Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 28

< December 27	December 29 >

December 28

Category:Medieval revival architectural styles

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: merge to Category:Revival architectural styles. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:35, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. There is no Medieval revival architecture article, and the sole parent, Category:Revival architectural styles, can directly parent its contents without loss of information. - choster (talk) 23:37, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Revival architectural styles per nom. The list at Revivalism (architecture)#List_of_architectural_revivals groups 7 revival styles under "Medieval Revival", and it might be worth splitting Category:Revival architectural styles in this sort of manner at some point in the future if we have more revival categories ... but right now, we don't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, but only the single level- i.e., leave "Gothic Revival" its own category under "Revival architectural styles". Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:34, 29 December 2009 (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:Arača

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. Category contains only one image which already adequately categorised, and the only other item I can see which could be added to it is the head article Arača. It is clearly a significant ruin in Serbia, but significance does not require a category unless there are a lot of related articles to organise. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's quite important, but categories need more than an article and a picture to exist. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:17, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- no substantive content. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:10, 4 January 2010 (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:Afrikaans South Africans

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Afrikaans-speaking South Africans, without prejudice to a future nomination that would propose deletion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Afrikaans South Africans to Category:Afrikaner people

Nominator's rationale: listed are white South Africans whose first language is Afrikaans - such people are Afrikaners Mayumashu (talk) 23:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The category text says "This category contains South African people, using the Afrikaans language, but can't necessarily be categorized as Afrikaners. Only if it certain that they can be called Afrikaners, must they be included in the Afrikaner subcategory."
Afrikaans is also the language of the Coloured. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, of course, that Cape Coloureds often speak Afrikaans as a first language, but the four listed are Afrikaners. Mayumashu (talk) 23:18, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also felt some opposition to this nomination, along the lines of what BrownHairedGirl wrote, but would like to add that if so, Category:Afrikaans South Africans should be renamed to Category:Afrikaans speaking South Africans or something similar. Debresser (talk) 02:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Debresser's proposed renaming. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:26, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have we other categories that categorise individuals by language and nationality? Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose original suggestion per BHG. Also, not all Afrikaners are South African - there are Afrikaners in Namibia, too. I'm open to suggestions such as Debresser's (which should have a hyphen for "Afrikaans-speaking"), though I feel it isnb't quite right either, since a lot of South Africans are bilingual. Grutness...wha? 23:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Afrikaans-speaking South Africans per Debresser (but with hyphen) per Grutness. Africaners should refer to white South Africans of Dutch descent. However the Africaans language is also spoken by more South Africans of other races. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree that if kept, it should be renamed to the Debresser suggestion with the Peterkingiron amendment. Mayumashu (talk) 23:14, 6 January 2010 (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:Anahí concert tours

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. It seems that Anahí has done only one tour, and it is already interlinked with the other articles about her through {{Anahí}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one tour, already listed in the template for the artist; no need for the category. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradjamesbrown (talk • contribs)

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Intra-Palestinian violence

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Per Vegaswikian. Ruslik_Zero 12:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Whilst there have been several episodes of conflict between Palestinian groups, there is no head article Intra-Palestinian violence; the closest seems to be Palestinian factional violence, which is a redirect to Fatah–Hamas conflict, itself the head article of Category:Fatah–Hamas conflict.
This category seems to be a strange collection of articles whose purpose I cannot quite fathom. It seems to me that the existing categories Category:Intifada and Category:Fatah–Hamas conflict cover most (though not all) of the scope of this one. This one was created in September as Category:Intra-Palestinian Violence and speedily-renamed in October, but it doesn't seem have found a place in the category system (it was uncategorised when I found it). I will notify WP:PALESTINE. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

delete; a bit of a neologism, isn't it? I would think we need an article before we start to categorize in this way. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An appropriate category to group articles for navigation purposes by their defining characteristic. There is no requirement for a parent article to exist, nor is the lack of such justification for deletion. As to the neologism claim, again misused as a justification for deletion, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is directly quoted as calling "for the immediate cessation of all intra-Palestinian violence" see here in an official UN statement. The Sydney Morning Herald stated that "Mr Gambari said 49 of the Palestinian deaths and 259 of the injured had been due to Israeli-Palestinian violence. The rest were casualties of intra-Palestinian violence." see here. The Jerusalem Post back in 2002 stated that "PA officials said yesterday they are angry at Hamas for trying to disrupt the cease-fire and provoke intra-Palestinian violence, despite an understanding between the PA and Hamas" in this source. This is a widely-used term that deserves to be grouped by the category system, especially as no policy justifications for deletion have been offered. Alansohn (talk) 15:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. After looking at the articles, it is not clear that the category name clearly conveys the content. It contains articles on groups as opposed to articles on violence. I have no objection at this time for a recreation with a better name and clearly defined inclusion criteria. I'm not proposing a rename since the contents need to be cleaned up and deletion and recreation with good inclusion criteria is the better way to go. Likewise once someone devises clear and objective inclusion criteria, the new name should fall into place. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:25, 20 January 2010 (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:Lasker Award recipients

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. I'll note that even the creator is OK with deletion. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#Award_winners: except for a very few particularly notable awards, recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category. A detailed list already exists at Lasker Award.
Note that I found this category in Wikipedia:Database reports/Uncategorized categories, and added it to Category:Award winners, but if kept it needs better categorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:40, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I created the category and it's fine with me to delete it. But if I recall, there may be 3 separate lists for 3 separate subcategories of Lasker awards, each in a separate article (separate WP page). I noticed the 3 lists a bit after creating the category, and consequently somewhat regretted creating the category. Perhaps the existence of those lists needs to be made more clear and prominent in the relevant Lasker article(s) -- the lists' existence apparently wasn't evident to me when I first looked at the article(s) -- but at this point I can't remember well enough to make a clear recommendation. Thank you for cleaning this up. Health Researcher (talk) 21:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy listify as again another reward category. Debresser (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a defining award for the individuals so honored. Per WP:CLN, the list and category should co-exist. Alansohn (talk) 15:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply. WP:CLN does not say that they have to co-exist, just that they can co-exist. In many cases, both a category and list are extant, but we have long precedent of not keeping awards categories except for a very few particularly defining awards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The word "can" does appear in WP:CLN out of any context, and a more complete quote may help "Accordingly, these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others.... Therefore, the "category camp" should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the "list camp" shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." As a defining award, this is one that should follow WP:CLN's edict that lists AND categories should co-exist. Alansohn (talk) 17:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Do you really think that for any list that exists, a corresponding category should or must also exist? Yes or no? postdlf (talk) 17:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - No. Do you believe that all categories must be deleted if a corresponding list exists? Alansohn (talk) 17:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Nope. Some classifications and facts work as both a list and a category. Some are better to maintain only as a category. And some are better to maintain only as a list.
        
        But given your answer, that you don't think lists and categories should always co-exist, your initial abstract comment then on this requires some elaboration, to explain whatever principle you're trying to invoke and to expressly apply that principle to the category at hand. postdlf (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not sure if my statement that the category should be retained "As a defining award for the individuals so honored" is too "abstratct", and I'm not sure I could put it in more concrete terms, if required. Looking through the articles in the category, the Lasker Award is one of the defining accomplishments of the individuals so honored, putting this category into the range of honors deserving of both the list AND category that WP:CLN prefers. Alansohn (talk) 18:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Fundamentally then, you believe that this particular award is important/defining enough to merit treating it as an exception to WP:OCAT#AWARD? That to me seems to be the point of disagreement, and where productive discussion should focus. postdlf (talk) 18:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've added this to Category:Medicine awards, where it would seem to belong. For point of comparison, there are three other categories there for medicine award recipients: Category:Donald Reid Medalists, Category:Wolf Prize in Medicine laureates, Category:Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine. postdlf (talk) 22:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. Not worth an exception to the guideline on not having award categories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:41, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I would say listify, but gather that one exists. Nobel laureates is an exception. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:46, 3 January 2010 (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:Isidor Gordon Gottschalk Ascher

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. This appears to be an article in category space, but the article Isidor Gordon Gottschalk Ascher already exists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:15, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge any usefull text into article, and delete. Debresser (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure that merger is appropriate, because a merger must retain the edit history to be acceptable for copyright purposes. That cannot be achieved if the category has been deleted, unless the category is first moved to article space (e.g.) Isidor Gordon Gottschalk Ascher (former article in category space) or Isidor Gordon Gottschalk Ascher (2) and retained as a redirect with {{R from merge}}. There's not enough referenced material in this category text to justify this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:48, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into article (if anything useful); then delete. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2010 (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:Unitary authorities of Scotland

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename to Category:Council areas of Scotland. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:17, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Unitary authorities of Scotland to Category:Council areas of Scotland

Nominator's rationale: While they probably mean the same, the term "council areas of Scotland" appears to be prevelantly used in Wikipedia, but not the term "unitary authorities of Scotland". Chanheigeorge (talk) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename The unitary terminology related to the emergence from the previous mire of regions/districts and I doubt if anyone uses the term now; it's always the council (or cooncil) so best to rename for clarity. AllyD (talk) 20:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. —AllyD (talk) 16:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Shouldn't it be Category:Scottish councils? However, Scottish councils is a redirect to Subdivisions of Scotland --Richhoncho (talk) 23:28, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- According to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), subdivision categories are named in the form "Subdivisions of Country", e.g., Category:States of the United States, Category:Principal areas of Wales. Chanheigeorge (talk) 04:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Scottish councils. The fact that the article of that name is a redirect is because the target article deals with a variety of public authorities. That would not be appropriuate for this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- As stated above, subdivision categories are named in the form "Subdivisions of Country", so it should be Category:Council areas of Scotland. The link Council areas of Scotland also redirects to Subdivisions of Scotland. Chanheigeorge (talk) 06:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Council areas of Scotland. That is the common name, and what they are usually referred to as in Scotland. --Vclaw (talk) 14:06, 4 January 2010 (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:Islands named after days in the liturgical calendar

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES ... ~~or rename to Category:Islands with the letter A in their name, which is equally trivial but at least offers some scope for expansion~~. It may be relevant that the creation of this category is the only contribution of User:Arbitrary Name (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Occuli (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Possibly listify, though there may be OR issues unless it is well-referenced. Grutness...wha? 03:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete; classic WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES example. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete classic case of not bothering to add 98% of the relevant articles, too (almost every saint is on the liturgical calendar somewhere). Delete as a trivial intersection of island names. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:47, 30 December 2009 (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.

Architecture by U.S. state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

These categories are parented by "architecture," not "buildings and structures" categories— Category:Gothic Revival architecture in the United States, Category:Architecture in Alabama, et al. The "buildings" format is exclusive to these U.S. state categories, but I see no reason to exclude articles like City Hall Historic District (Rochester, New York) or Batavia Cemetery from being categorized together with them.- choster (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename all I created many/all of these categories, but the proposed change is a good one, regardless of parents. Hmains (talk) 03:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. I also noticed that the parent category, Category:Gothic Revival architecture has a large number of articles that should be moved to their state subcategories (or their country categories for buildings outside the United States). I started going through the list, but I realized it'd be pointless to do a rename twice. Could someone drop me a note when this is done, so I make a note to update the NRHP infobox generator? --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:25, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. There is some inconsistency in categorization schemes, especially with churches, so I'll have to read up on the generation process if you can send me a link.- choster (talk) 16:16, 31 December 2009 (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:Lake George

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Lake George to Category:Lake George (Uganda)

Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform with head article Lake George (Uganda), and avoid confusion with other things called Lake George. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 18:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily rename as a disambiguation. Debresser (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right, it should have been a speedy. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:59, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Doing this is a speedy? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 13:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion#Speedy_criteria C2 #6: "Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:12, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Speedy this thing. No need for a seven days of discussion on this. (Seven days lounging BY a lake? That I could handle... Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:49, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, I'm fine with speedying this case, but I just want to point out that criterion #6 does not really support such a move. #6 allows categories that are subcategories of a disambiguated category to be likewise disambiguated, as with changing "Category:Bridges in Georgia" to "Category:Bridges in Georgia (country)". This is allowed because the parent category, "Category:Georgia (country)" is disambiguated, not because there is an article out there called "Bridges of Georgia (country)" which is disambiguated. #6 brings inter-category consistency in disambiguation, not consistency between article and category. If User:Hiding found out that we were using #6 to speedily disambiguate categories to match disambiguated articles, he'd probably well—give us all hidings. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match full title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:48, 30 December 2009 (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:Levitt Hagg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete both. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL as small with no potential for growth. Eponymous category for the abandoned village of Levitt Hagg near Doncaster in England. Contains only 2 articles, and appears to have little or no scope for expansion. If kept, it needs parent categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – (1 of the 2 articles is miscategorised as 'Levitt Hagg' is not defining for Levett) and also delete Category:Hooton Levitt, a tiny village. Occuli (talk) 17:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion of Category:Hooton Levitt, as added by Occuli. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:26, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support deletion Agree with deletion of categories Levitt Hagg and Hooton Levitt. MarmadukePercy (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 02:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both per nominators. The first could go as a speedy in four days time. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:51, 29 December 2009 (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:Recipients of the Neustadt International Prize of Literature

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. There is no need to listify since the article contains a nicely formatted list. While the proposal was for a rename even the nominator considered deletion as a possibility. Since a list exists, the listify opinions can be treated as deletes. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:34, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Recipients of the Neustadt International Prize of Literature to Category:Recipients of the Neustadt International Prize for Literature

Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform with head article Neustadt International Prize for Literature. I have taken on good faith the claim in the head article that the Neustadt "is widely considered to be the most prestigious international literary prize after the Nobel Prize in Literature", but have not sought to verify this beyond the ref cited, which is a a local newspaper in New Zealand (possibly not the best choice of publication for ranking of the significance of literary prizes). If this assertion doesn't stand up, then the category should be deleted per WP:OC#Award_winners; there is already an apparently complete list at Neustadt International Prize for Literature. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. Page blanked by the category creator. Does that qualify as grounds for a speedy delete? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per longstanding convention for "award" categories. Debresser (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per guideline to prefer lists over categories for awards. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:45, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (if necessary) then Delete -- as usual for award categories. A list dfoes it much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2010 (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:TV programmes and films shot in Bristol

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. Ruslik_Zero 13:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I can find no other example of a category for TV programmes by location of shooting, but I am not very familiar with the TV categories, so please correct me if I am wrong. I also think that we do not usually categorise film and TV together, so the joint category seems inappropriate.
However, we do have a Category:Films by city of shooting location, so it may be appropriate to create a new Category:Films shot in Bristol for the two films in this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WT:TV and WT:BBC both notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I found the similar Category:TV shows filmed in North Carolina, but, obviously a US state and a British city aren't analogous. There's also the entire tree Category:Canadian television series by production location, some of which are more analogous to the nominated category. So, I support splitting out the film articles, but lean towards keeping the nominated category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:03, 4 January 2010 (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:United States Cyber Command Components

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Cyber Command Components to Category:United States Cyber Command

Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform with head article United States Cyber Command, and because none of the other sub-categories of Category:Commands of the United States armed forces use the word "components". BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it! Rbcwa (talk) 04:49, 29 December 2009 (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.

Pop songs by decade

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I'm not sure I see the need for this intersection of the categories 1960s songs and Pop songs. Songs are typically categorized already by year and by artist, while the songs by artist category is a child to a by country, by genre category. It is excessively broad, and the recommended categorization under WP:SONGS#Categories seems sufficient. Also nominating the other pops songs by decade categories. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:24, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – ~~or rather upmerge to Category:1960s songs etc.~~ (I assume they are all in Category:Pop songs via some subcat). I agree that WP:SONGS#Categories seems sufficient. Occuli (talk) 16:57, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply Upmerging to Category:1960s songs seems to me to be a bad idea, because those categories are subdivided by year. Dumping a whole load of songs into an intermediate point in the category structure just leaves a big mess for someone else to clean up. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:14, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed. I see that a 1967 pop song should be in '1967 songs/singles' and 'pop songs'; and this is sufficient. Occuli (talk) 16:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. Pop songs are very much creatures of their time, and it makes sense to me to group them by decade, because that's often how retrospective compilations are packaged. I'm open to being persuaded otherwise, but I am surprised that the nominator appears not to have notified WP:SONGS, where I'm sure that plenty of the editors have relevant expertise which would help reach a decision. I have just notified WP:SONGS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Many songs have been recorded with different arrangements in more than one style, and therefore this category is purely a subjective criteria and not objective. Therefore fails WP:NPOV. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think perhaps this editor misunderstands that what is at issue here is not categorization as a pop song, but categorization as a song from a particular decade. Some definitions of "pop" would be any song accepted by a mass audience, and/or appearing on, say, the Billboard Hot 100, Cashbox Top Pop Songs or ARC Top 40 charts. Other definitions of pop are more tied to artist, instrumentation, arrangement, and, as you say, POV. Presumably "You Keep Me Hangin' On", for example, is reasonably listed as both a 1960s pop song and a 1980s pop song for the versions by The Supremes and Kim Wilde, both of whom clearly intended to please a mass audience with a familiar if trendy sound. Would it also be categorized as a 1970s pop song for the version by Vanilla Fudge?? I venture to guess Vanilla Fudge would consider themselves to have made a rock record out of a pop song — and then had a pop hit with it. Perhaps what the category ought to be called is 19XX pop hits, as it seems the threshold for article inclusion is notability and the notability of nearly any song is whether or not it became popular; just because a song was on a popular album wouldn't automatically make it worthy of an article here, and so it wouldn't be in a pop song category unless it were a hit song. Perhaps that's the crux of the problem?

If I'm mistaken and you aren't focusing on the pop aspect alone, then respectfully, I don't understand how you see decade as any more subjective than to link a song to a year or an artist; it's less so, although of course it doesn't preclude its being viewed in those ways and on its own terms as well. To say that a song can be categorized (by the many different ways a song can be categorized, in life as at Wikipedia) does not mean it is being pidgeonholed, and does not preclude categorization in other ways as well, it merely means it can be viewed and searched among other work of its era, rather than merely of its calendar year. Though it's an interesting question where the parameters of "pop songs" lie, and whether they share overlapping territory with other genres (as I and I suspect Richhoncho believe) or are inherently one thing or another (try that from the standpoint of disco, or hip hop—while some may cover other songs, how often can a song from those genres be covered in another genre and not directly evoke its original genre?), that isn't the point of this category or this nomination. Abrazame (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are correct insomuch that my object is to the word "pop" song. In your well-measured and erudite post you actually confirmed what I was saying, because you referred to different recordings of a song, rather than the song itself. It is the same aurguments used for the deletion of the category Country songs by songwriter. I would assume all songs at WP are pop/popular, otherwise there wouldn't be an article about them in the first place! --Richhoncho (talk) 16:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This would overload the number of articles in Category:Pop songs. Also pop songs from different decades are like 'sub-genres' of pop. Adabow (talk) 04:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:03, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep While elsewhere I acknowledge that linking can become excessive, this seems like a prime example where, the more that time passes, the less anybody remembers that the song was from 1967—or even 2007—and simply remembers it as of the decade. And while for other reasons I can't stand retrospective collections, as they often seem to recycle the same 72 overplayed songs from each decade, a sort of rewriting of musical history, when there are many more reasons to remind people of gems, even big hits, that are for one reason or another overlooked, the point noted by BrownHairedGirl is undeniable. If part of the point of a category is to allow meaningful searches therein, it seems that browsing a decade within a genre (Category:1980s pop songs, Category:1970s rock songs, Category 1990s hip hop songs) is likely to be more rewarding for a user than is browsing a single year across multiple genres — or at least it is rewarding in a markedly different way, or rewarding to a different sort of user. (Of course, I'm not arguing against categories by year.) I have to admit I'm at a loss to understand category structure and why this would be a problem, but I do hope people don't ignore the fact that pop songs in particular are popularly categorized by decade (pop arguably being the most enduring genre) and most people who enjoy pop hits after that decade has passed think of, speak of, and categorize them as '50s songs, or '80s songs, and not 1958 songs or 1982 songs, if they ever even knew the year to begin with. Abrazame (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to provide an additional means of navigation for this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:49, 30 December 2009 (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:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball seasons

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Rename. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs men's basketball seasons to Category:Louisiana Tech Bulldogs basketball seasons

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Louisiana Tech is one of the relatively few schools where men's and women's athletic programs have radically different nicknames. "Bulldogs" is used solely to refer to men's sports; women's sports use "Lady Techsters". See also Louisiana Tech Bulldogs and Lady Techsters. Dale Arnett (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Rename to match standard used in Category:College men's basketball teams seasons in the United States. While there are many unique nicknames, we gain little by having some include "men's" while others don't, especially as not all editors will know that the team has a unique nickname for some men's teams. Alansohn (talk) 22:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't "a unique nickname for some men's teams". ALL men's teams are "Bulldogs", and ALL women's teams are "Lady Techsters". — Dale Arnett (talk) 01:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I understand the confusion and offer the following explanation of my position here. We can have two approaches here for men's basketball teams: 1) only include the word "men's" when it's needed to distinguish between a women's team at the same college that shares the same nickname, or 2) always include "men's". I support option 2 as a general rule. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Rename. I guess the "men's" is redundant, though I can see why including it for consistency could be desirable. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:12, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:59, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Whatever we do, let's set a consistent rule of either always including "men's" / "women's" in college team titles for sports played by both, or including "men's" / "women's" only when the two teams share a common nickname. Alansohn (talk) 16:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that's a good idea, Alansohn—we do need to decide which way to do it. If we could get more users to comment, we could decide which way to go on this issue ... maybe a broader nomination of some sort would be helpful. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Since it's impossible to have LA Tech Bulldogs women's basketball seasons, we don't need the "men's" here. For more on this subject, see this new nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:40, 3 January 2010 (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:Autism in Arts

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 to rename as nominated; renaming to Category:Autism in arts to fix capitalization. This is without prejudice to a user creating the proposed category as a subcategory. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Autism in Arts to Category:Autism in fiction

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In line with naming of other similar categories under Category:Fiction by topic. GregorB (talk) 16:20, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 19:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose While some adjustment of the name could be worthwhile, I don't think the answer is to limit it to fiction, as one of the 3 entries currently in the category is classed as autobiography rather than fiction. There is also scope for its wider use relative to outsider artists such as Alexander Lobanov which would be lost by the fictional closure. AllyD (talk) 22:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose renaming~~ per AllyD. However, I think that it would be appropriate to create a sub-category Category:Autism in fiction, in order to separate out the different usages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question Shouldn't "arts" be lowercase? Debresser (talk) 02:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Autism in arts per Debresser. (changing my !vote) --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 29 December 2009 (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:No Name as name

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. — ξ ^xplicit 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization of unrelated subjects by shared name, the name in this case being "No Name". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Note that No Name exists as a disambiguation page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This collection of thinhs related only by name is a subject of a disambig page, not category. - Altenmann >t 18:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Altenmann. Debresser (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and following comments Satu Suro 09:26, 29 December 2009 (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:Hip hop groups discographies

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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hip hop groups discographies to Category:Hip hop discographies

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Doesn't seem to be an overly populated category to warrant such a division and the parent category adequately describes its contents. Wolfer68 (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator. Note that that the only parent of Category:Hip hop groups discographies is Category:Hip hop discographies, so this is not an intersection category, and therefore no dual upmerge is needed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. No real reason to split these up like this. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:05, 4 January 2010 (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 Jews by state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete Category:American Jews by state and merge others to Category:American Jews and the corresponding people by State category. Looks like this will have to be done manually. Jafeluv (talk) 09:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete/upmerge. No other category for American people by religion or American people by ethnicity is broken down by state or by city. Since American people often spend significant parts of their life in different states of the U.S. and in different cities, I honestly don't see the point of attempting such a subdivision. The "scheme" is currently incomplete, with not all of the 50 states represented and each category typically only containing only a handful of entries, sometimes only one or two. Strictly speaking, each of these should be upmerged to its parents of Category:American Jews and Category:People from STATE. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All with some 3,000 uncategorized articles in the parent, a break down by state is a perfectly logical and defining means of categorization. This presents a model for other such laundry list religion categories that would greatly benefit by subcategorization. Alansohn (talk) 15:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if you have a better way of dividing up a list of 3,000 let me know.--Levineps (talk) 16:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a pre-existing way: by occupation. No need to invent a square wheel when the round one's already out there. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to Category:American Jews and appropriate People from {State/City} categories. "American Jew" is a distinct, socially-significant ethnonational identity; "Washington (U.S. state) Jew" is not. I understand the desire to make large categories more manageable, but that does not justify creating new identities by simply intersecting two available characteristics. As far as ease of navigation is concerned, I would much rather use Template:Category TOC to navigate one ethnicity-nationality category of 3,000 people than have to search 50+ (many more if we start subcategorising by city) categories based on a detail (state or city) that is neither particularly stable (people relocate) nor significant. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 19:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do categories such as Category:American Major League Baseball players by home state and other occupations, when a category is so large dividing it by states makes it easier than just a laundry list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levineps (talk • contribs) 19:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but... (1) "American Jew" is not an occupation. We have Category:American people by occupation by state, but not Category:American people by ethnicity by state. (2) I am not especially fond of the triple-intersection category (nationality, occupation, location) to which you point, and I believe that it could be upmerged to Category:Major League Baseball players from the United States (convention of Category:Major League Baseball players by national origin) and to appropriate subcategories of Category:People by state in the United States without any major loss of information. (3) If this category system is kept, then it should at least be renamed to American Jews from {State} (1st choice) or Jews from {State} for clarity. The format {State} Jews does not clearly indicate whether a category is for Jews born in {State}, living in {State}, who lived in {State} at some time in their lives, or who identify themselves as "{State} Jews" (the least likely). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 20:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Black Falcon on these points. There is no large population of people who are self-identifying as "Connecticut Jews". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:57, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's plenty of Jews in the Northeast (including Connecticut), Florida, and California. But so far it's 3-2, I've counted in favor of keeping this.--Levineps (talk) 05:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read what we wrote? Of course there are Jews living there; that's irrelevant to the argument. What we're saying is these people don't self-identify as "Connecticut Jews", or "Florida Jews". They self-identify as American Jews, and many if not most of them have been "from" multiple states in their lives. You are inventing ethnonational identities which has no real significance. (These discussions aren't about vote counting, they are about what is best for the encyclopedia based on its guidelines.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was going for the whole consensus argument, im sure if things were reversed you would use that argument as well.--Levineps (talk) 05:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point of discussing or arguing who is "winning" a discussion when it's ongoing. Can't we just address the issues that are raised, rather than just saying, "well, I'm winning"? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article about David Emanuel (Governor of Georgia), who qualifies as a Pennsylvania Jew under this category system, seems to be a good example of some of the points made above. Emanuel was born in Pennsylvania and moved to Georgia with his family when he was approximately twenty years old (it is unclear whether he was still in Pennsylvania at the time). He married in Georgia, raised children in Georgia, fought in the Revolutionary War in Georgia, entered politics in Georgia, became Governor of Georgia, and died in Georgia, and there is virtually no information available about his life in Pennsylvania.

The fact is that Emanuel was neither a Georgian Jew nor a Pennsylvanian Jew. He was an American Jew and the first Jewish Governor of a United States state, but his move across state boundaries did not make him any more or less Jewish. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 08:01, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as usefull way of breaking up large categories, per uncounted precedent. Debresser (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Show me one precedent where a religion or ethnicity category for persons is broken down by U.S. state. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why not Category:American Jews by year of birth? That would subdivide them just as well. And how is it decided what state (or city--note the NYC one) their Jewishness is associated with? postdlf (talk) 06:30, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The same way the "Writers from" thing is.--Levineps (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As with the Major League Baseball players example above, "writer" is an occupation. It is not implausible that a writer's work—it's style or subject—may be affected by location. It is, however, rather difficult to imagine that Jewishness varies greatly across state boundaries. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I added two more categories to the nomination: Category:Louisiana Jews, which was apparently missed, and Category:Hawaii Jews, which was created about a day after the nomination. Levineps, please postpone creating additional categories or adding articles to existing categories until the end of this discussion. Surely there is no harm in waiting six more days to see if there is consensus to keep the categories, and if there is consensus to delete them, then fewer articles will have to be recategorised. Thanks, –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 07:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/upmerge Levineps, this isn't about sitting back and waiting for the vote total to tilt your way, we're here to ask and answer questions, ideally every question asked and not just those for which you can make a curt quip. Where these people may have happened to reside for a few years is often completely irrelevant to who they are, while of course the thing they are notable for is the very purpose for their article. Ergo, if the general "American Jew" category needs to be broken down, it should be by that for which they are notable. Calling Bea Arthur a Maryland Jew is ridiculous. She was born and spent her first eleven years in New York. Her family then moved to Maryland, but sent her to high school in Pennsylvania, presumably three years later if not earlier, and presumably for four years or more, depending on their grade system. She then went to college in Virginia. If people want to cite her as being a person from every last place she ever lived, that's bad enough, though at least it is giving an honest data point; but to then doubly cite her as being a Jew from every last place she ever lived is absurd. It's overcategorization. It just plumb sounds offensive. Maryland Jew. What the hell is that, it's a neologism. "New York Jew" may mean something — or other — but "Maryland Jew"? Shall we then have "Maryland Unitarian"? "Maryland Atheist"? If it's not really a recognized category in the first place, it doesn't seem reasonable for us to categorize as such. Unless there is reliable sourcing for their Jewishness being linked to a region, they should not be placed in a list for such an awkward category. Abrazame (talk) 09:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well writers have moved all over, so if a writer has lived in five states, should we list all five or just where have been writing but once they've stopped writing can we list those places too?--Levineps (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These aren't in the form of "American Jews from Maryland", where the "from" implies place of origin (birth and/or upraising), not merely anywhere they've hung their hat. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then I would suggest doing Jews "from." The New York, Baltimore, South Florida, LA, etc communities have rich Jewish culture and traditions--Levineps (talk) 15:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How does the fact that a relatively small percentage of settlements—none of the examples you provided were of states (even "South Florida" is just a region of a state) and I am sure it has to do with the non-existence of Jewish communities that are "coherent, static" (postdlf, 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)) and state-specific—in the United States "have rich Jewish culture and traditions" and significant Jewish populations justify creating categories for every state? Also, to what extent are "Jewish culture and traditions" different from one state to another? –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:32, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all per nominator as excessively narrow intersection. And note wider concerns about the number of problematic categories created by this editor, who I urge to refrain for now from creating more categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For those of you against this by state method, I would like you to suggest a better way to divide them up.--Levineps (talk) 14:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would depend on what the purpose of division is. If it's because you thought American Jews are best understood by state-specific groupings, that it's how historians and cultural scholars study them, then please demonstrate that. If it's only to make a big category smaller...then you still have to justify your particular choice of division. It's not a question of whether there's a suitable alternative presented. It's a question of justifying this subcategorization. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom and per above; Abrazame explains it well. I think part of the problem people are having though is that this combination of state with ethnic/religious group implies a coherent, static community. Like Pennsylvania Amish. But these categories obviously do not document such a thing. The only argument I see in favor of these so far is that they make a big category smaller, but that doesn't explain why this division is a good or useful one. And I have yet to see any indication that this structure is not completely unprecedented as a classification system, in its intersection of different facts. I'm open to a discussion, however, as to whether renaming to "American Jews from [state]" may help cure some problems (maybe none, I don't know), but I would still want to see a justification as to why by state is useful here at all. postdlf (talk) 15:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per above. If these categories must exist, they should be renamed "Jews from [state]". The only category that has any real-world usage is "New York Jew", and that's used only as an epithet. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. There may be a way to break out the American Jews category, but this isn't it. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Recommend manual upmerger. If this discussion is closed as "merge", please can the merge be done manually?
Having checked some of the edits which populated the categories, I am concerned that simply getting the bots to do an upmerger will have some undesirable effects. Take a look at the following few sample edits I checked: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. In every one of these cases, a bot-driven upmeger will cause some overcategorisation, in most cases because the people concerned were not previously in Category:People from whatever-state, but in a by-town or by-county sub-category of it.
Most of these categories can be depopulated accurately by simply using rollback on the last edit by Levineps, and there are only ~200 articles in all, so it's not a daunting task. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:13, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Have we considered WP:BLPCAT in all of this? Frank | talk 02:56, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- From what I've seen, User:Levineps was populating the category with articles that were already in Category:American Jews, so if there is a BLP problem for any of the articles that are included in these categories the problem pre-dated this subcategorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:56, 10 January 2010 (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 Zealand musical acts that have charted internationally

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Listify and Delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete/listify. This is a category that stands alone, without a greater scheme. There are no other categories for musical acts that charted somewhere outside of the country of origin. It intuitively feels like the type of thing that would be in a Wikipedia list, not a category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Worse, it feels like a delete. And ill-named at that. Debresser (talk) 02:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We can always count on you to be blunt. I appreciate that. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but listify per Good Olfactory's comment stating feels like the type of thing that would be in a Wikipedia list. In fact, since plenty but not too many New Zealand acts have charted overseas an article based on New Zealand's international successes on music charts could make a great article, and maybe even be worthy of becoming a featured list.--AtlanticDeep (talk) 04:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't mean that this info should necessarily be in a list; what I meant was that information of this type—if it exists at all in Wikipedia—is typically contained in lists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and listify per nom. This is unnecessary as a category, and far more information can be given in a list (e.g., number of times, where and when). The category is unnecessary and whiffs a little of Ocat by shared feature. Grutness...wha? 23:03, 30 December 2009 (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:Alumni of The Law Society, University College Cork

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. There is no need to merge, as all members of this category are also members of the proposed target category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Alumni of The Law Society, University College Cork to Category:Alumni of University College Cork

Nominator's rationale: Merge. None of the people in this category are notable for having been a member of The Law Society, University College Cork, and I am aware of no other category for members of such societies (and only one of of the 3 articles in the category even mentions the society). We do have some categories for officers of particularly notable societies, such as Category:Presidents of the Cambridge Union Society (a huge proportion of holders of that office go on to become major figures in public life, so the office is notable as a launchpad) .. but I can find no other category for people in the UK or Ireland who were just members of a student society. I think we used to have categories for members of US Fraternities and sororities, but I think they have all been deleted: there don't seem to be any left at Category:Fraternities and sororities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:16, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No need to merge, as all three articles in the Law Society category are already in the broader category. I'll trust BHG that we had members of fraternity categories at one time- if we have them anymore, they're very well hidden. Merge if needed for procedural reasons. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The fraternity members categories were deleted in a flurry of CfDs in March 2007. See e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 March 16#Fraternities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:02, 1 January 2010 (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:Miss Universo Italia

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Miss Universo Italia to Category:Miss Universe Italy

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:ENGLISH. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:36, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but recreate Category:Miss Universo Italia as a soft redirect using {{Category redirect}}. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely rename to something English, but couldn't that be as well Category:Miss Italy, like other categories in Category:Miss Universe by country? This whole category structure is a worse mess than the hairs on my head. Debresser (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: Yeah, this category structure gives me headaches, which makes me slightly regret deciding to tackle the overall issue. As for it just being "Miss Italy" as the cat, I've seen articles on other national pageants split between Miss Universe Such-and-Such and Miss World Such-and-Such, so maybe they're different organizations? Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 01:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Miss Italy" wouldn't be specific enough, as both the Miss World and Miss Universe competition winners from Italy could be called that in English. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:17, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note this reference [8] for the name seemingly used even in Italian. Sussexonian (talk) 22:32, 1 January 2010 (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:Old Anandians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. — ξ ^xplicit 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Old Anandians to Category:Alumni of Ananda College

Nominator's rationale: Rename per Wikipedia:Naming conventions to a plain-english, jargon-free name, which can be understood by Wikipedia's non-specialist readership when they see it in the category list at the bottom of an article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:11, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In this case the term "Old Anandians" does seem to be a nickname. Their association is the "Old Boys Association of Ananda College" so this should be renamed to Category:Old Boys of Ananda College, to reflect the proper title they use. The term "alumni" does not seem to be used officially. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. Too slangy and inner-world. It would be good to get these all standardised. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:23, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Kittybrewster ☎ 09:13, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom "Old Boys" doesn't help fix the problem- we already lack a standardised format for these situations; we don't need to add yet another possible format for the "former attendees" categories- named after the name of the alumni association. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Getting a standardised format for these situations will not be easy, as "alumni" is the dominant term in the USA, but is far from that in the Commonwealth countries. At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 26#People by school in England, I have suggested Category:People who attended (name of School) so Category:People who attended Ananda College might be a good choice. It is quite neutral, while alumni is not if they they call themselves "Old Boys". --Bduke (Discussion) 22:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom to match List of Ananda College alumni, which presumably provides evidence of local usage. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:01, 4 January 2010 (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:Beauty pageant contestants

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. — ξ ^xplicit 06:11, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Beauty pageant contestants to Category:Beauty pageant winners

Nominator's rationale: Per this CfD, simply being a "pageant contestant" is non-defining/non-notable. But, as most (maybe all) of these articles are on people who have won actual pageants, there's no sense in outright deleting the category when its contents can be merged to the pageant winners category, where they can be more easily sorted into appropriate subcats. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for 2 reasons:
1. Dumping articles which may be on non-winners into the category of winners is not a good idea. If an article is miscategorised under "contestants" when it should be under one of the winners categories, then recategorise it ... but until that is done, we don't know what we are dealing with. When recategorising individual articles there is no advantage to starting from "winners" rather than contestants.
2. The contestants category should not be deleted. Whilst merely being a contestant may not usually be a cause of notability, it is in some cases, for example when a contestant is the subject of scandal. (e.g. they used to be disqualified for being single mothers and so on). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:35, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply: You make some valid points, but I would disagree on the basis that contestants would never get an article w/o first winning a notable pageant. For example, each Miss Universe contestant was a national pageant winner and before that a state-level pageant winner. If any of these articles are on contestants who never won anything of note, categorization is a moot point because the article would just be deleted anyway. And if the contestant's only claim to notability was scandal in the absence of a notable pageant win, the contestant's article would likely be deleted per WP:NOTNEWS, and again, categorization would be moot. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 03:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Reply. Well, you may be right, or maybe not. I think I recall a few women who first came to public notice as beauty pageant contestants, and who didn't win but used their appearance as a launchpad to some other career. However, we are both just speculating, so just recategorise the winners under their respective "Miss foo winners" categories, and we'll see what's left. But right now, there is no gain at all from dumping contestants who may be winners into the winners category, and lots potential for miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

oppose such a mass merge which would obvously result in unhelpful miscategorization. Category:Beauty pageant contestants is already a parent of Category:Beauty pageant winners as it should be. Consider deleting articles one by one from Category:Beauty pageant contestants if they already exist in Category:Beauty pageant winners. But what if they are a winner in one contest, but a participant non-winner in a different one? Hmains (talk) 06:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One need not win a contest for their participation to be defining. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we have this converation before? Debresser (talk) 01:54, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- A few individual cases were discussed about a year ago with the consensus that "contestant" categories should be renamed "winner" categories (which is largely why I nominated the merge), but it seems that discussion didn't turn into a whole lot of action. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 02:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Being a contestant does not imply notability, but they may be notable for other reasons. A mass merge would mis-categorise non-winners. The answer to this is research into the content of the category, recategorising any winner as such, and nominating any NN contestants for AFD. This will enable then scale of the problem to be dertermined. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2010 (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:Volyn tragedy

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: merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Volyn tragedy to Category:Massacres of Poles in Volhynia

Nominator's rationale: Merge. The two categories appear to be referring to the same thing, viz. Massacres of Poles in Volhynia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:46, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge to retain cat that matches parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support They're the same topic- though we don't have an article redirect for Volyn tragedy- maybe that ought to be created. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2010 (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:Wood-free paper production in Egypt

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#SMALL: "avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought "wood-free paper in Egypt" was called Papyrus. Indeed, I even have a few modern papyrus artworks on my walls I brought back from Cairo. Going off-topic here. This article does not fit in the "Papyrology" category, but that's still not excuse for keeping a one-article category with no real potential to grow further. I've added the article to Category:Companies of Egypt which is where it belongs. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:56, 1 January 2010 (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.

Video games set in the Xth millennium

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete/merge as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:06, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting

Propose merging

Category:Video games set in the pre-20th century United States to Category:Video games set in the United States

Category:Video games set in the post-20th Century United States to Category:Video games set in the United States

Nominator's rationale: There are many ways to categorise video games by theme, but "by century" is a particularly problematic one. The problem lies in the fact that these categories do not distinguish between setting in an accurate version of a historical time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht in Stalingrad in 1942), a fictionalised version of a historical time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht in Kansas in 1942), or a completely fictional time period (e.g., the Wehrmacht on Mars in 1942). For example, the 1942 of Battlefield 1942 is very different from the 1942 of Turning Point: Fall of Liberty. The problem is even more pronounced with video games set in the future, where the makers of a game are free to let their imaginations run wild without any need to portray historical actors, events, or even locations. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all/Support merge (United States articles) - And to say nothing of games with time travel. And why is there a special category with 2012 games if it has been proven to in fact not be the date of a purported apocalypse? Alternate histories and universes are not taken into account here.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Video games set in the 22nd century, Category:Video games set in the year 2012, and most of Category:Video games set in the 3rd millennium into Category:Video games set in the future
Merge Category:Video games set in the 1st millennium and Category:Video games set in the 2nd millennium into Category:Video games by theme or setting
Merge Category:Disney games set in the 21st century, Category:Video games set in the post-20th Century United States, Category:Video games set in the pre-20th century United States, and Category:Video games set in the post-20th Century United States into parents categories.
I don't see anything wrong with "Video games set in the Xth century." ^{Carlaude:Talk} 07:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Have you read the nomination? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge United States categories and Delete others as set by the nominator. Video games are a form of fiction and, as the nominator sets, out the games' relationship with that time period varies between an attempt to recreate the period with some sense of historical accuracy and various degrees of fantasy. Unless clearly-defined inclusion criteria are set for these categories, these categories will either be highly misleading if they include if, for example, they include Turning Point: Fall of Liberty in Category:Video games set in the 20th century, or they will be unacceptably subjective (per WP:OCAT#SUBJECTIVE) if editors make their own undefined assessments. On the other hand, setting more precise inclusion criteria will fail WP:OC#ARBITRARY, because an arbitrary threshold would have to be set to determined what degree of fictionalisation was acceptable for inclusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 28 December 2009 (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:Video games set in the early 20th century

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete (resulting from the nomination immediately above, where the merge targets were deleted). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging

Category:Video games set in the early 20th century to Category:Video games set in the 20th century

Category:Video games set in the late 20th century to Category:Video games set in the 20th century

Nominator's rationale: This nomination is a follow-up to the recent discussion for Cat:Video games set in the mid 20th century, which was merged to its parent category. Also see #Video games set in the Xth millennium (group nomination soon to be posted). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 01:10, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per previous nom.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as per previous nom and per wider group nomination above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 28 December 2009 (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.

Video games by designer

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

Category:Video games designed by American McGee (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Video games designed by Dave Grossman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Video games designed by Peter Molyneux (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Video games designed by Ron Gilbert (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Video games designed by Tim Schafer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Video games by designer (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (created during the discussion, added to nomination on 16-January)

Nominator's rationale: Delete all as overcategorisation, because a list of games in the articles on each designer will do the job just fine.
I found these uncategorised categories, and added them to Category:Video games. However, so far as I can see there are no other categories of Category:Video games by designer, and plenty of other ways of categorising video games: by company, by game engine, by genre, by graphical style, by language, by platform, by region, by software license, by source, by theme or setting, and by year. We already have eleven category trees into which video games can be placed. Do we really need yet a twelfth way of categorising them? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:24, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category creator notified. WikiProject Video games notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:47, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Video game designers getting their own categories is definitely overcategorization.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 03:41, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Likely replacable with a navbox template for each of the designers (which seems perfectly reasonable). --MASEM (t) 03:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning towards delete: Few video game designers come to mind that have designed enough games to truly warrant a whole category. And as mentioned above, lists and navboxes in the relevant articles seems to accomplish the job well enough. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 04:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - overcategorisation. Kittybrewster ☎ 09:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all and replace with templates if anyone is so inclined. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or preferably rename to be part of Category:Games by designer. We have an established scheme for designers' games, and these should go in it. For example, we have Category:Hideo Kojima games, Category:Sid Meier games, and Category:Alexey Pajitnov games, among others. Making the nominated categories fit this approach would change the nomination to:

I've added these categories to Category:Games by designer, and removed them from Category:Video games, where they were causing clutter.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply. Mercifully it seems that not many of the Category:Games by designer categories are for video games; it seems that this sort of categorisation has rarely been applied to video games. However, renaming these categories to remove the word "video" seems to me to be the worst of all outcomes: it retains the categories, but cuts them off from the Category:Video games hierarchy. What's the point of that?
My preference is to delete them, but if kept they belong in a Category:Video games by designer. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly have no objections to Category:Video games by designer being created. I did put Category:Games by designer in Category:Video games just to connect the two for now. I can't claim to be neutral on the concept, since another user has created a category for my games in this scheme. But I will say that I think it makes just as much sense for designers of video games to have creator categories as it does for board games like mine, or for books or albums or paintings. Just my opinion, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect to your skills, Mike, and thanks for declaring the COI, but I'm not persuaded by that comparison. I don't know much about creating video games (it's more than ten years since I knew anyone in the business), but I do know that they are a team effort amongst a lot of people: there is simply too much code for one person to do the lot any more. So the designer is one cog in a machine (maybe a big cog, I dunno) rather than the sole creator as with books or paintings. I notice that many of the other types of games in these categories are board games or role-playing games, which are works capable of being developed entirely by one person. So it seems to me that video-game designers are a different breed to other game designers, in that they cannot be the only-begetters of the games.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No disrespect inferred, BHG. I grant it can be trickier with video games, but sometimes it's very clear. Cliff Johnson, Sid Meier, Peter Molyneux, Ron Gilbert, and American McGee are visionaries, and certainly merit their own categories (under the presumption that board game designers do). I don't know about Dave Grossman and Tim Schaefer, though. I think the principle should be that categories should only give credit where credit is due, and in the case of lead designers like McGee and Gilbert, it is due. Just my opinion, though; your mileage may vary.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep All These are notable game designers who have created multiple notable games. This defining characteristic is one that should be made available for navigation purposes in addition to any existing list. The game designer is no less defining than the director of a film. It blows my mind that an experienced admin can use "because a list of games in the articles on each designer will do the job just fine" as an excuse for deletion. We might as well just jettison the entire category system as the list "will do the job just fine" is a perfect argument to delete every category that exists. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- You're really skating the line of making a personal attack there against BHG; even if she made a weak argument, your editorializing about what is shocking for an "experienced admin" to do is uncalled for. Particularly since you took only one sentence from what she wrote above; in full, she pointed out that these few categories are not a comprehensive system and that there are already a lot of other ways to categorize those articles. Once again, you can reasonably disagree and explain why you think that the argument presented is inadequate, but you need to do so without presenting a straw man and without personalizing the discussion. I've brought this exact kind of conduct to your attention on multiple occasions: both your dismissive mischaracterizations of others' statements and arguments, and your unnecessary personal comments against individuals rather than against arguments. It's completely unacceptable behavior. It is tendentious, uncivil, and fails to assume good faith, and you need to stop it. postdlf (talk) 17:29, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yawn. This is the usual response to a direct statement, the claim that a direct quote represents "mischaracterizations of others' statements". The full quote is "overcategorisation, because a list of games in the articles on each designer will do the job just fine", with the only text I removed being a misleading mention of an actual (but non-relevant) guideline and a comma, a rationalization that you yourself characterize as "a weak argument". I'm sure BHG appreciates the effort of attacking as the best defense, but she sorely needs to defend her argument on her own. This tendentious attacking is just getting boring. If there is absolutely anything inappropriate about any of my remarks, please take it to WP:ANI. Otherwise move on. My prediction: nothing happens from these baseless threats and bullying. Alansohn (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Alansohn, I don't know why you seem to want to engage in a personal attack rather than just setting out the reasons why you disagree with the nomination, but it does nothing to help reach a decision. You could simply have asked a question about why I made that judgement, and the answer is simple: all the articles in these categories include a link to the designer, or at least should do , because without such a referenced link they don't belong in the category. Given those links, a list of games in the articles is just as good a navigational tool as a category, and since designers are not prolific enough to create hundreds of games each, the lists will not overwhelm each article. Additionally, as noted in the nomination, video games are already overcategorised.
      It really would help if you could WP:AGF in these discussions, which means not starting from the presumption that editors with whom you disagree are mad, bad or stupid. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
~~'Comments~~ Keep'. What I know about these games can be written on a reverted good faith edit, but... the word "video" separates the category from indoor games, sports games, ball games, card cards et al, the words "designed by" identifies the connection, rather that guessing whether manufacture, championship player, outright "owner" or designer or wahtever might be the connection. WP policy states quite clearly that cats, lists & navboxes are not either/or as suggested by this nomination, but are either/AND. If there is a policy on minimum number of entries in a cat I haven't found it, as the couple of these cats I looked at had several entries, I can't see a problem. If I knew anything about "video games" this would a strong oppose... Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Postscript to above. Notwithstanding the comment about multiple designers above, I am comparing this to books, you wouldn't say authors are overcategorization... --Richhoncho (talk) 07:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am now convinced the "overcategorization" claim is redundant. There are, as a quick sample the following categories Category:Books by author, Category:Songs by songwriter, Category:Plays by author, Category:Novels by author, Category:Comics by author, Category:Sculptures by artist, Category:Paintings by artist, Category:Ballets by choreographer. Not to categorize by creator, but to categorize by manufacturer seems obtuse.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I decided to follow BHG's suggestion and created Category:Video games by designer, placing these five designer categories into that. This category now has two styles ("Video games designed by (X)" and "(X) games"), and I hope whoever closes this nomination decides on one of those formats so we can standardize the set.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a rather mischievious claim, Mike: I did not suggest that category, just noted its absence. I will add your new category to the deletion nomination.
  Considering your COI in this matter, I am surprised that you did not await the outcome of the discussion before creating a category which appears to pre-empt it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was following your suggestion because it was a good idea. If you want to nominate all the other subcategories of Category:Games by designer that contain video games, please go right ahead. But please don't accuse me of attempting to subvert the CFD process. I don't have a conflict of interest (your words, not mine) in regards any of the nominated categories nor any of the ones I moved. Just because a user created a category with my name on it doesn't mean I have anything to do with it. The issue I said I couldn't be neutral on was whether board game designers (like me) should get more credit than video game designers, which is an opinion, not a conflict of interest. You stated above that you wished people would not start from "the presumption that editors with whom you disagree are mad, bad or stupid"; I'd like that same respect too.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Mike I said "if kept they belong in a Cat:Video games by designer" ... but no decision has yet been made to keep them, and if these categories deleted, I'll immediately do a followup nomination of the rest.
      I did not accuse you of being mad, bad or stupid, and I did not intend that meaning; but I do stand by my observation of surprise that an editor with a declared COI did not await consensus, rather than pre-empting the outcome of a debate in which he has a personal real-world stake. It was a bad step, Mike, because this CFD is about the principle of deleting video-games-by-designer, and it's an exercise in misleading hair-splitting to suggest that because your category is not in this batch, you don't have a COI.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:11, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - I do not have a personal real-world stake in this debate. I don't even know you, and why you've decided to make pillorying me a personal cause is beyond me. But I am absolutely done talking to you, on this and every other issue. I have rolled back every one of my edits on categories in this discussion, not because I think they were wrong to make, but because of the implied threat you have made.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:22, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Mike, I don't know you either, and you have nothing against you, so I am saddened that you take this personally. There was no threat, implied or otherwise, just an observation that what you did something wrong, and I am not pursing a cause. Well done rolling back your edits: that's the right thing to do. So far as I am concerned, issue resolved. --23:52, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
        I do not accept the conclusion that I did something wrong, I don't want your congratulations, and I would prefer you not respond to me again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if a video game has a designer, then its designer is a defining characteristic. (This is perhaps comparable to Category:Songs by songwriter where no-one has disputed the existence of the structure but there is argument over whether a song co-written by X, Y and Z should go in Category:Songs written by X.) Occuli (talk) 20:44, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - If you're going to make categories for a few designers, then you'd establish the precedent to make categories for every single video game designer. And if you have that, then why not make them for video game composers or artists? This is a slippery slope in the form of overcategorization.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:29, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all i m a videogamer since 15 years and love to write stuff bout em, but this is definitive too much, as Zxcvbnm mentioned it opens the doors for more categorizing to composers etc. i believe articles about popular game designers are enough and the games can be mentioned and described there. GBK2010 (talk) 11:26, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - I'm going to have to go with the nominator and ZXCVBNM on this, this is straight overcatergorisation, especially given that these particular designers, while certainly of note within the industry, have't worked on that many games as to require their own category as a form of article discrimination. -- Sabre (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Richhoncho. With all of those, video games, as an emerging/fully emerged (depending on your point of view) should be treated identically to songs, books, films, whatever. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment However, video game designers do not have as much of a hand in creating the final outcome as book or comic writers or ballet coreographers. By classifying games according to designer it ignores the entire development team. Books do not require a development team, just a single person who can easily take credit for the work.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 17:39, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - I endorse ZXCVBNM's comment. I made a similar point above, that "video-game designers are a different breed to other game designers, in that they cannot be the only-begetters of the games". These categories gives undue weight to the role of one person, and it's a pity that this issue has not been addressed by those !voting to "keep". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:38, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With due respect, it is exactly the same as for songwriters. Many songwriters will write notable songs with more than one writer. In the songs by songwriter cats this is generally dealt with the following text, "songs written or co-written by Foo" - There isn't a new cat created everytime a partnership changes! Again, I reiterate it's a strange encycopedia, especially one that dislikes spam, that ranks the distributors more important than the creators! --Richhoncho (talk) 18:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Richhoncho has it exactly right. In the video game industry, lead designers like Sid Meier, Ron Gilbert, American McGee, and Cliff Johnson are just as important as directors of films. Just like directors, they do not work alone. Just like directors, the works are completely dependent on their auteurs' visions. Since we are not deleting categories of Category:Films by director, my opinion is that we should not be deleting these.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the comments above. This seems to be overkill. If the games that a designer designs are important, then they should be listed in the designers article. That is all that is needed. Creating a category in addition is not called for. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 31 January 2010 (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.