December 2017 (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:Continental Basketball Association venues
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. This issue of whether or not to categorise multi-purpose venues by every usage may be better raised as a general discussion about that principle, rather than as a discussion about one of those uses. Maybe
WT:CAT, maybe at a project page? Pinging the participants @
Namiba,
DexDor,
Djsasso,
Marcocapelle,
Peterkingiron, and
Flibirigit: in case any of them wants to pursue that idea. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEF, none of these arenas are defined by having hosted the minor league Continental Basketball Association games. They are all general purpose arenas which have hosted a variety of events and teams.
TM15:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I think it's a stretch to say this falls under
WP:NONDEF. Yes they're multi-purpose arenas and most were not built with sole reason for hosting a CBA team, but only a few multi-purpose areas are going to be defined by one team or concert (I can think of Yankee Stadium and Madison Square Garden). But you're discounting the fact that there wouldn't have been a CBA team in that arena if one of its uses wasn't to host basketball games. If this category falls under WP:NONDEF the slippery slope argument could be extended to Category:College basketball venues in the United States and Category:National Basketball Association venues or other venue categories. --
Brian Halvorsen (
talk)
19:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I think a major difference is that the CBA was a minor league and many teams only played in the arena for a short time period.
Madison Square Garden hosts hundreds of events each year but any basketball fan (and many non-fans) know that it hosts NBA matchups, therefore it is in part defined by its hosting of NBA games. None of these arenas are defined by hosting CBA games and most did so for only a short time period.--
TM20:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Categorizing multipurpose venues (e.g.
Bayfront Center) by every sport etc that took place there is overcategorization and against NONDEF so we shouldn't be categorizing venues by league. DexDor(talk) 07:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Or make it clear that arenas should be categorized either as multi-purpose or for one use and purge as proposed below. DexDor(talk)07:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The fact that an arena is a venue for a given league is very defining compared to the thousands of other arenas that exist. -
DJSasso (
talk)
12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
More than one thing can define an arena, its is very likely a reader is going to do a search for venues that hosted teams in a given league. It is no different than listing teams a player played for, just the building equivalent. -
DJSasso (
talk)
12:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Purge (supporting
Marcocapelle) -- It is appropriate to have a category for dedicated venues that are mainly used by a single sports team as its home venue, even if it also hosts other events. However those that host multiple sports are better in a multi-purpose venues category, perhaps split by state. I think we have an
WP:OC#VENUE guideline on this.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The two are not mutually exclusive, categories are meant to help people find similar topics. It is highly likely that users would be searching for the group of arenas that are used in a given league. I can't be the only one that does this and I have done it alot. Removing the leagues arena's cover removes quite likely the most important categories on an arena. I highly doubt there are many people specifically looking for Multi-purpose stadiums in the United States compared to looking for ones in a specific league. -
DJSasso (
talk)
12:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@marcocapelle - Every stadium in the whole world is truly multipurpose. It should be the multipurpose category that is purged and delete, because it is essentially useless.
Flibirigit (
talk)
11:40, 5 January 2018 (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:Healthcare in Springfield, Massachusetts
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:Knowing Bros members
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:Code: Secret Room contestants
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:The Genius (TV series) contestants
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:Adelaide Football Club life members
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: Doesn't really seem this category is needed and is a bit superfluous. It doesn't meet the category section of
WP:CLNT whereby; "A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following question is "no": Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?"
It isn't really possible to write a few paragraphs about being a life member of the club and the ref that's in the category only has one sentence explaining it "criteria for Adelaide Football Club Life Membership is 10 years of service at the discretion of the Board." Also, there aren't any other club life member categories, nor is there a category for the league, i.e.
Category:Australian Football League life members. I think it is appropriate to have a sentence about being a life member in each subjects article, but not really appropriate for its own category.
Flickerd (
talk)
09:25, 20 December 2017 (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:Wikipedia categories named after 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: i do not believe that the so called category tree of
Category:Eponymous categories serves any real world function. its designed to place categories named after things in a separate tree from the articles named after things, as not all the articles in
Category: Apollo 11 are actually space missions. for some, this means that categories named after things should not be in a parent category at all. i find that so pedantic as to be meaningless. i am hoping that someone editing spacecraft articles can shed more light than heat (though i guess spacrafts generate a lot of heat). convince me otherwise. this has been brought up many times before for other branches of this tree.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – this is a category of categories, not a category of articles, and is entitled 'Wikipedia categories' so it is not intended to serve any real world function. It is also hidden from the average viewer.
Oculi (
talk)
12:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
if the category serves no real world function, why do we have it? arent we the real world? is wikipedia just a playground for budding library scientists, or are we here to help real people learn about real things? making it a hidden category is even worse, not better, esp. if the category is not being used by any administrator to adminstrate anything.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, this category provides a nice view of all specific spacecraft about which we have enough articles so that they can have a category of their own, but creating nice views isn't really the purpose of Wikipedia.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:16, 23 December 2017 (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:Clinical pharmacologists
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.
Further comment, two of the articles are about physicians in a time that the occupation of clinical pharmacologist did not exist yet. That leaves only five articles which is a really low number for a biographies category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Probably merge Is this to distinguish clinical pharmacologists from experimental pharmacologists? Either way, I don't think this is a necessary split.
Natureium (
talk)
04:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. Perhaps it isn't adequately explained in the content, but these really are two entirely distinct categories. Pharmacologists (not to be confused with
pharmacists) are laboratory scientists who typically have PhDs and do basic research about drug molecules and receptor molecules. Clinical pharmacologists are medical clinicians who typically have MDs or other professional degrees and serve as the medication experts within a medical team. We would never consider merging
neurologists with
neuroscientists or
psychologists with
psychiatrists. Same idea here. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
00:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what to tell you. Based only on what I can gather from the page, he worked at a medical school and was noted for medical education, and the kinds of contributions that he made to pharmacology research are not described. Also, I'm not knowledgeable about the medical education system in India. I'll add that it's possible to be both, analogously to an MD-PhD dual degree holder. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
20:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I think that it is most logical to continue to have the clinical category as a subcategory, but it's likely that a lot of pages just need to be recategorized. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
23:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Based on
WP:SMALLCAT, it does not appear to me that the category has no potential for growth, and so it seems keep-able to me based on that criterion. Also, as noted above, there appear to be a lot of pages that need to be moved into this category, but haven't been yet. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
19:56, 13 January 2018 (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:Love & Hip Hop cast members
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.
I am not entirely sure about
Category:Reality television participants. On the one hand, it is probably fine under
WP:PERFCAT because it categorizes individuals by genre rather than a specific performance or series. On the other hand, it is sometimes very defining (for people who are notable only due to their appearance on a reality television series) and sometimes not at all defining (for people who are independently notable, and are invited to appear on a reality television series). With perhaps a few exceptions, most of the individual categories by series violate
WP:PERFCAT and should be upmerged, in my opinion. --
Black Falcon(
talk)20:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Either delete or keep, but do not merge. If appearing in this reality show was defining for anyone, keep them in it and purge those not defined; but if the cat is merged, we just set off on a path to a vast sprawling category which is no use for navigation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge to the American reality television series participants cat. Keep in mind the actual notability of any of these individuals is a sperate issue from the category. One good result of this is it avoids the horrible result of categorizing performers (reality television show participants) by performance (which reality show they were in). Considering that many people have been in multiple reality TV shows, this is a needed move. The current category violates rules against performers by performance categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:59, 13 January 2018 (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:Fictional characters with psychiatric disorders
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:Fictional bullies
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 It is a very safe bet that most of the membership of this category can be cited to reliable sources as being bullying characters, and fictional characters, after all, are created to fill certain positions. So I am not accepting the assertion of subjectivity; I suspect that literary critics do not. Of course those for whom citation cannot be found ought to be removed, but I'm not buying the idea that we can judge those critics to be wrong.
Delete as overly subjective. This is especially true because some villains in especially the Superhero genre, will have been portrayed in multiple ways often over long periods of time. A few connected with Batman and Superman have been portrayed almost constantly in comics for over 70 years, plus appeared in many TV, film and novel depictions. While these characters are generally clearly the villain in all appearances, whether they are bullies is hard to say, and will at times depend on their specific portrayal.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:02, 13 January 2018 (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:Fictional panpipers
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:Fictional countries in the Americas
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:Rogue planets in fiction
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.
Query Is this really a rename proposal? What's the current scope and the intended scope? Is it fictional planets that are rogue? Or is it planets that are rogue fictionally? Or is it either of these two things? Mars is not a fictional planet but it has appeared in fiction (War of the Worlds) as a rogue planet so is it in scope?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:20, 2 December 2017 (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.
Keep The fact that an arena is a venue for a given league is very defining compared to the thousands of other arenas that exist. -
DJSasso (
talk)
12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Does this mean that the arenas' used by every league should be categorized? That seems like a recipe for way too many categories given that these are general purpose arenas that host hundreds of events each year.--
TM13:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete -- The one article concerns a multi-purpose area, owned by the city. If it were owned and mainly used by the Hockey Club, but sometimes let out to third parties, I would have voted otherwise. Move article to a state-wide stadiums category.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:39, 27 December 2017 (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:Continental Basketball Association venues
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. This issue of whether or not to categorise multi-purpose venues by every usage may be better raised as a general discussion about that principle, rather than as a discussion about one of those uses. Maybe
WT:CAT, maybe at a project page? Pinging the participants @
Namiba,
DexDor,
Djsasso,
Marcocapelle,
Peterkingiron, and
Flibirigit: in case any of them wants to pursue that idea. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
21:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:NONDEF, none of these arenas are defined by having hosted the minor league Continental Basketball Association games. They are all general purpose arenas which have hosted a variety of events and teams.
TM15:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Comment I think it's a stretch to say this falls under
WP:NONDEF. Yes they're multi-purpose arenas and most were not built with sole reason for hosting a CBA team, but only a few multi-purpose areas are going to be defined by one team or concert (I can think of Yankee Stadium and Madison Square Garden). But you're discounting the fact that there wouldn't have been a CBA team in that arena if one of its uses wasn't to host basketball games. If this category falls under WP:NONDEF the slippery slope argument could be extended to Category:College basketball venues in the United States and Category:National Basketball Association venues or other venue categories. --
Brian Halvorsen (
talk)
19:51, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I think a major difference is that the CBA was a minor league and many teams only played in the arena for a short time period.
Madison Square Garden hosts hundreds of events each year but any basketball fan (and many non-fans) know that it hosts NBA matchups, therefore it is in part defined by its hosting of NBA games. None of these arenas are defined by hosting CBA games and most did so for only a short time period.--
TM20:32, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete Categorizing multipurpose venues (e.g.
Bayfront Center) by every sport etc that took place there is overcategorization and against NONDEF so we shouldn't be categorizing venues by league. DexDor(talk) 07:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC) Or make it clear that arenas should be categorized either as multi-purpose or for one use and purge as proposed below. DexDor(talk)07:59, 28 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep The fact that an arena is a venue for a given league is very defining compared to the thousands of other arenas that exist. -
DJSasso (
talk)
12:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)reply
More than one thing can define an arena, its is very likely a reader is going to do a search for venues that hosted teams in a given league. It is no different than listing teams a player played for, just the building equivalent. -
DJSasso (
talk)
12:45, 31 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Purge (supporting
Marcocapelle) -- It is appropriate to have a category for dedicated venues that are mainly used by a single sports team as its home venue, even if it also hosts other events. However those that host multiple sports are better in a multi-purpose venues category, perhaps split by state. I think we have an
WP:OC#VENUE guideline on this.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
11:48, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
The two are not mutually exclusive, categories are meant to help people find similar topics. It is highly likely that users would be searching for the group of arenas that are used in a given league. I can't be the only one that does this and I have done it alot. Removing the leagues arena's cover removes quite likely the most important categories on an arena. I highly doubt there are many people specifically looking for Multi-purpose stadiums in the United States compared to looking for ones in a specific league. -
DJSasso (
talk)
12:37, 4 January 2018 (UTC)reply
@marcocapelle - Every stadium in the whole world is truly multipurpose. It should be the multipurpose category that is purged and delete, because it is essentially useless.
Flibirigit (
talk)
11:40, 5 January 2018 (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:Healthcare in Springfield, Massachusetts
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:Knowing Bros members
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:Code: Secret Room contestants
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:The Genius (TV series) contestants
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:Adelaide Football Club life members
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: Doesn't really seem this category is needed and is a bit superfluous. It doesn't meet the category section of
WP:CLNT whereby; "A category is probably inappropriate if the answer to the following question is "no": Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?"
It isn't really possible to write a few paragraphs about being a life member of the club and the ref that's in the category only has one sentence explaining it "criteria for Adelaide Football Club Life Membership is 10 years of service at the discretion of the Board." Also, there aren't any other club life member categories, nor is there a category for the league, i.e.
Category:Australian Football League life members. I think it is appropriate to have a sentence about being a life member in each subjects article, but not really appropriate for its own category.
Flickerd (
talk)
09:25, 20 December 2017 (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:Wikipedia categories named after 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: i do not believe that the so called category tree of
Category:Eponymous categories serves any real world function. its designed to place categories named after things in a separate tree from the articles named after things, as not all the articles in
Category: Apollo 11 are actually space missions. for some, this means that categories named after things should not be in a parent category at all. i find that so pedantic as to be meaningless. i am hoping that someone editing spacecraft articles can shed more light than heat (though i guess spacrafts generate a lot of heat). convince me otherwise. this has been brought up many times before for other branches of this tree.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
06:38, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Keep – this is a category of categories, not a category of articles, and is entitled 'Wikipedia categories' so it is not intended to serve any real world function. It is also hidden from the average viewer.
Oculi (
talk)
12:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
if the category serves no real world function, why do we have it? arent we the real world? is wikipedia just a playground for budding library scientists, or are we here to help real people learn about real things? making it a hidden category is even worse, not better, esp. if the category is not being used by any administrator to adminstrate anything.
Mercurywoodrose (
talk)
02:58, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Delete, this category provides a nice view of all specific spacecraft about which we have enough articles so that they can have a category of their own, but creating nice views isn't really the purpose of Wikipedia.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
10:16, 23 December 2017 (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:Clinical pharmacologists
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.
Further comment, two of the articles are about physicians in a time that the occupation of clinical pharmacologist did not exist yet. That leaves only five articles which is a really low number for a biographies category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:28, 20 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Probably merge Is this to distinguish clinical pharmacologists from experimental pharmacologists? Either way, I don't think this is a necessary split.
Natureium (
talk)
04:06, 22 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. Perhaps it isn't adequately explained in the content, but these really are two entirely distinct categories. Pharmacologists (not to be confused with
pharmacists) are laboratory scientists who typically have PhDs and do basic research about drug molecules and receptor molecules. Clinical pharmacologists are medical clinicians who typically have MDs or other professional degrees and serve as the medication experts within a medical team. We would never consider merging
neurologists with
neuroscientists or
psychologists with
psychiatrists. Same idea here. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
00:53, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure what to tell you. Based only on what I can gather from the page, he worked at a medical school and was noted for medical education, and the kinds of contributions that he made to pharmacology research are not described. Also, I'm not knowledgeable about the medical education system in India. I'll add that it's possible to be both, analogously to an MD-PhD dual degree holder. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
20:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)reply
I think that it is most logical to continue to have the clinical category as a subcategory, but it's likely that a lot of pages just need to be recategorized. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
23:11, 27 December 2017 (UTC)reply
Based on
WP:SMALLCAT, it does not appear to me that the category has no potential for growth, and so it seems keep-able to me based on that criterion. Also, as noted above, there appear to be a lot of pages that need to be moved into this category, but haven't been yet. --
Tryptofish (
talk)
19:56, 13 January 2018 (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:Love & Hip Hop cast members
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.
I am not entirely sure about
Category:Reality television participants. On the one hand, it is probably fine under
WP:PERFCAT because it categorizes individuals by genre rather than a specific performance or series. On the other hand, it is sometimes very defining (for people who are notable only due to their appearance on a reality television series) and sometimes not at all defining (for people who are independently notable, and are invited to appear on a reality television series). With perhaps a few exceptions, most of the individual categories by series violate
WP:PERFCAT and should be upmerged, in my opinion. --
Black Falcon(
talk)20:35, 26 November 2017 (UTC)reply
Either delete or keep, but do not merge. If appearing in this reality show was defining for anyone, keep them in it and purge those not defined; but if the cat is merged, we just set off on a path to a vast sprawling category which is no use for navigation. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
20:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)reply
Merge to the American reality television series participants cat. Keep in mind the actual notability of any of these individuals is a sperate issue from the category. One good result of this is it avoids the horrible result of categorizing performers (reality television show participants) by performance (which reality show they were in). Considering that many people have been in multiple reality TV shows, this is a needed move. The current category violates rules against performers by performance categories.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
18:59, 13 January 2018 (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:Fictional characters with psychiatric disorders
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:Fictional bullies
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 It is a very safe bet that most of the membership of this category can be cited to reliable sources as being bullying characters, and fictional characters, after all, are created to fill certain positions. So I am not accepting the assertion of subjectivity; I suspect that literary critics do not. Of course those for whom citation cannot be found ought to be removed, but I'm not buying the idea that we can judge those critics to be wrong.
Delete as overly subjective. This is especially true because some villains in especially the Superhero genre, will have been portrayed in multiple ways often over long periods of time. A few connected with Batman and Superman have been portrayed almost constantly in comics for over 70 years, plus appeared in many TV, film and novel depictions. While these characters are generally clearly the villain in all appearances, whether they are bullies is hard to say, and will at times depend on their specific portrayal.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
19:02, 13 January 2018 (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:Fictional panpipers
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:Fictional countries in the Americas
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:Rogue planets in fiction
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.
Query Is this really a rename proposal? What's the current scope and the intended scope? Is it fictional planets that are rogue? Or is it planets that are rogue fictionally? Or is it either of these two things? Mars is not a fictional planet but it has appeared in fiction (War of the Worlds) as a rogue planet so is it in scope?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
11:20, 2 December 2017 (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.