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 as not needed for the subject's article and a Works sub-category.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 20:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete All pertinent articles already categorized in the subject specific "works by" category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:37, 6 November 2013 (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:Zones
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. Appears to be a collection of entities with the word "Zone" in them, and also Conarky. I don't think that a Nuclear Free Zone, Zones of Nepal, or the Korean DMZ have much in common with one another.
SnowFire (
talk) 21:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - overcategorization by shared name feature. No indication that the contents bear any relationship to each other beyond being called "zone".
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 20:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
delete as too vague.
Seyasirt (
talk) 16:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- The only connection is a shared name.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:21, 8 November 2013 (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:American straight-to-series scripted television series
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. Categorizing TV series on this basis feels like overcategorization. There are many paths by which a series can make it to air and building a category around each of them strikes me as a structure we don't want to build. This is also a triple-intersection category, of "American", "straight-to-series" and "scripted" which as I understand we generally try to avoid. We have no
Category:Scripted television series at all and no article on the
Straight-to-series concept.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 21:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Maybe a list but not a category. It is interesting if not defining when a show can bypass the pilot stage, but I don't see it as a category.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
delete we shouldn't start categorizing TV shows by the various routes they took to turn into a series.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 22:00, 1 November 2013 (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:New Brunswick Sports Hall of Fame inductees
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 and listify per
WP:OC#AWARD. It is my understanding that state and provincial sports halls of fame are generally not considered sufficiently significant for inductee categories.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Not another award category. Listify if there is no list.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per Peter.
Steam5 (
talk) 06:55, 6 November 2013 (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:Virtual machines
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:Withdrawn by nom. Changes have made this discussion irrelevant.
Codename Lisa (
talk) 06:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Hypervisors create and run
virtual machines. Virtual machine are logical entities, not software products; hypervisors are.
Codename Lisa (
talk) 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
keep as is The current category name matches the main article
Virtual machines. The article on
Hypervisor is not directly or indirectly in this category. There is no indication this change would improve reader understanding or article navigation--the purpose of categories. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hmains (
talk •
contribs) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi. Are you saying we should keep one stupid mistake because of another stupid mistake? Why not fix both!? I'd hop there and change the main article from
virtual machine to
hypervisor but I am afraid an editor hasn't studied the content of the category (like yourself) might revert me indisciminately. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
P.S. Please sign your message. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 07:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi Lisa, I don't see why you call this a stupid mistake. I've looked at a number of articles in this category, and most of them start with "X is a virtual machine on platform Y" - etc. There may be a scope for a separate hypervisor category, but I'm not convinced yet. Can you give me a list of members that would be hypervisors but definitely not virtual machines?--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Humpf! I just finished moving them out. Man, the category is much leaner now. You can keep the rest. But you see, the idea was to keep the hypervisors and move the virtual machines out. But... you guys made me take longer route. Anyway, if you insist on seeing a stupid mistake, ... well, I am not going to point you to one because
I don't like commenting on the contributor unless necessary. But you should've eaten the trout that I sent you. Makes you smarter!
(yes, that was a joke.) Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 05:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
If you think some items belong in
Category:Virtualization software or elsewhere instead feel free to move them - but some bad eggs in a category is no reason to delete. There are a number of items in this category which are described in the lede as a 'virtual machine' (see
[1] - one potential problem with this category is that virtual machine has many different meanings, but I'm not sure if that is fatal. Otherwise, please assume good faith, calling it graffiti is exaggerated.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi. With Seyasirt's comment below, what we have is 90% bad egg. And some items there are just interpreters, not process virtual machines. Now, while I am ready to hear your discussion on that, please avoid
WP:OR. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 04:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
keep There's nothing that says a category has to be about specific software products, and
Category:Virtual machines is the obvious place to put articles relating to the concepts of VMs. There's obviously some need for sorting out the various virtualization categories but for instance
Java virtual machine is not a hypervisor; it's an abstraction that a hypervisor runs.
Seyasirt (
talk) 16:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi. There is a small problem with your reason: We already have a
Category:Java virtual machine. If we move what you suggested there, and remove what Obiwankenobi mentioned above, we will have nothing left. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 04:44, 8 November 2013 (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:First Nations women
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: Merge to parent - see related
Category:Native American women, which doesn't further subdivide. In canada, there are three divisions under aboriginal, of which first nations is one grouping. I don't think a separate category just for first nations women is needed, if we want to gender all aboriginal people in Canada the top level cat should suffice.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Populate and keep There are indeed three recognized and distinct Aboriginal nations in Canada, First Nations, Metis and Inuit. I don't see how the Native American category is a persuasive rationale for ignoring this key distinction for Canadian Aboriginal woman, sorry.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
No, there are three high level groupings in Canada - First Nations isn't a "nation"; it is a collection of "nations". In any case, we could easily use category intersection to collect women across any of these groupings - I think separating at the top level is sufficient, coupled with category intersection (see
Category:Albanian film actors or
Category:Singaporean poets for an example of how this might work). First nations women might themselves be insulted that they aren't categorized according to their tribe, so saying "First nations vs aboriginal" is a key distinction but "first nations vs Sioux" is not doesn't make sense. We have a parallel cat,
Category:Violence against Aboriginal women in Canada which groups aboriginal women together. Generally, I think for simplicity's sake, if we're dividing by gender to avoid ghettoization we should do so at the highest reasonable level, which in the case of Canada is Aboriginal women.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 18:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I see that Inuit, for one, are recognized as a culturally distinct group and I wonder if
Category:Women by ethnicity would not suggest that there is a place for this category within a recognized category structure.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
All of the first nations are recognized as culturally distinct, as I noted above; First Nations is a container no matter what. I just don't think we need it - aboriginal canadian is sufficient as a container for any women-cats that are found below.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Populate and keep Not all Aboriginal people are First Nations, and we shouldn't throw Inuit and First Nations categories together using that thinking. Clumping together under a single category would be like throwing out
Category:English women because there is a higher
Category:British women cat above it. I don't think we're going to do that. "First Nations" is a social and legal category that comprises many Nations but it does not cover every Aboriginal person or Aboriginal group in Canada. The category nesting is generally "Indigenous" for groups of the world considered together; "Aboriginal" or "First Peoples" for groups considered together in Canada; then "First Nations", "Inuit", and "Métis" for those socially and legally defined groups; then the individual Nations.
[2]__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I've added a link to the category intersection to the top of
Category:First Nations people so you can see how it works. This could be made slightly tighter by populating an "aboriginal" category. BTW, I never claimed all aboriginal people are first nations - one is the superset of the other. As I pointed out, we have a similar case in the US where we grouped all of the native american women together rathern than breaking it down tribe-by-tribe.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
That link doesn't work. There are obvious hits that aren't First Nations women.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, without even looking at pages, there's Kim Campbell, the former Prime Minister, and Sky Lee, a Chinese-Canadian writer. I'm sorry, but I don't think this approach works with false positives on BLPs. I wish robots worked better, myself.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
It's not really a false positive; it's just a poorly set-up sub-category structure.
Category:Nuu-chah-nulth contains
Category:Alberni_Valley which contains
Category:People_from_Port_Alberni. We could fix this by adjusting the parenting, or just populate "Aboriginal Canadian women" and intersect with that. Category intersection will reveal poor parenting practices, but that doesn't mean it's broken.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 18:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, we can populate "First Nations women" and intersect with that, too. As it stands, and as it's written, it's broken and will mislead people looking at it today. Please remove it; right now we are claiming that Kim Campbell is a First Nations woman to anyone looking at your list.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Obi-Wan Kenobi, could you can actually remove it instead of marking it as "may not be 100% correct". We know it's not correct right now, it's not a vague possibility. There are BLPs in your list that deserve more than "maybe" and we shouldn't "experiment" with actual biographies. You can sandbox or something, can't you?
__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Fixed the sub-cat issue, so Kim and Sky are now gone. Please take a look and see if there are others. Again, the advantage of this approach is that as soon as someone is added to "Canadian women writers" and "Cree people" for example, they will show up on this dynamic list.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 22:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- It sounds to me as if the subject should be a sub-cat of the target.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete We avoid categorizing people by gender except in cases where there is a good reason to so categorize them. In the case of the intersection of ethnicity and other traits, there is not really a compelling reason to subdivide by gender and it leads to quickly to splitting off all of the females in that ethnicity into a sub-cat.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Populate and keep ; Cleanup as necessary. First Nations is a critical identity; we have a parallel split in the USA with Native Americans/Alaskan Natives/Hawaiian Natives. The "ghettoization of women" thing is a different issue entirely, and until resolved across all subjects, I'd keep a category for women for now. (and as an aside please stop calling us "females" outside of scientific literature, we aren't subhumans or laboratory subjects. If you are men, then we are women, period.)
Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Populate and keep, per Montanabw. GregJackPBoomer! 05:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Support merge. The implication of having the First Nation people category only populated by men is that "people" are "men" and women are anomalies. It just means one more step to access women's articles. -
Uyvsdi (
talk) 06:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdireply
Comment: THIS proposal is about merging Category:First Nations women to Category:Aboriginal Canadian women. I am taking no position here on whether to have "women" in either category title because that isn't before us. I do take exception to merging "First Nations" into "Aboriginal" as I believe in good faith that "Aboriginal" is the parent cat of "First Nations". If there is a proposal to merge "women" into "people", I'd probably support that, but that isn't the proposal here.
Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Montanabw, I'm not sure I understand your point. This is not about merging First nations people to Aboriginal people, nor is it about destroying the differentiation between first nations and aboriginal people. It is simply about whether we need to have a non-diffusing "women" category at this level, or whether having it at the canadian level suffices. For example, in the US, we don't have "Sioux women" or "Nez Pierce women" - we only group by "Native American women"; the same logic applies here. Admittedly Canada has a more complex setup, but the principle is the same - you don't need to have "women" as a non-diffusing cat at every level of the tree.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Go one step up; First Nations=Native American or American Indian. Aboriginal Canadian = American Indian/Alaska Native/Hawaiian or, though there is not a totally agreed-upon legal term emcompassing all, they are collectively Indigenous people of the United States. That's my point; probably most women in the Aboriginal women category ARE First Nations people, and if there is an Inuit women category too, the Aboriginal cat probably should mostly be diffusing into the subcats. Does that make my position clear?
Put differently, had your proposal been First nations people -->Aborginal Canadian people, I'd be equally opposed. But if your proposal was First nations women --> First nations people, I'd probably not object if there were too few articles to justify "people" as being diffusing and no equivalent "men" category. Does that make sense?
Montanabw(talk) 00:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
There's a huge difference between First Nations people -> Aboriginal Canadian people and First Nations women -> Aboriginal Canadian women. One is a top-level container category that is gender neutral and diffusing; the other is a non-diffusing gendered category. If you want to keep First Nations women, to be fair you'd have to create First Nations men, and Metis women, and Metis men, and Inuit women, and Inuit men, and if you're classifying Inuit women, then why not Sioux or Cree or Nez Pierce women? I don't see a difference frankly. Both First Nations and Aboriginal are containers, in the same way Native American is a container; if we had a bigger container for Native American/Alaskan/Hawaiian people, I'd propose merging the Native American women cat up there as well. And as I've pointed out, there are many categories that exist only at the "Aboriginal Canadian" level - such as
Category:Violence against Aboriginal women in Canada, so there's precedent that one need not always split everything into First Nations/Metis/Inuit.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 14:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I partly agree with you about the top level versus sub-level thing. But you clearly don't understand the difference between Native nations and "container" or general legal terms of art: "Inuit" is not a single tribal nation in the way "Sioux" is; it's a legal/container term more akin to "Alaska Native" (where there are multiple groups/nations). I agree that any gendered categories that exist should be balanced, but I don't agree that "just because we don't have one, the other should go" is a good argument, an equally good argument is, "well, then, create the others." I also have not made the argument that "everything" should be split First Nations/Metis/Inuit. That's a false dichotomy. Some things can be generalized. Truly, I have enough trouble stating what I DO believe clearly, I don't need to have things attributed to me that are not my actual feelings. At this point we are in tl;dr land, I've made my points as best I could, so I guess it's just time for others to vote. I'm probably done here. I don't like seeing women made invisible, and I don't like to see native people made invisible or treated as historical anachronism. Whatever gets us there.
Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 21 November 2013 (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:Robert J. Shiller
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 category looks extremely likely to grow, given Shiller's recognition with the 2013
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, his prolific writing in the field and the extensive work he has done in developing analytical tools such as the
Case–Shiller index, all of which look more likely to increase in the wake of the Nobel Prize.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The writing might make a case for "works of Robert J. Schiller", but not for an epon cat. Besides, that's a bit crystal-ball-ish...--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I was using the same crystal-ball-ish methodology you used to state with absolute certainty that the category was "not likely to grow", I just used a more accurate reading based on the characteristics of the actual person to make my determination. What did you use to make your crystal ball prediction?
Alansohn (
talk) 16:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The thing Shiller is most known for are his books (which already go in the works category), the Case Shiller index (article already exists), and the research that won him the nobel prize. I see epon cats as really useful when there are upwards of ten articles related to the subject- see
Category:J._R._R._Tolkien for a textbook example of a useful epon cat. Even if 2 or 3 more articles were written about Shiller's contributions, I still don't think that would suffice for an epon cat, and much of his work is embedded in larger economics articles that themselves would not make sense to be categorized as "robert J. shiller".--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 17:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The bio will make a good main article for the works by cat. The question is what do we do with
Case–Shiller index; would be be able to movce that into "works by"? If so the category is redundant.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I think that's a fair approach; it is, in the broader sense, a "work" by this economist.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 20:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Eponomous categories are to be limited to people for whom there are lots of articles, there are not enough articles related to this subject for the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:52, 8 December 2013 (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:Computer scientists from Melbourne
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: Trivial intersection; we don't have a broader "CS people by city" so this category is an anomaly, and we don't have so many australian computer scientists that we need to further divide by city.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 14:55, 1 November 2013 (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:Computer scientists by IFIP Working Group
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: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep As far as I'm aware, membership of these working groups is a near-permanent status. —Ruud 18:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi Ruud. You may be right - though one of the headers said "past and current members" - however, like other awards or similar categories, membership in such working groups, even if permanent, is usually not
WP:DEFINING for the people within.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 18:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I disagree with that assessment. —Ruud 18:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Fair enough; let me provide my evidence. I looked at all of the members of three randomly selected groups:
Category:Members_of_IFIP_Working_Group_1.3,
Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.6,
Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.11. In their wikipedia bios, membership in the working group was not mentioned for any of them. I then chose two members of 2.11, and looked at their official bios on their homepage - again, no mention of IFIP.
[4],
[5]. So if editors have not determined it's worthy of inclusion in their bios, and the people themselves haven't included membership in these working groups in their own personal home pages, that to me is a classic case of not DEFINING.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 19:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Several of those do list the IFIP membership on their homepages:
[6] (2.11),
[7] (1.3),
[8] (1.6), ... —Ruud 17:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Fair enough; but not all do, and it's often listed in the bottom, along side lots of other appointments, editorship positions, conference convening roles, etc. The bottom line is, per
WP:DEFINING, this fails.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 17:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
There is no reasonable reading of that guideline under which this would fail to be a defining characteristic. Being a defining characteristic, someone consulting an encyclopedia would expect to find both which computer scientist are members of a particular IFIP WG and, conversely, of which IFIP WGs a particular computer scientist is a member. These categories fulfil this role precisely. Deleting them would be doing a disservice to readers and editors alike, as such they should be kept. —Ruud 22:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Are we reading the same guideline? This is what I'm reading: "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject; if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" I don't see membership in these working groups to be worthy of the lede, and I don't see most 3rd party sources that discuss these people referencing their membership in the working group. There are many many things that are true about people, and even that some random user may be interested to know, but which we do not allow categories for, because otherwise they would multiply. DEFINING is meant to limit such categories to those that are truly important; and if a decent proportion of these people don't mention it on their personal homepages, or mention it along with lots of other committees they are on, to me it is not defining.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 23:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Membership of these working groups is a fact worthy of mentioning in the lede. Take as a case in point
"Don Sannella: a short CV": this resume would be in perfect compliance with
WP:LEDE and does mention the working group membership. You seem to be working under the erroneous assumption that there exists a much larger group of equally worthy groups a computer scientist could be a member of. —Ruud 01:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)reply
No, I'm working under the assumption that probably no groups a computer scientist is a member of that would be worthy of a category. Alumni, yes, job, potentially, but working group membership - not in this case.
Category:Committees and
Category:Working groups has some other examples, but the vast majority don't have categories for members, most categories are just for articles about the committees. There are a few rare exceptions, like
Category:Norwegian Nobel Committee or
Category:International Panel on Climate Change lead authors, but these are very high level postings.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - not a defining characteristic. If desired for any groups that have articles a list can be placed, but if there's no article there does not need to be a separate list per group.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete most of them. These are not award categories, but membership of a committee (unless it is a fulltime or most time position) is unlikely to be defining. I do not think we have categories for directors of even the most prominent companies. A very few of the Working Groups are well-populated, and it may be useful to keep them. For the rest, I would suggest that a list will be adequate.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. In the discussion above I find Obi's argument more persuasive than Ruud's. If "someone consulting an encyclopedia would expect to find ... which computer scientist are members of a particular IFIP WG" then that would be better handled as a list (with dates, references and people who don't have a WP article) than as a category.
DexDor (
talk) 19:05, 8 November 2013 (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.
Healthcare to Health care
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. –
FayenaticLondon 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy on all health care items. There is clearly not consensus on which version to use based on how many places it is a single word, so we really should do a full discussion. I don't care which form to use, but thise should not be a speedy issue.
Aboutmovies (
talk) 19:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure which form is more common but the
health care title has been stable since 2003.
Marcus Qwertyus (
talk) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)reply
That doesn't quite matter: C2C "This criterion should only be applied when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination." Again, just look at how many cats you are looking to rename. Ergo, there is some doubt and it needs to go to a full CFD nom.
Aboutmovies (
talk) 06:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)reply
neutral for now; not sure I see the value here, since both words are equally used on either side of the pond. One difference I have seen is "healthcare" as an adjective, and "health care" as a noun; in which case, we would have "Health care in New York" but "Healthcare software" for example.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Healthcare is a compund nound and may be used as a adjective. AS an adjective, it should certainly be a compound (possibly hyphenated). It is possible that the two sides of the ATlandtic have a different view on this. For UK, I would prefer the compund noun.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I see no overriding reason presented to make this change.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 17:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I think confirming to the main article/category is a very good reason for the change (at least if it's not used as an adjective).
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to blindly assume that the article is at the correct name.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
That doesn't really matter there, the article name is stable. If you think the article is at the wrong name, than Requested moved is
that way.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Support Renames I prefer "Healthcare" as a compound term in one word, but the broad standard in Wikipedia article space (the one place that makes any difference) is to use "Health care" (with two words), except in the limited number of cases where its used as an adjective. Throughout the structure, from the parent
Health care to
Health care in Iceland to
Health care reform in the United States, the standard is clear. There are lots of folks here at CfD who believe that the wishes of the handful of editors who haunt this obscure corner of Wikipedia should overrule those of the broader consensus established throughout the English-language encyclopedia. CfD is a mere flea on the tip of the tail trying to wag the whole dog here, with nothing gained other than foolish inconsistency.
Alansohn (
talk) 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Healthcare is a commonly used compound noun.
gidonb (
talk) 09:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose - both words are extremely common and nothing would be gained by creating tons of redirected categories. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:29, 8 January 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:Bedroom musicians
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 only real definition as to what a "bedroom musician" supposedly is is backed up by a broken link on the category page. The main article,
Bedroom musician, was speedily deleted four years ago, and a Gsearch came up with nothing. (Why the articles in this category were even placed in this category is anyone's guess.) ErpertWHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
delete I'm sure many bands these days started out making music on a computer. Not defining at all.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:07, 1 November 2013 (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.
Compound modifiers
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. There was a consensus that these categories needed a variety of solutions rather than the single solution proposed here. Feel free to renominate in smaller groups. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy nomination. These are all compound modifiers, and therefore they should be hypenated per
MOS:HYPHEN.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 09:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename - This would make the category inconsistent with the category-defining article, which is at
Japanese American internment. The hyphen has been omitted from the article as a result of significant debate and discussion. Changing the category should not be done without reference and discussion in a broader consensus process.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 08:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename as per above - the article is at
Asian American. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and it should not be done without debate.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename as per above - There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename as per above. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename as per above. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename as per above. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not opposed to a procedural close, if you're willing to do the renomination of all the categories in separate batches. Otherwise this should run, and the issues mentioned by you should be discussed in a later CFD.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Had you asked at a time when I had the opportunity to be more active, I would gladly agree. However, I am still of the view that these categories should not be considered in one nomination at all. The same circumstances do not, and the same rationale cannot, apply to them all. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 19:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This is too sweeping a nomination and should be broken up. I would suggest the following principles:
All but American dual-ethnicities were converted to the format Booian of Fooian descent some years ago. There is a lot to be said for applying this in US too. Possibly, this should be limited to those who immigrated within the last couple of generations, and may retain cultural connections with theri origin, rather than being absorbed by the "melting pot".
Unless the theologians have a distinctive approach to their theology due to be of Asian extraction, I would suggest they should be
Category:American theologians of Asian descent. This may apply to several more.
Only one hyphen: if two would otherwise be required the first two should be hyphenated and not American.
Scotch-Irish is a single ethnicity, largely Scottish Presbyterians who emigrated to Ulster and then to southern USA. "Scotch-Irish Americans" should be an acceptable description. Note that there is no surviving antecedent ethnicity, as there is no such distinction among the Protestant inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
If we have to change them at all, it should be North-African American or Middle-Eastern American, but unless we are dealing with Berbers or Middle-Eastern Christians, I would suggest a merger to Arab-American.
"European American culture" requires a separate discussion. Is this a valid term? I suspect that the categories need merging back to parents: being the dominant culture, it should merely be American culture or just "culture".
However I am in UK, and do not know the nuances of American culture.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment If you want to do that, than feel free to do so. In this case this can be closed as moot.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:31, 8 November 2013 (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:Killer Klowns from Outer Space
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.
small category with zero chance of expansion.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 09:00, 1 November 2013 (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:Slim Burna
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. With only 2 subcategories and 3 articles, there's nothing in this category that isn't just as easily navigated from the main article.
WP:OC#Eponymous. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:35, 1 November 2013 (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:Memorial highways
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: Most of the pages in this category are redirects to articles about roads or disambiguation/set pages. This is an example of
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The primary purpose of a road is transport, not to be a memorial. For
one article in this category being memorials is a
WP:DEFINING characteristic - that should be upmerged to
here and
here. For info: Related previous CFDs are
this and
this.
DexDor (
talk) 06:33, 1 November 2013 (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:Educational institutions in the United States by accreditation association
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: Which association has
accredited a school/college/university is not a permanent
WP:DEFINING characteristic of the institution.
DexDor (
talk) 05:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
(1) The unaccredited category looks equally (if not more) non-permanent and there are already list articles (
example), (2) Information that's important to researchers should be in lists (which can have references, dates and can discuss any nuances such as accreditation only covering certain courses) and not necessarily in categories, (3) The "by association" category is now also
at CFD, (4) I don't see any relevance of athletics categories to this discussion.
DexDor (
talk) 19:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Support. The existence of
Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning actually is part of the reason. Since most schools are accredited, we only need to categorize the exceptions. Note well that at least one of these is responsible for the accreditation of public and private universities, colleges, secondary and elementary schools in the United States and foreign institutions of American origin. Do we really want to start categorizing secondary and elementary schools like this? Just think how many new category trees we could create. If this is really important, navigation would be better served by listifying which would allow sorting at least by state and maybe school type.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The user who is planning to go to college will want to know that the institution to which they apply is accredited, and may wish to identify all of the institutions that are accredited by the same accreditation association, because they may want to be sure that credits will be considered legitimate and will transfer when they change schools. I agree that a list can do this, but if one of you wants to make a list as an alternative to these categories, I encourage you to do this before the categories are deleted, so the lists will not need to be started from scratch. Also, in response to the earlier point, I brought up the athletic categories because, like the accreditation categories, colleges are members of these categories, and they change from time to time, in fact, probably more often then accreditation status changes.
- WPGA2345 - ☛ 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Surely, someone who wants to check that a particular institution is accredited should not be relying on WP categorization; the website of the accreditor would be a much better place for them to refer to. Also, WP categorization should be by permanent characteristics (i.e. whether a college has ever been accredited) not by current (accredited/unaccredited) status. What athletics categories are colleges members of ? (e.g.
we don't have a category for colleges that have a woodsman team).
DexDor (
talk) 20:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
There are lots of things we could tell readers to find somewhere other than Wikipedia. However, I don't see why it should be easier to use Wikipedia to find out what athletic conference a school is in than to find out what accreditation association the school is in. This is about general accreditation, not program accreditation, so it is actually a small set of accreditors that we are talking about. Remember, there are
only six federally recognized regional accreditation associations in the United States, and every college or university has to belong to one of these six to get certain federal benefits, and there are only a handful of federally recognized national accreditation associations for technical colleges. In higher education, membership in a particular association is pretty close to being permanent unless the school falls into disarray and becomes unaccredited. Whether this is in a category or a list, this is information about the relationships between notable institutions and notable accreditation associations that can be reliably sourced. Let me put it this way, if these were list articles instead of categories, would they be subject to deletion?
For both accreditation and athletics, lists (with dates and references) would be more suitable than categories. Also, in general, "Members of <organization>" should be a list (rather than a category) because it allows things that don't (yet) have a WP article (or for whom membership of the organization is not an important characteristic) to be in the list (although in this particular case that may not be an issue). Note: it might be better to create any lists directly from RSs rather than from the current category contents.
You were notified specifically because you created the head category. Note: talk page notification is not required at CFD and is not the only way people find out about a discussion (e.g. editors can watchlist categories they create).
DexDor (
talk) 07:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete the parent category
Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by accreditation association, rename the contained categories to include only the name of the organization, and recategorize them into
Category:Universities and colleges by association, which currently contains categories for the accredited members of several other U.S. accreditation organizations. I would not voluntarily go to the trouble of populating categories for each of these accrediting organizations (because they are very large), but the categories exist now, so the trouble of populating them is not an issue. The memberships of most of the accrediting organizations (particularly the regional accreditors) are highly stable (e.g., some universities have been members for a century or more), so these affiliations are at least as defining for an institution as its membership(s) in a sports conference, and the categories should be maintainable. I am aware that
Category:Universities and colleges by association and all of its contents are up for deletion, but I see that as a misbegotten CFD that lumps together a diverse variety of organizations -- some highly defining and some trivial. As I said at that AFD, discussions should focus on groups of similar categories.
I don't see any merit in converting these categories to lists, as that would simply put Wikipedia in the position of republishing lists published by the individual accreditors. --
Orlady (
talk) 00:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Change per Orlady At least in the United States, accreditation association is a defining characteristics of colleges/universities. That said, the naming scheme that Orlady suggests makes a lot more sense to me. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 19:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I don't terribly disagree, but I just don't see the need to rename the categories, if the name is an accurate description of its contents.
- WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep Accrediting bodies of colleges and universities are a strong defining characteristic of these institutions of higher learning. Despite a wish that categories only track immutable and never-changing traits, we do this in Wikipedia all the time and colleges and universities tend to stick with accrediting agencies for time spans that are far longer than they do in sports conferences, as has been pointed out above.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete This is categorization of a temporary trait of things that last a long time. Many of these institutions existed long before accredidation associations, and some will certainly change associations.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:30, 8 December 2013 (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:American Middle Eastern studies
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: More descriptive and less ambiguous. My first impression was that this was a category for Middle Eastern-American studies.
Marcus Qwertyus (
talk) 03:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom -- obviously.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:22, 7 November 2013 (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:Time in Belarus
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. The discussion was not helped by the nominator's failure to suggest where the relevant articles would be categorised. The usual solution in cases like this where there is a concern about overly small categories is to merge to one or more parent categories, but that was not offered here. The description of the nomination's scope as "most of the other junk in
Category:Time by country" was also unhelpfully vague, as well as inappropriate in tone. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: pointless, single entry cat Volunteer Marek 00:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - while it appears there is a substantive
Category:Time by country structure of which these categories are part, many of those categories consist of nothing but articles for the country's time zone per the
tz database. The articles themselves are poor conveyances for the information (a single list or even a series of lists broken down by continent would be better) and the categories are absolutely unnecessary to hold them.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 05:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - my !vote applies only to the Belarus category, which was separately nominated at the time I made it and should not be applied to any other category.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
keep part of a broader pattern. You'd have to establish why to delete all of the time-in-country cats; otherwise per smallcat there is an exception and this one can stay.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
comment also can you please group these together so people can !vote on them as a group? --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Done. And are these part of an "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"? Particularly since most of the articles in'em should properly be redirected to the relevant capital cities? And what is the point of having a cat with 1 entry? The lowest unit of a categorization scheme is an article, not a cat. Volunteer Marek 18:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Again, when you have cats like
Category:Time_in_Australia with 17 members, which groups together timezone articles for Australia, per
Wikipedia:SMALLCAT, you can have the other countries as well, even if they will always be small. It's just a standard practice.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 18:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
SMALLCAT allows for categories that would otherwise be deleted as part of a larger category structure but it doesn't require them. As I noted above, the contents of this structure are rather suspect IMHO based on the number of categories that consist of nothing but a stub article on the country's tz database entry. That there are some legitimate "Time in COUNTRY" categories doesn't mean we have to have ~300 other single-stub-entry categories for every other country on Earth.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 19:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete The smallcat policy needs to be reviewed. This is another example of is silly application. English Popes and Argentinian Popes are other classics. Just because it may be permitted, doesn't mean that it must be permitted. Sensible clumping of single-member articles into a container clump (e.g. "Popes by sundry countries", "Time by sundry countries") ought to be the way forward.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 14:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The other issue here is that most of those two sentence stub articles that exhaust each of these "Time in..." categories need to be simply combined into one single list article or made into redirects to the articles on capitals of the relevant countries. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete four that were mentioned, because this is pushing smallcat too far. "And most of the other junk in Category:Time by country" isn't specific enough; you need to list the pages or give obvious criteria (e.g. "All category members with fewer than X contents") before we can do anything about them.
Nyttend (
talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)reply
How about all category members with three or fewer articles? Volunteer Marek 18:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Categories other than those specifically tagged as part of this nomination cannot be considered as part of the nomination. A separate nomination is required, but I'd suggest holding off on making it until this one concludes.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 18:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge into a continental category. with a few exceptions categories such as this will never be adequately populated to make a worthwhile category, so we should not keep it, but equally plain deletion would not be right either.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Nominated articles, these take the small cat rules too far. The attempt by Laurel Lodged to advocate for a position on a different issue that has been turned down in multiple discussions is clearly out of line.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:35, 8 December 2013 (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.
Delete as not needed for the subject's article and a Works sub-category.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 20:26, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete All pertinent articles already categorized in the subject specific "works by" category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:37, 6 November 2013 (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:Zones
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. Appears to be a collection of entities with the word "Zone" in them, and also Conarky. I don't think that a Nuclear Free Zone, Zones of Nepal, or the Korean DMZ have much in common with one another.
SnowFire (
talk) 21:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - overcategorization by shared name feature. No indication that the contents bear any relationship to each other beyond being called "zone".
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 20:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
delete as too vague.
Seyasirt (
talk) 16:14, 5 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- The only connection is a shared name.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:21, 8 November 2013 (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:American straight-to-series scripted television series
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. Categorizing TV series on this basis feels like overcategorization. There are many paths by which a series can make it to air and building a category around each of them strikes me as a structure we don't want to build. This is also a triple-intersection category, of "American", "straight-to-series" and "scripted" which as I understand we generally try to avoid. We have no
Category:Scripted television series at all and no article on the
Straight-to-series concept.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 21:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Maybe a list but not a category. It is interesting if not defining when a show can bypass the pilot stage, but I don't see it as a category.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 21:17, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
delete we shouldn't start categorizing TV shows by the various routes they took to turn into a series.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 22:00, 1 November 2013 (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:New Brunswick Sports Hall of Fame inductees
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 and listify per
WP:OC#AWARD. It is my understanding that state and provincial sports halls of fame are generally not considered sufficiently significant for inductee categories.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 17:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete -- Not another award category. Listify if there is no list.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete per Peter.
Steam5 (
talk) 06:55, 6 November 2013 (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:Virtual machines
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:Withdrawn by nom. Changes have made this discussion irrelevant.
Codename Lisa (
talk) 06:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Hypervisors create and run
virtual machines. Virtual machine are logical entities, not software products; hypervisors are.
Codename Lisa (
talk) 17:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
keep as is The current category name matches the main article
Virtual machines. The article on
Hypervisor is not directly or indirectly in this category. There is no indication this change would improve reader understanding or article navigation--the purpose of categories. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Hmains (
talk •
contribs) 18:05, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi. Are you saying we should keep one stupid mistake because of another stupid mistake? Why not fix both!? I'd hop there and change the main article from
virtual machine to
hypervisor but I am afraid an editor hasn't studied the content of the category (like yourself) might revert me indisciminately. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 06:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
P.S. Please sign your message. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 07:06, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi Lisa, I don't see why you call this a stupid mistake. I've looked at a number of articles in this category, and most of them start with "X is a virtual machine on platform Y" - etc. There may be a scope for a separate hypervisor category, but I'm not convinced yet. Can you give me a list of members that would be hypervisors but definitely not virtual machines?--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Humpf! I just finished moving them out. Man, the category is much leaner now. You can keep the rest. But you see, the idea was to keep the hypervisors and move the virtual machines out. But... you guys made me take longer route. Anyway, if you insist on seeing a stupid mistake, ... well, I am not going to point you to one because
I don't like commenting on the contributor unless necessary. But you should've eaten the trout that I sent you. Makes you smarter!
(yes, that was a joke.) Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 05:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
If you think some items belong in
Category:Virtualization software or elsewhere instead feel free to move them - but some bad eggs in a category is no reason to delete. There are a number of items in this category which are described in the lede as a 'virtual machine' (see
[1] - one potential problem with this category is that virtual machine has many different meanings, but I'm not sure if that is fatal. Otherwise, please assume good faith, calling it graffiti is exaggerated.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:25, 5 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi. With Seyasirt's comment below, what we have is 90% bad egg. And some items there are just interpreters, not process virtual machines. Now, while I am ready to hear your discussion on that, please avoid
WP:OR. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 04:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
keep There's nothing that says a category has to be about specific software products, and
Category:Virtual machines is the obvious place to put articles relating to the concepts of VMs. There's obviously some need for sorting out the various virtualization categories but for instance
Java virtual machine is not a hypervisor; it's an abstraction that a hypervisor runs.
Seyasirt (
talk) 16:23, 5 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi. There is a small problem with your reason: We already have a
Category:Java virtual machine. If we move what you suggested there, and remove what Obiwankenobi mentioned above, we will have nothing left. Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 04:44, 8 November 2013 (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:First Nations women
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: Merge to parent - see related
Category:Native American women, which doesn't further subdivide. In canada, there are three divisions under aboriginal, of which first nations is one grouping. I don't think a separate category just for first nations women is needed, if we want to gender all aboriginal people in Canada the top level cat should suffice.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Populate and keep There are indeed three recognized and distinct Aboriginal nations in Canada, First Nations, Metis and Inuit. I don't see how the Native American category is a persuasive rationale for ignoring this key distinction for Canadian Aboriginal woman, sorry.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 18:01, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
No, there are three high level groupings in Canada - First Nations isn't a "nation"; it is a collection of "nations". In any case, we could easily use category intersection to collect women across any of these groupings - I think separating at the top level is sufficient, coupled with category intersection (see
Category:Albanian film actors or
Category:Singaporean poets for an example of how this might work). First nations women might themselves be insulted that they aren't categorized according to their tribe, so saying "First nations vs aboriginal" is a key distinction but "first nations vs Sioux" is not doesn't make sense. We have a parallel cat,
Category:Violence against Aboriginal women in Canada which groups aboriginal women together. Generally, I think for simplicity's sake, if we're dividing by gender to avoid ghettoization we should do so at the highest reasonable level, which in the case of Canada is Aboriginal women.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 18:33, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I see that Inuit, for one, are recognized as a culturally distinct group and I wonder if
Category:Women by ethnicity would not suggest that there is a place for this category within a recognized category structure.
Shawn in Montreal (
talk) 13:48, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
All of the first nations are recognized as culturally distinct, as I noted above; First Nations is a container no matter what. I just don't think we need it - aboriginal canadian is sufficient as a container for any women-cats that are found below.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:47, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Populate and keep Not all Aboriginal people are First Nations, and we shouldn't throw Inuit and First Nations categories together using that thinking. Clumping together under a single category would be like throwing out
Category:English women because there is a higher
Category:British women cat above it. I don't think we're going to do that. "First Nations" is a social and legal category that comprises many Nations but it does not cover every Aboriginal person or Aboriginal group in Canada. The category nesting is generally "Indigenous" for groups of the world considered together; "Aboriginal" or "First Peoples" for groups considered together in Canada; then "First Nations", "Inuit", and "Métis" for those socially and legally defined groups; then the individual Nations.
[2]__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:02, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I've added a link to the category intersection to the top of
Category:First Nations people so you can see how it works. This could be made slightly tighter by populating an "aboriginal" category. BTW, I never claimed all aboriginal people are first nations - one is the superset of the other. As I pointed out, we have a similar case in the US where we grouped all of the native american women together rathern than breaking it down tribe-by-tribe.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 17:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
That link doesn't work. There are obvious hits that aren't First Nations women.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 17:50, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, without even looking at pages, there's Kim Campbell, the former Prime Minister, and Sky Lee, a Chinese-Canadian writer. I'm sorry, but I don't think this approach works with false positives on BLPs. I wish robots worked better, myself.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
It's not really a false positive; it's just a poorly set-up sub-category structure.
Category:Nuu-chah-nulth contains
Category:Alberni_Valley which contains
Category:People_from_Port_Alberni. We could fix this by adjusting the parenting, or just populate "Aboriginal Canadian women" and intersect with that. Category intersection will reveal poor parenting practices, but that doesn't mean it's broken.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 18:37, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Well, we can populate "First Nations women" and intersect with that, too. As it stands, and as it's written, it's broken and will mislead people looking at it today. Please remove it; right now we are claiming that Kim Campbell is a First Nations woman to anyone looking at your list.
__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:40, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Obi-Wan Kenobi, could you can actually remove it instead of marking it as "may not be 100% correct". We know it's not correct right now, it's not a vague possibility. There are BLPs in your list that deserve more than "maybe" and we shouldn't "experiment" with actual biographies. You can sandbox or something, can't you?
__ E L A Q U E A T E 19:45, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Fixed the sub-cat issue, so Kim and Sky are now gone. Please take a look and see if there are others. Again, the advantage of this approach is that as soon as someone is added to "Canadian women writers" and "Cree people" for example, they will show up on this dynamic list.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 22:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- It sounds to me as if the subject should be a sub-cat of the target.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:55, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete We avoid categorizing people by gender except in cases where there is a good reason to so categorize them. In the case of the intersection of ethnicity and other traits, there is not really a compelling reason to subdivide by gender and it leads to quickly to splitting off all of the females in that ethnicity into a sub-cat.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 22:24, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Populate and keep ; Cleanup as necessary. First Nations is a critical identity; we have a parallel split in the USA with Native Americans/Alaskan Natives/Hawaiian Natives. The "ghettoization of women" thing is a different issue entirely, and until resolved across all subjects, I'd keep a category for women for now. (and as an aside please stop calling us "females" outside of scientific literature, we aren't subhumans or laboratory subjects. If you are men, then we are women, period.)
Montanabw(talk) 04:28, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Populate and keep, per Montanabw. GregJackPBoomer! 05:52, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Support merge. The implication of having the First Nation people category only populated by men is that "people" are "men" and women are anomalies. It just means one more step to access women's articles. -
Uyvsdi (
talk) 06:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdireply
Comment: THIS proposal is about merging Category:First Nations women to Category:Aboriginal Canadian women. I am taking no position here on whether to have "women" in either category title because that isn't before us. I do take exception to merging "First Nations" into "Aboriginal" as I believe in good faith that "Aboriginal" is the parent cat of "First Nations". If there is a proposal to merge "women" into "people", I'd probably support that, but that isn't the proposal here.
Montanabw(talk) 19:11, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Montanabw, I'm not sure I understand your point. This is not about merging First nations people to Aboriginal people, nor is it about destroying the differentiation between first nations and aboriginal people. It is simply about whether we need to have a non-diffusing "women" category at this level, or whether having it at the canadian level suffices. For example, in the US, we don't have "Sioux women" or "Nez Pierce women" - we only group by "Native American women"; the same logic applies here. Admittedly Canada has a more complex setup, but the principle is the same - you don't need to have "women" as a non-diffusing cat at every level of the tree.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 21:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Go one step up; First Nations=Native American or American Indian. Aboriginal Canadian = American Indian/Alaska Native/Hawaiian or, though there is not a totally agreed-upon legal term emcompassing all, they are collectively Indigenous people of the United States. That's my point; probably most women in the Aboriginal women category ARE First Nations people, and if there is an Inuit women category too, the Aboriginal cat probably should mostly be diffusing into the subcats. Does that make my position clear?
Put differently, had your proposal been First nations people -->Aborginal Canadian people, I'd be equally opposed. But if your proposal was First nations women --> First nations people, I'd probably not object if there were too few articles to justify "people" as being diffusing and no equivalent "men" category. Does that make sense?
Montanabw(talk) 00:11, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
There's a huge difference between First Nations people -> Aboriginal Canadian people and First Nations women -> Aboriginal Canadian women. One is a top-level container category that is gender neutral and diffusing; the other is a non-diffusing gendered category. If you want to keep First Nations women, to be fair you'd have to create First Nations men, and Metis women, and Metis men, and Inuit women, and Inuit men, and if you're classifying Inuit women, then why not Sioux or Cree or Nez Pierce women? I don't see a difference frankly. Both First Nations and Aboriginal are containers, in the same way Native American is a container; if we had a bigger container for Native American/Alaskan/Hawaiian people, I'd propose merging the Native American women cat up there as well. And as I've pointed out, there are many categories that exist only at the "Aboriginal Canadian" level - such as
Category:Violence against Aboriginal women in Canada, so there's precedent that one need not always split everything into First Nations/Metis/Inuit.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 14:53, 21 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I partly agree with you about the top level versus sub-level thing. But you clearly don't understand the difference between Native nations and "container" or general legal terms of art: "Inuit" is not a single tribal nation in the way "Sioux" is; it's a legal/container term more akin to "Alaska Native" (where there are multiple groups/nations). I agree that any gendered categories that exist should be balanced, but I don't agree that "just because we don't have one, the other should go" is a good argument, an equally good argument is, "well, then, create the others." I also have not made the argument that "everything" should be split First Nations/Metis/Inuit. That's a false dichotomy. Some things can be generalized. Truly, I have enough trouble stating what I DO believe clearly, I don't need to have things attributed to me that are not my actual feelings. At this point we are in tl;dr land, I've made my points as best I could, so I guess it's just time for others to vote. I'm probably done here. I don't like seeing women made invisible, and I don't like to see native people made invisible or treated as historical anachronism. Whatever gets us there.
Montanabw(talk) 19:05, 21 November 2013 (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:Robert J. Shiller
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 category looks extremely likely to grow, given Shiller's recognition with the 2013
Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, his prolific writing in the field and the extensive work he has done in developing analytical tools such as the
Case–Shiller index, all of which look more likely to increase in the wake of the Nobel Prize.
Alansohn (
talk) 01:00, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The writing might make a case for "works of Robert J. Schiller", but not for an epon cat. Besides, that's a bit crystal-ball-ish...--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:48, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I was using the same crystal-ball-ish methodology you used to state with absolute certainty that the category was "not likely to grow", I just used a more accurate reading based on the characteristics of the actual person to make my determination. What did you use to make your crystal ball prediction?
Alansohn (
talk) 16:51, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The thing Shiller is most known for are his books (which already go in the works category), the Case Shiller index (article already exists), and the research that won him the nobel prize. I see epon cats as really useful when there are upwards of ten articles related to the subject- see
Category:J._R._R._Tolkien for a textbook example of a useful epon cat. Even if 2 or 3 more articles were written about Shiller's contributions, I still don't think that would suffice for an epon cat, and much of his work is embedded in larger economics articles that themselves would not make sense to be categorized as "robert J. shiller".--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 17:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- The bio will make a good main article for the works by cat. The question is what do we do with
Case–Shiller index; would be be able to movce that into "works by"? If so the category is redundant.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:58, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I think that's a fair approach; it is, in the broader sense, a "work" by this economist.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 20:49, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Eponomous categories are to be limited to people for whom there are lots of articles, there are not enough articles related to this subject for the category.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 02:52, 8 December 2013 (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:Computer scientists from Melbourne
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: Trivial intersection; we don't have a broader "CS people by city" so this category is an anomaly, and we don't have so many australian computer scientists that we need to further divide by city.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 14:55, 1 November 2013 (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:Computer scientists by IFIP Working Group
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: Membership in a working group is not defining; these memberships change over time as well, so it isn't like an award - it is transient. As such, all of these categories should be deleted.
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 14:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep As far as I'm aware, membership of these working groups is a near-permanent status. —Ruud 18:14, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Hi Ruud. You may be right - though one of the headers said "past and current members" - however, like other awards or similar categories, membership in such working groups, even if permanent, is usually not
WP:DEFINING for the people within.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 18:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I disagree with that assessment. —Ruud 18:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Fair enough; let me provide my evidence. I looked at all of the members of three randomly selected groups:
Category:Members_of_IFIP_Working_Group_1.3,
Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 1.6,
Category:Members of IFIP Working Group 2.11. In their wikipedia bios, membership in the working group was not mentioned for any of them. I then chose two members of 2.11, and looked at their official bios on their homepage - again, no mention of IFIP.
[4],
[5]. So if editors have not determined it's worthy of inclusion in their bios, and the people themselves haven't included membership in these working groups in their own personal home pages, that to me is a classic case of not DEFINING.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 19:50, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Several of those do list the IFIP membership on their homepages:
[6] (2.11),
[7] (1.3),
[8] (1.6), ... —Ruud 17:31, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Fair enough; but not all do, and it's often listed in the bottom, along side lots of other appointments, editorship positions, conference convening roles, etc. The bottom line is, per
WP:DEFINING, this fails.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 17:42, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
There is no reasonable reading of that guideline under which this would fail to be a defining characteristic. Being a defining characteristic, someone consulting an encyclopedia would expect to find both which computer scientist are members of a particular IFIP WG and, conversely, of which IFIP WGs a particular computer scientist is a member. These categories fulfil this role precisely. Deleting them would be doing a disservice to readers and editors alike, as such they should be kept. —Ruud 22:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Are we reading the same guideline? This is what I'm reading: "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject; if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;" I don't see membership in these working groups to be worthy of the lede, and I don't see most 3rd party sources that discuss these people referencing their membership in the working group. There are many many things that are true about people, and even that some random user may be interested to know, but which we do not allow categories for, because otherwise they would multiply. DEFINING is meant to limit such categories to those that are truly important; and if a decent proportion of these people don't mention it on their personal homepages, or mention it along with lots of other committees they are on, to me it is not defining.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 23:27, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Membership of these working groups is a fact worthy of mentioning in the lede. Take as a case in point
"Don Sannella: a short CV": this resume would be in perfect compliance with
WP:LEDE and does mention the working group membership. You seem to be working under the erroneous assumption that there exists a much larger group of equally worthy groups a computer scientist could be a member of. —Ruud 01:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)reply
No, I'm working under the assumption that probably no groups a computer scientist is a member of that would be worthy of a category. Alumni, yes, job, potentially, but working group membership - not in this case.
Category:Committees and
Category:Working groups has some other examples, but the vast majority don't have categories for members, most categories are just for articles about the committees. There are a few rare exceptions, like
Category:Norwegian Nobel Committee or
Category:International Panel on Climate Change lead authors, but these are very high level postings.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:35, 5 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - not a defining characteristic. If desired for any groups that have articles a list can be placed, but if there's no article there does not need to be a separate list per group.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 00:01, 4 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Listify and delete most of them. These are not award categories, but membership of a committee (unless it is a fulltime or most time position) is unlikely to be defining. I do not think we have categories for directors of even the most prominent companies. A very few of the Working Groups are well-populated, and it may be useful to keep them. For the rest, I would suggest that a list will be adequate.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:28, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete. In the discussion above I find Obi's argument more persuasive than Ruud's. If "someone consulting an encyclopedia would expect to find ... which computer scientist are members of a particular IFIP WG" then that would be better handled as a list (with dates, references and people who don't have a WP article) than as a category.
DexDor (
talk) 19:05, 8 November 2013 (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.
Healthcare to Health care
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. –
FayenaticLondon 17:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy on all health care items. There is clearly not consensus on which version to use based on how many places it is a single word, so we really should do a full discussion. I don't care which form to use, but thise should not be a speedy issue.
Aboutmovies (
talk) 19:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not sure which form is more common but the
health care title has been stable since 2003.
Marcus Qwertyus (
talk) 19:45, 25 October 2013 (UTC)reply
That doesn't quite matter: C2C "This criterion should only be applied when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination." Again, just look at how many cats you are looking to rename. Ergo, there is some doubt and it needs to go to a full CFD nom.
Aboutmovies (
talk) 06:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)reply
neutral for now; not sure I see the value here, since both words are equally used on either side of the pond. One difference I have seen is "healthcare" as an adjective, and "health care" as a noun; in which case, we would have "Health care in New York" but "Healthcare software" for example.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:00, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep -- Healthcare is a compund nound and may be used as a adjective. AS an adjective, it should certainly be a compound (possibly hyphenated). It is possible that the two sides of the ATlandtic have a different view on this. For UK, I would prefer the compund noun.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:34, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose. I see no overriding reason presented to make this change.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 17:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I think confirming to the main article/category is a very good reason for the change (at least if it's not used as an adjective).
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:27, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I'm not going to blindly assume that the article is at the correct name.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 19:33, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
That doesn't really matter there, the article name is stable. If you think the article is at the wrong name, than Requested moved is
that way.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Support Renames I prefer "Healthcare" as a compound term in one word, but the broad standard in Wikipedia article space (the one place that makes any difference) is to use "Health care" (with two words), except in the limited number of cases where its used as an adjective. Throughout the structure, from the parent
Health care to
Health care in Iceland to
Health care reform in the United States, the standard is clear. There are lots of folks here at CfD who believe that the wishes of the handful of editors who haunt this obscure corner of Wikipedia should overrule those of the broader consensus established throughout the English-language encyclopedia. CfD is a mere flea on the tip of the tail trying to wag the whole dog here, with nothing gained other than foolish inconsistency.
Alansohn (
talk) 18:40, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose - Healthcare is a commonly used compound noun.
gidonb (
talk) 09:22, 30 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose - both words are extremely common and nothing would be gained by creating tons of redirected categories. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:29, 8 January 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:Bedroom musicians
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 only real definition as to what a "bedroom musician" supposedly is is backed up by a broken link on the category page. The main article,
Bedroom musician, was speedily deleted four years ago, and a Gsearch came up with nothing. (Why the articles in this category were even placed in this category is anyone's guess.) ErpertWHAT DO YOU WANT??? 09:39, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
delete I'm sure many bands these days started out making music on a computer. Not defining at all.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:07, 1 November 2013 (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.
Compound modifiers
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. There was a consensus that these categories needed a variety of solutions rather than the single solution proposed here. Feel free to renominate in smaller groups. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:27, 19 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy nomination. These are all compound modifiers, and therefore they should be hypenated per
MOS:HYPHEN.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 09:34, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename - This would make the category inconsistent with the category-defining article, which is at
Japanese American internment. The hyphen has been omitted from the article as a result of significant debate and discussion. Changing the category should not be done without reference and discussion in a broader consensus process.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 08:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename as per above - the article is at
Asian American. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and it should not be done without debate.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename as per above - There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename as per above. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename as per above. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Oppose speedy rename as per above. There is significant debate and discussion about the propriety and necessity of the hyphen in these cases, and renaming the categories should not be done without debate.
NorthBySouthBaranof (
talk) 09:04, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment I'm not opposed to a procedural close, if you're willing to do the renomination of all the categories in separate batches. Otherwise this should run, and the issues mentioned by you should be discussed in a later CFD.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 07:14, 3 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Had you asked at a time when I had the opportunity to be more active, I would gladly agree. However, I am still of the view that these categories should not be considered in one nomination at all. The same circumstances do not, and the same rationale cannot, apply to them all. -- Black Falcon(
talk) 19:51, 17 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment -- This is too sweeping a nomination and should be broken up. I would suggest the following principles:
All but American dual-ethnicities were converted to the format Booian of Fooian descent some years ago. There is a lot to be said for applying this in US too. Possibly, this should be limited to those who immigrated within the last couple of generations, and may retain cultural connections with theri origin, rather than being absorbed by the "melting pot".
Unless the theologians have a distinctive approach to their theology due to be of Asian extraction, I would suggest they should be
Category:American theologians of Asian descent. This may apply to several more.
Only one hyphen: if two would otherwise be required the first two should be hyphenated and not American.
Scotch-Irish is a single ethnicity, largely Scottish Presbyterians who emigrated to Ulster and then to southern USA. "Scotch-Irish Americans" should be an acceptable description. Note that there is no surviving antecedent ethnicity, as there is no such distinction among the Protestant inhabitants of Northern Ireland.
If we have to change them at all, it should be North-African American or Middle-Eastern American, but unless we are dealing with Berbers or Middle-Eastern Christians, I would suggest a merger to Arab-American.
"European American culture" requires a separate discussion. Is this a valid term? I suspect that the categories need merging back to parents: being the dominant culture, it should merely be American culture or just "culture".
However I am in UK, and do not know the nuances of American culture.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment If you want to do that, than feel free to do so. In this case this can be closed as moot.
ArmbrustTheHomunculus 19:31, 8 November 2013 (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:Killer Klowns from Outer Space
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.
small category with zero chance of expansion.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 09:00, 1 November 2013 (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:Slim Burna
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. With only 2 subcategories and 3 articles, there's nothing in this category that isn't just as easily navigated from the main article.
WP:OC#Eponymous. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:35, 1 November 2013 (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:Memorial highways
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: Most of the pages in this category are redirects to articles about roads or disambiguation/set pages. This is an example of
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. The primary purpose of a road is transport, not to be a memorial. For
one article in this category being memorials is a
WP:DEFINING characteristic - that should be upmerged to
here and
here. For info: Related previous CFDs are
this and
this.
DexDor (
talk) 06:33, 1 November 2013 (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:Educational institutions in the United States by accreditation association
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: Which association has
accredited a school/college/university is not a permanent
WP:DEFINING characteristic of the institution.
DexDor (
talk) 05:54, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
(1) The unaccredited category looks equally (if not more) non-permanent and there are already list articles (
example), (2) Information that's important to researchers should be in lists (which can have references, dates and can discuss any nuances such as accreditation only covering certain courses) and not necessarily in categories, (3) The "by association" category is now also
at CFD, (4) I don't see any relevance of athletics categories to this discussion.
DexDor (
talk) 19:45, 6 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Support. The existence of
Category:Unaccredited institutions of higher learning actually is part of the reason. Since most schools are accredited, we only need to categorize the exceptions. Note well that at least one of these is responsible for the accreditation of public and private universities, colleges, secondary and elementary schools in the United States and foreign institutions of American origin. Do we really want to start categorizing secondary and elementary schools like this? Just think how many new category trees we could create. If this is really important, navigation would be better served by listifying which would allow sorting at least by state and maybe school type.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:03, 8 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The user who is planning to go to college will want to know that the institution to which they apply is accredited, and may wish to identify all of the institutions that are accredited by the same accreditation association, because they may want to be sure that credits will be considered legitimate and will transfer when they change schools. I agree that a list can do this, but if one of you wants to make a list as an alternative to these categories, I encourage you to do this before the categories are deleted, so the lists will not need to be started from scratch. Also, in response to the earlier point, I brought up the athletic categories because, like the accreditation categories, colleges are members of these categories, and they change from time to time, in fact, probably more often then accreditation status changes.
- WPGA2345 - ☛ 19:11, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Surely, someone who wants to check that a particular institution is accredited should not be relying on WP categorization; the website of the accreditor would be a much better place for them to refer to. Also, WP categorization should be by permanent characteristics (i.e. whether a college has ever been accredited) not by current (accredited/unaccredited) status. What athletics categories are colleges members of ? (e.g.
we don't have a category for colleges that have a woodsman team).
DexDor (
talk) 20:10, 9 November 2013 (UTC)reply
There are lots of things we could tell readers to find somewhere other than Wikipedia. However, I don't see why it should be easier to use Wikipedia to find out what athletic conference a school is in than to find out what accreditation association the school is in. This is about general accreditation, not program accreditation, so it is actually a small set of accreditors that we are talking about. Remember, there are
only six federally recognized regional accreditation associations in the United States, and every college or university has to belong to one of these six to get certain federal benefits, and there are only a handful of federally recognized national accreditation associations for technical colleges. In higher education, membership in a particular association is pretty close to being permanent unless the school falls into disarray and becomes unaccredited. Whether this is in a category or a list, this is information about the relationships between notable institutions and notable accreditation associations that can be reliably sourced. Let me put it this way, if these were list articles instead of categories, would they be subject to deletion?
For both accreditation and athletics, lists (with dates and references) would be more suitable than categories. Also, in general, "Members of <organization>" should be a list (rather than a category) because it allows things that don't (yet) have a WP article (or for whom membership of the organization is not an important characteristic) to be in the list (although in this particular case that may not be an issue). Note: it might be better to create any lists directly from RSs rather than from the current category contents.
You were notified specifically because you created the head category. Note: talk page notification is not required at CFD and is not the only way people find out about a discussion (e.g. editors can watchlist categories they create).
DexDor (
talk) 07:04, 10 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete the parent category
Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by accreditation association, rename the contained categories to include only the name of the organization, and recategorize them into
Category:Universities and colleges by association, which currently contains categories for the accredited members of several other U.S. accreditation organizations. I would not voluntarily go to the trouble of populating categories for each of these accrediting organizations (because they are very large), but the categories exist now, so the trouble of populating them is not an issue. The memberships of most of the accrediting organizations (particularly the regional accreditors) are highly stable (e.g., some universities have been members for a century or more), so these affiliations are at least as defining for an institution as its membership(s) in a sports conference, and the categories should be maintainable. I am aware that
Category:Universities and colleges by association and all of its contents are up for deletion, but I see that as a misbegotten CFD that lumps together a diverse variety of organizations -- some highly defining and some trivial. As I said at that AFD, discussions should focus on groups of similar categories.
I don't see any merit in converting these categories to lists, as that would simply put Wikipedia in the position of republishing lists published by the individual accreditors. --
Orlady (
talk) 00:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Change per Orlady At least in the United States, accreditation association is a defining characteristics of colleges/universities. That said, the naming scheme that Orlady suggests makes a lot more sense to me. – PhilosopherLet us reason together. 19:42, 16 November 2013 (UTC)reply
I don't terribly disagree, but I just don't see the need to rename the categories, if the name is an accurate description of its contents.
- WPGA2345 - ☛ 05:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Keep Accrediting bodies of colleges and universities are a strong defining characteristic of these institutions of higher learning. Despite a wish that categories only track immutable and never-changing traits, we do this in Wikipedia all the time and colleges and universities tend to stick with accrediting agencies for time spans that are far longer than they do in sports conferences, as has been pointed out above.
Alansohn (
talk) 14:39, 25 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete This is categorization of a temporary trait of things that last a long time. Many of these institutions existed long before accredidation associations, and some will certainly change associations.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:30, 8 December 2013 (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:American Middle Eastern studies
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: More descriptive and less ambiguous. My first impression was that this was a category for Middle Eastern-American studies.
Marcus Qwertyus (
talk) 03:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom -- obviously.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:22, 7 November 2013 (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:Time in Belarus
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. The discussion was not helped by the nominator's failure to suggest where the relevant articles would be categorised. The usual solution in cases like this where there is a concern about overly small categories is to merge to one or more parent categories, but that was not offered here. The description of the nomination's scope as "most of the other junk in
Category:Time by country" was also unhelpfully vague, as well as inappropriate in tone. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 14:22, 19 December 2013 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: pointless, single entry cat Volunteer Marek 00:43, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete - while it appears there is a substantive
Category:Time by country structure of which these categories are part, many of those categories consist of nothing but articles for the country's time zone per the
tz database. The articles themselves are poor conveyances for the information (a single list or even a series of lists broken down by continent would be better) and the categories are absolutely unnecessary to hold them.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 05:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Comment - my !vote applies only to the Belarus category, which was separately nominated at the time I made it and should not be applied to any other category.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 19:53, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
keep part of a broader pattern. You'd have to establish why to delete all of the time-in-country cats; otherwise per smallcat there is an exception and this one can stay.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:08, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
comment also can you please group these together so people can !vote on them as a group? --
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 15:09, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Done. And are these part of an "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"? Particularly since most of the articles in'em should properly be redirected to the relevant capital cities? And what is the point of having a cat with 1 entry? The lowest unit of a categorization scheme is an article, not a cat. Volunteer Marek 18:11, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Again, when you have cats like
Category:Time_in_Australia with 17 members, which groups together timezone articles for Australia, per
Wikipedia:SMALLCAT, you can have the other countries as well, even if they will always be small. It's just a standard practice.--
Obi-Wan Kenobi (
talk) 18:22, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
SMALLCAT allows for categories that would otherwise be deleted as part of a larger category structure but it doesn't require them. As I noted above, the contents of this structure are rather suspect IMHO based on the number of categories that consist of nothing but a stub article on the country's tz database entry. That there are some legitimate "Time in COUNTRY" categories doesn't mean we have to have ~300 other single-stub-entry categories for every other country on Earth.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 19:58, 1 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete The smallcat policy needs to be reviewed. This is another example of is silly application. English Popes and Argentinian Popes are other classics. Just because it may be permitted, doesn't mean that it must be permitted. Sensible clumping of single-member articles into a container clump (e.g. "Popes by sundry countries", "Time by sundry countries") ought to be the way forward.
Laurel Lodged (
talk) 14:46, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
The other issue here is that most of those two sentence stub articles that exhaust each of these "Time in..." categories need to be simply combined into one single list article or made into redirects to the articles on capitals of the relevant countries. Volunteer Marek 20:55, 2 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete four that were mentioned, because this is pushing smallcat too far. "And most of the other junk in Category:Time by country" isn't specific enough; you need to list the pages or give obvious criteria (e.g. "All category members with fewer than X contents") before we can do anything about them.
Nyttend (
talk) 15:02, 3 November 2013 (UTC)reply
How about all category members with three or fewer articles? Volunteer Marek 18:15, 3 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Categories other than those specifically tagged as part of this nomination cannot be considered as part of the nomination. A separate nomination is required, but I'd suggest holding off on making it until this one concludes.
Jerry Pepsi (
talk) 18:47, 3 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Merge into a continental category. with a few exceptions categories such as this will never be adequately populated to make a worthwhile category, so we should not keep it, but equally plain deletion would not be right either.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 22:22, 7 November 2013 (UTC)reply
Delete Nominated articles, these take the small cat rules too far. The attempt by Laurel Lodged to advocate for a position on a different issue that has been turned down in multiple discussions is clearly out of line.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:35, 8 December 2013 (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.
(yes, that was a joke.) Best regards,
Codename Lisa (
talk) 05:36, 8 November 2013 (UTC)